1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes
  4. Volume 1, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 1, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2590-0994
  • E-ISSN: 2590-1001
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In contemporary academia, multilingual scholars using English as an additional language (EAL) are actively engaged in knowledge construction producing more research texts in English than native speakers (Hyland, 2016). Having a more general purpose to gain insights into the factors that influence multilingual scholars’ research writing practices in English, this case study seeks to explore how EAL users perceive disciplinary norms of epistemic stance expression in political science. It is based on interviews with 5 Russian political scientists and on the analysis of their research texts. The findings suggest that the participants do not seem to have a shared understanding of disciplinary norms regarding epistemic stance expression; however, their narratives highlight the importance of the methodological paradigm the texts belong to for their writing practices. The study is a contribution to the discussion of the role of the discipline in EAL scholars’ research writing practices and linguistic and rhetorical variability of research texts within one discipline. The results of this study have pedagogical implications for ERPP course designers and practitioners.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jerpp.20004.shc
2020-11-30
2025-04-29

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/jerpp.20004.shc
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Becher, T.
    (1989) Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual inquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Open University Press/SRHE.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Becher, T. , & Trowler, P.
    (2001) Academic tribes and territories. Open University Press/SRHE.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Belcher, D. , & Hirvela, A.
    (2005) Writing the qualitative dissertation: what motivates and sustains commitment to a fuzzy genre?Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 187–205. 10.1016/j.jeap.2004.07.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2004.07.010 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bernstein, B.
    (1999) Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(2), 157–173. 10.1080/01425699995380
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01425699995380 [Google Scholar]
  5. Biber, D. , Johansson, S. , Leech, G. , Conrad, S. , & Finegan, E.
    (1999) The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Blakeslee, A. , & Fleischer, C.
    (2019) Becoming a writing researcher. (2nd ed.). Routledge. 10.4324/9781351121224
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351121224 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bondi, M. , & Lorés-Sanz, R.
    (Eds.) (2014) Abstracts in academic discourse. Variation and change. Peter Lang. 10.3726/978‑3‑0351‑0701‑2
     https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0351-0701-2 [Google Scholar]
  8. Brinkman, S.
    (2013) Qualitative interviewing. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199861392.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199861392.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  9. Cao, F. , & Hu, G.
    (2014) Interactive metadiscourse in research articles: A comparative study of paradigmatic and disciplinary influences. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 15–31. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.007 [Google Scholar]
  10. Coates, J.
    (1987) Epistemic modality and spoken discourse. Transactions of the Philological Society, 85(1), 110–131. 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.1987.tb00714.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.1987.tb00714.x [Google Scholar]
  11. Connor, U.
    (2011) Intercultural rhetoric in the writing classroom. University of Michigan Press. 10.3998/mpub.3488851
     https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.3488851 [Google Scholar]
  12. Creswell, J. W.
    (2012) Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Curry, M. J. , Lillis, T.
    (2019) Unpacking the lore on multilingual scholars publishing in English: A discussion paper. Publications, 7(2), 27. 10.3390/publications7020027
     https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7020027 [Google Scholar]
  14. Fløttum, K.
    (2012) Variation of stance and voice across cultures. In K. Hyland (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp.218–231). Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137030825_14
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137030825_14 [Google Scholar]
  15. Fløttum, K. , Dahl, T. , & Kinn, T.
    (2006) Academic voices. John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.148
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.148 [Google Scholar]
  16. Flowerdew, J. , & Costley, T.
    (Eds.) (2017) Discipline-specific writing: Theory into practice. Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Garton, S. , & Copland, F.
    (2010) ‘I like this interview; I get cakes and cats!’: The effect of prior relationships on interview talk. Qualitative Research, 10(5), 533–551. 10.1177/1468794110375231
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794110375231 [Google Scholar]
  18. Giddens, A.
    (1984) The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Polity.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Gnutzmann, C. , & Rabe, F.
    (2014) “Theoretical subtleties” or “text modules”? German researchers’ language demands and attitudes across disciplinary cultures. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 13, 31–40. 10.1016/j.jeap.2013.10.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2013.10.003 [Google Scholar]
  20. Gray, B.
    (2015) Linguistic variation in research articles: When discipline tells only part of the story. John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.71
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.71 [Google Scholar]
  21. Habibie, P. , & Hyland, K.
    (Eds.) (2019) Novice writers and scholarly publication: Authors, mentors, gatekeepers. Palgrave Macmillam. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑95333‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95333-5 [Google Scholar]
  22. Harwood, N.
    (2009) An interview-based study of the functions of citations in academic writing across two disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(3), 497–518. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.06.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.06.001 [Google Scholar]
  23. Harwood, N. , & Petrić, B.
    (2012) Performance in the citing behavior of two student writers. Written Communication, 29(1), 55–103. 10.1177/0741088311424133
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088311424133 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hu, G. , & Cao, F.
    (2011) Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistic articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2795–2809. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2015) Disciplinary and paradigmatic influences on interactional metadiscourse in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 39, 12–25. 10.1016/j.esp.2015.03.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2015.03.002 [Google Scholar]
  26. Hyland, K.
    (1998) Hedging in scientific research articles. John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.54
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.54 [Google Scholar]
  27. (2000) Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. (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]
  29. (2016) Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 58–69. 10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.005 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hyland, K. , & Jiang, F.
    (2016) Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance. Written Communication, 33(3), 251–274. 10.1177/0741088316650399
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088316650399 [Google Scholar]
  31. Hynninen, N. , & Kuteeva, M.
    (2017) “Good” and “acceptable” English in L2 research writing: Ideals and realities in history and computer science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 30, 53–65. 10.1016/j.jeap.2017.10.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.10.009 [Google Scholar]
  32. Jenkins, J. , & Mauranen, A.
    (Eds.) (2019) Linguistic diversity. Insider accounts of the use of English and other languages in universities within Asia, Australasia, and Europe. Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Kaplan, R.
    (1966) Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1–20. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1966.tb00804.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1966.tb00804.x [Google Scholar]
  34. Kaufhold, K. , & McGrath, L.
    (2019) Revisiting the role of ‘discipline’ in writing for publication in two social sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 40, 115–128. 10.1016/j.jeap.2019.06.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.06.006 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kvale, S. , & Brinkmann, S.
    (2009) InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.). Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Lakić, I. , Vuković, M. , & Živković, B.
    (2015) Academic discourse across cultures. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Lancaster, Z.
    (2016) Using corpus results to guide the discourse-based interview: A study of one student’s awareness of stance in academic writing in philosophy. Journal of Writing Research, 8(1), 119–148. 10.17239/jowr‑2016.08.01.04
     https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2016.08.01.04 [Google Scholar]
  38. Lave, J. , & Wenger, E.
    (1991) Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511815355
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355 [Google Scholar]
  39. Le, T. N. P. , & Harrington, M.
    (2015) Phraseology used to comment on results in the Discussion section of applied linguistics quantitative research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 39, 45–61. 10.1016/j.esp.2015.03.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2015.03.003 [Google Scholar]
  40. Lorés-Sanz, R.
    (2016) ELF in the making? simplification and hybridity in abstract writing. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca5(1), 53–81. 10.1515/jelf‑2016‑0003
     https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2016-0003 [Google Scholar]
  41. Lyons, J.
    (1977) Semantics. Vol.2. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. MacDonald, S.
    (1994) Professional academic writing in the humanities and social sciences. Southern Illinois University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Manathunga, C. , & Brew, A.
    (2014) Beyond tribes and territories: New metaphors for new times. In P. Trowler , S. Murray , & V. Bamber (Eds.), Tribes and territories in the 21st-century: Rethinking the significance of disciplines in higher education (pp.44–56). Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Martín-Martín, P.
    (2008) The mitigation of scientific claims in research papers: A comparative study. International Journal of English Studies, 8(2), 133–152.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Mur-Dueñas, P. , & Ŝinkūi̇enė, J.
    (Eds.) (2018) Intercultural perspectives on research writing. John Benjamins. 10.1075/aals.18
     https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.18 [Google Scholar]
  46. Odell, L. , Goswami, D. , & Herrington, A.
    (1983) The discourse-based interview: A procedure for exploring the tacit knowledge of writers in nonacademic settings. In P. Mosenthal , L. Tamor , & S. A. Walmsley (Eds.), Research on writing (pp.221–236). Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Olinger, A. R.
    (2014) On the instability of disciplinary style: Common and conflicting metaphors and practices in text, talk, and gesture. Research in the teaching of English, 48(4), 453–478.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Palmer, F. R.
    (1986) Mood and modality. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Petrić, B. , & Harwood, N.
    (2013) Task requirements, task representation, and self-reported citation functions: An exploratory study of a successful L2 student’s writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12, 110–124. 10.1016/j.jeap.2013.01.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2013.01.002 [Google Scholar]
  50. Shchemeleva, I.
    (2019) “It seems plausible to maintain that…”: Clusters of epistemic stance expressions in written academic ELF texts. ESP Today, 7(1), 24–43. 10.18485/esptoday.2019.7.1.2
     https://doi.org/10.18485/esptoday.2019.7.1.2 [Google Scholar]
  51. Silver, M.
    (2012) Voice and stance across disciplines in academic discourse. In K. Hyland , & C. S. Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp.202–217). Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137030825_13
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137030825_13 [Google Scholar]
  52. Tribble, C.
    (2017) ELFA vs. Genre: A new paradigm war in EAP writing instruction?Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 25, 30–44. 10.1016/j.jeap.2016.10.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.10.003 [Google Scholar]
  53. Trowler, P.
    (2014a) Depicting and researching disciplines: Strong and moderate essentialist approaches. Studies in Higher Education, 39, 1720–1731. 10.1080/03075079.2013.801431
     https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.801431 [Google Scholar]
  54. (2014b) Disciplines and interdisciplinarity: Conceptual groundwork. In P. Trowler , M. Saunders , & V. Bamber (Eds.), Tribes and territories in the 21st century: Rethinking the significance of disciplines in higher education (pp.5–29). London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Tusting, K. , McCulloch, S. , Bhatt, I. , Hamilton, M. , & Barton, D.
    (2019) Academic writing: The dynamics of knowledge creation. Routledge. 10.4324/9780429197994
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429197994 [Google Scholar]
  56. Vassileva, I.
    (2001) Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20(1), 83–102. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(99)00029‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00029-0 [Google Scholar]
  57. Vold, E. T.
    (2006b) Epistemic modality markers in research articles: A cross-linguistic and crossdisciplinary study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 61–87. 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.2006.00106.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2006.00106.x [Google Scholar]
  58. Wang, J. , & Jiang, F.
    (2018) Epistemic stance and authorial presence in scientific research writing: Hedges, boosters and self-mentions across disciplines and writer groups. In P. Mur-Dueñas , & J. Ŝinkūi̇enė (Eds.), Intercultural perspectives on research writing (pp.195–216). John Benjamins. 10.1075/aals.18.09wan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.18.09wan [Google Scholar]
  59. Wilder, L.
    (2012) Rhetorical strategies and genre conventions in literary studies: Teaching and writing in the disciplines. Southern Illinois University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Wu, X. , Mauranen, A. , & Lei, L.
    (2020) Syntactic complexity in English as a lingua franca academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 43, 1–13. 10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100798
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100798 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jerpp.20004.shc
Loading
Discipline and methodological paradigm
Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes 1, 92 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1075/jerpp.20004.shc
/content/journals/10.1075/jerpp.20004.shc
/content/journals/10.1075/jerpp.20004.shc
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): disciplinary norms; EAL; epistemic stance; methodological paradigm; multilingual scholars; research writing; дисциплинарные нормы; методологическая парадигма; научное письмо на английском языке; эпистемическая позиция

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