Evaluative language in medical discourse
A contrastive study between English and Spanish university lectures
Academic spoken discourse has been a dominant issue for discourse studies researchers for the last 25 years or so. Different spoken academic genres have been analysed (
Swales, 1990,
2004;
Berkenkotter and Huckin, 1995;
Bhatia, 2001,
2002;
Mauranen, 2001;
Juzwik, 2004;
Crawford-Camiciottoli, 2004,
2007; among others) thanks to the compilation and the easy access to electronic spoken corpora. This study focuses on the genre of lecture as “the central ritual of the culture of learning” (
Benson, 1994) in higher education. Here, I analyse the use of evaluative language in medical discourse lectures. A contrastive study between Spanish and English medical lectures is carried out. To my knowledge, little attention has been paid to the analysis of evaluative language in medical discourse. The present study employs a quantitative and a qualitative approach to analyse four Spanish and English medical discourse lectures with an average of 35,000 words. The English lectures have been taken from the Michigan Corpus of Academic and Spoken English (MICASE) and the Spanish lectures have been recorded and transcribed in the Degree in Medicine course at a Spanish university for the purpose of this study. Corpus analysis tools have been used to analyse attitudinal language expressing explicit evaluation. The findings show similarities and also differences in the use of evaluative markers in academic medical discourse.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 1.1Background
- 1.2Choice of features to be analysed
- 2.The study
- 2.1Methodology
- 2.2The data
- 2.3Context and procedure
- 3.Results
- 3.1Relevance markers in the EC
- 3.2Relevance markers in the SC
- 3.3Evaluative adjectives in the EC
- 3.4Evaluative adjectives in the SC
- 4.Conclusion
- Notes
-
References
References (60)
References
Alba-Juez, L. and Thompson, G. 2014. The many Faces and Phases of Evaluation. In Evaluation in Context, G. Thompson and L. Alba-Juez (eds), 3–24. Pragmatics and Beyond New Series. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Alba-Juez, L. 2015. La Pragmática Contrastiva y su Importancia para la Enseñanza de Lenguas Extranjeras. Proceedings of the XXV ASELE International Conference: La Enseñanza de ELE Centrada en el Alumno. Madrid, 17–20 September 2014. Asociación para la Enseñanza del Español como Lengua Extranjera. 15–24.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Anthony, L. 2014. AntConc (Version 3.4.3) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available at [URL] [last accessed October 2014]
Bellés-Fortuño, B. 2004. The Influence of Lecturing Styles in the Use of Discourse Markers within the Spoken Academic Discourse of Social Sciences. In Approaches to Critical Discourse Analysis, M. Labarta (ed), 1–21. Valencia: Publicaciones Universidad de Valencia![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bellés-Fortuño, B. 2008. A Spoken Academic Discourse Contrastive Study: DMs in North-American and Spanish lectures. RESLA 21. AESLA Research Award 2008.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bellés-Fortuño, B. and Querol-Julián, M. 2010. Evaluation in Research Article Abstracts: a Cross-cultural Study between Spanish and English Medical Discourse. In Constructing Interpersonality: Multiple Perspectives and Applications to Written Academic Discourse, R. Lorés-Sanz, P. Mur-Dueñas and E. Lafuente-Millán (eds), 83–98. Cambridge. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bellés-Fortuño, B. 2016a. Academic Discourse Markers: a Contrastive Analysis of the Discourse Marker then in English and Spanish Lectures. Verbeia 11:57–78.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bellés-Fortuño, B. 2016b. Popular Science Articles vs. Scientific Articles: a Tool for Medical Education. In Medical Discourse in Professional, Academic and Popular Settings, P. Ordoñez-Lopez and N. Edo-Marza (eds), 55–75. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barton, E. L. 1993. Evidentials, Argumentation, and Epistemological Stance. College English 55(7):745–769. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Benson, M. J. 1994. Lecture Listening in an Ethnographic Perspective. In Academic Listening: Research Perspectives, J. Flowerdew (ed), 181–198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Berkenkotter, C. and Huckin, T. N. 1995. Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication. Cognition/Culture/Power. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bhatia, V. 2001. Analysing Genre: some Conceptual Issues. In Academic Writing in Context: Implications and Applications, M. Hewings (ed), 79–92. Birmingham: The University of Birmingham Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bhatia, V. 2002. A Generic View of Academic Discourse. In Academic Discourse, J. Flowerdew (ed), 21–39. London: Pearson Education Limited.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biber, D. 2006. Stance in Spoken and Written University Registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5(2): 97–116. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Crawford-Camiciottoli, B. 2004. Audience-oriented Relevance Markers in Business Studies Lectures. In Academic discourse – New insights into evaluation, G. del Lungo Camiciotti and E. Tognini Bonelli (eds), 81–97. Bern: Peter Lang.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
DeCarrico, J. and Nattinger, J. R. 1988. Lexical Phrases for the Comprehension of Academic Lectures. English for Specific Purposes 7(2): 91–102. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Deroey, K. L. B. and Taverniers, M. 2011. A Corpus Cased Study of Lecture Functions. Moderna Språk 105(2):1–22.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Deroey, K. L. B. and Taverniers, M. 2012. Just Remember this: Lexicogrammatical Relevance Markers in Lectures. English for Specific Purposes 311:221–233. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fraser, B. and Malamud-Makowski, M. 1996. English and Spanish Contrastive Discourse Markers. Language Sciences 18(3–4):863–881. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fraser, B. 1999. What are Discourse Markers? Journal of Pragmatics 311:931–952. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fraser, B. 2004. An Account of Discourse Markers. In Current Trends in Intercultural, Cognitive and Social Pragmatics, P. Garcés, R. Gómez, L. Fernández and M. Padilla (eds), 13–34. Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hunston, S. 1994. Evaluation and Organisation in a Sample of Written Academic Discourse. In Advances in Written Text Analysis, M. Coulthard (ed.), 191–218. London: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hunston, S. 2000. Evaluation in the Planes of Discourse: Status and Value in Persuasive Texts. In Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, S. Hunston and G. Thompson (eds), 177–207. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hunston, S. and Sinclair, J. 2000. A Local Grammar of Evaluation. In Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, S. Hunston and G. Thompson (eds), 74‒101. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hyland, K. 1998. Persuasion and Context: The Pragmatics of Academic Discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 301:437–455. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hyland, K. 1999. Disciplinary Discourses: Writer Stance in Research Articles. In Writing: Texts, Processes and Practices, C. N. Candlin and K. Hyland (eds), 99–121. London: Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hyland, K. 2000. Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. London: Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hyland, K. 2001. Bringing the Reader: Addressee Features in Academic Articles. Writing Communication 18(4):549–574. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hyland, K. 2004. Engagements and Disciplinarity: the Other Side of Evaluation. In Academic Discourse – New Insights into Evaluation, G. del Lungo Camiciotti and E. Tognini Bonelli (eds), 13–30. Bern: Peter Lang.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hyland, K. 2010. Constructing Proximity: Relating to Readers in Popular and Professional Science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 91:116–127. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Juzwik, M. M. 2004. The Dialogization of Genres in Teaching Narrative: Theorizing Hybrid Genres in Classroom Discourse. Across the Disciplines 11. Available at [URL] [last accessed 15 August 2016]
König, E. and Gast, V. 2009. Understanding English-German Contrasts. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Llorente, M. T. 1996. Organizadores de la Conversación. Operadores Discursivos en Español. Salamanca: Publicaciones Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mauranen, A. 2001. Reflexive Academic Talk: Observations from MICASE. In Corpus Linguistics in North America (Selections from the 1999 Symposium), R. C. Simpson and J. M. Swales (eds), 165–178. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mauranen, A. 2002. A Good Question: Expressing Evaluation in Academic Speech. In Domain-specific English: Textual Practices across Communication and Classrooms, G. Cortese and P. Riley (eds), 115–140. Bern: Peter Lang.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mauranen, A. 2003. “But there’s a flawed argument”. Socialisation into and through Metadiscourse. In Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use, C. F. Meyer and P. Leistyna (eds), 19–34. Amsterdam: Rodopi. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Poppi, F. 2004. Boosters and Hedges: two Sides of the Same Coin? A Case Study of a Small Corpus of Economics Textbooks. In Evaluation in Oral and Written Academic Discourse, L. Anderson and J. Bamford (eds), 137–150. Rome: Office Edizioni.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Portolés, J. 1998. Marcadores del Discurso. Barcelona: Ariel Practicum.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Shaw, P. 2004. How to Recognize Implicit Evaluation in Academic Book Reviews? In Academic Discourse: New Insights into Evaluation, G. del Lungo Camicciotti and E. Tognini Bonelli (eds), 121–139. Bern: Peter Lang.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Siepmann, D. 2005. Discourse Markers across Languages. London: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Simpson, R. C.; Briggs, S. L.; Ovens, J. and Swales, J. M. 2002. The Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English. Ann Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stotesbury, H. 2003. Evaluation in Research Article Abstracts in the Narrative and Hard Sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 21:327–341. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Swales, J. M. 1990. Genre Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Swales, J. M. 2001. Metatalk in American Academic Talk. Journal of English Linguistics, 29(1):34–53. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Swales, J. M. and Malczewski, B. 2001. Discourse Management and New-episode Flags in MICASE. In Corpus Linguistics in North America (Selections from the 1999 Symposium), R. C. Simpson and J. M. Swales (eds.), 145–164. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press,![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Swales, J. M. and Burke, A. 2003. “It’s really fascinating work”: Differences in Evaluative Adjectives across Registers. In Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use, C. F. Meyer and P. Leistyna (eds), 1–18. Amsterdam: Rodopi. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Swales, J. M. 2004. Evaluation in Academic Speech. First Forays. In Academic Discourse: New Insights into Evaluation, G. del Lungo Camiciotti and Tognini Bonelli (eds), 31–50. Bern: Peter Lang.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Taboada, M.; Doval, S. and González, E. 2013. Contrastive Discourse Analysis: Functional and Corpus Perspectives. Sheffield: Equinox.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Thetela, P. 1997. Evaluated Entities and Parameters of Value in Academic Research Articles. English for Specific Purposes 16(2). 101–118. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Thompson, G. and Hunston, S. 2000. Evaluation: an Introduction. In Evaluation in text: authorial stance and the construction of discourse, S. Hunston and G. Thompson (eds), 1–27. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Thompson, G. and Alba-Juez, L. 2014. Evaluation in Context. Pragmatics and Beyond New Series. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Webber, P. 2004. Negotiation in Linguistic Papers. In Academic discourse – New insights into evaluation, G. del Lungo Camiciotti and E. Tognini Bonelli (eds), 181–202. Bern: Peter Lang.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Farnia, Maryam, Masoud Saeedi & Zahra Ataei
2020.
A Cross-disciplinary Study on Evaluative Strategies in Research Articles Conclusion Sections.
International Journal of Research in English Education 5:1
► pp. 1 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Hu, Guangwei & Yanhua Liu
2018.
Three minute thesis presentations as an academic genre: A cross-disciplinary study of genre moves.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes 35
► pp. 16 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.