Designing EAP materials based on intercultural corpus analyses: the case of logical markers in research articles

Pilar Mur Dueñas

Spain

Universidad de Zaragoza

Submitted: 2010-10-06

|

Accepted: 2010-10-06

|

Published: 2010-10-06

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4995/rlyla.2009.739
Funding Data

Downloads

Keywords:

Intercultural Rhetoric, English for Academic Purposes, research article, metadiscourse, logical markers

Supporting agencies:

Project InterLAE (Interpersonalidad en el Lenguaje Académico Escrito / Interpersonality in Written Academic Language)

financially supported by Diputación General de Aragón

245122

Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia

HUM 2005-03646

Abstract:

The ultimate aim of intercultural analyses in English for Academic Purposes is to help non-native scholars function successfully in the international disciplinary community in English. The aim of this paper is to show how corpus-based intercultural analyses can be useful to design EAP materials on a particular metadiscourse category, logical markers, in research article writing. The paper first describes the analysis carried out of additive, contrastive and consecutive logical markers in a corpus of research articles in English and in Spanish in a particular discipline, Business Management. Differences were found in their frequency and also in the use of each of the sub-categories. Then, five activities designed on the basis of these results are presented. They are aimed at raising Spanish Business scholars' awareness of the specific uses and pragmatic function of frequent logical markers in international research articles in English.
Show more Show less

References:

Barton E. L. (1995). “Contrastive and non-contrastive connectives: metadiscourse functions in argumentation”. Written Communication, 12: 219-239.

Bunton, D. (1999). “The use of higher level metatext in PhD theses”. English for Specific Purposes, 18: 41-56.

Burgess, S. (2002). “Packed houses and intimate gatherings: audience and rhetorical strategies”, in J. Flowerdew (ed.) Academic Discourse. London: Longman: 196-225.

Connor, U. (2004a). “Introduction”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3: 271-276.

Connor, U. (2004b). “Intercultural rhetoric research: beyond texts”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3: 291-304.

Crismore, A. et al. (1993). “Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: a study of texts written by American and Finnish university students”. Written Communication, 10: 39-71.

Fortanet, I. (1998). “Verb usage in academic writing: reporting verbs in economics research articles in English and in Spanish”, in L. Lundquist, H. Picht & J. Qvistgaard (eds.) Proceedings of the 11th European Symposium on Language for Special Purposes. LSP Identity and Interface Research, Knowledge and Society. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School, LSP Centre: 231-240.

Fraser B. (1996). “Pragmatic markers”. Pragmatics, 6: 167-190.

Fraser B. (1999). “What are discourse markers?” Journal of Pragmatics, 31: 931-952.

Harwood, N. & Hadley, G. (2004). “Demystifying institutional practices: critical pragmatism and the teaching of academic writing”. English for Specific Purposes, 23: 355-377.

Hyland, K. (1999). “Disciplinary discourses: writer stance in research articles”, in C.N. Candlin & K. Hyland (eds.) Writing: Texts, Processes and Practices. London: Longman: 99-121.

Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. London: Longman.

Hyland, K. (2004). “Disciplinary interactions: metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing”. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13: 133-151.

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.

Hyland, K. & Tse, P. (2004). “Metadiscourse in academic writing: a reappraisal”. Applied Linguistics, 25: 156-177.

Koutsantoni, D. (2007). Developing Academic Literacies: Understanding Disciplinary Communities’ Culture and Rhetoric. Bern: Peter Lang.

Lorés, R. (2006). “‘I will argue that’: first person pronouns as metadiscoursal devices in research article abstracts in English and Spanish”. ESP Across Cultures, 3: 23-40.

Lorés, R. & Murillo, S. (2007). “Authorial identity and reader involvement in academic writing: a contrastive study of the use of pronouns in RA abstracts”, in R. Mairal (ed.) Proceedings of the XIV AESLA Conference. Madrid: AESLA and UNED: 1249-1257.

Martin J.R. (1992). English Text: System and Structure. Philadelphia /Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publising Company.

Martín Martín, P. (2002). “A genre-based investigation of abstract writing in English and Spanish”. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 44: 47-64.

Martín Martín, P. (2003). “A genre analysis of English and Spanish research paper abstracts in experimental social sciences”. English for Specific Purposes, 22: 25-43.

Martín Martín, P. (2005). The Rhetoric of the Abstract in English and Spanish Scientific Discourse: A Cross-cultural Genre-analytic Approach. Bern: Peter Lang.

Martín Martín, P. & Burgess, S. (2004). “The rhetorical management of academic criticism in research article abstracts”. Text 24, 171-195.

Martín Zorraquino M. A. & Portolés, J. (1999). “Los marcadores del discurso”, in I. Bosque & V. Demonte (eds.) Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, 3. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe: 4051-4213.

Martinez, I. (2005). “Native and non-native writer’s use of first person pronouns in the different sections of biology research articles in biology”. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14: 174-190.

Melles, Gavin. (1997). “Enfocando la competencia lingüística: concienciación gramatical”. Hispania, 80: 848-858.

Montolío, E. (2001). Conectores de la Lengua Escrita. Barcelona: Ariel Practicum.

Moreno, A. I. (1998). “The explicit signalling of premise-conclusion sequences in research articles: a contrastive framework”. Text 18: 545-585.

Moreno, A. I. (2004). “Retrospective labelling in premise-conclusion metatext: an English-Spanish contrastive study of research articles on business and economics”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3: 321-339.

Moreno, A. I. & Suárez, L. (2006). “The rhetorical structure of academic journal book reviews: a cross-linguist and cross-disciplinary approach”, in C. Pérez-Llantada, R. Pló & C. P. Neumann (eds.) Proceedings of the 5th International AELFE Conference. Zaragoza: Prensas Universitarias: 191-196.

Moreno, A. I. & Suárez, L. (2008). “A study of critical attitude across English and Spanish academic book reviews”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7: 15-26.

Mur Dueñas, P. (2007a). “A cross-cultural analysis of the research article discussion move” in R. Mairal (ed.) Proceedings of the XIV AESLA Conference. Madrid: AESLA and UNED: 12591267.

Mur Dueñas, Pilar. (2007b). “A cross-cultural analysis of the generic structure of business management research articles: The Methods Section”. Odisea 8: 123-137.

Mur Dueñas, P. (2007c). “Same genre, same discipline; however, there are differences: a crosscultural analysis of logical markers in academic writing”. ESP Across Cultures 4: 37-53.

Mur Dueñas, P. (2007d). “‘I/We focus on…’: a cross-cultural analysis of self-mentions in business management research articles”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6: 143-162.

Pérez Ruiz, L. (1999). “Análisis contrastivo de los resúmenes en inglés y en español en artículos publicados en el campo de la epidemiología”. ES 22: 167-176.

Portolés J. (2001). Marcadores del Discurso. Barcelona: Ariel Practicum.

Quirk, R et al. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Harlow: Longman.

Suárez, L. (2006). Modes of Evaluation and Rhetorical Patterns: A Contrastive Study of English and Spanish Book Reviews. Unpublished PhD. Universidad de León.

Suárez, L. & Moreno, A.I. (2008). “The rhetorical structure of literary academic book reviews: an English-Spanish cross-linguistic approach”, in U. Connor, E. Nagelhout & W. Rozycki (eds.) Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 147-168.

Tognini Bonelli, E. (2001). Corpus Linguistics at Work. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Van de Kopple, W. J. (1985). “Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse”. College Composition and Communication 36: 63-94.

Show more Show less