Certainty and Subjectivity in English Education Research: A Cross Cultural Systemic Functional Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v10i1.4548Keywords:
Attitude, authorial stance, boosters, epistemic modality, hedgers.Abstract
This study examines the use of epistemic modality (expressions that signal varying degrees of certainty and subjectivity) by writers of English education research. Epistemic modality is a crucial, yet intricate, rhetorical device through which writers qualify their claims and construct a stance towards their texts and readers. Disciplinary and cultural norms influence the rhetorical use of modality in academic texts. To understand the impact of these contextual factors, linguistic descriptions need to examine discourse produced in individual disciplines and even subdisciplines. Using an exploratory comparative approach, the present study analyzes education research that is produced by native-English-speaking and EFL Arab writers: (1) to describe the discipline-specific practices that are adopted by native writers to manipulate the degrees of certainty and subjectivity in their discourse; and (2) to explore how these practices vary cross-culturally. Sixty research papers are analyzed using the finely grained model of Systemic Functional Linguistics. The findings show a disciplinary preference whereby native writers avoided expressing hesitancy and doubt and preferred a moderately confident epistemic stance to create convincing arguments. These writers’ epistemic style was also objective and detached. The EFL texts, in contrast, were less dialogic and had higher levels of confidence, explicitness, and subjectivity. Although advanced in their linguistic and disciplinary proficiency, the non-native writers displayed some patterns that are generally characteristic of other Arab and non-Arab L2 writers/learners, indicating the vital role that culture and nativeness play in rhetorical strategy use. The paper ends by highlighting the need for explicit instruction of epistemic modality in Arab higher education institutions in order for non-native writers to produce academic texts that are persuasively effective from the perspective of the international academic community.References
Abu-Rass, R. (2011). Cultural transfer as an obstacle for writing well in English: The case of Arabic speakers writing in English. English Language Teaching, 4(2): 206–212.
Akbas, 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 & Practice, 18(4): 831–859.
Al-Mudhaffari, M., Hussin, S. & HoAbdullah, I. (2020). Interactional strategies in L2 writing: An exploration of hedging and boosting strategies in applied linguistics research articles. International Journal of Arabic-English Studies, 20(1): 171–186.
Alotaibi, H. (2015). Metadiscourse in Arabic and English Research Article Abstracts. World Journal of English Language, 5(2): 1-8.
Alramadan, M. M. (2020a). Authorial Stance in English, Arabic and EFL Applied Linguistics Research: An Appraisal Study. Asiatic: IIUM Journal of English Language and Literature, 14(1), 189-216.
Alramadan, M. M. (2020b). The Use of Engagement Resources in English, Arabic, and EFL Applied Linguistics Research: A Contrastive Study Within an Appraisal Theoretic Perspective. In E. El-Sadig & T. Drid (eds.), Teaching Academic Writing as a Discipline-Specific Skill in Higher Education, 23-54. IGI Global.
Anderson, G. & Arsenault, N. (1998). Fundamentals of educational research. Taylor and Francis Group.
Butler, C. (1990). Qualifications in science: Modal meanings in scientific texts. In W. Nash (ed.), The writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse, 137–170. New York: Sage.
Collins, P. (2009). Modals and quasi-modals in English. New York: Rodopi.
Crosthwaite, P. Cheung, L. & Jiang, F. (2017). Writing with attitude: Stance expression in learner and professional dentistry research reports. English for Specific Purposes, 46: 107–123.
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), 252-270.
El-Seidi, M. (2000). Metadiscourse in English and Arabic argumentative writing: A cross-linguistic study of texts written by American and Egyptian university students. In Z. Ibrahim, N. Kassabgy & S. Aydelott (eds.), Diversity in language: Contrastive studies in English and Arabic theoretical and applied linguistics, 111–126. Cairo and New York: The American University in Cairo Press.
Farnia, M., & Gerami, S. (2021). Comparative Study of Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in the Discussion Section of Soft and Hard Science Research Articles: Hedges and Boosters in Focus. Jordan Journal of Modern Languages and Literatures, 13(2), 263-280.
Flowerdew, J. (2002). Academic discourse. London: Pearson Education.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Hodder Education.
Holmes, J. (1982). Expressing doubt and certainty in English. RELC Journal, 13(2): 9–28.
Holmes, J. (1984). Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics, 8(3): 345–365.
Holmes, J. (1988). Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 9(1): 21–44.
Hu, C. & Li, X. (2015). Epistemic modality in the argumentative essays of Chinese EFL learners. English Language Teaching, 8(6): 20–31.
Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 13(3): 239–256.
Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied linguistics, 17(4): 433–454.
Hyland, K. (1998). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 18(3): 349–382.
Hyland, K. & Milton. J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in Ll and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2): 183–205.
Koutsantoni, D. (2005). Certainty across cultures: A comparison of the degree of certainty expressed by Greek and English speaking scientific authors. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2(2): 121–149.
Lakoff, G. (1972). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concept. Chicago Linguistics Society Papers, 8: 183–228.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. (2005). The language of evaluation. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mirzapour, F. & Mahand, M. (2012). Hedges and boosters in native and non-native library and information and computer science research articles. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 18(2): 119–128.
Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1): 1–35.
Piqué-Angordans, J., Posteguillo, S. & Andreu-Besó, V. (2002). Epistemic and deontic modality: a linguistic indicator of disciplinary variation in academic English. LSP and Professional Communication, 2(2): 49–65.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Special Purposes, 13(2): 149–170.
Sultan, A. (2011). A contrastive study of metadiscourse in English and Arabic linguistics research articles. Acta Linguistica, 5(1): 28–41.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Takimoto, M. (2015). A corpus-based analysis of hedges and boosters in English academic articles. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1): 95–105.
Thompson, G. (2014). Introducing functional grammar. London and New York: Routledge.
Vold, E. (2006). Epistemic modality markers in research articles: a crossâ€linguistic and crossâ€disciplinary study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(1): 61–87.
Wishnoff, J. (2000). Hedging your bets: L2 learners’ acquisition of pragmatic devices in academic writing and computer-mediated discourse. Second Language Studies, 19(1): 119–148.
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.
Yates, L. (2004). What does good educational research look like? New York: Open University Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
License and Publishing Agreement
In submitting the manuscript to the journal, the authors certify that:
- They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
- The work described has not been formally published before, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, thesis, or overlay journal.
- That it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere,
- That its publication has been approved by all the author(s) and by the responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
- They secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere.
- They agree to the following license and publishing agreement.
Copyright
Authors who publish with JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
Licensing for Data Publication
-
Open Data Commons Attribution License, http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/ (default)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
