1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
  4. Volume 26, Issue 4
  5. Article
Volume 26, Issue 4
  • ISSN 1384-6655
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9811
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study analyzes attitudinal positioning in academic and media discourse pertaining to COVID-19 from the COVID-19 Corpus and Coronavirus Corpus, using a discourse dynamics approach. Underpinning this approach is the Complex Dynamic Systems Theory (CDST), which we employ to examine the discursive practices of a discourse event across time periods (timescales). The analysis identified significant differences in attitudinal markers and noteworthy developmental patterns in attitude positioning; the developmental trajectories of attitude construction were characterized by a nonlinear developmental pattern subject to fluctuations and variability. We also discerned the existence of dynamic interaction between the uses of attitudinal markers and the reported cases of COVID-19. Methodologically, we demonstrate how the integration of the discourse dynamics approach with corpus linguistics strengthens the social contextualization of data by enabling the identification of developmental patterns of targeted language features over time, and the interconnections of these language features with contextually important social factors.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.21103.don
2021-09-23
2024-09-16

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.21103.don
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aslin, R.
    (1993) Commentary: The strange attractiveness of dynamic systems to development. InL. Smith & E. Thelen (Eds), A Dynamic System Approach to Development: Applications (pp.385–399). MIT press.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bakhtin, M. M.
    (1981) The Dialogic Imagination. University of Texas Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bassano, D., & Van Geert, P.
    (2007) Modeling continuity and discontinuity in utterance length: A quantitative approach to changes, transitions and intra-individual variability in early grammatical development. Developmental Science, 10(5), 588–612. 10.1111/j.1467‑7687.2006.00629.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2006.00629.x [Google Scholar]
  4. Bednarek, M.
    (2008) Emotion Talk Across Corpora. Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230285712
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230285712 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2009) Language patterns and ATTITUDE. Functions of Language, 16(2), 165–192. 10.1075/fol.16.2.01bed
     https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.16.2.01bed [Google Scholar]
  6. Bednarek, M., & Caple, H.
    (2014) Why do news values matter? Towards a new methodological framework for analysing news discourse in Critical Discourse Analysis and beyond. Discourse & Society, 25(2), 135–158. 10.1177/0957926513516041
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926513516041 [Google Scholar]
  7. Biber, D.
    (1998) Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. (2006) Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(2), 97–116. 10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bird, S., Loper, E., & Klein, E.
    (2009) Natural Language Processing with Python. O’Reilly Media.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Cameron, L., Maslen, R., Todd, Z., Maule, J., Stratton, P., & Stanley, L.
    (2009) A discourse dynamic approach to metaphor and metaphor-led discourse analysis. Metaphor and Symbol, 24(2), 63–89. 10.1080/10926480902830821
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480902830821 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cameron, L., & Larsen-Freeman, D.
    (2007) Complex systems and applied linguistics. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(2), 226–239. 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.2007.00148.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2007.00148.x [Google Scholar]
  12. Cohen, S. S.
    (1998) Guide to the Polyamines. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Davies, M.
    (2021) The Coronavirus Corpus: Design, construction, and use. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics. Advance online publication. 10.1075/ijcl.21044.dav
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.21044.dav [Google Scholar]
  14. De Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M.
    (2007) A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism Language and Cognition, 10(1), 7–21. 10.1017/S1366728906002732
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728906002732 [Google Scholar]
  15. Dong, J.
    (2016) A dynamic systems theory approach to development of listening strategy use and listening performance. System, 63, 149–165. 10.1016/j.system.2016.10.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  16. Dong, J., & Buckingham, L.
    (2018) The textual colligation of stance phraseology in cross-disciplinary academic discourse: The timing of authors’ self-projection. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 23(4), 409–437. 10.1075/ijcl.16137.don
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.16137.don [Google Scholar]
  17. (2020) Stance phraseology in academic discourse: Cross-disciplinary variation in authors’ presence. Ibérica, 39, 191–214.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Dong, J., & Jiang, F.
    (2019) Construing evaluation through patterns: Register-specific variations of the introductory it pattern. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 39(1), 32–56. 10.1080/07268602.2019.1542932
     https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2019.1542932 [Google Scholar]
  19. Egbert, J.
    (2016) Stylistic perception. InP. Baker & J. Egbert (Eds.), Triangulating Methodological Approaches in Corpus-linguistic Research (pp.167–182). Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Fogal, G. G.
    (2019) Tracking microgenetic changes in authorial voice development from a complexity theory perspective. Applied Linguistics, 40(3), 432–455. 10.1093/applin/amx031
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx031 [Google Scholar]
  21. Geng, Y., & Wharton, S.
    (2016) Attitudinal language in discussion sections of doctoral theses: Similarities and differences between L1 Chinese and L1 English writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 22, 80–91. 10.1016/j.jeap.2016.01.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  22. Halliday, M.A.K, & Hasan, R.
    (1976) Cohesion in English. Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R.
    (1989) Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Hood, S.
    (2006) The persuasive power of prosodies: Radiating values in academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 37–49. 10.1016/j.jeap.2005.11.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2005.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hunston, S.
    (2010) Corpus Approaches to Evaluation: Phraseology and Evaluative Language. Routledge. 10.4324/9780203841686
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203841686 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2013) Systemic functional linguistics, corpus linguistics, and the ideology of science. Text and Talk, 33(4–5), 617–640. 10.1515/text‑2013‑0028
     https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2013-0028 [Google Scholar]
  27. Hunston, S., & Thompson, G.
    (Eds.) (2000) Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Hyland, K.
    (2004) Disciplinary Discourses Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. (2005) Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192. 10.1177/1461445605050365
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hyland, K., & Tse, P.
    (2005) Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), 123–139. 10.1016/j.esp.2004.02.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2004.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  31. Hyland, K.
    (2010) Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 116–127. 10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  32. Jacoby, W. G.
    (2000) Loess: A nonparametric, graphical tool for depicting relationships between variables. Electoral Studies, 19(4), 577–613. 10.1016/S0261‑3794(99)00028‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-3794(99)00028-1 [Google Scholar]
  33. Larsen-Freeman, D.
    (1997) Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18, 141–165. 10.1093/applin/18.2.141
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/18.2.141 [Google Scholar]
  34. (2009) Adjusting expectations: The study of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 579–589. 10.1093/applin/amp043
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp043 [Google Scholar]
  35. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L.
    (2008) Research methodology on language development from a complex systems perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 200–213. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2008.00714.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00714.x [Google Scholar]
  36. Lemke, J. L.
    (1993) Discourse, dynamics, and social change. Cultural Dynamics, 6(1–2), 243–275. 10.1177/092137409300600107
     https://doi.org/10.1177/092137409300600107 [Google Scholar]
  37. Loi, C. K., Lim, J. M. H., & Wharton, S.
    (2016) Expressing an attitudinal stance in English and Malay research article conclusions: International publications versus local publications. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 21, 1–16. 10.1016/j.jeap.2015.08.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.08.004 [Google Scholar]
  38. Martin, J.
    (2000) Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. InS. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (pp.142–175). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Martin, J. R., & White, P. R.
    (2005) The Language of Evaluation: The Appraisal Framework. Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230511910
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910 [Google Scholar]
  40. Maat, H. P.
    (2007) How promotional language in press releases is dealt with by journalists: Genre mixing or genre conflict?The Journal of Business Communication (1973), 44(1), 59–95. 10.1177/0021943606295780
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943606295780 [Google Scholar]
  41. Peltier, J.
    (2009) LOESS utility--awesome update. Peltier Tech. peltiertech.com/loess-utility-awesome-update/
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Roberts, C., & Sarangi, S.
    (1999) Hybridity in gatekeeping discourse: Issues of practical relevance for the researcher. InS. Sarangi & C. Roberts (Eds.), Talk, Work and Institutional Order: Discourse in Medical, Mediation and Management Settings (pp.473–503). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110208375.4.473
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110208375.4.473 [Google Scholar]
  43. Siegler, R. S.
    (2006) Microgenetic analyses of learning. InD. Kuhn, R. S. Siegler, W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology (6th ed., vol.2, pp.464–510). John Wiley & Sons.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Semantic Scholar
    Semantic Scholar (2019) CORD-19, COVID-19 open research dataset. https://www.semanticscholar.org/cord19
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Sun, X., Kaur, J., Milojević, S., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F.
    (2013) Social dynamics of science. Scientific Reports, 3(1), 1–6. 10.1038/srep01069
     https://doi.org/10.1038/srep01069 [Google Scholar]
  46. Thompson, J. N.
    (2014) Interaction and Coevolution. University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Tucker, P.
    (2003) Evaluation in the art-historical research article. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(4), 291–312. 10.1016/S1475‑1585(03)00047‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00047-X [Google Scholar]
  48. Van Dijk, M., & Van Geert, P.
    (2007) Wobbles, humps and sudden jumps: A case study of continuity, discontinuity and variability in early language development. Infant and Child Development, 16(1), 7–33. 10.1002/icd.506
     https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.506 [Google Scholar]
  49. Verspoor, M., Lowie, W., & Van Dijk, M.
    (2008) Variability in second language development from a dynamic systems perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 214–231. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2008.00715.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00715.x [Google Scholar]
  50. Wang, L. L., Lo, K., Chandrasekhar, Y., Reas, R., Yang, J., Eide, D., Funk, K., Kinney, R., Liu, Z., Merrill, W., Mooney, P., Murdick, D., Rishi, D., Sheehan, J., Shen, Z., Stilson, B., Wade, A. D., Wang, K., Wilhelm, C., … Kohlmeier, S.
    (2020) CORD-19: The COVID-19 Open Research Dataset. ArXiv. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7251955/
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Wang, W.
    (2008) Intertextual aspects of Chinese newspaper commentaries on the events of 9/11. Discourse Studies, 10(3), 361–381. 10.1177/1461445608089916
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445608089916 [Google Scholar]
  52. WHO
    WHO (2020) WHO Coronavirus Dashboard (COVID-19). https://covid19.who.int/
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.21103.don
Loading
A discourse dynamics exploration of attitudinal responses towards COVID-19 in academia and media
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 26, 532 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.21103.don
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.21103.don
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.21103.don
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): attitudinal markers; corpus linguistics; developmental patterns; discourse dynamics; registers

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error