RASAL Lingüística

Issue 2021 - Vol. 2
Artículos

Cohesive labels as rhetorical resources in agriculture research articles in english and spanish

PDF (Español (España)) HTML (Español (España)) XML (Español (España))
  • Verónica Lilian Muñoz
Verónica Lilian Muñoz
Facultad de Ciencias Humanas y Facultad de Ingeniería - Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto
Portada del número 2021 vol. 2

Published 2021-09-20

Keywords

  • cohesive labels,
  • research article,
  • agriculture,
  • English,
  • Spanish

How to Cite

Muñoz, V. L. (2021). Cohesive labels as rhetorical resources in agriculture research articles in english and spanish. RASAL Lingüística, (2), 69–90. Retrieved from https://rasal.sael.org.ar/index.php/inicio/article/view/93

Copyright (c) 2021 Verónica Lilian Muñoz

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Abstract

In this study we focus on cohesive labels (CCLL): noun phrases which function as connective resources to create intersentential links by encapsulating and categorizing textual segments conceptually (e.g. this problem, tal desafío). The main purpose is to compare the use of CCLL in agriculture research articles written in English and in Spanish. The frequency of CCLL and the types of deictic elements present in the CCLL of the two languages were analyzed in a sample of 82 research articles, 41 in English and 41 in Spanish. The results demonstrate the same tendencies in English and Spanish. Although a slightly larger proportion of CCLL was identified in Spanish, the results indicate a high frequency of CCLL in both languages. In addition, the results show that in both languages the vast majority of CCLL contain deictic elements, mostly demonstratives and the definite article. The recurrent presence of CCLL containing deictic elements provides evidence to confirm that cohesion is achieved through the combination of a noun that conceptualizes a textual segment and a deictic that links the noun with the encapsulated segment. The similarities identified demonstrate that CCLL are used as rhetorical and discursive resources both in Spanish and in English.

PDF (Español (España)) HTML (Español (España)) XML (Español (España))

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Álvarez de Mon y Rego, I. 1999. La cohesión del texto científico-técnico. Un estudio contrastivo inglés-español. Tesis doctoral, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid.
  2. Álvarez de Mon y Rego, I. 2001. “Encapsulation and prospection in written scientific English”, en: Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 9. 81-101.
  3. Basturkmen, H. 2003. “Specificity and ESP course design”, en: RELC 34(1). 48-63.
  4. Basturkmen, H. & C. Elder. 2004. “The practice of LSP”, en: Davies A. & C. Elder (eds.) The handbook of applied linguistics, 673-694. Malden: Blackwell.
  5. Bazerman, C. 1988. Shaping written knowledge. The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press.
  6. Bhatia, V. 1993. Analyzing genre: language use in professional settings. Essex: Longman.
  7. Bhatia, V. 2004. Worlds of written discourse: A genre-based view. Londres: Continuum.
  8. Bhatia, V. 2008. “Lenguas con propósitos específicos: perspectivas cambiantes y nuevos desafíos”, en: Revista Signos 41(67). 157-176.
  9. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & R. Reppen. 1998. Corpus linguistics. Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  10. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & E. Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Essex: Pearson Education.
  11. Connor, U. & A. Moreno. 2005. “Tertium comparationis: A vital component in contrastive rhetoric”, en: Bruthiaux, P., Atkinson, D., Eggington, W., Grabe, W. & V. Ramanathan (eds.) Directions in applied linguistics: Essays in honour of Robert B. Kaplan, 153-164. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  12. Coseriu, E. 1955-56. “Determinación y entorno. Dos problemas de una lingüística del hablar”, en: Romanistisches Jahrbuch 7. 29-54.
  13. Cruse, A. 2000. Meaning in language: an introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  14. Dam, L. 2014. “The interpretation of encapsulating anaphors in Spanish and their functions”, en: Folia Linguistica 48(1). 37-59.
  15. Downing, A. 1997. “Encapsulating discourse topics”, en: Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 5. 147-168.
  16. Eguren, L. 1999. “Pronombres y adverbios demostrativos. Las relaciones deícticas”, en: Bosque, I. & V. Demonte (eds.) Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española. Sintaxis básica de las clases de palabras, vol. I, 929-972. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.
  17. Fernández Ramírez, S. 1953. Gramática española. Los sonidos, el nombre y el pronombre. Madrid: Revista del Occidente.
  18. Flowerdew, J. 1999. “Problems in writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong”, en: Journal of Second Language Writing 8(3). 243-264.
  19. Flowerdew, J. 2000. “Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation, and the nonnative-English-speaking scholar”, en: TESOL Quarterly 34(1). 127-150.
  20. Flowerdew, J. 2001. “Attitudes of journal editors to nonnative speaker contributions”, en: TESOL Quarterly 35(1). 121-150.
  21. Flowerdew, J. 2003. “Signalling nouns in discourse”, en: English for Specific Purposes 22(4). 329-346.
  22. Flowerdew, J. 2008. “Scholarly writers who use English as an additional language: What can Goffman’s “Stigma” tell us?”, en: Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7(2). 77-86.
  23. Flowerdew, J. 2009. “Use of signalling nouns in a learner corpus”, en: Flowerdew, J. & M. Mahlberg (eds.) Lexical cohesion and corpus linguistics, 85-102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  24. Flowerdew, J. & R. Forest. 2015. Signalling nouns in English. A corpus-based discourse approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  25. Francis, G. 1986. Anaphoric nouns. Discourse analysis monograph no. 11. Birmingham: English Language Research.
  26. Francis, G. 1994. “Labelling discourse: an aspect of nominal-group lexical cohesion”, en: Coulthard, M. (ed.) Advances in written text analysis, 179-190. Londres: Routledge.
  27. Geisler, C., Kaufer, D. & E. Steinberg. 1985. “The unattended anaphoric “this”. When should writers use it?”, en: Written Communication 2(2). 129-155.
  28. Gosden, H. 1992. “Research writing and NNSs: from the editors”, en: Journal of Second Language Writing 1(2). 123-139.
  29. Gross, A., Harmon, J. & M. Reidy. 2002. Communicating science: the scientific article from the 17th century to the present. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  30. Halliday, M. A. K. & R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. Londres: Longman.
  31. Halliday, M. A. K. & C. M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2014. Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar. Londres: Routledge.
  32. Hamp-Lyons, L. 2011. “English for academic purposes”, en: Hinkel, E. (ed.) Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, 89-105. Nueva York: Routledge.
  33. Hinkel, E. 2004. Teaching academic ESL writing. Practical techniques in vocabulary and grammar. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  34. Hinkel, E. 2011. “What research on second language writing tells us and what it doesn’t”, en: Hinkel, E. (ed.) Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, 523-538. Nueva York: Routledge.
  35. Huddleston, R. 1984. Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  36. Hunston, S. 2002. Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  37. Hunston, S. & G. Francis. 2000. Pattern grammar. A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. Ámsterdam: John Benjamins.
  38. Hyland, K. 2002. “Specificity revisited: how far should we go now?”, en: English for Specific Purposes 21(4). 385-395.
  39. Hyland, K. 2004. “Disciplinary interactions: metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing”, en: Journal of Second Language Writing 13(2). 133-151.
  40. Hyland, K. 2005. Metadiscourse. Exploring interaction in writing. Londres: Continuum.
  41. Hyland, K. 2006. English for academic purposes. An advanced resource book. Londres: Routledge.
  42. Hyland, K. 2009. Academic discourse. English in a global context. Londres: Continuum.
  43. Hyland, K. & L. Hamp-Lyons. 2002. “EAP: issues and directions”, en: Journal of English for Academic Purposes 1(1). 1-12.
  44. Ivanic, R. 1991. “Nouns in search of a context: a study of nouns with both open- and closed-system characteristics”, en: IRAL International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 29(2). 93-114.
  45. Johns, A. M. & J. Swales. 2002. “Literacy and disciplinary practices: opening and closing perspectives”, en: Journal of English for Academic Purposes 1(1). 13-28.
  46. Kaplan, R. & R. B. Baldauf. 2005. “Editing contributed scholarly articles from a language management perspective”, en: Journal of Second Language Writing 14(1). 47-62.
  47. Klimovsky, G. 2001. Las desventuras del conocimiento científico. Una introducción a la epistemología, 5ta. ed. Buenos Aires: AZ Editora.
  48. Kuhn, T. S. 1971. La estructura de las revoluciones científicas. México, D.F.: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
  49. Llamas Saíz, C. 2010. “Interpretación del discurso ajeno: la anáfora conceptual metafórica en la noticia periodística”, en: Revista de Investigación Lingüística 13. 107-126.
  50. López Samaniego, A. 2011. La categorización de entidades del discurso en la escritura profesional. Las etiquetas discursivas como mecanismo de cohesión léxica. Tesis doctoral, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona.
  51. López Samaniego, A. 2013. “Las etiquetas discursivas: del mantenimiento a la construcción del referente”, en: ELUA 27.167-197.
  52. López Samaniego, A. 2015. “Etiquetas discursivas, hiperónimos y encapsuladores: una propuesta de clasificación de las relaciones de cohesión referencial”, en: Revista de Filología Hispánica 31(2). 435-462.
  53. Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics (vol. I y II). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  54. Mahlberg, M. 2005. English general nouns. A corpus theoretical approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  55. Marinkovich, J. 2007. “La nominalización como un recurso de cohesión léxica en los manuales de la formación técnico-profesional”, en: Parodi, G. (ed.) Lingüística de corpus y discursos especializados: puntos de mira, 97-109. Valparaíso: Ediciones Universitarias de Valparaiso.
  56. Martin, J. R. 1992. English text. System and structure. Filadelfia: John Benjamins.
  57. Martínez, I. 2005. “Native and non-native writers’ use of first person pronouns in the different sections of biology research articles in English”, en: Journal of Second Language Writing 14(3). 174-190.
  58. Martínez, I. 2011. “Capitalizing on the advantages of the Latin American EAP situation: using authentic and specific materials in EAP writing instruction”, en: Iberica 21. 31-48.
  59. Master, P. 2005. “Research in English for specific purposes”, en: Hinkel, E. (ed.) Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, 99-115. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  60. Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 1995. Lexicogrammatical cartography: English systems. Tokio: International Language Sciences.
  61. Mauranen, A., Pérez-Llantada, C. & J. Swales. 2010. “Academic Englishes. A standardized knowledge?”, en: Kirkpatrick, A. (ed.) The Routledge handbook of world Englishes, 634-651. Nueva York: Routledge.
  62. Merton, R. K. 1977. La sociología de la ciencia: investigaciones teóricas y empíricas (vol. I y II). Madrid: Alianza.
  63. Miller, C. 1984. “Genre as social action”, en: Quarterly Journal of Speech 70. 151-167.
  64. Moreno, A. 2004. “Retrospective labeling in premise-conclusion metatext: an English-Spanish contrastive study of research articles on business and economics”, en: Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3(4). 321-339.
  65. Moreno, A. 2008. “The importance of comparable corpora in cross-cultural studies”, en: Connor, U., Nagelhout, E. & W. Rozycki (eds.) Contrastive rhetoric. Reaching to intercultural rhetoric, 25-41. Ámsterdam: John Benjamins.
  66. Moreno, A. & L. Suárez. 2008. “A study of critical attitude across English and Spanish academic book reviews”, en: Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7(1). 15-26.
  67. Muñoz, V. & G. Ciapuscio. 2019. “Los nombres rotuladores: Un estudio de los rótulos cohesivos en artículos de investigación en inglés y español”, en: Revista Signos. Estudios de Lingüística 52(100). 688-714.
  68. Mur Dueñas, M. P. 2003-2004. “Analysing stance in American and Spanish business management RAs: the case of sentence-initial ‘retrospective labels’”, en: Journal of English Studies 4. 137-154.
  69. Mur Dueñas, M. P. 2011. “An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish”, en: Journal of Pragmatics 43(12). 3068-3079.
  70. Peña Martínez, G. 2006. La anáfora y su funcionamiento discursivo: una aproximación contrastiva. Tesis doctoral, Universitat de Valencia, Valencia.
  71. Quirk, R., Greenbaun, S., Leech, G. & J. Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Essex: Longman.
  72. Real Academia Española. 2009. Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Morfología y sintaxis I. Madrid: Espasa Libros.
  73. Rigau, G. 1999. “La estructura del sintagma nominal: los modificadores del nombre”, en: Bosque, I. & V. Demonte (eds.) Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española. Sintaxis básica de las clases de palabras, vol. I, 311-362. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.
  74. Russell, N. 2010. Communicating science. Professional, popular, literary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  75. Salager-Meyer, F. 2008. “Scientific publishing in developing countries: challenges for the future”, en: Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7(2). 121-132.
  76. Schmid, H. J. 2000. English abstract nouns as conceptual shells. From corpus to cognition. Berlín: Mouton de Gruyter.
  77. Sinclair, J. 1991. Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  78. Sinclair, J. 2004. Trust the text. Language, corpus and discourse. Londres: Routledge.
  79. Swales, J. M. 1990. Genre Analysis. English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  80. Swales, J. M. 2004. Research Genres. Exploration and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  81. Swales, J. M. 2005. “Attended and unattended ‘this’ in academic writing: a long and unfinished story”, en: ESP Malasya 11. 1-15.
  82. Tadros, A. 1985. Prediction in text. Discourse analysis monograph no. 10. Birmingham: English Language Research.
  83. Tadros, A. 1994. “Predictive categories in expository text”, en: Coulthard, M. (ed.) Advances in written text analysis, 69-82. Londres: Routledge.
  84. Tardy, C. 2004. “The role of English in scientific communication: lingua franca or Tyrannosaurus rex?”, en: Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3(3). 247-269.
  85. Winter, E. O. 1977. “A clause-relational approach to English texts: a study of some predictive lexical items in written discourse”, en: Instructional Science 6. 1-92.
  86. Winter, E. O. 1992. “The notion of unspecific vs. specific as one way of analysing the information of a fund-raising letter”, en: Mann, W. & S. A. Thompson (eds.) Discourse description: diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text, 131-169. Ámsterdam: John Benjamins.
  87. Wulff, S., Römer, U., & J. Swales. 2012. “Attended/unattended this in academic student writing: quantitative and qualitative perspectives”, en: Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 8(1). 129-157.