Evidence (re)presentation and evidentials in popular and academic history: facts and sources speaking for themselves

Abstract

The paper pivots around the different roles of evidentials and the different ways in which evidence is represented in the discourse of popular and academic history, thereby exploring the dynamics of both genres from a discourse analytical perspective. The analysis is based on two corpora of academic and popular articles on history. In particular, it is focused on those lexico-grammatical resources for tracing the speaker’s source and mode of information that constitute the distinguishing features of the two genres. The analysis shows that the high frequency of saw in popular articles refers to the narrative of history, and to the evidence provided by historical characters and sources, rather than by the speaker. The frequency of the attributor according in academic journal articles, on the other hand, clearly qualifies as evidentiality in the narrative of historiography, and acts as a marker of the importance of sources in historical reasoning. The different frequencies thus seem to be related to the different communicative and social functions of the two genres and to be closely connected with the triptych of narratives (Bondi 2015) involved in historical discourse.

New Types of Evidence in Online Learning Spaces: A Corpus-Based Study

“…Therefore, the use of evidentials may be unnecessary or does not fit the informal tone of the discussion forum. This adjustment suggests that students are actively making decisions about what should be included in their writing to convince their predicted audience to agree with their propositions; this is consistent with previous findings on audience awareness (Warschauer and Grimes, 2007) and critically selecting evidence to serve the intention of the writer (Bondi and Sezzi, 2017).…”

“…The type of evidence presented in a text can be a marker of a genre (Hyland, 2005;Khedri, 2018) and, thus, the use of evidence in academic writing also indicates familiarity, expertise and belonging in the field. Bondi and Sezzi (2017) concluded that the forms of citations used in writing have to serve the intended purpose of the writer. They differentiated the effects of foregrounding different elements of previous research, either the proposition used in previous research or the researcher(s).…”

“…Although online learning is not a new concept, many institutions adopted online learning solutions due to the COVID-19 pandemic, because it was the only way to ensure the continuity of education during that crisis (Le Ha et al, 2021). Although the brunt of the COVID-19 pandemic is now behind us, educational institutions continue to deliver their curriculum using online learning platforms (Chan, 2022). In addition, digital sources of information are becoming increasingly common, with some only available online.…”

Introduction to the monographic section: Metadiscourse devices in academic discourse

“…The presence of metadiscourse devices in academic and technical texts is undeniable, as put forward in Mauranen (1993), Hyland (1998Hyland ( , 2005, Hyland and Tse (2004) and Mur Dueñas (2011), among others. Examples from either a diachronic or a synchronic perspective include Alonso-Almeida (2012; Alonso-Almeida and Álvarez-Gil (2019); Álvarez-Gil (2020); Bamford and Bondi (2005); Bondi (2017); Bondi and Sezzi (2016); Carrió-Pastor (2016); Gotti (2003Gotti ( , 2008; Halliday (1988Halliday ( , 1989Halliday ( , 1990; Hyland (2005Hyland ( , 2006Hyland ( , 2009; Hyland and Bondi (2006); Moskowich and Crespo (2014); Taavitsainen, Pahta and Mäkinen (2006), Taavitsainen and Pahta (2013) to mention but a few. This type of research may greatly benefit our understanding of contemporary discourse and authorship practices in different fields of knowledge.…”