/LING
|
Update: February 24, 2023 The new version of Termout.org is now online, so this web site is now obsolete and will soon be dismantled. |
Lista de candidatos sometidos a examen:
1) metadiscourse (*)
(*) Términos presentes en el nuestro glosario de lingüística
1) Candidate: metadiscourse
Is in goldstandard
1
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines156 - : This article reports on the results of the analysis of a sample of fifteen articles extracted from the journal Revista de Pedagogía in order to determine how education researchers interact with their peers and communicate their integrity and their compromise with the discipline. The analysis focused on the interpersonal metadiscourse category and its dimensions as proposed by Hyland (1999a, 2000): hedges, boosters, attitude markers, relational markers and person markers . The results reveal that the variability in the use of interpersonal markers could be linked to the type of research. Hedging constituted the most frequent trait followed by relation and attitude markers. I conclude that education researchers have a tendency not to impose their point of views. They are concerned with personal stance and with assuring that their arguments are accepted by their readers.
2
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines218 - : Metadiscourse and perspective: Metadiscoursive functions of modality modifers introduced by ‘como’ in scientific discourse
3
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines596 - : “Metadiscourse functions on a referential, informational plane when it serves to direct readers on how to understand the author's purposes and goals, and the primary message by referring to its content and structure. The referring can be on a global or local level. Metadiscourse functions on an expressive or attitudinal plane when it serves to direct readers how to 'take' the author, that is, how to understand the author's perspective or stance toward the content or the structure of the primary discourse” (^[55]Crismore, 1984: 282 ).
4
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines596 - : ^[56]Mauranen (1993) identifies two main trends in metadiscourse studies: integrative and non-integrative (see also ^[57]Ädel & Mauranen 2010 ). The integrative approach takes the textual interaction between writer and reader as a defining characteristic. In contrast, the non-inclusive approach considers metadiscourse as a more restricted concept that only looks at reflexivity, i.e. the ability of language to comment on one's own language (^[58]Ädel, 2010). Non-inclusive approaches tend to define metadiscourse as:
5
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines596 - : ^[60]Hyland (2005) adopts an integrative approach to metadiscourse. He acknowledges that there is no unique definition of the term and that the notion: “has always been something of a fuzzy term, often characterised as simply 'discourse about discourse' or 'talk about talk'” (^[61]Hyland, 2005: 16), However, he sees great consensus on metadiscourse as “material which goes beyond the subject matter to signal the presence of the author” (Hyland, 2005: 35) and adopts a comprehensive definition of the term:
6
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines596 - : The integrative approach to metadiscourse proposed by ^[63]Hyland (2005) includes two dimensions: the interactive and the interactional . The former includes code glosses, endophoric markers, evidentials, frame markers and transition markers. The latter involves attitude markers, boosters, engagement markers, hedges and self-mention. Readers are an integral part of specialised discourse, and authors seek to promote and guide effective interaction with their readers. The use of metadiscourse devices is, therefore, essential in this regard. In addition, these mechanisms enable to highlight the authors’ epistemological positioning and preferences while they also organise and develop information in a logical way. ^[64]Mur-Dueñas (2011) explains the relation between the interactive and the interactional dimensions of metadiscourse in the following terms:
7
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines596 - : “Thus, both interactive metadiscourse features (intended to organise and shape the material in the light of the readers' likely needs and expectations) and interactional metadiscourse features (aimed at portraying the scholars as authors and at binding writer and reader together) are a response to the interpersonal component of writing” (^[65]Mur-Dueñas, 2011: 3069 ).
8
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines599 - : Metadiscourse has been one standpoint used by numerous researchers to identify language interactions in academic English (^[27]Hyland, 1997, ^[28]1998a, ^[29]1998b, ^[30]2005; ^[31]Hyland & Tse, 2004; ^[32]Ädel, 2006; ^[33]Gillaerts & Van de Velde, 2010; ^[34]Carrió-Pastor, 2016, ^[35]2019b; ^[36]Hyland & Jiang, 2018), but also in other genres and languages (^[37]Hu & Cao, 2011; ^[38]Mur-Dueñas, 2011; ^[39]Moya & Carrió-Pastor, 2018a, ^[40]2018b, ^[41]2018c; ^[42]Carrió-Pastor, 2019a; ^[43]Qin & Uccelli, 2019). Quite recently, one of these researchers, who has dedicated most of his academic life to the analysis of metadiscourse, described it in the following terms:
9
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines599 - : He explores the strengths and shortcomings of metadiscourse, offering a general overview of the concept and pointing out that it is a powerful analytical tool; specifically, he states that “[…] metadiscourse has inspired a considerable amount of scholarship and continues to contribute enormously” (^[45]Hyland, 2017: 27 ). Metadiscourse is generally divided into two categories, i.e. textual (the devices that provide cohesion and coherence to a text and guide readers and listeners along the discourse) and interactional (the devices used to interact with listeners and readers, engaging them and showing readers the importance of the message). In this paper, we focus on one sub-category of the interactional metadiscourse devices, i.e. boosters, with the aim of studying the variation that can be caused by the nature of the specific field of knowledge. Our analysis is based on a quantitative analysis of academic corpora from three specific fields of knowledge, i.e. Engineering, Medicine and
Evaluando al candidato metadiscourse:
1) hyland: 9
2) markers: 7 (*)
3) readers: 7 (*)
5) researchers: 4
6) interactional: 4
7) integrative: 4
10) author: 4
11) academic: 3
14) markers.: 3
15) mur-dueñas: 3
17) dimensions: 3 (*)
18) carrió-pastor: 3
19) interactive: 3 (*)
20) boosters: 3
metadiscourse
Lengua: eng
Frec: 100
Docs: 21
Nombre propio: 2 / 100 = 2%
Coocurrencias con glosario: 4
Puntaje: 4.905 = (4 + (1+5.93073733756289) / (1+6.6582114827518)));
Candidato aceptado
Referencias bibliográficas encontradas sobre cada término
(Que existan referencias dedicadas a un término es también indicio de terminologicidad.)| metadiscourse |
: Albalat-Mascarell, A. & Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2019). Self-representation in political campaign talk: A functional metadiscourse approach to self-mentions in televised presidential debates. Journal of Pragmatics, 147, 86-99. : Alharbi, G. & Hain, T. (2016). The OpenCourseWare Metadiscourse (OCWMD) Corpus. LREC [en línea]. Disponible en: [157]http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2016/pdf/1085_Paper.pdf : Carrió, M. L. & Muñiz-Calderón, R. (2015). A contrastive analysis of metadiscourse features in business e-mails written by non-native speakers of English. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 173, 214-221. : Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2016). A contrastive study of interactive metadiscourse in academic papers written in English and in Spanish. In F. Almeida, L. Cruz García & V. González Ruiz (Eds.), Corpus-based studies on language varieties. Bern: Peter Lang. : Crismore, A. & Farnsworth, R. (1989). Darwin and his readers: Exploring interpersonal metadiscourse as a dimension of ethos. Rhetoric Review, 8, 91112. : Crismore, A. & Farnsworth, R. (1990). Metadiscourse in popular and professional discourse. En W. Nash (Ed.), The writing scholar: Studies in the language and conventions of academic discourse (pp. 118136). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. : Crismore, A. (1984). The rhetoric of textbooks: Metadiscourse. Curriculum Studies,16(3), 279-296. : Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers. Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. New York: Lang. : Crismore, A., Markkanen, R. & Steffensen, M. S. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10, 39-71. : Dafouz-Milne, E. (2003). Metadiscourse revisited: A contrastive study of persuasive writing in professional discourse. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 11, 29-52. : Dahl, T. (2003). Metadiscourse in research articles. En K. Fløttum & F. Rastier (Eds.), Academic discourse. Multidisciplinary approaches (pp. 120-138). Oslo: Novus Press. : Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1807-1825. : Del Saz-Rubio, M. M. (2019). A contrastive genre-based approach to the rhetorical structure and use of interactional metadiscourse in the results and discussion section of Food Science & Technology Papers. Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies, 59, 13-45. : Flowerdew, J. (2015). Revisiting metadiscourse: Conceptual and methodological issues concerning signalling nouns. Ibérica, 29, 15-34. : Fuertes-Olivera, P., Velasco-Sacristán, M., Arribas-Baño, A. & Samaniego Fernández, E. (2001). Persuasion and advertising English: Metadiscourse in slogans and headlines. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1291-1307. : Gillaerts, P. & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 128-139. : Hyland, K. & Jiang, E. K. (2018). In this paper we suggest: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse. English for Specific Purposes, 51, 18-30. : Hyland, K. & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25, 156 - 177. : Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 437455. : Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory coursebooks. English for Specific Purposes. An International Journal, 18(1), 3-26. : Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse. London: Continuum. : Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. : Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. New York: Continuum. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A framework for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press. [ [43]Links ] : Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16-29. : Ifantidou, E. (2005). The semantics and pragmatics of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(9), 1325-1353. : Jiang, F. & Hyland, K. (2016). Nouns and academic interactions: A neglected feature of metadiscourse. Applied Linguistics, 37, 1-25. : Lee, J. J. & Deakin, L. (2016). Interactions in L1 and L2 Undergraduate Student Writing: Interactional Metadiscourse in Successful and Less-Successful Argumentative Essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 33(C), 21-34. : Longo, B. (1994). Current research in technical communication: The role of metadiscourse in persuasion. Technical Communication, 41, 348-352. : Luukka, M. R. (1994). Metadiscourse in academic texts. En B. L. Gunnarsson, P. Livell & B. Nordberg (Eds.), Text and Talk in Professional Contexts (pp. 77-88). Upsala: ASLA, The Swedish Association of Applied Linguistics. : 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. : 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. : Qin, W. & Uccelli, P. (2019). Metadiscourse: Variation across communicative contexts. Journal of Pragmatics, 139, 22-39. : Van de Kopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82-93. : Vande Kopple, W. (2002). Metadiscourse, discourse and issues in composition and rhetoric. In E. Barton & G. Stygall (Eds.), Discourse studies in composition. Cresskill (pp. 91-113). New Jersey: Hampton Press. : Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82-93. : Wei, J., Li, Y., Zhou, T. & Gong, Z. (2016). Studies on metadiscourse since the 3^rd millenium. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(9), 194-204. : Ädel, A. & Mauranen, A. (2010). Metadiscourse: Diverse and divided perspectives. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 1-11. : Ädel, A. (2005). On the boundaries between evaluation and metadiscourse. En E. Tognini-Bonelli & G. Del Lungo Camiciotti (Eds.), Strategies in academic discourse (pp. 153-162). Ámsterdam: John Benjamins. : Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. : Ädel, A. (2010). Just to give you kind of a map of where we are going: A taxonomy of metadiscourse in spoken and written academic English.Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 69-97. |