The category of modality in academic writing

Размещено на http://www.Allbest.ru/

The category of modality in academic writing

V. Ivanova, N. Kudriavtseva

Kherson

Annotation

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the role of modality in English academic writing. The research is based on the discourse analysis of 20 articles in physics, biology, chemistry, and psychology taken from the Public Library of Science (PLOS). Understanding modality as a subjective outlook on objective reality, we depart from the classification of modality expression means suggested by Frank Palmer, who divides modality into epistemic, deontic, and dynamic. Epistemic modality represents probability, deontic - obligation and permission, and dynamic - physical ability and volition. Epistemic modality contradicts scientific principles, since scientific writing is considered to be purely evidential and free from subjectivism. The main focus of our research is on modal verbs and their role in scientific texts. A modal verb is a verb of a subgroup of auxiliary verbs that express modality: can/could, shall/should, may/might, will/would, must. To efficiently analyse these modal verbs, we divide them into high (must, will), medium (should, can), and low (may, would, might, could) modality verbs. The findings of the study reveal the function of modality in academic writing, which targets the controversy of the presence of this subjective category in scientific writing striving for objectivity. There are all kinds of modality found in scientific texts, which is proven by the examples taken from the articles examined. Medium modality verbs predominate in scientific writing, while high modality verbs are used the least. The most commonly used verb is the verb can, which expresses epistemic and dynamic modality, whereas shall is not used at all. We conclude that modality plays a significant role in scientific writing, expressing researchers' assumptions rather than strong beliefs.

Key words: modality, means of modality expression, modal verbs, academic writing.

В. Іванова, Н. Кудрявцева. Категорія модальности в наукових текстах

Мета цієї статті - проаналізувати роль модальності в англійському академічному письмі. Дослідження засноване на дискурсивному аналізі 20 статей з галузі фізики, біології, хімії та психології з Публічної бібліотеки науки (PLOS). Розуміючи модальність як суб'єктивний погляд на об'єктивну реальність, ми відштовхуємося від класифікації засобів вираження модальності, запропонованої Френком Палмером, який ділить модальність на епістемічну, деонтічну і динамічну. Епістемічна модальність передає ймовірність, деонтична - зобов'язання і дозвіл, а динамічна - фізичну здатність і волевиявлення. Епістемічна модальність суперечить науковим принципам, оскільки наукова література вважається заснованою виключно на доказах і є вільною від суб'єктивізму. Основна увага в нашому дослідженні приділяється модальним дієсловам і їх ролі в наукових текстах. Модальне дієслово - це дієслово підгрупи допоміжних дієслів, які виражають модальність: can/could, shall/should, may/might, will/would, must. Для ефективного аналізу модальних дієслів вони були розділені на дієслова високої (must, will), середньої (should, can) і низької (may, would, might, could) модальності. Результати дослідження розкривають функцію модальності в академічній літературі, яка націлена на протиріччя наявності суб'єктивної категорії модальності в науковій літературі, яка прагне до об'єктивності. У наукових текстах є всі види модальності, що підтверджується прикладами з досліджуваних статей. У науковій літературі переважають дієслова середньої модальності, тоді як дієслова високої модальності використовуються рідко. Найбільш часто вживаним дієсловом є дієслово "can", яке виражає епістемічну і динамічну модальність. А дієслово "shall" взагалі не використовувалося. Вся інформація вище доводить, що модальність відіграє значну роль у науковій літературі, висловлюючи припущення дослідників, а не сильні переконання.

Ключові слова: модальність, засоби вираження модальності, модальні дієслова, наукова література.

В. Иванова, Н. Кудрявцева. Категория модальности в научных текстах

Цель этой статьи - проанализировать роль модальности в английском академическом письме. Исследование основано на дискурсивном анализе 20 статей в области физики, биологии, химии и психологии из Публичной библиотеки науки (PLOS). Понимая модальность как субъективный взгляд на объективную реальность, мы отталкиваемся от классификации средств выражения модальности, предложенной Фрэнком Палмером, который делит модальность на эпистемическую, деонтическую и динамическую. Эпистемическая модальность передает вероятность, деонтическая - обязательство и разрешение, а динамическая - физическую способность и волеизъявление. Эпистемическая модальность противоречит научным принципам, поскольку научная литература считается основанной исключительно на доказательствах и свободной от субъективизма. Основное внимание в нашем исследовании уделяется модальным глаголам и их роли в научных текстах. Модальный глагол является глаголом подгруппы вспомогательных глаголов, которые выражают модальность: can/could, should/should, may/might, will/would, must. Для эффективного анализа модальных глаголов они были разделены на глаголы высокой (must, will), средней (should, can) и низкой (may, would, might, could) модальности. Результаты исследования раскрывают функцию модальности в академическом письме, которое нацелено на противоречие наличия субъективной категории модальности в научной литературе, стремящейся к объективности. В научных текстах есть все виды модальности, что подтверждается примерами из исследуемых статей. В научной литературе преобладают глаголы средней модальности, в то время как глаголы высокой модальности используются редко. Наиболее часто используемым глаголом является глагол “can”, который выражает эпистемическую и динамическую модальность, а глагол “shall” вообще не использовался. Вся информация выше доказывает, что модальность играет значительную роль в научной литературе, выражая предположения исследователей, а не сильные убеждения.

Ключевые слова: модальность, средства выражения модальности, модальные глаголы, научная литература.

The problematic of our research concerns the fact that the presence of modality in academic writing still raises a lot of questions. Thus, the objective of our research is to define the category of modality, its kinds, and its role - in scientific writing. As modality can be expressed by various means, our research will bring into focus namely the verbs traditionally referred to as modal. The research is based on the discourse analysis which concerns studying language beyond sentence. epistemic deontic dynamic modality english academic

To perform the research, we created a corpus. The corpus analysed consisted of 20 articles in the field of physics, chemistry, biology, and psychology. The articles were taken from journals provided by PLOS. PLOS is a nonprofit open access science, technology and medicine publisher, innovator and advocacy organization with a library of open access journals and other scientific literature under an open content license.

In a very broad sense, modality is used to refer to speaker's modification of a state of affairs, including even such dimensions as tense and aspect [6, p. 32]. In linguistics, the term “modality” refers to a semantic category which expresses the attitude of the speaker towards the state of affairs expressed in the sentence [3]. The semantic content of modality relates to the expression of notions such as possibility, probability, necessity, likelihood, obligation, permission, and intention, typically by modal auxiliary verbs, but also by other linguistic means (e.g., modal adjectives, adverbs, and nouns) [1, p. 252]. Based on these definitions, modality arises as a subjective outlook at the objective reality.

The presence of modality in scientific texts can seem controversial as it contradicts scientific objectivity. Scientific objectivity is a characteristic of scientific claims, methods and results. It expresses the idea that the claims, methods and results of science are not, or should not be influenced by particular perspectives, value commitments, community bias or personal interests, to name a few relevant factors. Objectivity is often considered as an ideal for scientific inquiry, as a good reason for valuing scientific knowledge, and as the basis of the authority of science in society [10]. Thus, scientific style is understood to be neutral, impartial, evidential, and free from value judgment. This raises the question of there being a place for modality in this kind of discourse.

There are three types of modality distinguished in the modal system of English. These, according to von Wright, are called "epistemic", "deontic" and "dynamic" [4, p. 7].

Epistemic modality modifies the truth of a semantic proposition in terms of its probability (whether it's unlikely, possible, or probable) [5, p. 146]: e.g., Altering samples is typically not viable in the industrial processing of heterogeneous raw materials, and this can be a substantial hurdle even in controlled laboratory settings; This might be the reason why no significant correlation has been found between laforin gene expression and starch granule morphology, size and properties; Feynman reminds us that, although we may not know exactly what energy is, physicists define different kinds of thermodynamic energy in terms of dynamical state and rate properties [8].

The following sentences exemplify prediction based on present evidence: Sequestration of enzymes and substrates would greatly increase reaction efficiency while also protecting engineered host cells from potentially toxic reaction intermediates. As this research shows, such attempts could potentially decrease public engagement with climate change [8].

As can be seen from the examples above, epistemic modality is concerned solely with the speaker's attitude to the status of the proposition, whereas deontic and dynamic modalities relate directly to the potentiality of the event denoted by the proposition. Even though deontic and dynamic both is directive, there's a difference between them. Thus, deontic modality is directive in that the event is controlled by circumstances external to the subject of the sentence (more strictly the person or persons identified by the subject). In particular, permission is given with may and an obligation is laid with must [4, p. 7]: e.g., Following the principle of Occam's razor, the least complex framework should be applied first and extended if necessary; In order to produce relative resistance changes of such high magnitude, switching events within the network must be correlated [8]. As can be seen from the examples, obligation can also be expressed with the verb should in scientific writing, as it is less strong. In the articles examined in our research, there are no examples of using May to express deontic modality.

The dynamic kind of modality suggests that control is internal to the subject - the subject's ability is expressed by can and the speaker's willingness is expressed by will [4, p. 7]. Palmer points out that dynamic modality is concerned with the ability or volition of the subject of the sentence, not subjective like other modalities, hence it is less centrally modal [2]: e.g.,

Not all individual particles could be clearly identified inside these cellular structures; In practice, however, some measurements can produce more disturbance than others [8]. As we can see, both can and could express dynamic modality.

In the following example the verb will expresses not only the future tense, but also willingness of the speakers: Based on these results and the system dynamical framework we have established, we will continue to represent the physical entities that are the bearers of physical properties [8].

As is well defined, a modal verb is a verb of a subgroup of auxiliary verbs that express modality. The main (central, or core) modal are: can/could, shall/should, may/might, will/would, must. The core modal verbs share some distinct grammatical characteristics with other auxiliaries - those referred to as the NICE properties: negation, inversion, code, and emphasis. Despite the fact that they are always finite, they have no -s forms, nor do they have infinitive or participle forms. In most cases, they are followed by the bare infinitive [1, p. 253].

Modal verbs can be divided into three categories: high modality (must, shall, will), medium modality (should, can), and low modality (may, would, might, could). A moderate low modality statement of opinion allows for a more tentative conclusion. It also presents a reasoned and objective argument because it allows for the possibility of evidence contrary to your own claims. In comparison, a high modality opinion can appeal to the emotions and so can be perceived as persuasive and subjective [9].

The total number of modal verbs extracted from our own corpus is 448. The frequency is as follows: can - 238; may - 73; could - 35; would - 33; will - 24; should - 19; might - 14; must - 12; shall - 0. The only verb that does not occur in the examined articles is shall. The most common modal verb used in scientific texts is can (53%). Even though it can express any kind of modality, as stated above, in the majority of cases, it represents physical ability, which is what most of the studies described in the articles relate to.

The next step we took was to group the extracted verbs according with the types of modality they express:

High modality (must, will) - 8%

Medium modality (should, can) - 57%

Low modality (may, would, might, could) - 35%

These results show that the least used modal verbs are the ones expressing high modality, as was expected. However, scientific texts are not completely free from modality. Even though academic writing is highly scientific and therefore based on facts, epistemic modality is a part of it. We have established that, out of 9 modal verbs, 5 are frequently used to express epistemic modality: can, may, could, would, and might. It should be mentioned that all of them belong to low modality verbs, except for can, which is a medium modality verb. Thus, epistemic modality is used to express assumption rather than strong belief with no proof.

According to the results of our study, only 2 verbs were used to express deontic modality: must and should. The more common verb of should indicates advice, while must that occurred only 11 times expresses request.

As scientific texts are often concerned with physical world, the abundance of dynamic modality is natural. In this sense, it can be stated that dynamic modality is typical for scientific texts. To express physical ability, such verbs as can and could are used in academic writing. The verb will is used in the texts to express willingness.

As we established during our research, there are all kinds of modality present in scientific writing. While the roles of deontic (obligation and permission) and dynamic (physical ability and volition) modalities are unquestionable, the function of epistemic modality is peculiar. It represents probability and prediction, which contradicts the idea of scientific writing being purely evidential. However, as the examples taken from the examined articles prove, there is a fraction of speculation even in scientific texts. The modal verbs expressing epistemic modality belong to medium and low modality verbs, which means that epistemic modality in scientific writing is used to express assumption rather than strong beliefs.

References

1. Aarts B. The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar / Bas Aarts, Sylvia Chalker, Edmund Weiner. - Oxford University Press, 2014. - 464 p.

2. Dury R. A Brief Glossary of Modality [Electronic resource] / Richard Dury.

3. ELLO (English Language and Linguistics Online) [Electronic resource]

4. Facchinetti R. Modality in Contemporary English / Roberta Facchinetti, Manfred Krug, Frank Palmer. - Mouton de Gruyter, 2003. - 396 p.

5. Lew R. Towards a Taxonomy of Linguistic Lokes [Electronic resource] // Studia Anglica Posnaniensia. -1997. -№31.-123-152

6. Nuyts J.The Oxford Handbook of Modality and Mood / Jan Nuyts, Johan van der Auwera. - Oxford University Press, 2016. - 688 p.

7. Palmer F. Mood and Modality / F.R. Palmer - Cambridge University Press, 2001. - 236 p.

8. Public Library of Science [Electronic resource]

9. Scientific writing in English [Electronic resource]

10. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2016 by The Metaphysics Research Lab, Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI), Stanford University [Electronic resource]

Размещено на Allbest.ru