1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Languages in Contrast
  4. Volume 18, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 18, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1387-6759
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9897
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Academic spoken discourse has been a dominant issue for discourse studies researchers for the last 25 years or so. Different spoken academic genres have been analysed ( Swales, 1990 , 2004 ; Berkenkotter and Huckin, 1995 ; Bhatia, 2001 , 2002 ; Mauranen, 2001 ; Juzwik, 2004 ; Crawford-Camiciottoli, 2004 , 2007 ; among others) thanks to the compilation and the easy access to electronic spoken corpora. This study focuses on the genre of lecture as “the central ritual of the culture of learning” ( Benson, 1994 ) in higher education. Here, I analyse the use of evaluative language in medical discourse lectures. A contrastive study between Spanish and English medical lectures is carried out. To my knowledge, little attention has been paid to the analysis of evaluative language in medical discourse. The present study employs a quantitative and a qualitative approach to analyse four Spanish and English medical discourse lectures with an average of 35,000 words. The English lectures have been taken from the Michigan Corpus of Academic and Spoken English (MICASE) and the Spanish lectures have been recorded and transcribed in the Degree in Medicine course at a Spanish university for the purpose of this study. Corpus analysis tools have been used to analyse attitudinal language expressing explicit evaluation. The findings show similarities and also differences in the use of evaluative markers in academic medical discourse.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lic.15018.bel
2017-11-28
2022-08-15

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/lic.15018.bel
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alba-Juez, L. and Thompson, G.
    2014 The many Faces and Phases of Evaluation. InEvaluation in Context, G. Thompson and L. Alba-Juez (eds), 3–24. Pragmatics and Beyond New Series. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.242.01alb
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.242.01alb [Google Scholar]
  2. Alba-Juez, L.
    2015 La Pragmática Contrastiva y su Importancia para la Enseñanza de Lenguas Extranjeras. Proceedings of the XXV ASELE International Conference: La Enseñanza de ELE Centrada en el Alumno. Madrid, 17–20September 2014 Asociación para la Enseñanza del Español como Lengua Extranjera. 15–24.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Anthony, L.
    2014 AntConc (Version 3.4.3) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available atwww.laurenceanthony.net/ [last accessedOctober 2014]
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bellés-Fortuño, B.
    2004 The Influence of Lecturing Styles in the Use of Discourse Markers within the Spoken Academic Discourse of Social Sciences. InApproaches to Critical Discourse Analysis, M. Labarta (ed), 1–21. Valencia: Publicaciones Universidad de Valencia
     [Google Scholar]
  5. 2008 A Spoken Academic Discourse Contrastive Study: DMs in North-American and Spanish lectures. RESLA 21. AESLA Research Award 2008.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bellés-Fortuño, B. and Querol-Julián, M.
    2010 Evaluation in Research Article Abstracts: a Cross-cultural Study between Spanish and English Medical Discourse. InConstructing Interpersonality: Multiple Perspectives and Applications to Written Academic Discourse, R. Lorés-Sanz , P. Mur-Dueñas and E. Lafuente-Millán (eds), 83–98. Cambridge. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bellés-Fortuño, B.
    2016a Academic Discourse Markers: a Contrastive Analysis of the Discourse Marker then in English and Spanish Lectures. Verbeia1:57–78.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 2016b Popular Science Articles vs. Scientific Articles: a Tool for Medical Education. InMedical Discourse in Professional, Academic and Popular Settings, P. Ordoñez-Lopez and N. Edo-Marza (eds), 55–75. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781783096268‑005
     https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783096268-005 [Google Scholar]
  9. Barton, E. L.
    1993 Evidentials, Argumentation, and Epistemological Stance. College English55(7):745–769. doi: 10.2307/378428
     https://doi.org/10.2307/378428 [Google Scholar]
  10. Benson, M. J.
    1994 Lecture Listening in an Ethnographic Perspective. InAcademic Listening: Research Perspectives, J. Flowerdew (ed), 181–198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Berkenkotter, C. and Huckin, T. N.
    1995 Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication. Cognition/Culture/Power. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Bhatia, V.
    2001 Analysing Genre: some Conceptual Issues. InAcademic Writing in Context: Implications and Applications, M. Hewings (ed), 79–92. Birmingham: The University of Birmingham Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. 2002 A Generic View of Academic Discourse. InAcademic Discourse, J. Flowerdew (ed), 21–39. London: Pearson Education Limited.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Biber, D.
    2006 Stance in Spoken and Written University Registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes5(2): 97–116. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  15. Crawford-Camiciottoli, B.
    2004 Audience-oriented Relevance Markers in Business Studies Lectures. InAcademic discourse – New insights into evaluation, G. del Lungo Camiciotti and E. Tognini Bonelli (eds), 81–97. Bern: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. 2007 The Language of Business Studies Lectures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.157
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.157 [Google Scholar]
  17. DeCarrico, J. and Nattinger, J. R.
    1988 Lexical Phrases for the Comprehension of Academic Lectures. English for Specific Purposes7(2): 91–102. doi: 10.1016/0889‑4906(88)90027‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(88)90027-0 [Google Scholar]
  18. Deroey, K. L. B. and Taverniers, M.
    2011 A Corpus Cased Study of Lecture Functions. Moderna Språk105(2):1–22.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. 2012 Just Remember this: Lexicogrammatical Relevance Markers in Lectures. English for Specific Purposes31:221–233. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2012.05.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2012.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  20. Fraser, B. and Malamud-Makowski, M.
    1996 English and Spanish Contrastive Discourse Markers. Language Sciences18(3–4):863–881. doi: 10.1016/S0388‑0001(96)00052‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(96)00052-6 [Google Scholar]
  21. Fraser, B.
    1999 What are Discourse Markers?Journal of Pragmatics31:931–952. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00101‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00101-5 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2004 An Account of Discourse Markers. InCurrent Trends in Intercultural, Cognitive and Social Pragmatics, P. Garcés , R. Gómez , L. Fernández and M. Padilla (eds), 13–34. Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Freddi, M.
    2005 From Corpus to Register: the Construction of Evaluation and Argumentation in Linguistics Textbooks. InStrategies in Academic Discourse, E. Tognini Bonilli and G. del Lungo Camiciotti (eds), 133–154. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/scl.19.10fre
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.19.10fre [Google Scholar]
  24. Halliday, M. A. K.
    1994 An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Hunston, S.
    1994 Evaluation and Organisation in a Sample of Written Academic Discourse. InAdvances in Written Text Analysis, M. Coulthard (ed.), 191–218. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. 2000 Evaluation in the Planes of Discourse: Status and Value in Persuasive Texts. InEvaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, S. Hunston and G. Thompson (eds), 177–207. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Hunston, S. and Sinclair, J.
    2000 A Local Grammar of Evaluation. InEvaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, S. Hunston and G. Thompson (eds), 74‒101. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Hyland, K.
    1998 Persuasion and Context: The Pragmatics of Academic Discourse. Journal of Pragmatics30:437–455. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00009‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5 [Google Scholar]
  29. 1999 Disciplinary Discourses: Writer Stance in Research Articles. InWriting: Texts, Processes and Practices, C. N. Candlin and K. Hyland (eds), 99–121. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. 2000 Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. 2001 Bringing the Reader: Addressee Features in Academic Articles. Writing Communication18(4):549–574. doi: 10.1177/0741088301018004005
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088301018004005 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2004 Engagements and Disciplinarity: the Other Side of Evaluation. InAcademic Discourse – New Insights into Evaluation, G. del Lungo Camiciotti and E. Tognini Bonelli (eds), 13–30. Bern: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 2010 Constructing Proximity: Relating to Readers in Popular and Professional Science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes9:116–127. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  34. Juzwik, M. M.
    2004 The Dialogization of Genres in Teaching Narrative: Theorizing Hybrid Genres in Classroom Discourse. Across the Disciplines1. Available atwac.colostate.edu/atd/articles/juzwik2004.cfm [last accessed15 August 2016]
     [Google Scholar]
  35. König, E. and Gast, V.
    2009 Understanding English-German Contrasts. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Llorente, M. T.
    1996 Organizadores de la Conversación. Operadores Discursivos en Español. Salamanca: Publicaciones Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Mauranen, A.
    2001 Reflexive Academic Talk: Observations from MICASE. InCorpus Linguistics in North America (Selections from the 1999 Symposium), R. C. Simpson and J. M. Swales (eds), 165–178. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. 2002 A Good Question: Expressing Evaluation in Academic Speech. InDomain-specific English: Textual Practices across Communication and Classrooms, G. Cortese and P. Riley (eds), 115–140. Bern: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. 2003 “But there’s a flawed argument”. Socialisation into and through Metadiscourse. InCorpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use, C. F. Meyer and P. Leistyna (eds), 19–34. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Oakey, D.
    2005 Academic Vocabulary in Academic Discourse. The Phraseological Behaviour of EVALUATION in Economics Research Articles. InStrategies in Academic Discourse, E. Tognini Bonelli and G. del Lungo Camiciotti (eds), 169–83. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/scl.19.13oak
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.19.13oak [Google Scholar]
  41. Okamura, A.
    2005 Pragmatic Force in Biology Papers Written by English and Japanese Scientists. InStrategies in Academic Discourse, E. Tognini Bonelli and G. del Lungo Camiciotti (eds), 69–82. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/scl.19.06oka
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.19.06oka [Google Scholar]
  42. Poppi, F.
    2004 Boosters and Hedges: two Sides of the Same Coin? A Case Study of a Small Corpus of Economics Textbooks. InEvaluation in Oral and Written Academic Discourse, L. Anderson and J. Bamford (eds), 137–150. Rome: Office Edizioni.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Portolés, J.
    1998 Marcadores del Discurso. Barcelona: Ariel Practicum.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Römer, U.
    2005 “This seems somewhat counterintuitive, though…”: Negative Evaluation in Linguistic Book Review by Male and Female Authors. In E. Tognini Bonelli and G. del Lungo Camiciotti (eds), Strategies in Academic Discourse, 97–116. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/scl.19.08rom
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.19.08rom [Google Scholar]
  45. 2008 Identification Impossible? A Corpus Approach to Realisations of Evaluative Meaning in Academic Writing. Functions of Language15(1):115–130. doi: 10.1075/fol.15.1.07rom
     https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.15.1.07rom [Google Scholar]
  46. Schiffrin, D.
    1987 Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  47. Shaw, P.
    2004 How to Recognize Implicit Evaluation in Academic Book Reviews?InAcademic Discourse: New Insights into Evaluation, G. del Lungo Camicciotti and E. Tognini Bonelli (eds), 121–139. Bern: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Siepmann, D.
    2005 Discourse Markers across Languages. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Simpson, R. C. ; Briggs, S. L. ; Ovens, J. and Swales, J. M.
    2002 The Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English. Ann Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Stotesbury, H.
    2003 Evaluation in Research Article Abstracts in the Narrative and Hard Sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes2:327–341. doi: 10.1016/S1475‑1585(03)00049‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00049-3 [Google Scholar]
  51. Swales, J. M.
    1990 Genre Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. 2001 Metatalk in American Academic Talk. Journal of English Linguistics, 29(1):34–53. doi: 10.1177/00754240122005189
     https://doi.org/10.1177/00754240122005189 [Google Scholar]
  53. Swales, J. M. and Malczewski, B.
    2001 Discourse Management and New-episode Flags in MICASE. InCorpus Linguistics in North America (Selections from the 1999 Symposium), R. C. Simpson and J. M. Swales (eds.), 145–164. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press,
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Swales, J. M. and Burke, A.
    2003 “It’s really fascinating work”: Differences in Evaluative Adjectives across Registers. InCorpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use, C. F. Meyer and P. Leistyna (eds), 1–18. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Swales, J. M.
    2004 Evaluation in Academic Speech. First Forays. InAcademic Discourse: New Insights into Evaluation, G. del Lungo Camiciotti and Tognini Bonelli (eds), 31–50. Bern: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Taboada, M. ; Doval, S. and González, E.
    2013 Contrastive Discourse Analysis: Functional and Corpus Perspectives. Sheffield: Equinox.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Thetela, P.
    1997 Evaluated Entities and Parameters of Value in Academic Research Articles. English for Specific Purposes16(2). 101–118. doi: 10.1016/S0889‑4906(96)00022‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(96)00022-1 [Google Scholar]
  58. Thompson, G. and Hunston, S.
    2000 Evaluation: an Introduction. InEvaluation in text: authorial stance and the construction of discourse, S. Hunston and G. Thompson (eds), 1–27. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Thompson, G. and Alba-Juez, L.
    2014 Evaluation in Context. Pragmatics and Beyond New Series. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.242
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.242 [Google Scholar]
  60. Webber, P.
    2004 Negotiation in Linguistic Papers. InAcademic discourse – New insights into evaluation, G. del Lungo Camiciotti and E. Tognini Bonelli (eds), 181–202. Bern: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lic.15018.bel
Loading
Evaluative language in medical discourse
Languages in Contrast 18, 155 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.15018.bel
/content/journals/10.1075/lic.15018.bel
/content/journals/10.1075/lic.15018.bel
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): audience-oriented relevance markers; English / Spanish; evaluative language; medical discourse; spoken academic English

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