Evidentiality in English Research Articles of Applied Linguistics: From the Perspective of Metadiscourse

Yang, Linxiu

doi:10.4304/jltr.5.3.581-591

Cited by 11 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Evidentiality as a linguistic system is studied from diff erent perspectives, such as the acquisition of evidentiality in various languages (Aksu-Koç 1988, O'Neill & Atance 2000, Ifantidou 2005, Fitneva 2008, Oztürk 2008, Jeschull & Roeper 2009, Aydın & Ceci 2009, Rett & Hyams 2014, Koring & De Mulder 2015; the use of evidentiality in a variety of genres in diff erent languages, such as English newspapers (Bednarek 2006), diachronic analysis of newspaper articles from 1993-2005 (Clark 2010), the aspect of illocution (Sbisa 2014), Chinese newspaper reports in terms of subjectivity and objectivity (Hsieh 2008), Greek cultural characteristics and academic writing (Koutsantoni 2005), English academic discourse (Fetzer 2014, Yang 2014, a comparative study of the use of research articles by Chinese and English native speakers (Yang 2012), and reporting evidentials in English research articles (Yang 2013) (see also Fetzer & Oishi 2014). There is also research, albeit relatively more limited in number, which analyzes evidentiality in spoken data (interview corpus in French-English bilingual discourse in King & Nadasdi 1999, telephone conversations in Korean in Kim 2005, political debates in English in Berlin & Prieto-Mendoza 2014).…”

Section: Evidentialitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis of Evidentiality in PHD Dissertations

Yıldız

Turan

2021

D&I

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study investigates evidentiality in its broadest sense (Chafe 1986) in PhD dissertations as a genre of academic writing. For this purpose, Chafe’s taxonomy (1986), revised by Ifantidou (2001), has been used as a framework in order to analyze three different groups of datasets, including one group of native speakers of English and two groups of non-native speakers: a group of Turkish speakers of English and the other non-native speakers with diff erent L1 backgrounds. The texts of these three groups are examined in order to fi nd out whether the native language of the participants is a factor in the choice of evidential markers. The results show that the native speakers of English use evidential markers more frequently compared to the non-native authors. In terms of the Native Language/Interlanguage comparison in Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis (Granger 1996, 1998), the overall use of evidentiality reveals that non-native authors do not show native-like features in the use of evidentiality. In terms of the Interlanguage/Interlanguage comparison, Turkish authors of academic texts diff er from the authors with various native language backgrounds in terms of the use of evidentiality.

show abstract

Section: Evidentialitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis of Evidentiality in PHD Dissertations

Yıldız

Turan

2021

D&I

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It should be pointed out that there is little consensus about the nature of evidentiality, i.e. the linguistic marking of the source of information in a given utterance (Aikhenvald 2007; Boye & Harder 2009; Yang 2014:581–582). Evidentiality can be considered a notional category concerned with the source-of-knowledge for an utterance (Boye 2010) that is expressed differently across languages, i.e.…”

Section: Theory: Polyvocality Meaning Potentials and Evidentialitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…What is at stake here is the reportative evidentiality of the utterances in the text, i.e. who is appointed as the source of information (see also Yang 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This article addresses the retelling techniques used in investigative interview reports written by the Swedish police, and the consequences these techniques have for their evidential value, specifically reportative evidentiality (Mushin 2001, Aikhenvald 2007), i.e. who is the perceived source of information for a given statement in the texts (Yang 2014). The aim is to examine how the police, through different writing techniques, reproduce interviewees’ utterances in their written reports through different types of reported speech such as indirect speech, direct speech and narration (Fairclough 1995:55–57; Toolan 2001; Galatolo 2007; Leech & Short 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

In evidence: Linguistic transformations of events in police interview reports

Byrman¹,

Byrman²

2018

Nord J Linguist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this article is to examine how police investigators reproduce interviewees’ utterances in narratives, in direct and indirect reported speech, and by enclosing words in reports in quotation marks. Drawing on a larger study of professional writing, the pertinent research question for the current investigation is how writing techniques in police interview reports convey evidential value in the form of reported utterances. A corpus of police reports on domestic violence is explored from the theoretical perspectives of critical discourse analysis, polyvocality and reportative evidentiality. A new analytical framework for polyvocal texts is developed in terms of utterance, source and framer. The results show that it is difficult to determine whether or not words placed within quotation marks are meant to present verbatim quotes. Another finding is that police investigators are not consistent in documenting utterances from different sources, or in showing whether utterances are embedded in other utterances. This may obscure the structure of the original events and the source of crucial utterances, resulting in unclear evidential status for police reports.

show abstract

“…English terminology contains a wealth of evidentials [4]. But evidentiality of second-language academic writing has not caused enough attention [20]. The exploration of evidentiality potentially contributes to the research in academic writing in different fields.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Analysis of Chinese and Western Authors’ Use of Evidentiality

McCafferty¹,

Dong²,

Zhang³

et al. 2019

SIJLL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Academic writing is the process of authors' interaction and communication with readers. Based on Yang's classification of evidentiality and self-built corpus, this study examines and compares the characteristics of Chinese and western authors' use of evidentiality in second language academic writing. The major results include: 1) Evidentials are universal in research papers. Chinese authors' less use of evidentials indicates their tendency to conceal personal opinions to offer more objective arguments; 2) Both Chinese and western authors prefer reporting and inferring evidentials, owing to the style of natural science and the language practice of the subject; 3) The frequency of English authors' sensory and belief evidentials is significantly higher than that of Chinese authors due to the different cultural backgrounds; and 4) As to the specific realization of each evidential type, the commonality and difference coexist.

show abstract

Evidentiality in English Research Articles of Applied Linguistics: From the Perspective of Metadiscourse

Cited by 11 publications

References 18 publications

Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis of Evidentiality in PHD Dissertations

Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis of Evidentiality in PHD Dissertations

In evidence: Linguistic transformations of events in police interview reports

Comparative Analysis of Chinese and Western Authors’ Use of Evidentiality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About