Adverbial Markers of Epistemic Modality Across Disciplinary Discourses: A Contrastive Study of Research Articles in Six Academic Disciplines

Open access

Abstract

Epistemic adverbs, like other markers of epistemic modality, are concerned with the speaker’s assessment of the truth value of the proposition. In other words, they indicate that the speaker considers certain situations as possible, impossible, probable, certain, or uncertain. At the same time, they signal the author’s presence in the text, and invite the reader to make his/her own conclusions and interpretations. The use of modal markers has been demonstrated to differ across academic disciplines, but the specific differences concerning the use of epistemic adverbs have not been studied systematically. This paper investigates the use of epistemic adverbs in research articles representing six disciplines belonging to three different branches of science: the humanities (linguistics and literary studies), the social sciences (law and sociology), and the natural sciences (physics and medicine), with the aim of establishing discipline-specific tendencies in their use. The study is based on a corpus of 160 research articles compiled by the author. It begins with an attempt at delimiting the category of epistemic adverbs in English. After that, a list of the most frequent epistemic adverbs in the subcorpora of all the disciplines is established and discussed. The study demonstrates that frequent use of epistemic adverbs is largely a property of research articles in the humanities and social sciences. Medical and physics research articles use them significantly less often. The most frequent epistemic adverbs in the research articles under analysis include indeed, perhaps, clearly, certainly, of course, arguably, possibly, and reportedly. Some adverbs appear to be associated with specific disciplines, e.g., clearly (physics, linguistics, sociology, medicine), indeed (linguistics, literary studies, sociology), possibly, reportedly (medicine), arguably (law). The association of individual adverbs with specific disciplines may serve as an important clue to the understanding of their functions, in particular in the case of the less frequent ones, such as arguably and reportedly, which remain significantly understudied. The findings may also prove useful in teaching English for academic purposes.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Ädel Annelie. 2014. “What I want you to remember is...”: Audience orientation in monologic academic discourse. In Lieselotte Brems Lobke Ghesquière & Freek Van de Velde (eds.) Intersubjectivity and intersubjectification in grammar and discourse. Theoretical and descriptive advances 101-127. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/etc.5.1.06ade

  • Aijmer Karin. 2002. English discourse particles. Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Aijmer Karin. 2009. Does English have modal particles? In Andrew Kehoe & Antoinette Renouf (eds.) Corpus linguistics: Refinements and reassessments 111-130. New York & Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI: 10.1163/9789042025981_008

  • Aijmer Karin. 2013. Analyzing modal adverbs as modal particles and discourse markers. In Liesbeth Degand Bert Cornillie & Paola Pietrandrea (eds.) Discourse markers and modal particles. Categorization and description 89-106. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/pbns.234.04aij

  • Aikhenvald Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Alonso Almeida Francisco & Heather Adams. 2012. Sentential evidentials in English and Spanish medical research papers. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas 7. 9-21. DOI: 10.4995/rlyla.2012.1119

  • Beeching Kate. 2012. Semantic change. Evidence from false friends. In Peter Lauwers Gudrun Vanderbauwhede & Stijn Verleyen (eds.) Pragmatic markers and pragmaticalization. Lessons from false friends 11-36. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/lic.10.2.03bee

  • Biber Douglas & Edward Finegan. 1988. Adverbial stance types in English. Discourse Processes 11(1). 1-34. DOI: 10.1080/01638538809544689

  • Biber Douglas Stig Johansson Geoffrey Leech Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.

  • Bondi Marina & Ken Hyland (eds.). 2006. Academic discourse across disciplines. Bern: Peter Lang Verlag.

  • Boye Kasper. 2012. Epistemic meaning. A crosslinguistic and functional-cognitive study. Berlin & New York: Mouton De Gruyter.

  • Chafe Wallace. 1986. Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.) Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology 261-272 Norwook NJ: Ablex

  • Coates Jennifer. 1983. The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London & Canberra: Croom Helm.

  • Cornillie Bert. 2009. Evidentiality and epistemic modality. On the close relationship between two different categories. Functions of Language 16(1). 44-62. DOI: 10.1075/fol.16.1.04cor

  • Cornillie Bert & Paola Pietrandrea. 2012. Modality at work. Cognitive interactional and textual functions of modal markers. Journal of Pragmatics 44(15). 2109-2115. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.10.004

  • Danielewiczowa Magdalena. 2012. W głąb specjalizacji znaczeń. Przysłówkowe metapredykaty atestacyjne. Warszawa: Katedra Lingwistyki Formalnej UW.

  • Degand Liesbeth Bert Cornillie & Paola Pietrandrea. 2013. Modal particles and discourse markers: Two sides of the same coin? In Liesbeth Degand Bert Cornillie & Paola Pietrandrea (eds.) Discourse markers and modal particles. Categorization and description 1-18. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/pbns.234.01deg

  • Diewald Gabriele. 2013. “Same same but different” - Modal particles discourse markers and the art (and purpose) of categorization. In Liesbeth Degand Bert Cornillie & Paola Pietrandrea (eds.) Discourse markers and modal particles. Categorization and description 19-45. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/pbns.234.02die

  • Diewald Gabriele & Elena Smirnova. 2010. Evidentiality in European languages: The lexicogrammatical distinction. In Gabriele Diewald & Elena Smirnova (eds.) Linguistic realization of evidentiality in European languages 1-14. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Erman Britt & Ulla-Britt Kotsinas. 1993. Pragmaticalization: The case of ba’ and you know. Studier i modern språkvetenskap 10. 76-93.

  • Ernst Thomas. 2009. Speaker-oriented adverbs. Natural and Linguistic Theory 27(3). 497-544. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-009-9069-1

  • Fløttum Kjersti. 2006. Medical research articles in the comparative perspectives of discipline and language. In Françoise Salager-Meyer & Maurizio Gotti (eds.) Advances in medical discourse analysis: Oral and written contexts 251-269. Bern: Peter Lang.

  • Fløttum Kjersti Trine Dahl & Torodd Kinn. 2006a. Academic voices: Across languages and disciplines. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Fløttum Kjersti Trine Dahl & Torodd Kinn. 2006b. “We now report on...” versus “Let us now see how...”: Author roles and interaction with readers in research articles. In Marina Bondi & Ken Hyland (eds.) Academic discourse across disciplines 203-224. Bern: Peter Lang Verlag.

  • Gil-Salom Luz & Carmen Soler-Monreal. 2009. Interacting with the reader: Politeness strategies in engineering research article discussions. International Journal of English Studies 9(3). 175-189.

  • Halliday Michael A. K. & Christian Matthiessen. 2004. An introduction to functional grammar. (3rd edn.) London: Hodder Arnold.

  • Harwood Nigel. 2005. ‘Nowhere has anyone attempted ... In this article I aim to do just that’: A corpus-based study of self-promotional I and we in academic writing across four disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics 37(8). 1207-1231. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.012

  • Hengeveld Kees. 1988. Illocution mood and modality in a functional grammar of Spanish. Journal of Semantics 6. 227-269. DOI: 10.1093/jos/6.1.227

  • Hoye Leo. 1997. Adverbs and modality in English. London & New York: Longman.

  • Huddleston Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Hyland Ken. 2001. Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes 20(3). 207-226. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00012-0

  • Hyland Ken. 2005. Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies 6(2). 173-191. DOI: 10.1177/1461445605050365

  • Hyland Ken. 2014. Dialogue community and persuasion in research writing. In Carmen Soler- Monreal & Luz Gil-Salom (eds.) Dialogicity in written specialized genres 1-21. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/ds.23.02hyl

  • Kärkkäinen Elise. 2003. Epistemic stance in English conversation. A description of its interactional functions with a focus on I think. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Kranich Svenja. 2011. To hedge or not to hedge: The use of epistemic modal expressions in popular science in English texts English-German translations and German originals. Text & Talk 31(1). 77-99. DOI: 10.1515/text.2011.004

  • Lewin Beverly A. 2005. Hedging: An exploratory study of authors’ and readers’ identification of ‘toning down’ in scientific texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4. 163-178. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2004.08.001

  • Lewis Diana. 2006. Discourse markers in English: A discourse-pragmatic view. In Kerstin Fischer (ed.) Approaches to discourse particles 43-59. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

  • Livnat Zohar. 2012. Dialogue science and academic writing. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Lyons John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Martin James R. & David Rose. 2003. Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. New York & London: Continuum.

  • McCready Eric & Norry Ogata. 2007. Evidentiality modality and probability. Linguistics and Philosophy 30(2). 147-206. DOI: 10.1007/s10988-007-9017-7

  • Narrog Heiko. 2012. Modality subjectivity and semantic change. A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Nuyts Jan. 2001. Epistemic modality language and conceptualization: A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Palmer Frank R. 2001. Mood and modality. (2nd edn.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Perkins Michael R. 1983. Modal expressions in English. London: Pinter.

  • Portner Paul. 2009. Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Quirk Randolph Jan Svartvik Geoffrey Leech & Sidney Greenbaum. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.

  • Rozumko Agata. 2016. Adverbs of certainty in a cross-linguistic and cross-cultural perspective: English-Polish. Languages in Contrast 16(2). 239-263. DOI: 10.1075/lic.16.2.04roz

  • Simon-Vandenbergen Anne-Marie & Karin Aijmer. 2007. The semantic field of modal certainty: A corpus-based study of English adverbs. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Soler-Monreal Carmen & Luz Gil-Salom (eds.) 2014. Dialogicity in written specialized genres. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins

  • Traugott Elizabeth Closs. 1995. The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at ICHL 12 Manchester UK August. http://web.stanford.edu/~traugott/papers/discourse.pdf (15.01.2016.)

  • Traugott Elizabeth Closs. 2007. Discussion article: Discourse markers modal particles and contrastive analysis synchronic and diachronic. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 6. 139-157.

  • Traugott Elizabeth Closs. 2012. Intersubjectivisation and clause periphery. English Text Construction 5(1). 7-28. DOI: 10.1075/etc.5.1.02trau

  • Traugott Elizabeth Closs & Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Travis Catherine E. 2006. The natural semantic metalanguage approach to discourse markers. In Kerstin Fischer (ed.) Approaches to discourse particles 219-241. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

  • Varttala Teppo. 2001. Hedging in scientifically oriented discourse. Exploring variation according to discipline and intended audience. (Acta Electronica Universitatis Tamperensis 138.) https://tampub.uta.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/67148/951-44-5195-3.pdf?sequence (10.01.2016.)

  • Verstraete Jean-Christophe. 2001. Subjective and objective modality: Interpersonal and ideational functions in the English modal auxiliary system. Journal of Pragmatics 33(10). 1505-1528. DOI: 10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00029-7

  • Vold Eva Thue. 2006. The choice and use of epistemic modality markers in linguistics and medical research articles. In Marina Bondi & Ken Hyland (eds.) Academic discourse across disciplines 225-249. Bern: Peter Lang Verlag.

  • Weydt Harald. 2006. What are particles good for? In Kerstin Fischer (ed.) Approaches to discourse particles 205-217. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

  • Wierzbicka Anna. 2006. English: Meaning and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Willett Thomas. 1988. A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 12(1). 51-97. DOI: 10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil

Search
Journal information
Impact Factor


Cite Score 2018: 0.08

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.1
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.095

Cited By
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 438 244 28
PDF Downloads 292 174 29