DOI: https://doi.org/10.11649/cs.1680

The usage and meaning of "mentioned" ("wspomniany") and "described" ("opisany") metatext markers in Polish scientific texts

Agnieszka Czoska

Abstract


The usage and meaning of mentioned (wspomniany) and described (opisany) metatext markers in Polish scientific texts

Metatext markers (MMs) are defined as expressions used in a text to inform readers of its structure or relations between its elements (Fraser, 1999; Goldman & Rakestraw, 2000; Schiffrin, 1988). In this paper the usage of two MMs "mentioned" ("wspomniany") and "described" ("opisany") in scientific texts is described and the relation between their meaning and usage is analysed. In Study 1, the frequency, scope and direction of the MM is analysed in a corpus of peer-reviewed scientific texts in Polish. In Experiment 2, participants decided whether to use the aforementioned MMs to fill gaps in short scientific texts. The results of both experiments suggest that while the meaning of an MM may influence its usage, this relation may be affected by the size of the whole text.

 

Użycie i znaczenie operatorów metatekstowych wspomniany i opisany w tekstach naukowych po polsku

Operatory metatekstowe (OM) to wyrażenia informujące czytelnika o strukturze tekstu, w którym zostały umieszczone, oraz o relacjach pomiędzy jego elementami (Fraser, 1999; Goldman & Rakestraw, 2000; Schiffrin, 1988). W poniższej pracy zostało opisane użycie dwóch OM wspomniany i opisany w tekstach naukowych, przeanalizowano także relację pomiędzy ich znaczeniem i używaniem. W badaniu 1 zostały przeanalizowane częstość użycia, zakres i ukierunkowanie OM w tekstach naukowych pisanych po polsku. W badaniu 2 czytelnicy decydowali o tym, czy umieścić dodatkowy OM w krótkim tekście naukowym. Wyniku obydwu badań wskazują, że znaczenie OM może wpływać na sposób jego używania, ale wpływ ten zmienia się wraz z wielkością tekstu.


Keywords


metatext; metatext markers; scientific text; cloze-test; Polish

Full Text:

PDF (in English)

References


Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.24

Anthony, L. (2014). AntConc (Version 3.4.3). Retrieved May 4, 2015, from http://www.laurenceanthony.net

Bensoussan, M., & Mauranen, A. (1989). SeDelGap tests of macro-level reading comprehension: An exercise in international collaboration. Retrieved May 4, 2016, from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED309644

Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486456

Czoska, A. (2011). Klasyfkacja operatorów metatekstowych i częstość ich występowania w krótkich tekstach naukowych w języku polskim. Investigationes Linguisticae, 23, 1-33. https://doi.org/10.14746/il.2011.23.1

Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(1), 95-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003

Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36(10), 1807-1825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.004

Fischer, K. (Ed.). (2006). Approaches to discourse particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 931-952. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00101-5

Fraser, B. (2015). The combining of discourse markers - A beginning. Journal of Pragmatics, 86, 48-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.007

Goldman, S. R., & Rakestraw, J. A. Jr. (2000). Structural aspects of constructing meaning from text. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 311-335). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gonen, E., Livnat, Z., & Amir, N. (2015). The discourse marker axshav (‘now’) in spontaneous spoken Hebrew: Discursive and prosodic features. Journal of Pragmatics, 89, 69-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.09.005

Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Louwerse, M. M. (2003). What do readers need to learn in order to process coherence relations in narrative and expository text. In A. P. Sweet & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 82-98). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Gray, B. (2010). On the use of demonstrative pronouns and determiners as cohesive devices: A focus on sentence-initial this/these in academic prose. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 167-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2009.11.003

Grochowski, M. (2008). Operatory metatekstowe o kształcie superlatiwu przysłówka. Juznoslovenski filolog, 64, 61-72.

Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 437-455. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5

Hyland, K. (2015). Metadiscourse. In K. Tracy, T. Sandel, & C. Ilie (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction (pp. 1-11). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi003

Hyland, K. (2016). Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 58-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.005

Instantly. (2016). Retrieved January 17, 2016, from http://www.instant.ly/

Kehler, A. (2004). Discourse topics, sentence topics, and coherence. Theoretical Linguistics, 30(2-3), 227-240. https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2004.30.2-3.227

Lemarié, J., Lorch, R. F. Jr., Eyrolle, H., & Virbel, J. (2008). SARA: A text-based and reader-based theory of signaling. Educational Psychologist, 43(1), 27-48. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701756321

Lewis, D. (2006). Discourse markers in English: A discourse-pragmatic view. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 43-60). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Mur-Dueñas, P. (2011). An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(12), 3068-3079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.002

Ożóg, K. (1991). Elementy metatekstowe ze składnikiem "mówię" w polszczyźnie mówionej. In J. Bartmiński & R. Grzegorczykowa (Eds.), Język a kultura (Vol. 4) Wrocław: "Wiedza o Kulturze".

Rohde, H., Dickinson, A., Clark, C., Louis, A., & Webber, B. (2015). Recovering discourse relations: Varying influence of discourse adverbials. In Proceedings of the EMNLP 2015 Workshop on Linking Models of Lexical, Sentential and Discourse-level Semantics (pp. 22-31). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W15-2703

Rohde, H., Dickinson, A., Schneider, N., Clark, C. N. L., Louis, A., & Webber, B. (2016). Filling in the blanks in understanding discourse adverbials: Consistency, conflict, and context-dependence in a crowdsourced elicitation task. In Proceedings of LAW X - The 10th Linguistic Annotation Workshop (pp. 49-58). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W16-1707

Roulet, E. (2006). The description of text relation markers in the Geneva model of discourse organization. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 115-131). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Sadeghi, K. (2014). Phrase cloze: A better measure of reading. The Reading Matrix, 14(1).

Sanders, T., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (2004). Accessibility in text and discourse processing. Discourse Processes, 37(2), 79-89. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp3702_1

Schiffrin, D. (1988). Discourse markers (No. 5). Cambridge University Press.

Storey, P. (1997). Examining the test-taking process: A cognitive perspective on the discourse cloze test. Language Testing, 14(2), 214-231. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229701400205

Tanghe, S. (2016). Position and polyfunctionality of discourse markers: The case of Spanish markers derived from motion verbs. Journal of Pragmatics, 93, 16-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.12.002

Trnavac, R., & Taboada, M. (2016). Cataphora, backgrounding and accessibility in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 93, 68-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.12.008

Waltereit, R. (2006). The rise of discourse markers in Italian: A specific type of language change. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 61-67). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Wiemer, B. (2006). Particles, parentheticals, conjunctions and prepositions as evidentiality markers in contemporary Polish (A first exploratory study). Studies in Polish Linguistics, 3(1), 5-67.

Winiarska, J. (2001). Operatory metatekstowe w dialogu telewizyjnym. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Universitas.




Copyright (c) 2018 Agnieszka Czoska

License URL: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/pl/