TY - JOUR
T1 - Read between the lines
T2 - Evaluative patterns and paces in engineering research article introductions
AU - Du, Jianying
AU - Yuan, Hao
AU - Li, Qiong
N1 - Funding Information:
This article results from the preliminary research supported by the National Social Science Funding Project ( 17BYY109 ).
PY - 2023/3/3
Y1 - 2023/3/3
N2 - Within the appraisal system and the metadiscourse model, we examine engineering writers' evaluative behavior imprinted in research article introductions. Using a combination of in-house script and manual annotation, we explore lexical frequencies, semantic prosodies, and rhetoric constructs in the introductory sections of 100 most cited research articles spreading evenly across ten engineering sub-disciplines. The findings show that engineering research writers tend to provide factual rather than factional evaluations. The evaluative patterns and paces, however, vary due to the writers’ step choices in each move. Despite the ubiquitous positivity bias suggested by the number of positive lexis and sentences, our study finds negative evaluations occur and oscillate between the three moves in the introductions, and often present with purposeful choices of technical details. Meanwhile, the use of attitudinal markers with strong negative values indicates that engineering writers express their criticality rather directly with little concessions and even less dramatization.
AB - Within the appraisal system and the metadiscourse model, we examine engineering writers' evaluative behavior imprinted in research article introductions. Using a combination of in-house script and manual annotation, we explore lexical frequencies, semantic prosodies, and rhetoric constructs in the introductory sections of 100 most cited research articles spreading evenly across ten engineering sub-disciplines. The findings show that engineering research writers tend to provide factual rather than factional evaluations. The evaluative patterns and paces, however, vary due to the writers’ step choices in each move. Despite the ubiquitous positivity bias suggested by the number of positive lexis and sentences, our study finds negative evaluations occur and oscillate between the three moves in the introductions, and often present with purposeful choices of technical details. Meanwhile, the use of attitudinal markers with strong negative values indicates that engineering writers express their criticality rather directly with little concessions and even less dramatization.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85149782835&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.esp.2023.02.002
DO - 10.1016/j.esp.2023.02.002
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85149782835
SN - 0889-4906
VL - 71
SP - 1
EP - 18
JO - English for Specific Purposes
JF - English for Specific Purposes
ER -