An exploratory study of epistemic stance in results and discussion sections of medical research articles

Abstract

This study is a corpus-based investigation of how epistemic stance is signaled in medical discourse. In particular, we compiled a discipline-specific corpus of research articles from different fields of medicine ranging from anatomy to endocrinology to explore how particular resources are employed by authors to index their level of (un)certainty towards their propositions. The corpus of the study contained only the results and discussion sections of 100 published medical research articles, totaling approximately 215,000 words. The results of the corpus analyses showed that there was very frequent use of modal auxiliaries by the writers in the field of medicine to express their extra-propositional modality. It was also found that medical researchers did not employ a greater number of boosters to amplify their commitment to the propositions conveyed to the readers. However, the rhetorical uses of boosters were shown to be strategic to portray their higher level of confidence for the sake of credibility and interaction. The findings and implications are discussed with a particular focus on the teaching of writing as a part of English for academic purposes.

Keywords

• epistemic stance
• metadiscourse
• medical academic writing
• hedges and boosters
• corpus linguistics

An Exploratory Study of Epistemic Stance in Results and Discussion Sections of Medical Research Articles

Abstract

Öz: Bu çalışma, bilgisellik ifadelerinin tıbbi söylemde nasıl işaret edildiğinin derlem-tabanlı bir incelemesidir. Özellikle, yazarlar tarafından önermelerine karşı kesinlik (belirsizlik) düzeylerini belirtmek amacıyla belirli kaynakların nasıl kullanıldığını keşfetmek için tıbbın anatomiden endokrinolojiye kadar değişen farklı alanlarından disipline özgü bir araştırma makaleleri derlemi kullanılmıştır. Araştırmamızın derlemi toplamda yaklaşık 215.000 kelimeden oluşan 100 yayınlanmış tıbbi araştırma makalesinin sadece sonuçlar ve tartışma bölümlerini içermektedir. Derlem analizlerimizin sonuçları tıp alanındaki yazarlar tarafından ek-önerme kipliğini ifade etmek için çok sık kip belirteçleri kullanımı olduğunu gösterdi. Ayrıca tıp araştırmacılarının, okuyuculara aktarılan önermelere dair değerlendirmelerini kuvvetlendirmek için çok fazla sayıda güçlendirici kullanmadıkları sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Buna rağmen, güçlendiricilerin retorik kullanımlarının etkileşim ve inanılırlık uğruna daha yüksek güven düzeylerini sergilemek için stratejik olduğu tartışılmaktadır. Bulgular ve çıkarımlar, akademik amaçlarla İngilizcenin bir parçası olarak yazma öğretimi üzerine özel bir odak ile tartışılmıştır.

Keywords

• bilgisellik ifadeleri
• üstsöylem
• tıbbi akademik yazma
• kaçınma ve vurgulayıcılar
• derlem dilbilim

References

1. Anthony, L. (2019). AntCorGen (Version 1.1.2) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available from https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software
2. Anthony, L. (2020). AntConc (Version 3.5.9) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available from https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software
3. Biber, D. (2006). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(2), 97–116.
4. Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1988). Adverbial stance types in English. Discourse Processes 11, 1–34.
5. Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 9, 93–124.
6. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E., (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Pearson Education.
7. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge University Press.
8. Chafe, W., & Nichols, J. (Eds.). (1986). Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Ablex.

9. Grabe, W. P. (1984). Towards defining expository prose within a theory of text construction (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
10. Gray, B., & Biber, D. (2014). Stance markers. Corpus Pragmatics, 219–248. Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). The language of science. In J. Webster (Ed.), Collected works of M. A. K. Halliday (Vol. 5). Continuum.
11. Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (2000). Evaluation in text: authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford University Press
12. Hyland, K. (1998). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text & Talk, 18(3), 349-382.
13. Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. Continuum.
14. Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173e192.
15. Hyland, K. (2012). Bundles in Academic Discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 150-169.
16. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2016). Change of Attitude? A Diachronic Study of Stance. Written Communication, 33(3), 251–274.
17. Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. (1989). Language has a heart. Text, 9, 7-25.
18. 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.
19. Vázquez, I. (2010). A contrastive analysis of the use of modal verbs in the expression of epistemic stance in Business Management research articles in English and Spanish. Ibérica, 19, 77-95.
20. White, P. R. R. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text, 23, 259–284.
21. 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.