English and Serbian academic discourses analyzed in the light of ‘explicit reflexivity’ parameters

Slavka Blagojević

doi:10.5817/DI2012-1-5

English and Serbian academic discourses analyzed in the light of ‘explicit reflexivity’ parameters

Vol.5,No.1(2012)

Slavka Blagojević

https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2012-1-5

PDF

Abstract

The parameters of ‘explicit reflexivity’ have been used as an analytical tool for examining English and Serbian academic research articles in order to depict their characteristics concerning this language phenomenon. Since the employment of discourse reflexivity in academic writing is seen as the writer’s readiness to facilitate the readers’ path through the text, its presence in the two academic discourses will be interpreted in the light of Hinds’s language typology (1987), which distinguishes writing cultures with respect to the writer’s vs. the reader’s responsibility for successful written communication. Therefore, the degree of the writer’s awareness of his/her role in the process of communicating will be mirrored by the number of reflexive elements identified, and the two types of discourses will be described on the same basis.

Keywords:
explicit reflexivity; academic writing; research articles; written communication

References

Ädel, A. (2006) Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Blagojević, S. (2004) ‘Metadiscourse in academic prose: A contrastive study of academic
articles written in English by English and Norwegian native speakers.’ Studies about
Languages 5, 60-67.

Blagojević, S. (2005) ‘What should a non-native speaker of English be aware of when
writing in English for academic purposes?’ In: Frentiu, L. (ed.) British and American
Studies (XIV), Conference proceedings, Timisoara. 176-185.

Blagojević, S. (2006) ‘Academic writing for international readership.’ In: Borisova,
B. and Belčeva, V. (eds) The Language Policy of the EU and European University
Education, Conference proceedings. Veliko Turnovo: University St. Cyril and St.
Metodius. 176-185.

Blagojević, S. (2008) Metadiskurs u akademskom diskursu. Niš: Filozofski fakultet.

Blagojević, S. (2011) ‘How to help Serbian academic researchers become qualified
academic writers for international readership.’ International Journal for Quality
Research 5/2, 103-108.

Blagojević, S. (2012) O engleskom i srpskom akademskom diskursu. Niš: Filozofski
fakultet.

Bunton, D. (1999) ‘The use of higher level metatext in Ph.D. theses.’ English for Specific
Purposes 18/supplement, S41-S56.

Craig, R.T. (1999) ‘Communication theory as a field.’ Communication Theory 9/2,
119-161.

Craig, R.T. (2005) ‘How we talk about how we talk: Communication theory in the public
interest.’ Journal of Communication 55/4, 659-667. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1999.tb00355.x

Crawford Camiciottoli, B. (2003) ‘Metadiscourse and ESP reading comprehension: An
exploratory study.’ Reading in a Foreign Language 15/1, 28-44.

Crismore, A. (1989) Talking with Readers: Metadiscourse as Rhetorical Act. New York:
Peter Lang.

Crismore, A. (1990) ‘Metadiscourse and discourse processes: Interactions and issues.’
Discourse Processes 13/2, 191-205.

Crismore, A. and Farnsworth, R. (1990) ‘Metadiscourse in popular and professional
science discourse.’ In: Nash, W. (ed.) The Writing Scholar: Studies in Academic
Discourse. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. 118-136.

Dahl, T. (2004) ‘Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture
or of academic discipline.’ Journal of Pragmatics 36/10, 1807-1825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.004

Hinds, J. (1987) ‘Reader versus writer responsibility: A new language typology.’ In:
Connor, U. and Kaplan, R. B. (eds) Writing Across Languages: Analysis of L2 Text.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 141-152.

Hyland, K. (1996) ‘Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles.’
Applied Linguistics 17/4, 433-453. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.4.433

Hyland, K. (1998) Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.

Hyland, K. (2000) ‘Options of identity in academic writing.’ ELT Journal 56/4, 351-358. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/56.4.351

Hyland, K. (2005) Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.

Leńko-Szymańska, A. (2008) ‘Non-native or non-expert? The use of connectors in native
and foreign language learners’ texts.’ Acquisition et interaction en langue trangčre
27, 91-108.

Lyons, J. (1977) Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Markkanen, R., Steffensen, M.S., and Crismore, A. (1993) ‘Quantitative contrastive study
of metadiscourse: Problems in design and analysis of data.’ Papers and Studies in
Contrastive Linguistics 28, 137-151.

Mauranen, A. (1993) Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric: A Text-Linguistic Study.
Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang.

Mauranen, A (2007) Discourse reflexivity and international speakers – how is it used in
English as a lingua franca?’ Jezik in slovstvo 52/3–4, 1-16.

Mauranen, A. (2010) ‘Discourse reflexivity – A discourse universal? The case of ELF.’
Nordic Journal of English Studies 19/2, 13-40.

Toumi, N. (2009) ‘A model for the investigation of reflexive metadiscourse in research
articles.’ Language Studies Working Papers 1, 64-73.

Valero Garces, C. (1996) ‘Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Spanish-English
economics texts.’ English for Specific Purposes 15/4, 279-294.

Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985) ‘Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse.’ College
Composition and Communication 36/1, 82-93. https://doi.org/10.2307/357609

Vassileva, I. (2000) Who is the Author? A Contrastive Analysis of Authorial Presence
in English, German, French, Russian and Bulgarian Academic Discourse. Sankt
Augustin: Asgard.

Ventola, E. (1998) ‘Interpersonal choices in academic work.’ In: Sanchez-Macarro, A.
and Carter, R. (eds) Linguistic Choices Across Genres. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins. 117-36. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.158.10ven

Metrics