Interdisciplinary and interlinguistic perspectives on Academic Discourse: the mode variable

Shirley Carter-Thomas, Marie-Paule Jacques

Abstract


The objective of the EIIDA project is to examine the impact of mode on the way scientific discourse is formulated and structured, across languages and disciplines. The corpus collected for the project enables the comparison of academic discourse from a triply contrastive perspective: discipline, language and mode.We collected data in:

  • three languages: English, French, Spanish

  • two disciplines: humanities (linguistics) vs sciences (geo-chemistry and water sciences)

  • two modes: written (research articles) vs oral (conference presentations).

In the first part of this article we describe the main rationale behind the EIIDA project and provide details on the way the corpus was constituted. In the second part of the article we briefly describe the five studies using the EIIDA corpus that make up the present volume. All the studies point to the strong impact of mode on the way academic discourse is formulated. They also tend to confirm the hypothesis that oral academic discourse is more language-specific than its written counterpart, where the internationalisation of science and genre constraints tend to cancel out language-specific features.


Keywords


contrastive corpora, discipline, language, mode

Full Text:

PDF

References


Anthony, L. 2013. Developing AntConc for a new generation of corpus linguists. Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics Conference (CL 2013), July 22-26, 2013. Lancaster University, UK: 14-16.

Barras, C., Geoffrois, É., Wu, Z., Liberman, M. 2001. Transcriber: development and use of a tool for assisting speech corpora production, Speech Communication, 33, 1-2: 5-22.

Bazerman, C. 1981. “What written knowledge does: three examples of academic discourse.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 11, 3: 361-387.

Bennett, K. 2010. Academic discourse in Portugal: a whole different ballgame? Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9/1: 21-32

Biber, D. 2006. University Language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S & Finegan, E. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Bordet, G. 2011. Étude contrastive de résumés de thèse dans une perspective d’analyse de genre. Thèse de doctorat non publiée. Université Paris Diderot-Paris VII. Accessible en ligne sur TEL (thèses-en-ligne) : http://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00650637/fr/ (accessed December 9, 2016).

Carter-Thomas, S. & Rowley-Jolivet, E. 2001. Syntactic Differences in Oral and Written Scientific Discourse: The Role of Information Structure. ASp 31-33: 19-37. http://asp.revues.org/1752 (accessed December 9, 2016).

Clyne, M. 1996. Inter-cultural communication at work. Cultural Values in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fløttum, K. (ed.) 2007. Language and Discipline Perspectives on Academic Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Fløttum, K., Dahl T. & Kinn, T. 2006. Academic Voices. Across languages and disciplines. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Hyland, K. 2000. Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. London: Longman.

Josselin-Leray, A. 2005. Place et rôle des terminologies dans les dictionnaires généraux unilingues et bilingues. Etude d’un domaine de spécialité : volcanologie. Thèse de doctorat non-publiée, Université Lumière Lyon II.

Kübler, N. & Volanschi, A. 2012. Semantic prosody and specialised translation, or how a lexico-grammatical theory of language can help with specialised translation. In Boulton, A, Carter-Thomas, S. & Rowley-Jolivet, E. (eds). Corpus-Informed Research and Learning in ESP: Issues and Applications. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Molino, A. 2011. A Contrastive Study of Knowledge Claims in Linguistics Research Articles in English and Italian. ESP Across Cultures, 8, 89-101

Robles Garrote, P. 2013. La conferencia como género monológico: análisis macroestructural en español e italiano. Boletín de filología, 48 (1), 127-146. http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0718-93032013000100006&lng=es&nrm=iso (accessed December 5, 2016).

Robles Garrote, P. 2016. Aportaciones de la Lingüística de Corpus al estudio de la conferencia como género académico de divulgación científica. Chimera 3 (1). https://revistas.uam.es/index.php/chimera/article/view/2282 (accessed November 22, 2016).

Swales, J. 2004. Research Genres. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tutin, A., Grossmann, F., Falaise, A. & Kraif, O. 2013. Autour du projet Scientext: étude des marques linguistiques du positionnement de l’auteur


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




CHIMERA Romance Corpora and Linguistic Studies

ISSN: 2386-2629