An Exploratory Study of Epistemic Modal Verbs in Results and Conclusions Sections of the Three Sub-corpora of Humanities & Social Sciences: Implications for L2 Academic Writing

Year 2022, , 40 - 57, 31.08.2022

Pınar Karahan

https://doi.org/10.47806/ijesacademic.1122676

Abstract

In this study, the use of epistemic modality in the category of modal verbs was comparatively examined in the results and conclusions sections of journal articles written in the discipline of Humanities & Social Sciences. For this purpose, the Corpus of Journal Articles (CJA) 2014, which is a collection of 760 articles from high-impact journals in 38 disciplines, was used. The articles written in the discipline of Humanities & Social Sciences have further been divided into three sub-corpora: Research articles, Review articles and Theoretical articles. The CJA 2014 corpus consists of 6,015,063 words in total. The aim of the study was to explore professional academic writers’ versatility and overall rhetorical awareness with regards to the use of epistemic modal verbs for academic argumentation in the three sub-corpora. In line with this aim, this study investigated in quantitative terms the frequency analysis of the modal verbs “could, may, might, should, will, would, couldn’t, wouldn’t, shouldn’t” for the above-stated three sub-corpora in the Humanities & Social Sciences discipline. Log-likelihood tests were also performed to determine any significant differences among the three sub-corpora. Findings of the study indicated that the most frequently used modal verbs in the results and conclusions section of the Research Articles sub-corpus are “may, would, could”, respectively; while the most frequently used modal verbs in the Theoretical sub-corpus are “will, would, may”, respectively. Lastly, the most frequently used modal verbs in the Review Articles sub-corpus are “may, will, would”. Qualitative examples from the corpora were also provided in the manuscript. This study is expected to have important implications for academic writing in English for different research disciplines and different types of articles.

Keywords

academic writing, epistemic modality, modal verbs, journal articles, research disciplines

Supporting Institution

No

Project Number

No

Thanks

No

References

• Akbaş, E., & Hardman, J. (2018). Strengthening or weakening claims in academic knowledge construction: A comparative study of hedges and boosters in postgraduate academic writing. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 18(4), 831-859. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.4.0260
• Almakrob, A. Y. (2020). Culture-specific aspects of turn-taking: An analysis of conversations in a Saudi context. Available at SSRN 3621264.
• Biber, D. & E. Finnegan (1989). “Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect”. Text 9: 93-124.
• Biber, D. (2006). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(2), 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001
• Biber, D., Stig J. Geoffrey L., Susan C. and Edward F. (1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
• Carrió Pastor, M. (2012). A contrastive analysis of epistemic modality in scientific English. Revista de Lengua para fines específicos, 18, 115-132.
• Coates, J. (1983).The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.
• Collins, P. (2009) Modals and Quasi-modals in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
• Crompton, P. (2012). Characterising hedging in undergraduate essays by Middle Eastern students. The Asian ESP Journal, 8(2), 55-78.
• Doğan, Z. N., & Akbaş, E. (2021). An exploratory study of epistemic stance in results and discussion sections of medical research articles. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 25(3), 1132-1150.
• Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd ed. London: Arnold.
• He, Y., & Wang, H. (2013). A corpus-based study of epistemic modality markers in Chinese research articles. In Workshop on Chinese Lexical Semantics (pp. 199-208). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
• Hinkel, E. (2009). The effects of essay topics on modal verb uses in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(4), 667-683.
• Hunston, S., Thompson, G. (Eds.). (2000). Evaluation in text: authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Hyland, K. (1999). “Disciplinary discourse writer stance in research articles” in C. Candlin & K. Hyland (eds.), Writing: Texts, Processes and Practices, 99-121. London: Longman.
• Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. Continuum.
• Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
• Hyland, Ken and Milton J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 6(2), 185–205.
• Karahan, P. (2022). Comparative analysis of epistemic modal verbs in the three sub-corpora of humanities & social sciences . International Journal of Educational Spectrum , 4 (1) , 43-63 . DOI: 10.47806/ijesacademic.1070806
• Khoshsima, H., Talati-Baghsiahi, A., & Moafian, F. (2016). A Cross-linguistic and Cross-cultural Study of Epistemic Modality Markers in Linguistics Research Articles.
• Letica, S. (2009). Use of epistemic modality by non-native speakers of English. In R. Lugossy, J. Horváth and M. Nikolov (Eds.). UPRT 2008: Empirical studies in English applied linguistics (pp 119-134). Pécs: Lingua Franca Csoport.
• Nunn, R., & Dhabi, A. (2014). Holistic learning, first-person voice and developing academic competence. Asian EFL Journal, 74, 19-32.
• Orta, I. V. (2010). A contrastive analysis of the use of modal verbs in the expression of epistemic stance in Business Management research articles in English and Spain. Iberica. Vol 19, 77-96.
• Ozturk, I. (2007). The textual organisation of research article introductions in applied linguistics: Variability within a single discipline. English for specific purposes, 26(1), 25-38.
• Poole, R., Gnann, A., & Hahn-Powell, G. (2019). Epistemic stance and the construction of knowledge in science writing: A diachronic corpus study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 42, 100784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100784
• Rizomilioti, V. (2006). Exploring epistemic modality in academic discourse using corpora. Information Technology in Languages for Specific Purposes. Vol 73, 53-71.
• Salager-Meyer, F., Ariza, M. Á. A., & Zambrano, N. (2003). The scimitar, the dagger and the glove: Intercultural differences in the rhetoric of criticism in Spanish, French and English medical discourse (1930–1995). English for Specific Purposes, 22(3), 223-247.
• Sameri, M. and Tavangar, M. (2013). Epistemic modality in academic discourse: A cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary study. Iranian EFL Journal. Vol 9(4), 127-147.
• Vold, E. T. (2006). Epistemic modality markers in research articles: a cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics. Vol 16(1), 61-87.
• White, P.R. (2001). “Appraisal: An Overview”. URL: http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/ AppraisalGuide/Framed/Appraisal-Overview.htm [10/05/2009]
• Yang, A., Zheng, S., & Ge, G. (2015). Epistemic modality in English-medium medical research articles: A systemic functional perspective. English for Specific Purposes, 38, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2014.10.00
• Zhang, S., Liu, Q., & Cai, Z. (2019). Exploring primary school teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in online collaborative discourse: An epistemic network analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(6), 3437-3455.