Skip to main content
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Stance and intersubjective positioning across scientific discourse genres: Negative and modal epistemic discourse strategies

  • EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: September 2, 2017
Lodz Papers in Pragmatics
From the journal Lodz Papers in Pragmatics Volume 13 Issue 1

Abstract

The present article explores stance and stancetaking in two genres of scientific discourse, by analysing the discourse-pragmatic functions of epistemic modals and negation. The semantics and pragmatics of modals in specialised discourses has been the focus of attention in recent years (Hyland 1998, 2008; Tarantino 2011; Peackock 2014, 2015; Gotti 2014); however, the function of negation remains understudied so far. The present article proposes an approach to stance and modality which encompasses both modal and negative meanings as functions in discourse (Halliday 1994; Givón 1993; Halliday and Matthiesen 2004; Martin and White 2005). A quantitative method based on keyword analysis is applied as a point of departure for the identification of modal and negative stance markers; this is followed by a qualitative analysis of the discourse-pragmatic functions. The analysis shows that, although epistemic modals and negation are used more frequently in the semi-formal corpus, the use of epistemic modals and of negation may be interpreted as shaping conventionalised discourse-specific patterns of stancetaking in the biomedical sciences. Results also show that although negation is less frequent in the formal corpus, the range and variety of functions is greater and more complex than in the semi-formal corpus, thus suggesting the important role played by negation in biomedical discourse, in particular, in the communication of new ideas and new findings.

Keywords: modality; negation; intersubjective positioning; scientific discourse; stance and stancetaking

Acknowledgements

The present study has been carried out as part of a research project funded by the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (FFI-2008-01471FILO). The data and method were prepared during a research stay at the University of Birmingham, funded by a Mobility Grant funded by the Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, 2010.

References

Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Du Bois, Jean W. 2007. The stance triangle. In Robert Englebreston (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse, 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.164.07duSearch in Google Scholar

Downing, Angela & Phillip Locke. 2006. A university course in English grammar (2nd edn.). London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203087640Search in Google Scholar

Englebretson, Robert (ed.). 2007. Stancetaking in discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.164Search in Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 1993. English grammar: a function-based introduction, I & II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.engram2Search in Google Scholar

Gotti, Maurizio. 2014. Reformulation and recontextualization in popularization discourse. Ibérica 27. 15–34.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, M.A.K. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar (2nd edn.). London: Arnold.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, M.A.K. & C.M.I.M Matthiesen. 2004. An introduction to functional grammar (3rd edn.). London: Arnold.Search in Google Scholar

Hidalgo Downing, Laura. 2014. The role of negative-modal synergies in Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species. In Geoff Thompson & Laura Alba-Juez (eds.), Evaluation in discourse, 259–279. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.242.13hidSearch in Google Scholar

Hidalgo-Downing, Laura. 2017. Evidential and epistemic stance strategies in scientific communication: A corpus study of semi-formal and expert publications. In Juana Marín-Arrese, Gerda Haβler & Marta Carretero (eds.), Evidentiality revisited. cognitive grammar, functional and discourse-pragmatic perspectives, 391–432. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.271.10hidSearch in Google Scholar

Hidalgo-Downing, Laura & Begoña Núñez-Perucha. 2013. Modality and personal pronouns as indexical markers of stance: Intersubjective positioning and construction of public identity in media interviews. In Juana Marín-Arrese, Marta Carretero, Jorge Arús & Johan van der Auwera (eds.), English modality: core, periphery and evidentiality, 379–410. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110286328.379Search in Google Scholar

Horvitz, Herbert Robert. 2003. Nobel lecture. Worms, life and death. Biosci Rep Dev 23. 239–303.10.1023/B:BIRE.0000019187.19019.e6Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 1998. Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.54Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 2008. Genre and academic writing in the disciplines. Language Teaching 41. 543–562.10.1017/S0261444808005235Search in Google Scholar

Hunston, Susan & Geoff Thompson (eds.). 2000. Evaluation in text: authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Jordan, Michael. 1998. The power of negation in English: Text, context and relevance. Journal of Pragmatics 29. 705–752.10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00086-6Search in Google Scholar

Leinfeller, Elisabeth. 1994. The broader perspective of negation. Journal of Literary Semantics 13(2). 77–98.10.1515/jlse.1994.23.2.77Search in Google Scholar

Marín-Arrese, Juana. 2004. Evidential and epistemic qualifications in the discourse of fact and opinion: A comparable corpus study. In Juana Marín-Arrese (ed.), Perspectives on evidentiality and modality, 153–184. Madrid: Publicaciones de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid.Search in Google Scholar

Marín-Arrese, Juana. 2015. Epistemicity and stance: a cross-linguistic study of epistemic stance strategies in journalistic discourse in English and Spanish. Discourse Studies 17(2). 210–225.10.1177/1461445614564523Search in Google Scholar

Marín-Arrese, Juana & Begoña Núñez-Perucha. 2006. Evaluation and engagement in journalistic commentary and news reportage. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 19. 225–248.10.14198/raei.2006.19.13Search in Google Scholar

Marín-Arrese, Juana, Marta Carretero, Jorge Arús Hita & Johan van der Auwera (eds.). 2013. English modality: Core, periphery and evidentiality. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110286328Search in Google Scholar

Marín-Arrese, Juana, Gerda Haβler & Marta Carretero (eds.). 2017. Evidentiality revisited. cognitive grammar, functional and discourse-pragmatic perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.271Search in Google Scholar

Martin, James & Peter White. 2005. The Language of evaluation. Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave.Search in Google Scholar

Mushin, Ilana. 2012. “Watching for witness” Evidential strategies and epistemic authority in Garrwa conversation. Pragmatics and Society 3(2). 270–293.10.1075/bct.63.07musSearch in Google Scholar

Pagano, Adriana. 1994. Negatives in written text. In Malcolm Coulthard (ed.), Advances in written text analysis, 250–265. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Palmer, Frank. 2001. Mood and modality (2nd edn.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139167178Search in Google Scholar

Peacock, Matthew. 2014. Modals in the construction of research articles: a crossdisciplinary perspective. Ibérica 27. 143–164.Search in Google Scholar

Peacock, Matthew. 2015. Stance adverbials in research writing. Ibérica 29. 35–62.Search in Google Scholar

Rayson, Paul. 2008. Wmatrix: A web-based corpus processing environment, Lancaster Computing Department. Lancaster University. (http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/wmatrix). Accessed on 19th April 2015.Search in Google Scholar

Tarantino, Maria. 2011. Inter-subjectivity, cognition, nature and multimedia representations: modal categories in professional discourse. LSP & Professional Communication 2(1). 16–43.Search in Google Scholar

Thompson, Geoff & Laura Alba-Juez (eds.). 2014. Evaluation in context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.242Search in Google Scholar

Werth, Paul. 1998. Text worlds. representing conceptual space in discourse. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2017-9-2
Published in Print: 2017-8-28

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  2. Editorial
  4. Towards equivalence links between senses in plWordNet and Princeton WordNet
  6. Mediating terror through narratives A corpus-based approach to media translation
  8. Stance and intersubjective positioning across scientific discourse genres: Negative and modal epistemic discourse strategies
  10. Gender parity or “informed consent” in media representations of science and technology? A corpus-based discourse approach
  12. I-identity vs we-identity in language and discourse: Anglo-Slavonic perspectives
  14. Review
https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2017-0004
Keywords for this article
modality; negation; intersubjective positioning; scientific discourse; stance and stancetaking

Articles in the same Issue

  2. Editorial
  4. Towards equivalence links between senses in plWordNet and Princeton WordNet
  6. Mediating terror through narratives A corpus-based approach to media translation
  8. Stance and intersubjective positioning across scientific discourse genres: Negative and modal epistemic discourse strategies
  10. Gender parity or “informed consent” in media representations of science and technology? A corpus-based discourse approach
  12. I-identity vs we-identity in language and discourse: Anglo-Slavonic perspectives
  14. Review
Downloaded on 2.5.2026 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/lpp-2017-0004/html?lang=en
Scroll to top button