Patrones de compromiso heteroglósico en el marco teórico de artículos científicos en el área de lenguaje

  • Diana Chamorro Universidad del Norte
  • Gillian Moss Universidad del Norte
  • Norma Barletta Universidad del Norte
Palabras clave: escritura académica, compromiso, lingüística sistémico-funcional

Resumen

Este estudio examina cómo los autores construyen su voz autoral. Para ello recurre a las categorías de análisis del sistema de la valoración y su subsistema de compromiso de la lingüística sistémico funcional. El corpus lo constituye la sección de marco teórico de 20 artículos de investigación en el área de lingüística aplicada en Colombia. El análisis se centra en las cláusulas verbales para describir cómo la voz autoral se ubica en una posición de apertura hacia otras voces (expansión) o, por el contrario, rechaza esas posibles alternativas, o señala un fuerte involucramiento con el punto de vista emitido (contracción). Como resultado, se identificaron tres patrones de compromiso heteroglósico, a saber, diamante, embudo y línea recta. Los patrones identificados son susceptibles de ser enseñados atendiendo a las necesidades y experiencia del escritor, así como a los requerimientos y expectativas de la revista en la que se aspira ser publicado.

Biografía del autor/a

Diana Chamorro, Universidad del Norte

Doctora en Investigación, Diagnóstico y Evaluación en la intervención educativa. Universidad del Norte, Barranquilla, Colombia. 

Gillian Moss, Universidad del Norte

 PhD en Latin American Linguistic Studies. Universidad del Norte, Barranquilla, Colombia. 

Norma Barletta, Universidad del Norte

PhD en Second Language Acquisition and Teaching. Universidad del Norte, Barranquilla, Colombia. 

Citas

Aull, L. & Lancaster, Z. (2014). Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written Communication, 31(2), 151-183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088314527055

Barletta, N., Mizuno, J., & Moss, G. (2013). The use of appraisal resources in the construction of second-language teacher-researcher identity. En G. O’Grady, T.
Bartlett, & L. Fontaine (Eds.), Choice in language: Applications in text analysis (pp. 86-108). London: Equinox.

Bazerman, Ch. (2000). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Recuperado de http://wac.colostate.edu/books/bazerman_shaping/

Biber, D. & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 9(1), 93-124. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93

Chafe, W. (1986). Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. En W. Chafe & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality. The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp. 261-272). Norwood: Ablex.

Chang, P. & Schleppegrell, M. (2011). Taking an effective authorial stance in academic writing: Making the linguistic resources explicit for L2 writers in the social sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(3), 140-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.05.005

Coffin, C. (2002). Voices of history: Theorizing the personal semantics of historical discourses. Text, 22(4), 503-528. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2002.020

Gallardo, S. & Ferrari, L. (2010). How doctors view their health and professional practice: An appraisal analysis of medical discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(12), 3172-3187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.008

Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (third edition, revised by Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen). London: Hodder Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (fourth edition, revised by Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen). London: Routledge.

Hao, J. & Humphrey, S. (2009). The role of ‘coupling’ in biological experimental reports. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 5(2), 169-194. https://doi.org/10.1558/lhs.v5i2.169

Herrero, L. (2013). Transitividad y procesos verbales en el lenguaje académico en español: una perspectiva sistémico funcional. Lenguas en Contexto, 4, 36-44. Recuperado de http://www.facultaddelenguas.com/lencontexto/app/revista/DIGITAL/4/revista-4.pdf

Hood, S. (2006). The persuasive power of prosodies: Radiating values in academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(1), 37-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2005.11.001

Hood, S. (2010). Appraising research: Evaluation in academic writing. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hood, S. (2011). Writing discipline: Comparing inscriptions of knowledge and knowers in academic writing. En F. Christie & K. Maton (Eds.), Disciplinarity (pp. 106-128). London: Continuum.

Hood, S. (2012). Voice and stance as appraisal: Persuading and positioning in research writing across intellectual fields. En K. Hyland & C. Sancho Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in academic genres (pp. 51-68). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hunston, S. & Thompson, G. (2000). Evaluation in text. Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses. Social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Hyland, K. (2008). Persuasion, interaction and the construction of knowledge: Representing self and others in research writing. International Journal of English Studies, 8(2), 1-23. Recuperado de https://revistas.um.es/ijes/article/view/49151

Ignatieva, N. (2011). Procesos verbales en la escritura académica estudiantil en español desde una perspectiva sistémico funcional. Lenguaje, 39(2), 447-467. Recuperado de http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&pid=S0120-34792011000200007&lng=en&nrm=iso

Ignatieva, N. & Rodríguez-Vergara, D. (2015). Verbal processes in academic language in Spanish: Exploring discourse genres within the systemic functional framework. Functional Linguistics, 2(1), 2-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40554-015-0014-9

Labov, W. (1984). Intensity. En D. Schiffrin (Ed.), Meaning, form and use in context: Linguistic applications (pp. 43-70). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.

Lancaster, Z. (2016). Expressing stance in undergraduate writing: Discipline-specific and general qualities. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 23, 16-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.05.006

Lemke, J. (1988). Resources for attitudinal meaning: Evaluative orientations in text semantics. Functions of Language, 5(1), 33-56. https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.5.1.03lem

Livnat, Z. (2012). Dialogue, science and academic writing. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Manghi, D. & Badillo, C. (2015). Modos semióticos en el discurso pedagógico de historia: potencial semiótico para la mediación en el aula escolar. Íkala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 20(2), 157-172. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ikala.v20n2a02

Martin, J. (2008). Tenderness: Realisation and instantiation in a Botswanan town. En N. Nørgaard (Ed.), Odense Working Papers in Language and Communication (Special issued of papers from 34th International Systemic Functional Congress), pp. 30-62.

Martin, J. & Rose, D. (2007). Working with discourse. Meaning beyond the clause (second edition). London: Continuum.

Martin, J. & White. P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation. Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Matthiessen, C. (1995). Lexicogrammatical cartography. English systems. Tokyo: International Language Sciences Publishers.

Maton, K. (2007). Knowledge-knower structures in intellectual and educational fields. En F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Language, knowledge and pedagogy. Functional linguistic and sociological perspectives (pp. 87-108). London: Continuum.

Miller, R., Mitchell, T., & Pessoa, S. (2014). Valued voices: Students’ use of engagement in argumentative history writing. Linguistics and Education, 28, 107-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2014.10.002

Moyano, E. (julio, 2010). Exploring verbal processes in discussions of research articles in Spanish. Trabajo presentado en Challenges to Systemic Functional Linguistics: Challenges to Systemic Functional Linguistics: Theory and Practice. Proceedings of the 36th International Systemic Functional Congress. Beijing, China.

Myers, G. (1990). Writing biology: Texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

O’Donnell, M. (2008). Demonstration of the UAM Corpus Tool for text and image annotation. Recuperado de http://www.wagsoft.com/Papers/ODONNELL-UAMCT-ACL-2008.pdf

Oteíza, T. (2010). Patrones valorativos en el discurso oficial de derechos humanos en Chile: dando valor al pasado y construyendo memorias históricas en la sociedad. Discurso y Sociedad, 4(1), 151-183. Recuperado de http://www.dissoc.org/ediciones/v04n01/DS4(1)Oteiza.pdf

Pho, P. (2013). Authorial stance in research articles: Examples from applied linguistics and educational technology. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Quiroz, B. (2015). La cláusula como movimiento interactivo: una perspectiva semántico-discursiva de la gramática interpersonal del español. DELTA: Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada, 31(1), 261-301. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-445023762456121953

Swain, E. (2009). Constructing an effective ‘voice’ in academic discussion writing: An appraisal theory perspective. En A. MCCabe, M. O’Donnell, & R. Whittaker (Eds.), Advances in language and education (pp. 166-184). London: Continuum.

Thompson, G. & Yiyun, Y. (1991). Evaluation in the reporting verbs used in academic papers. Applied Linguistics, 12(4), 365-392. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/12.4.365

Wu, S. (2007). The use of engagement resources in high- and low-rated undergraduate geography essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(3), 254-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2007.09.006
Publicado
2020-05-25
Sección
Lingüística