Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 Research Articles: A Contrastive Analysis of Code Glosses in English and Korean
1
조회
0
다운로드
7
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The current study presents a contrastive analysis of metadiscourse, particularly code gloss markers, in Korean and L2 English research articles produced by native Korean speakers as well as in English research articles written by native English speakers. The purpose of the study is to explore metadiscourse in inter- and intra-language communities. The study is thus designed to be a doubly contrastive approach - a cross-cultural and inter-cultural study. The analysis of the markers shows three general facts: 1) There are some differences in the degree of fixation and form and frequency of the code gloss markers between the languages; 2) There are cross-linguistic similarities in the structure of the markers, such as the preference of simple fixed and grammaticalized markers which are syntactically detached, separating from the rest of the sentence by comma; 3) In terms of the form and frequency of the markers, L2 English prose is more alike to English than to Korean, but with reformulation markers in particular, L2 English texts include simpler and more grammaticalized markers than L1 English texts.
Abstract
The current study presents a contrastive analysis of metadiscourse, particularly code gloss markers, in Korean and L2 English research articles produced by native Korean speakers as well as in English research articles written by native English speakers. The purpose of the study is to explore metadiscourse in inter- and intra-language communities. The study is thus designed to be a doubly contrastive approach - a cross-cultural and inter-cultural study. The analysis of the markers shows three general facts: 1) There are some differences in the degree of fixation and form and frequency of the code gloss markers between the languages; 2) There are cross-linguistic similarities in the structure of the markers, such as the preference of simple fixed and grammaticalized markers which are syntactically detached, separating from the rest of the sentence by comma; 3) In terms of the form and frequency of the markers, L2 English prose is more alike to English than to Korean, but with reformulation markers in particular, L2 English texts include simpler and more grammaticalized markers than L1 English texts.
참고문헌 (25)
- gmftel, A., "Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English" (2006), John Benjamins
- Clyne, M., "Cultural differences in the organization of academic texts", Journal of Pragmatics, 11, pp.211~247 (1987)
- Connor, U., "Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing" (1996), Cambridge University Press
- Connor, U., "New directions in contrastive rhetoric", TESOL Quarterly, 36, pp.493~510 (2002)
- Crismore, A., "Metadiscourse in persuasive writing. Written Communication", Written Communication, 19(1), pp.39~71 (1993)
- Cuenca, M.-J., "Two ways to reformulate: A contrastive analysis of reformulation markers", Journal of Pragmatics, 35, pp.1069~1093 (2003)
- Dahl, T., "Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline", Journal of Pragmatics, 36, pp.1807~1825 (2004)
- Duncan, B., "Reader- and writer-responsible and the in-between: A cross-cultural comparison of East Asian and English writing", Proceedings of the 11th Annual KOTESOL International Conference, pp.157~167 (2003)
- Eggington, W. G., "Written academic discourse in Korean: Implications for effective communication. In Linguistics at work: A reader of applications", pp.485~500 (1998), Harcourt Brace College
- Fakhri, A., "Rhetorical properties of Arabic research article introductions", Journal of Pragmatics, 36, pp.1119~1138 (2004)
- Halliday, M. A. K., "Explorations in the functions of language" (1973), Edward Arnold
- Hinds, J., "Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In Writing across languages: Analyses of L2 text", pp.141~152 (1987), Addison Wesley
- Hinds, J., "Inductive, deductive, quasi-inductive: Expository writing in Japanese, Korean, Chinese, and Thai. In Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives" (1990), Alexandria, VA: TESOL
- Hyland, K., "Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse", Journal of Pragmatics, 30, pp.437~455 (1998)
- Hyland, K., "Applying a gloss: Exemplifying and reformulating in academic discourse", Applied Linguistics, 28(2), pp.266~285 (2007)
- Hyland, K., "Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal", Applied Linguistics, 25, pp.156~177 (2004)
- Ifantidou, E., "The semantics and pragmatics of metadiscourse", Journal of Pragmatics, 37, pp.1325~1353 (2005)
- Le, E., "Active participation within written argument: Metadiscourse and editorianlist’s authority", Journal of Pragmatics, 36(4), pp.687~714 (2004)
- Mauranen, A., "Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economic texts", English for Specific Purposes, 12, pp.3~12 (1994)
- Milne, E. D., "Metadiscourse revisited: A contrastive study of persuasive writing in professional discourse", Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 2, pp.29~52 (2003)
- Oaks, D. D., "Linguistics at work: A reader of applications" (1998), Harcourt Brace College
- Ostler, S.E., "English in parallels: A comparison of English and Arabic prose. In Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text", pp.169~185 (1987), Addison-Wesley
- Ryoo, M.-L., "Metadiscourse in computer-mediated communication in a culturally diverse group", Discourse and Cognition, 12(1), pp.21~41 (2005)
- Vande Kopple, W. J., "Some explanatory discourse on metadiscourse", College Composition and Communication, 36, pp.82~93 (1985)
- Williams, J. M., "Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace" (1981), Scott, Foresman