Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Acknowledgment
- Contributors
- Introduction The Rise of Intercultural Pragmatics
- Part I Theoretical Foundation
- Part II Key Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics Research
- Part III Interface of Intercultural Pragmatics and Related Disciplines
- Part IV Intercultural Pragmatics in Different Types of Communication
- 21 Visual and Multimodal Communication across Cultures
- 22 Intercultural Teamwork via Videoconferencing Technology: A Multimodal (Inter)action Analysis
- 23 Intercultural Communication in Computer-Mediated Discourse
- 24 Intercultural Aspects of Business Communication
- 25 Intercultural Pragmatics in Healthcare Communication
- 26 Academic and Professional Discourse in Intercultural Pragmatics
- 27 The Dynamic Model of Meaning Approach: Analyzing the Interculturality of Conspiracy Theory in Far-Right Populist Discourses
- Part V Language Learning
- Index
- References
26 - Academic and Professional Discourse in Intercultural Pragmatics
from Part IV - Intercultural Pragmatics in Different Types of Communication
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 September 2022
Edited by
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Acknowledgment
- Contributors
- Introduction The Rise of Intercultural Pragmatics
- Part I Theoretical Foundation
- Part II Key Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics Research
- Part III Interface of Intercultural Pragmatics and Related Disciplines
- Part IV Intercultural Pragmatics in Different Types of Communication
- 21 Visual and Multimodal Communication across Cultures
- 22 Intercultural Teamwork via Videoconferencing Technology: A Multimodal (Inter)action Analysis
- 23 Intercultural Communication in Computer-Mediated Discourse
- 24 Intercultural Aspects of Business Communication
- 25 Intercultural Pragmatics in Healthcare Communication
- 26 Academic and Professional Discourse in Intercultural Pragmatics
- 27 The Dynamic Model of Meaning Approach: Analyzing the Interculturality of Conspiracy Theory in Far-Right Populist Discourses
- Part V Language Learning
- Index
- References
Summary
Academic writers with different linguistic backgrounds communicate scientific findings following objective norms, although they do so in different ways, as is evidenced in intercultural studies. This chapter focuses on the identification of boosters and hedges used by Spanish and Chinese researchers to persuade readers about scientific findings in engineering and linguistics. The objectives were to categorize and compare the frequencies and functions of hedges and boosters used by nonnative writers of English, to study whether there are any linguistic and cultural differences, and to identify boosting and hedging features different from those used in English as a mother tongue. The material was a corpus of 120 academic papers on linguistics and engineering papers written by Spanish and Chinese researchers. Boosters and hedges were spotted and occurrences extracted and classified with METOOL, a tool designed to identify metadiscourse markers. In the results, it was shown that Chinese writers used more boosters and hedges than their Spanish peers. To conclude, it was observed that although Chinese and Spanish writers tend to be assertive in their mother tongue, mitigation was used to adopt an academic style.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics , pp. 683 - 710Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Aline, D. and Hosoda, Y. (2021). Deployment of the formulaic utterance “how about∼” in task-based second language classroom discussions. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(4), 425–446.Google Scholar
Alonso-Almeida, F. and Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2017). Variation and function of modals in linguistics and engineering research papers in English. In Marín Arrese, J. J. Lavid-López, and M. Carretero, eds., Evidentiality and Modality in European Languages: Discourse-Pragmatic Perspectives. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 277–309.Google Scholar
Baker, W. (2011). Intercultural awareness: Modelling an understanding of cultures in intercultural communication through English as a lingua franca. Language and Intercultural Communication, 11(3), 197–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennet, K. (2009). English academic style manuals: A survey. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8, 43–54.Google Scholar
Bolton, K. (2006). World Englishes today. In Kachru, B. B., ed., The Handbook of World Englishes. London: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 240–269.Google Scholar
Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2013). A contrastive study of the variation of sentence connectors in academic English. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(3), 192–202.Google Scholar
Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2014). Cross-cultural variation in the use of modal verbs in academic English. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 27, 153–166.Google Scholar
Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2016a). A contrastive study of interactive metadiscourse in academic papers written in English and in Spanish. In Alonso, F. Almeida, L. Cruz García, and Ruiz, V. González, eds., Corpus-based Studies on Language Varieties. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 89–114.Google Scholar
Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2016b). Mitigation of claims in medical research papers: A comparative study of English and Spanish writers. Communication and Medicine, 13, 249–261.Google Scholar
Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2016c). A contrastive study of the hedges used by English, Spanish, and Chinese researchers in academic papers. In Alonso, F. Almeida, I. Ortega Barrera, E. Quintana Toledo, and M. Sánchez Cuervo, eds., Input a Word, Analyze the World: Selected Approaches to Corpus Linguistics. Devonshire: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 477–492.Google Scholar
Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2019a). Intercultural analysis of English modal constructions in engineering academic papers. Odisea, 20, 75–90.Google Scholar
Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2019b). Phraseology in specialised language: A contrastive analysis of mitigation in academic papers. In Corpas, G. and Mitkov, R., eds., Computational and Corpus-Based Phraseology. New York: Springer, pp. 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connor, U. (2004). Intercultural rhetoric research: Beyond texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3, 291–304.Google Scholar
Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 271–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crompton, P. (1998). Identifying hedges: Definition or divination? English for Specific Purposes, 17(3), 303–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crompton, P. (2012). Characterising hedging in undergraduate essays by Middle-Eastern students. The Asian ESP Journal, 8(2), 55–78.Google Scholar
Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36(10), 1807–1825.Google Scholar
Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2016). Cross-cultural variation in the use of hedges and boosters in academic discourse. Prague Journal of English Studies, 5(1), 163–184.Google Scholar
Galloway, N. and Rose, H. (2015). Introducing Global Englishes. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillaerts, P. and Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 128–139.Google Scholar
Hinkel, E. (1999). Objectivity and credibility in L1 and L2 academic writing. In Hinkel, E., ed., Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 90–108.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (1982). Expressing doubt and certainty in English. RELC Journal, 13(2), 9–28.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (1983). Speaking English with the appropriate degree of conviction. In Brumfit, C., ed., Learning and Teaching Languages for Communication: Applied Linguistics Perspectives. London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research, pp. 100–113.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (1984). Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics, 8(3), 345–365.Google Scholar
Hopskinson, C. (2021). Realizations of oppositional speech acts in English: A contrastive analysis of discourse in L1 and L2 settings. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(4), 163–202.Google Scholar
Hu, G. and Cao, F. (2011). Hedges and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2795–2809.Google Scholar
Hu, G. and Cao, F. (2015). Disciplinary and paradigmatic influences on interactional metadiscourse in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 39, 12–25.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (1996). Talking to the academy: Forms of hedging in scientific research articles. Written Communication, 13(2), 251–281.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (1998a). Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (1998b). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text & Talk, 18(3), 349–382.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (1998c). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437–455.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. and Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25, 156–177.Google Scholar
Ifantidou, E. (2005). The semantics and pragmatics of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1325–1353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, J. (2014). English as a Lingua Franca in the International University: The Politics of Academic English Language Policy. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification, and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the Outer Circle. In Quirk, R. and Widdowson, H., eds., English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 11–30.Google Scholar
Kachru, B. B. [1982] (1992). Teaching world Englishes. In Kachru, B. B., ed., The Other Tongue: English across Cultures. Urbana/Chicago: University of Illinois Press, pp. 355–365.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2007). Formulaic language in English lingua franca. In Kecskes, I. and Horn, L. R., eds., Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 191–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2015). Intracultural communication and intercultural communication: Are they different? International Review of Pragmatics, 7, 171–194.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2019a). Editorial to the special issue “Current developments in intercultural pragmatics.” Journal of Pragmatics, 151, 74–75.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2019b). Impoverished pragmatics? The semantics– pragmatics interface from an intercultural perspective. Intercultural Pragmatics, 16(5), 489–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I. and Kirner-Ludwig, M. (2017). “It would never happen in my country I must say”: A corpus-pragmatic study on Asian English learners’ preferred use of must and should. Corpus Pragmatics, 1, 91–134.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. and Kirner-Ludwig, M. (2019). “Odd structures” in English as a lingua franca discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 151, 76–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewin, B. A. (2005). Hedging: An exploratory study of authors’ and readers’ identification of “toning down” in scientific texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 163–178.Google Scholar
Liu, Ch. and Tseng, M. Y. (2021). Paradigmatic variation in hedging and boosting: A comparative study of discussions in narrative inquiry and grounded theory research. English for Specific Purposes, 61, 1–16.Google Scholar
Martín-Martín, P. (2008). The mitigation of scientific claims in research papers: A comparative study. International Journal of English Studies, 8(2), 133–152.Google Scholar
Martín-Martín, P. and León Pérez, I. K. (2014). Convincing peers of the value of one’s research: A genre analysis of rhetorical promotion in academic texts. English for Specific Purposes, 34, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millar, N., Salager-Meyer, F., and Budgell, B. (2019). “It is important to reinforce the importance of …”: “Hype” in reports of randomized controlled trials. English for Specific Purposes, 54, 139–151.Google Scholar
Moya Muñoz, P. and Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2018). Estrategias de intensificación en los comentarios digitales sobre noticias en español: Un análisis de la variación entre España y Chile. Spanish in Context, 15, 369–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mur-Dueñas, P. (2011). An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3068–3079.Google Scholar
Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatic of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10, 1–35.Google Scholar
Peacock, M. (2006). A cross-disciplinary comparison of boosting in research articles. Corpora, 1(1), 61–84.Google Scholar
Peng, K. and Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54, 741–754.Google Scholar
Qin, W. and Uccello, P. (2019). Metadiscourse: Variation across communicative contexts. Journal of Pragmatics, 139, 22–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Seidlhofer, B. (2009). Common ground and different realities: World Englishes and English as a lingua franca. World Englishes, 28(2), 236–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidlhofer, B. (2001). Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 133–158.Google Scholar
Seidlhofer, B. and Widdowson, H. (2017). Thoughts on independent English. World Englishes, 36(3), 360–362.Google Scholar
Skorczynska, H. and Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2021). A cross-disciplinary study of verb boosters in research articles from engineering, medicine and linguistics: Frequency and co-text variations. Revista Signos: Estudios de Lingüística, 55(106), 576–599.Google Scholar
Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22, 58–78.Google Scholar
Uclés Ramada, G. (2020). Mitigation and boosting as face-protection functions. Journal of Pragmatics, 169, 206–218.Google Scholar
Vold, E. T. (2006). Epistemic modality markers in research articles: A cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16, 61–87.Google Scholar
Wang, J. and Jiang, F. (2018). Epistemic stance and authorial presence in scientific research writing: Hedges, boosters and self-mentions across disciplines and writer groups. In Mur-Dueñas, P. and Šinkūnienė, J., eds., Intercultural Perspectives on Research Writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 195–216.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (2006). Intercultural pragmatics and communication. In Brown, K., ed., Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics. Amsterdam: Elsevier Limited, pp. 735–742.Google Scholar
Yang, Y. (2013). Exploring linguistic and cultural variations in the use of edges in English and Chinese scientific discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 50, 23–36.Google Scholar
Yli-Jokipii, H. and Jorgensen, P. E. F. (2004). Academic journalese for the Internet: A study of native English-speaking editors’ changes to texts written by Danish and Finish professionals. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3, 341–359.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by