Negotiating across languages: Metadiscourse in english and spanish abstracts in soil science
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29344/0717621X.46.3134Palabras clave:
academic writing, intercultural rethoric, abstracts, metadiscourse, multilingual writersResumen
This study aimed to contrast metadiscourse use across languages in abstracts in the field of Soil Science. Three corpora were compared: abstracts published in Spanish by Spanish speakers; abstracts published in English by Spanish speakers; and abstracts published in English by English speakers. Metadiscourse occurrences were qualitatively coded using computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software and interpreted in relation to independent variables language of publication, writers’ dominant language, and abstract rhetorical structure. Findings suggest an overall preference for boosting and a tendency to rely heavily on interpersonal features when presenting and discussing research outcomes, which may be accounted for in terms of the promotional function of the genre. Contrastive corpus analysis indicates a shift from Spanish local patterns of interaction when publishing in English towards dominating patterns of negotiation in the additional language, which might be attributed to the external demands posed by differing socio-pragmatic contexts of publication. Few divergencies observed in the use of hedging features might indicate coexisting communication patterns and deliberate participation strategies by Spanish speakers.
Citas
Ädel, A. & Mauranen, A. (2010). Metadiscourse: Diverse and divided perspectives. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.215
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. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.4.0260
Ayers, G. (2008). The evolutionary nature of genre: an investigation of the short texts accompanying research articles in the scientific journal Nature. English for Specific Purposes, 27(1), 22-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2007.06.002
Bakhtin, M. (1986). The problem of speech genres. In C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Eds.), Speech genres and other late essays (pp. 60-102). University of Texas.
Bakhtiari, A. & Farahani, A. A. K. (2020). Tracking interpersonality in research article abstract: A diachronic study of dynamic nature of genre. Journal of Language and Literature, 20(1), 56-69. https://doi.org/10.24071/joll.v20i1.2332
Bondi, M. & Cavalieri, S. (2012). The evolution of the abstract as a genre: 1988-2008. The case of applied linguistics. In G. Garzone, P. Catenaccio, & C. Degano (Eds), Genre change in the contemporary world. Short-term diachronic perspectives (pp. 43-55). Peter Lang
Bondi, M. & Lorés-Sanz, R. (Eds.). (2014). Abstracts in academic discourse. Peter Lang.
Byun, J. H. (2016). Comparative study of abstract writings of novice and expert researchers: Move and metadiscourse analysis. Modern English Education/현대영어교육, 17(4), 25-49.
Canagarajah, S. (2013). From intercultural rhetoric to cosmopolitan practice. In D. Belcher & G. Nelson (Eds.), Critical and corpus-based approaches to intercultural rhetoric (pp. 203-226). University of Michigan Press.
Canagarajah, S. (2018). Transnationalism and translingualism. How they are connected. In X. You (Ed.), Transnational writing education: Theory, history, and practice (pp. 42-60). Routledge.
Cárcamo Morales, B. (2019). Organización retórica y autorreferencia en el resumen de lingüística: Un estudio contrastivo inglés-español. Lenguaje, 47(2), 334-357. https://doi.org/10.25100/lenguaje.v47i2.6748
Connor, U. (2004). Intercultural rhetoric research: Beyond texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(4), 291-304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2004.07.003
Connor, U. (2011). Intercultural rhetoric in the writing classroom. University of Michigan Press.
Connor, U. & Moreno, A. I. (2005). Tertium comparationis: A vital component in contrastive research methodology. In P. Bruthiaux, D. Atkinson, W. G. Eggington, W. Grabe, & V. Ramanathan (Eds), Directions in Applied Linguistics: Essays in honor of Robert B. Kaplan (pp. 153-164). Multilingual Matters.
Connor, U., Nagelhout, E., & Rozycki, W. (Eds.). (2008). Contrastive rhetoric: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric. John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.169
Corcoran, J. & Englander, K. (2016). A proposal for critical-pragmatic pedagogical approaches to English for research publication purposes. Publications, 4(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications4010006
Curry, M. J. & Lillis, T. (2017). Problematizing English as the privileged language of global academic publishing. In M. J. Curry & T. Lillis (Eds), Global Academic Publishing (pp. 1-20). Multilingual Matters.
Curry, M. J. & Lillis, T. (2019). Unpacking the lore on multilingual scholars publishing in English: A discussion paper. Publications, 7(2), 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7020027
Divasson Cilveti, L. & León Pérez, I. (2006). Textual and language flaws: problems for Spanish doctors producing abstracts in English. Ibérica: Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos (AELFE), (11), 61-79. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/2870/287024011004.pdf
Donahue, C. (2018). Rhetorical and linguistic flexibility: Valuing heterogeneity in academic writing education. In X. You (Ed.), Transnational Writing Education (pp. 21-40). Routledge.
El-Dakhs, D. A. S. (2018). Comparative genre analysis of research article abstracts in more and less prestigious journals: Linguistics journals in focus. Research in Language, 16(1), 47-63. https://doi.org/10.2478/rela-2018-0002
Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Cho Paik, M. (2003). Statistical methods for rates and proportions (3rd ed.). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471445428
Flowerdew, J. & Wang, S. H. (2016). Teaching English for research publication purposes with a focus on genre, register, textual mentors and language reuse: a case study. In J. Flowerdew & T. Castley (Eds), Discipline-specific writing: Theory into practice (pp. 158-175). Routledge.
Glasman-Deal, H. (2020). Science research writing for native and non-native speakers of English. World Scientific.
Gillaerts, P. & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 128-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.004
Habibie, P. & Hyland, K. (2019). Novice writers and scholarly publication. Springer International Publishing.
Holliday, A. (1999). Small cultures. Applied Linguistics, 20(2), 237-264. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/20.2.237
Holliday, A. (2011). Intercultural Communication and Ideology. Sage.
Holliday, A. (2013). Understanding intercultural communication: Negotiating a grammar of culture. Routledge.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Longman.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse. Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2011). 10 disciplines and discourses: Social interactions in the construction of knowledge. In D. Starke-Meyerring, A. Paré, N. Artemeva, M. Horne, & L. Yousoubova (Eds.), Writing in knowledge societies (pp. 193-214). The WAC Clearinghouse-Parlor Press.
Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, (113), 16-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.007
Hyland, K. (2019). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Hyland, K. & Jiang, F. K. (2018). “In this paper we suggest”: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse. English for Specific Purposes, (51), 18-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.02.001
Hyland, K. & Jiang, F. K. (2020). Text-organizing metadiscourse: Tracking changes in rhetorical persuasion. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 21(1), 138-165. https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.00039.hyl
Hyland, K. & Tse, P. (2005). Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), 123e139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2004.02.002
Jiang, F. K. & Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscursive nouns: Interaction and cohesion in abstract moves. English for Specific Purposes, (46), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2016.11.001
Kanoksilapatham, B. (2015). Distinguishing textual features characterizing structural variation in research articles across three engineering sub-discipline corpora. English for Specific Purposes, (37), 74-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2014.06.008
Li, Q. & Pramoolsook, I. (2015). Research article abstracts in two subdisciplines of business-move structure and hedging between management and marketing. English Language Teaching, 8(1), 52-62. http://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n1p52
Lillis, T. & Curry, M. J. (2015). The politics of English, language and uptake: The case of international academic journal article reviews. AILA Review, 28(1), 127-150. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.28.06lil
Liu, P. & Huang, X. (2017). A study of interactional metadiscourse in English abstracts of Chinese economics research articles. Higher Education Studies, 7(3), 25-41. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v7n3p25
López Navarro, I., Moreno Fernández, A. I., & Rey Rocha, J. (2017). Dificultades de los investigadores españoles para publicar en revistas internacionales: métricas, editores y multilingüismo [Spanish researchers’ difficulties to publish in international journals: metrics, editors and multilingualism]. Teknokultura, 14(1), 13-33. https://doi.org/10.5209/TEKN.54142
Lorés-Sanz, R. (2004). On RA abstracts: From rhetorical structure to thematic organisation. English for Specific Purposes, 23(3), 280-302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2003.06.001
Lorés-Sanz, R. (2009). Different worlds, different audiences: A contrastive analysis of research article abstracts. In E. Suomela-Salmi & F. Dervi (Eds), Cross-linguistic and cross-cultural perspectives on academic discourse (Vol. 193) (pp. 187-198). John Benjamins Publishing.
Lorés-Sanz, R. (2011). The study of authorial voice: Using a Spanish–English corpus to explore linguistic transference. Corpora, 6(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2011.0002
Lorés-Sanz, R. (2016a). When the local becomes international: The lexicogrammar of rhetorical moves in English and Spanish Sociology abstracts. Languages in Contrast, 16(1), 133-158. https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.16.1.06lor
Lorés-Sanz, R. (2016b). ELF in the making? simplification and hybridity in abstract writing. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 5(1), 53-81. https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2016-0003
Martín-Martín, P. (2005). The rhetoric of the abstract in English and Spanish scientific discourse: A cross-cultural genre-analytic approach (Vol. 21). Peter Lang.
Martín-Martín, P. & Burgess, S. (2004). The rhetorical management of academic criticism in research article abstracts. Text & Talk, 24(2), 171-195. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2004.007
Martín-Martín, P. & León Pérez, I. (2017). Disseminating research internationally: Intra-subdisciplinary rhetorical structure variation in immunity and allergy research articles. In M. Cargill & S. Burgess (Eds.), Publishing research in English as an additional language: Practices, pathways and potentials (pp. 151-168). University of Adelaide Press.
Mauranen, A. (2007). Hybrid voices: English as the lingua franca of academics. In K. Flottum (Ed.), Language and discipline perspectives on academic discourse (pp. 244-259). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Monteiro, K. & Hirano, E. (2020). A periphery inside a semi-periphery: The uneven participation of Brazilian scholars in the international community. English for Specific Purposes, (58), 15-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2019.11.001
Morales, O., Cassany, D., Díaz, N., & España, L. B. (2015). Resúmenes y abstracts de artículos científicos: variaciones retóricas e implicaciones didácticas. Acta Bioclínica, 5(9), 33-46. http://erevistas.saber.ula.ve/index.php/actabioclinica/article/view/5464
Moreno, A. I. (2010). Researching into English for research publication purposes from an applied intercultural perspective. In M. F. Ruiz-Garrido, J. C. Palmer-Silveira, & I. Fortanet-Gómez (Eds.), English for professional and academic purposes (pp. 59-73). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789042029569_006
Motta-Roth, D. & Hendges, G. (2010). Abstract/Resumo acadêmico. In D. Motta-Roth & G. Hendges (Eds.), Produção textual na universidade (pp. 151-162). Parábola Editorial.
Müller, G. (2007). Metadiscurso y perspectiva: Funciones metadiscursivas de los modificadores de modalidad introducidos por “como” en el discurso científico [Metadiscourse and perspective: Metadiscursive functions of modality modifiers introduced by "as" in scientific discourse]. Revista Signos, 40(64), 2007, 357-387. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342007000200005
Okamura, A. & Shaw, P. (2014). Development of academic journal abstracts in relation to the demands of stakeholders. In M. Bondi & R. Lorés-Sanz (Eds.), Abstracts in academic discourse: Variation and change (pp. 287-317). Peter Lang.
Omidian, T., Shahriari, H., & Siyanova-Chanturia, A. (2018). A cross-disciplinary investigation of multi-word expressions in the moves of research article abstracts. Journal of English for academic purposes, (36), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.08.002
Osorio, B. E. & Añez, E. (2017). El metadiscurso interaccional en tesis doctorales en educación. Revista de Investigación,41(92), 13-33. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/3761/376156278002.pdf
Perales Escudero, M. & Swales, J. (2011). Tracing convergence and divergence in pairs of Spanish and English research article abstracts: The case of Ibérica. Ibérica: Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos (AELFE), (21), 49-70. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/2870/287023883004.pdf
Pérez-Llantada, C. (2010). The discourse functions of metadiscourse in published academic writing: issues of culture and language. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 41-68. https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.217
Pérez-Llantada, C. (2016). How is the digital medium shaping research genres? Some cross-disciplinary trends. ESP today. Journal of English for Specific Purposes at tertiary level, 4(1), 22-42. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/289986742.pdf
Salager-Meyer, F. (1998). The rationale behind academic conflict: from outright criticism to contextual ‘niche’ creation. UNESCO-ALSED-LSP, 21(2), 4-23.
Salager‐Meyer, F. & Alcaraz Ariza, M. Á. (2003). Academic criticism in Spanish medical discourse: A cross‐generic approach. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 96-114. https://doi.org/10.1111/1473-4192.00039
Salager-Meyer, F., Alcaraz-Ariza, M. Á., Luzardo Briceño, M., & Jabbour, G. (2011). Scholarly gratitude in five geographical contexts: A diachronic and cross-generic approach of the acknowledgment paratext in medical discourse (1950–2010). Scientometrics, 86(3), 763-784. https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v86y2011i3d10.1007_s11192-010-0329-y.html
Scielo. (2018). Criteria, policies and procedures for the admission and permanence of scientific journals in the SciELO <country> Collection. https://wp.scielo.org/wp-content/uploads/Criterios-Rede-SciELO-en.pdf
Sheldon, E. (2018). Dialogic spaces of knowledge construction in research article Conclusion sections written by English L1, English L2 and Spanish L1 writers. Ibérica: Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos (AELFE), (35), 13-40.
Swales, J. M. & Feak, C. B (2009). Abstracts and the writing of abstracts (Vol. 1). University of Michigan Press.
Van Bonn, S. & Swales, J. M. (2007). English and French journal abstracts in the language sciences: Three exploratory studies. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(2), 93-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2007.04.001
Vassileva, I. (1997). Hedging in English and Bulgarian academic writing. Trends in linguistics studies and monographs(pp. 203-222). Mouton de Gruyter.
Vieira Santos, J., & Nunes da Silva, P. (2016). Issues with publishing abstracts in English: Challenges for Portuguese linguists’ authorial voices. Publications, 4(2), 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications4020012
White, R. E. (2005). Principles and practice of soil science: The soil as a natural resource. John Wiley & Sons.
Wei, J. & Duan, J. (2019). A Comparative study of metadiscoursal features in English research article abstracts in hard disciplines. Arab Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 1-37.
Xu, X. & Nesi, H. (2019). Differences in engagement: A comparison of the strategies used by British and Chinese research article writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, (38), 121-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.02.003
You, X. (2018). Transnational writing education: Theory, history, and practice. Routledge.
Publicado
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2023 Literatura y Lingüística

Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.
Esta revista contempla acceso abierto a todos los contenidos, basándose en el principio de oferta de acceso público a los investigadores que deseen conocer e intercambiar conocimiento. La Revista Literatura y Lingüística se publica bajo una licencia Creative Commons de Atribución-No Comercial-Sin Derivadas. Para ver una copia de esta licencia, visite este enlace. Esto quiere decir que los lectores y usuarios finales pueden usar la obra y generar obras derivadas, siempre y cuando esos usos no tengan fines comerciales y que la distribución de las obras derivadas se haga mediante licencia idéntica a la de la obra original, reconociendo a los autores.
Los autores al publicar ceden los derechos de publicación y reproducción a Revista Literatura y Lingüística, para esto deberán firmar una carta de cesión de derechos y originalidad.
La revista Literatura y Lingüística utiliza un sistema de almacenamiento PKP Preservation Network (PN) .