Persuasion is one of the important and fundamental goals for authors in academic discourse to “promote” their academic research. As for academic authors, modal resources are the key language carriers to achieve such purpose and also a major rhetorical strategy. However, the interpersonal function of modality resources as a projection of academic stance still needs further exploration. Therefore, this article attempts to explore the contribution of modal resources to the projection of academic author stances. Firstly, a general illustration is given about the interpersonal functional of academic discourse; Then, a brief introduction to the theoretical knowledge of modal resources is made as well; Finally, the stance projection function of modal resources in academic discourse is explored from the dimensions of Congruency and Metaphor. The Analysis shows that modal resources are an important rhetorical mechanism for academic authors to implicitly/explicitly project their stance evaluation, providing more flexible and diverse discourse strategies to help academic authors achieve the goal of persuasion and interpersonal communication. This has positive implications for improving academic English writing and academic discourse research.
References
[1]
Bernhardt, S.A. (1985) The Writer, the Reader and the Scientific Text. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 15, 163-174.
https://doi.org/10.2190/X9D9-V33E-REN0-PDQM
[2]
Thompson, G. and Thetela, P. (1955) The Sound of One Hand Clapping: The Management of Interaction in Written Discourse. Text, 15, 103-128.
https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1995.15.1.103
[3]
Hoye, M.P. (2001) Textual Interaction. Routledge, New York.
[4]
Hyland, K. (2004) Metadiscourse in Academic Writing. Applied Linguistics, 25, 156-177. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156
[5]
Biber, D. and Finegan, E. (1988) Adverbial Stance Types in English. Discourse Processes, 11, 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538809544689
[6]
Ignatieva, N. (2019) Transitive and Attitudinal Aspects in a Functional Analysis of Academic Discourse in Spanish. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 9, 165-178.
https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2019.93016
[7]
Halliday, M.A.K. (2001) Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, Beijing.
[8]
Biber, D. and Finegan, E. (1989) Styles of Stance in English: Lexical and Grammatical Marking of Evidentiality and Affect. Text, 9, 93-124.
https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93
[9]
Chafe, W.L. (1986) Evidentiality in English Conversation and Academic Writing. In: Wallace, L., and Nichols, C.J., Eds., Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, Praeger, Westport, 261-272.
[10]
Ochs, E. and Schieffelin, B. (1989) Language Has a Heart. Text, 9, 7-26.
https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.7
[11]
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., et al. (1999) The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Longman, London.
[12]
Hyland, K. (2005) Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse. Discourse Studies, 7, 173-192.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
[13]
Huston, S. and Thompson, G. (2000) Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
[14]
Martin, J. and White, P. (2005) The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Continuum, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910
Halliday, M.A.K. and Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (2004) An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 3rd Edition, Hodder, London.
[26]
王根莲. 情态资源的人际意义考察[J]. 绍兴文学院学报, 2014, 34(5): 82-85.
[27]
Thompson, G. (2004) Introducing Functional Grammar. Edward Arnold, London.
[28]
Hyland, K. (1999) Disciplinary Discourses: Writer Stance in Research Articles. In: Candlin, C.N. and Hyland, K., Eds., Writing: Texts, Processes and Practices, Routledge, London, 99-121.
