Expressing cause and effect in hard and soft scientific discourseA corpus-based analysis

  1. Pérez-Guerra, Javier 1
  2. Smirnova, Elizaveta 2
  3. Kostareva , Elena 2
  1. 1 Universidade de Vigo
    info

    Universidade de Vigo

    Vigo, España

    ROR https://ror.org/05rdf8595

  2. 2 Higher School of Economics, National Research University
    info

    Higher School of Economics, National Research University

    Moscú, Rusia

    ROR https://ror.org/055f7t516

Revista:
Ibérica: Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos ( AELFE )

ISSN: 1139-7241,  2340-2784

Ano de publicación: 2024

Número: 47

Páxinas: 121-148

Tipo: Artigo

DOI: 10.17398/2340-2784.47.121 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Outras publicacións en: Ibérica: Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos ( AELFE )

Resumo

This study is a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the use of cause and effect expressions in two corpora that comprise research articles in four hard and four soft disciplines, selected to represent a broad cross-section of academic discourse. Linguistic expressions of cause/effect are hypothesised to deviate in hard and soft sciences, and the differences pertain not only to key lexical categories but also to syntactic patterns. With the ultimate goal of facilitating practitioners of ESP (English for Specific Purposes) and EAP (English for Academic Purposes) to produce discipline-specific materials, which can effectively address the needs of learners of different sciences, this study investigates the productivity of lexical units, representative of cause/effect expressions in hard and soft scientific disciplines, as identified in the Louvain EAP Dictionary, as well as the main grammatical patterns where the former are attested. This paper shows that cause expressions are more common in soft sciences, while the expressions of effect are used in similar proportion in the two categories. As for lexical strategies, soft sciences tend to use more nouns to express cause/effect, while hard sciences rely on prepositions and conjunctions to a larger extent.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Abraham, E. (1991). Why ‘because’? The management of given/new information as a constraint on the selection of causal alternatives. Text Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 11(3), 323-339. https://doi.org/10.1515/ text.1.1991.11.3.323
  • Altenberg, B. (1984). Causal linking in spoken and written English. Studia Linguistica, 38(1), 20-69.
  • Anthony, L. (2014). AntConc (Version 3.4.4) [Computer Software]. Waseda University. https:// www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antconc/
  • Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and culture of the disciplines. The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
  • Bennett, G. R. (2010). Using corpora in the language learning classroom: Corpus linguistics for teachers (Vol. 10). University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.371534
  • Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge University Press.
  • Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2016). Grammatical complexity in academic English: Linguistic change in writing. Cambridge University Press.
  • Boulton, A. (2012). Corpus consultation for ESP: A review of empirical research. In A. Boulton, S. Carter-Thomas & E. Rowley-Jolivet (Eds.), Corpus-informed research and learning in ESP: Issues & application (pp. 261-291). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.52
  • Brezina, V. (2018). Statistics in corpus linguistics: A practical guide. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316410899
  • Burton, M., & Morgan, C. (2000). Mathematicians writing. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(4), 429-453. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/749652
  • Cao, M., Sun, X., & Zhuge, H. (2018). The contribution of cause-effect link to representing the core of scientific paper – The role of semantic link Network. PloS One, 13(6), e0199303. https:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199303
  • Chukharev-Hudilainen, E., & Saricaoglu, A. (2016). Causal discourse analyzer: Improving automated feedback on academic ESL writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(3), 494-516. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014. 991795
  • Davis, P. J., & Hersh, R. (1981). The mathematical experience. Birkhauser.
  • Degand, L. (2000). Causal connectives or causal prepositions? Discursive constraints. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(6), 687-707. https://doi.org/10. 1016/S0378-2166(99)00066-1
  • Flowerdew, L. (1998). Integrating expert and interlanguage computer corpora findings on causality: Discoveries for teachers and students. English for Specific Purposes, 17(4), 329-345. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00014-8
  • Gilquin, G., & Paquot, M. (2007). Spoken features in learner academic writing: Identification, explanation and solution. In M. Davies, P. Rayson, S. Hunston & P. Danielsson (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth Corpus Linguistics Conference CL2007 (pp. 27-30). University of Birmingham.
  • Gopalan, S., & Devi, S. L. (2017). Cause and effect extraction from biomedical corpus. Computación y Sistemas, 21(4), 749-757. https://doi.org/10.13053/cys-21-4-2854
  • Granger, S., & Paquot, M. (2010). Customising a general EAP dictionary to meet learner needs. In S. Granger & M. Paquot (Eds.), Lexicography in the 21st century: New challenges, new applications. Proceedings of ELEX2009 (pp. 87- 96). Presses universitaires de Louvain.
  • Granger, S., & Paquot, M. (2015). Electronic lexicography goes local: Design and structures of a needs-driven online academic writing aid. Lexicographica – International Annual for Lexicography, 31(1), 118-141. https://doi.org/ 10.1515/lexi-2015-0007
  • Groom, N. (2005). Pattern and meaning across genres and disciplines: An exploratory study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(3), 257-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2005.03. 002
  • Gruiţă, M. (1983). On causal connectives in English and Romanian. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 28(1), 53-62.
  • Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman.
  • Hardy, J. A., & Römer, U. (2013). Revealing disciplinary variation in student writing: A multidimensional analysis of the Michigan Corpus of upper-level student papers (MICUSP). Corpora, 8(2), 183-207. https://doi.org/10.3366/cor. 2013.0040
  • Holmes, R. (1997). Genre analysis, and the social sciences: An investigation of the structure of research article discussion sections in three disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4),321-337. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(96) 00038-5
  • Hunston, S., & Francis, G. (2000). Pattern Grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.4
  • Hyland, K. (1999). Disciplinary discourses: writer stance in research articles. In C. N. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: texts, processes and practices. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/ 9781315840390
  • Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20(3), 207-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00012-0
  • Hyland, K. (2002). Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 215-239. https://doi.org/10. 1093/applin/23.2.215
  • Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplines and discourses: Social interaction in the construction of knowledge. In A. Arbor (Ed.), Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing (pp. 193-214). University of Michigan Press.
  • Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1461445605050365
  • Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27(1), 4-21. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.esp.2007.06.001
  • Hyland, K., & Jiang, J. J. (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
  • Johns, T. F. (1991). Should you be persuaded: Two samples of data-driven learning materials. English Language Research Journal, 4, 1-16.
  • Johns, T. F. (1997). Contexts: The background, development and trialling of a concordance-based CALL program. In A. Wichmann, S. Fligelstone, T. McEnery, & G. Knowles (Eds.), Teaching and language corpora (pp. 100-115). Longman. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315842677
  • Jordan, R. R. (1999). Academic writing course: Study skills in English. Pearson Education.
  • Kac, M. B. (1972). Clauses of saying and the interpretation of because. Language, 48, 626-632.
  • Krogsrud, B. (1980). Factors motivating the position of finite adverbial clauses introduced by as, because, since. MA thesis, Oslo University.
  • Li, F. (2014). Subjectivity in Mandarin Chinese: the meaning and use of causal connectives in written discourse. PhD dissertation. Utrecht University.
  • Li, F., Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T. J. M. (2013). Subjectivity and result marking in Mandarin. Chinese Language and Discourse, 4(1), 74-119. https://doi.org/10.1075/cld.4.1.03li
  • Linderholm, T., Everson, M. G., Van Den Broek, P., Mischinski, M., Crittenden, A., & Samuels, J. (2000). Effects of causal text revisions on moreand less-skilled readers’ comprehension of easy and difficult texts. Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 525-556. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI 1804_4
  • Louvain EAP Dictionary (LEAD). https://leaddico. uclouvain.be/
  • Ma, H., & Qian, M. (2020). The creation and evaluation of a grammar pattern list for the most frequent academic verbs. English for Specific Purposes, 58, 155-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.esp.2020.01.002
  • Marshman, E. (2004). The cause-effect relation in a French-language biopharmaceuticals corpus: Some lexical knowledge patterns. The Computational and Computer Assisted Terminology Workshop, LREC 2004 (pp. 40-43). http://lrec.elra.info/proceedings/lrec2004/ws/ws9.p df#page=44
  • Marshman E., & L’Homme M. C. (2006). Disambiguating lexical markers of cause and effect using actantial structures and actant classes. In H. Picht (Ed.), Modern approaches to terminological theories and applications (pp. 261- 285). Peter Lang.
  • McEnery, T., & Wilson, A. (2001). Corpus linguistics (2nd ed.). Edinburgh University Press.
  • Mel’ču, I., Clas, A., & Polguère, A. (1995). Introduction à la lexicologie explicative et combinatoire. AUPELF-UREf & Éditions Duculot. Oxford English Dictionary. https://www.oed.com.
  • Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and modality (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10. 1017/CBO9781139167178
  • Pander Maat, H., & Sanders, T. (2001). Subjectivity in causal connectives: An empirical study of language in use. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(3), 247-274. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl. 2002.003
  • Paquot, M. (2010). Academic vocabulary in learner writing. Continuum.
  • Paquot, M. (2012). The LEAD dictionary-cumwriting aid: An integrated dictionary and corpus tool. In S. Granger, & M. Paquot (Eds.), Electronic lexicography (pp. 163-186). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/978019 9654864.003.0009
  • Rutherford, E. (1970). Some observations concerning subordinate clauses in English. Language, 46, 97-115.
  • Sager, J. C., Dungworth, D., & MacDonald, P. F. (1980). English special languages: Principles and practice in science and technology. Oscar Brandstetter Verlag KG.
  • Sanders, T. J., & Spooren, W. P. (2015). Causality and subjectivity in discourse: The meaning and use of causal connectives in spontaneous conversation, chat interactions and written text. Linguistics, 53(1), 53-92. https://doi.org/10. 1515/ling-2014-0034
  • Storer, N. W. (1967). The hard sciences and the soft: Some sociological observations. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 55(1), 75-84.
  • Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904
  • van Dijk, T. A. (1977). Text and context. Longman.
  • Winkworth, T., Tredgold, T., & Glynn, J. (1858). The Journal of the Society of Arts, 6(310), 697- 706.
  • Winter, E. (1977). A clause-related approach to English texts. Instructional Science, 6, 1-92.
  • Winter, E. (1982). Towards a contextual grammar of English. George Allen & Unwin.
  • Whalley, P. (1981). A partial index of text complexity involving the lexical analysis of rhetorical connectives. ALLC Journal, 2, 55-60.
Fonte de datos: Dialnet