Cover not available
Part of
Corpora, Grammar and Discourse: In honour of Susan Hunston
Edited by Nicholas Groom, Maggie Charles and Suganthi John
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 73] 2015
► pp. 161–182

Chapter 7. Probably most important of all

Importance markers in academic and popular history articles

ORCID logo | University of Modena and Reggio Emilia
Evaluations of importance are central to the nature of academic discourse, with its need to establish and share disciplinary knowledge. This study shows how importance markers help guide the reader in recognising coherence relations, while reflecting the value system of the community. Using corpora of journal and popular articles in history, the analysis examines nouns and adjectives of importance, adverbials and framing statements. By constituting identification and cohesive structures that thematise evaluation and increase writer visibility, importance markers contribute greatly to knowledge construction in research articles, while in knowledge dissemination they are less frequent and oriented towards generalising.
Published online: 30 October 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.73.08bon
References (51)
References
Aijmer, K. & Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M. 2006. Introduction. In Pragmatic Markers in Contrast, K. Aijmer & A.-M. Simon-Vandenbergen (eds), 1-10. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Bondi, M. 2007. Authority and expert voices in the discourse of history. In Language and Discipline Perspectives on Academic Discourse, K. Fløttum (ed.), 66-88. New castle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
. 2008. Emphatics in academic discourse: Integrating corpus and discourse tools in the study of cross-disciplinary variation. In Exploring Discourse through Corpora [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 31], A. Ädel & R. Reppen (eds), 31-55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. In the wake of the Terror: Phraseological tools of time setting in the narrative of history. In Academic Writing: At the Interface of Corpusand Discourse, M. Charles, D. Pecorari & S. Hunston (eds), 73-90.London: Continuum.Google Scholar
. 2010. Metadiscursive practices in introductions: Phraseology and semantic sequences across genres. Nordic Journal of English Studies9(2): 99-123.Google Scholar
. 2011. What is most important: marking significance in academic discourse. In Marqueurs Discursifs et Subjectivit, S. Hancil (ed.), 151-173. Rouen: Presse Universitaire de Rouen.Google Scholar
. 2012. Authorial voice in textbooks: Between exposition and argument. In Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres, K. Hyland & C. Sancho Guinda (eds), 101-115. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Charles, M. 2003. This mystery…: A corpus-based study of the use of nouns to construct stance in theses from two contrasting disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4: 313-326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006a. Phraseological patterns in reporting clauses used in citation: A corpus-based study of theses in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes 25(3): 310-331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006b. The construction of stance in reporting clauses: A cross-disciplinary study of theses. Applied Linguistics 27(3): 492-518. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coffin, C. 2006. Historical Discourse. The Language of Time, Cause and Evaluation. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Conrad, S. & Biber, D. 2000. Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing.In Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, S. Hunston & G. Thompson (eds), 56-73. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Deroey, K. 2012. What they highlight is: The discourse functions of basic wh-clefts in lectures. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11(2): 112-124.Google Scholar
Deroey, K. & Taverniers, M. 2012a. ‘Ignore that 'cause it’s totally irrelevant’: Marking lesser relevance in lectures. Journal of Pragmatics 44(14): 2085-2099.Google Scholar
. 2012b. Just remember this: Lexicogrammatical relevance markers in lectures. English for Specific Purposes 31(4): 221-233.Google Scholar
Fischer, K. (ed.) 2006. Approaches to Discourse Particles. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Fraser, B. 1999. What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 31: 931-952. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giannoni, D. 2010. Mapping Academic Values in the Disciplines. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Groom, N. 2005. Pattern and meaning across genres and disciplines: An exploratory study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4(3): 257-277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Phraseology and epistemology in academic book reviews: A corpus-driven analysis. In Academic Evaluation: Review Genres in University Settings, K. Hyland & G. Diani (eds), 122-139. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
. 2010. Closed-class keywords and corpus-driven discourse analysis. In Keyness in Texts [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 41], M. Bondi & M. Scott (eds), 59-78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunston, S. 2008. Starting with the small words: Patterns, lexis and semantic sequences. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13(3): 271-295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Corpus Approaches to Evaluation: Phraseology and Evaluative Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. & Francis, G. 1999. Pattern Grammar. A Corpus-driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 4]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunston, S. & Sinclair, J.M. 2000. A local grammar of evaluation. In Evaluation in Text. Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, S. Hunston & G. Thompson (eds), 74-101. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. 1998. Hedging in Scientific Articles [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 54]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility: Noticing modifiers in academic texts. Language Awareness 9(4): 179-197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles.Written Communication 17(4): 549-74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Engagement and disciplinarity: The other side of evaluation. In Academic Discourse: New Insights into Evaluation, G. del Lungo Camiciotti & E. Tognini Bonelli (eds), 13-30. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2005. Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies 7(2): 173-192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. & Bondi, M. (eds). 2006. Academic Discourse across Disciplines. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Knott, A., Oberlander, J., O’Donnell, M. & Mellish, C. 2001. Beyond elaboration:The interaction of relations and focus in coherent text. In Text Representation: Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Aspects [Human Cognitive Processing 8], T. Sanders, J. Schilperoord & W. Spooren (eds), 181-196. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kwan, B.S.C. 2006. The schematic structure of literature reviews in doctoral theses of applied linguistics. English for Specific Purposes 25: 30–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lemke, J. 1998. Resources for attitudinal meaning. Evaluative orientations in text semantics. Functions of Language 5(1): 33-56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin J.R. & White P.R.R. 2005. The language of Evaluation. Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Partington, A. 2014. The marking of importance in ‘enlightentainment’ talks. In Corpus Analysis for Descriptive and Pedagogical Purposes; ESP Perspectives, M. Gotti & D. Giannoni (eds), 143-165). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, M. 2008. WordSmith Tools, Version 5. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar
Siepmann, D. 2005. Discourse Markers across Languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J.M. 1996. The search for units of meaning. Textus 9(1): 75-106.Google Scholar
. 2004. Trust the Text : Language, Corpus and Discourse. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J.M. & Mauranen, A. 2006. Linear Unit Grammar: Integrating Speech and Writing [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 25]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swales, J.M. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 2004. Research Genres: Explorations and Applications. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taboada, M. 2006. Discourse markers as signals (or not) of rhetorical relations.Journal of Pragmatics 38: 567-592. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, G. 2001. Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics 22(1): 58-78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. But me some buts: A multidimensional view of conjunction.Text 25(6): 763-791.Google Scholar
Thompson, G. & Hunston, S. 2000. Evaluation: An introduction. In Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, S. Hunston &G. Thompson (eds), 1-27. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Thompson, G. & Zhou, J. 2000. Evaluation and organization in text: The structuring role of evaluative disjuncts. In Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, S. Hunston & G. Thompson (eds), 121-141. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Vold, E.T. 2006. Epistemic modality markers in research articles: A cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 16(1): 61 – 87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar