2 research outputs found
EpistemiÄka modalnost u akademskom diskursu u hrvatskom i engleskom jeziku
The present thesis is the result of a cross-cultural, genre-based study whose main objective is
to examine how writers of research articles in psychology in Croatian and English use
epistemic modality devices in hedging their claims or in evaluating other scholarsā work.
Based on the corpus of 60 research articles published in Croatian and English journals, the
study aims to establish the patterns of similarities and differences in the use of the epistemic
devices across the main rhetorical sections of a research article as well as to identify their
major hedging functions.
The overall results show that English writers use epistemic markers more frequently than their
Croatian counterparts. This finding is generally in line with the previous cross-cultural
studies, showing a more salient use of hedges and their more entrenched status in the Anglo-
American writing as compared to academic writing in some other languages investigated.
With respect to the individual categories of epistemic devices, the results show both
similarities and differences in their uses across the two sub-corpora. In both the English and
Croatian sub-corpus, epistemic modal verbs are employed most frequently, followed by
epistemic verbs, while epistemic nouns are the least frequent category of epistemic devices.
The major difference in the overall results concerns the distributional patterns in the use of
epistemic devices. While epistemic modal verbs show a strikingly high frequency of
occurrences as compared to other epistemic devices in the English corpus, the results of the
frequency analysis of the Croatian corpus show that writers hedge their claims mostly by
means of the modal verbs, epistemic verbs, and epistemic adverbs and particles, as attested by
their overall similar frequencies.
With respect to the distribution of epistemic devices across the research article sections, both
English and Croatian writers hedge their claims mostly in the Discussion, followed by the
Introduction section, while the use of epistemic devices in the remaining two sections is
significantly lower by comparison. Generally, this complies with the major rhetorical
functions of the research article sections. Thus, the highest density of hedges in the
Discussion reflects its major rhetorical functions primarily concerned with writersā
interpretations and implications of the given research, which often requires a cautious and
tentative use of language, shielding writers from the risks of negatibilty of the claims. By
contrast, the use of hedges in the middle research article sections is less salient given their
focus on the descriptive accounts of the methodological procedures and obtained findings.
Drawing on Hylandās (1998) polypragmatic model of scientific hedges, epistemic devices in
both corpora are mostly concerned with the reliability type of hedges, concerned with
indicating uncertainties towards the propositional content, signaling at the same time the
extent to which the claims may be considered as accurate given the limited state of knowledge
they are based on. In addition, epistemic markers may be used as writer-oriented hedges
concerned with diminishing the writersā presence in the text, allowing them to maintain
distance from the proposed claims. Finally, the use of epistemic verbs co-occurring with the
1st person plural pronouns is interpreted in the present study as a writerās strategic choice in
foregrounding the epistemic stance. This use of epistemic devices is more frequent in the
English as compared to the Croatian corpus, which is in line with some previous crosscultural
research, indicating that self-mention is a more prominent feature of the Anglo-
American writing as compared to that in other languages.
In sum, the present findings provide an insight into the use of the epistemic language in the
cross-cultural disciplinary writing and as such may be of particular use to the Croatian
speaking disciplinary scholars, students and all those interested in writing research articles in
English. On a more general note, it is expected that the study may incite further research on
academic writing conventions in Croatian or their comparison with those in English as a
lingua franca of science.Cilj je rada istražiti kako autori znanstvenih Älanaka iz podruÄja psihologije na hrvatskom i
engleskom jeziku koriste sredstva epistemiÄke modalnosti da bi izrazili razliÄiti stupanj
sigurnosti prema iznesenim tvrdnjama te iskazali stav prema tvrdnjama drugih autora. Analiza
se temelji na korpusu 60 znanstvenih Älanaka objavljenim u znanstvenim Äasopisima na
hrvatskom i engleskom jeziku. Cilj je analize utvrÄivanje sliÄnosti i razlika u uporabi i
uÄestalosti sredstava epistemiÄke modalnosti u glavnim retoriÄkim segmentima znanstvenog
Älanka te istraživanje njihovih pragmatiÄkih funkcija kao sredstava ograÄivanja u
znanstvenom tekstu.
Rezultati frekvencijske analize pokazuju veÄu zastupljenost sredstava epistemiÄke modalnosti
u engleskom korpusu u odnosu na hrvatski, Å”to je opÄenito u skladu s nalazima prethodnih
meÄujeziÄnih istraživanja koja upuÄuju na uÄestaliju uporabu oznaka ograÄivanja u
akademskom stilu angloameriÄkog govornog podruÄja u odnosu na akademske stilove pisanja
u nekim drugim jezicima.
Rezultati pokazuju da su modalni glagoli najÄeÅ”Äa gramatiÄka kategorija epistemiÄkih
sredstava u oba korpusa, dok su epistemiÄki glagoli sljedeÄa kategorija po Äestotnosti. U oba
korpusa najmanju zastupljenost pokazuje uporaba epistemiÄkih imenica. UnatoÄ navedenim
sliÄnostima, rezultati analize pokazuju na istaknutu uporabu modalnih glagola u engleskom
korpusu, dok uÄestalost ostalih sredstava epistemiÄke modalnosti ne pokazuje drastiÄna
odstupanja. Rezultati analize hrvatskog korpusa pokazuju da se najÄeÅ”Äa sredstva grupiraju
oko modalnih glagola, epistemiÄkih punoznaÄnih glagola te modalnih priloga i Äestica, dok su
ostala sredstva znaÄajno manje zastupljena.
Nalazi analize ukazuju da se u oba korpusa oznake ograÄivanja najviÅ”e koriste u Raspravi,
manje u Uvodu, dok je znaÄajno manja uÄestalost zabilježena u Metodi i Rezultatima.
NajveÄa zastupljenost oznaka ograÄivanja u Raspravi ukazuje na autorovu potrebu iskazivanja
opreza i odmaka u tumaÄenju nalaza istraživanja i pokuÅ”ajima izvoÄenja zakljuÄaka, Å”to
proizlazi iz svijesti o razliÄitim ograniÄenjima istraživanja koja Äesto ne dozvoljavaju
iskazivanje visokog stupnja sigurnosti u iznoŔenju stavova. Manja zastupljenost oznaka
ograÄivanja u srediÅ”njim segmentima Älanka odražava njihovu primarnu usmjerenost na opise
metodoloŔkih postupaka i rezultata, Ŕto u pravilu ne zahtijeva izraženiju uporabu oznaka
ograÄivanja.
U odnosu na Hylandov (1998) polipragmatiÄki model ograÄivanja u znanstvenom tekstu,
rezultati pokazuju da se sredstva epistemiÄke modalnosti najÄeÅ”Äe koriste za iskazivanje nižeg
stupnja sigurnosti u odnosu na sadržaj tvrdnje, upuÄujuÄi pritom da se iste mogu smatrati
pouzdanim u okvirima postojeÄeg, Äesto ograniÄenog, znanja na temelju kojeg se izvode.
Osim na propozicijski sadržaj, pragmatiÄke funkcije epistemiÄkih sredstava mogu biti
usmjerene i na autora, pri Äemu se umanjuje njegova prisutnost u tekstu te omoguÄuje
zadržavanje veÄeg odmaka od iznesenih tvrdnji. Naposlijetku, uporaba prvog lica i
punoznaÄnih epistemiÄkih glagola u ovom se radu smatra autorovim izborom s ciljem
isticanja osobnog epistemiÄkog stava. Rezultati pokazuju da je navedena uporaba
epistemiÄkih sredstava uÄestalija u engleskom korpusu, Å”to je opÄenito u skladu s nekim
prethodnim meÄujeziÄnim istraživanjima koja ukazuju da je prisutnost autora istaknutija
konvencija angloameriÄkog akademskog stila pisanja u odnosu na iste u nekim drugim
istraživanim jezicima.
ZakljuÄno, pretpostavlja se da bi uoÄene specifiÄnosti u uporabi sredstava epistemiÄke
modalnosti u psihologijskim Älancima u engleskom i hrvatskom jeziku mogle koristiti predmetnim struÄnjacima, studentima i svima onima koji poÄinju pisati ili veÄ imaju iskustvo
pisanja znanstvenih Älanaka kako na hrvatskom, tako i na engleskom jeziku. OÄekuje se da bi
postojeÄe istraživanje moglo potaknuti daljnja istraživanja konvencija akademskog pisanja,
kako hrvatskog jezika, tako i njihove usporedbe s engleskim jezikom kao globalnim jezikom
znanosti