1 Associate professor in TEFL, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran

2 PhD Candidate, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran


Integrating the triplex notion of evidentiality into its theoretical framework, this study aimed at contrastively scrutinizing the ELT academic papers authored by non-native Iranian and native English researchers in terms of the utilization of evidentiality, focusing on the adverbial and epistemic-modality types. To this end, the discussion sections of 20 online papers were randomly selected from both groups. Then, postulating Ifantidou’s model (2001) as its analytical framework, this investigation identified the other evidentiality types in the collected corpora, and then classified them into appropriate subtypes based on the subcategories of the model. Furthermore, the frequency and the rate of evidentials in each group were compared and contrasted to see their rate differences. The findings indicated that the “adverbial” type of evidentiality enjoyed the first-ranked frequency, and the “epistemic modality” was the fourth frequently-used type of evidentiality in both native and non-native ELT papers. The other frequent types of evidentiality in these papers included “inferring,” “reported,” “memory,” and “propositional attitude,” respectively, which were not the types this study concentrated on. Finally, it was observed that there were subtle differences in both the degree and the way these authors draw evidentiality in their papers.


Article Title [Persian]

بررسی وجه گواه نمایی در خصوص وجه نماها و وجهیت معرفتی ها در بخش نتیجه گیری مقالات آموزش زبان انگلیسی تالیف انگلیسی زبان ها در مقایسه با غیر انگلیسی زبان ها

Authors [Persian]

  • منوچهر جعفری گهر 1
  • سعید خیری 2

1 دانشیار TEFL، دانشگاه پیام نورتهران

2 دانشجوی دکتری، دانشگاه پیام نور تهران

Abstract [Persian]

مطالعه حاضر با ترکیب فرضیه سه گانه وجه گواه نمایی با چارچوب نظری آن به بررسی مقابله ای مقالات چاپ شده توسط انگلیسی زبان ها و غیر انگلیسی زبان ها از بعد استفاده از وجه گواه نمایی ها با تاکید بر استفاده از انواع عبارات قیدی و وجهیت معرفتی ها می پردازد. برای این منظور، بیست  بخش بحث و نتیجه گیری نوشته انگلیسی زبان ها و غیر انگلیسی زبان ها مورد بررسی قرار گرفت و با استفاده از مدل ایفانتیدو(2001) به عنوان چارچوب نظری، انواع وجه گواه نمایی ها را شناسایی و زیرگروه های آن را بر مبنای زیرمجموعه های مدل تقسیم کرد. علاوه بر آن، فراوانی و میزان وجه گواه نمایی ها در هر گروه مقایسه گردید تا میزان تفاوت آنها مشخص گردد. نتایج تحقیق نشان داد که بیشترین استفاده در مورد عبارتهای قیدی بوده و وجهیت معرفتی ها رتبه چهارم را به خود اختصاص دادند.  همچنین تفاوت بسیار کمی هم در درجه و هم در شیوه استنتاج آنها از وجه گواه نمایی ها مشاهده گردید.

Keywords [Persian]

  • وجه گواه نمایی
  • انگلیس زبان ها
  • غیر انگلیسی زبان ها
  • مقالات

Adams, H., (2012). Sentential evidentials in English and Spanish medical research papers. Revista de Lingüística y LenguasAplicadas, 7, 9-21.

Anderson, L. (1986). Evidentials, paths of change and mental maps: typologically regular asymmetries. In W. Chafe, & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp. 273–312).

Barker, C., & Taranto, G. (2002). “The paradox of asserting clarity”. Proceedings of the Western Conference on Linguistics (WECOL). Volume 14. Ed. Paivi Koskinen. Department of Linguistics, California State University, Fresno. 10-21.

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E. (1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.

Bunton D. (1999). The use of higher level metatext in PhD theses. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 41–56.

Caliendo, G., & Compagnone, A., (2014). Expressing epistemic stance in university lectures and TED talks: A contrastive corpus-based analysis. Lingue Linguaggi, 11, 105-122.

Chafe, W. (1986). Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In W. Chafe, & J. Nichols (eds.). Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Chafe, W., & Nichols, J. (Eds.). (1986). Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Conrad, S., & Biber, D. ( 2000). Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In S. Hunston, & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 56-73). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Crismore, A. (2003). Metadiscourse: What is it and how is it used in school and non-school social science texts. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois.

Crismore A., & Farnsworth, R. (1989). Mr. Darwin and his readers: Exploring interpersonal metadiscourse as a dimension of ethos. Rhetoric Review, 8(1), 91–112.

Dahl T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1807–1825.

Dendale, P., & Tasmowski, L. (2001). Introduction: Evidentiality and related notions. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 339-348.

Diewald, G., Kresic, M., & Smirnova, E. (2009). The grammaticalization channels of evidentials and modal particles in German: Integration in textual structures as a common feat.  In M. M. Hansen, & J. Visconti (Eds.), Current trends in diachronic semantics and pragmatics (pp. 123-145). UK: Emerald.

Drubig, H. B. (2001). On the syntactic form of epistemic modality. Unpublished manuscript, University of Tuebingen.

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Faller, M. (2002). Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Standford University.

Fang, H. M. (2006). Review of Evidential studies. Journal of Contemporary Foreign Languages, 28, 191-196.

von Fintel, K. (2003). Epistemic modality and conditionals revisited. Talk at UMass Linguistics Colloquium, December 12.

von Fintel, K., & Iatridou, S. (2002). The meanings of epistemic modality. Sinn und Bedeutung 7, Universitaet Konstanz, October 5.

Fuertes–Olivera, M., Velasco–Sacristan, A., Arribas–Btio, A., & Samaniego–Ferntidez, E. (2001). Persuasion and advertising English: Metadiscourse in slogans and headlines. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1291–1307.

Hengeveld, K. (1990). The hierarchical structure of utterances. In J. Nuyts, A. M. Bolkestein, C. Vet (Eds.), Layersand levels of representation in language theory (pp. 1–23). Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Hunston, S. (1994). Evaluation and organization in a sample of written academic discourse. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 191-211). London: Routledge.

Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (2000). Evaluation in text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455.

Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory course books. English for Specific Purposes, 24(3), 269-292.

Hyland, K. (2001). Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic article. Written Communication, 18(4), 549-574.

Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156–77.

Ifantidou, E. (2001). Evidentials and relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005). Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 24(3), 269-292.

Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nuyts, J. (2001). Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization: A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Nwogu, K. N. (1997). The medical research paper: Structure and functions. English for Specific Purposes, 16(2), 119-138.

Ochs, E. (Ed.). (1989). The pragmatics of affect. Special issue Text, 9(1), 1-8.

Palmer, F. (1986). Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Papafragou, A. (1998). The acquisition of modality: Implications for theories of semantic representation. Mind and Language, 13, 370–399.

Papafragou, A. (2000). Modality: Issues in the semantics-pragmatics interface. Amsterdam and New York: Elsevier Science.

Pederson, E., Danziger, E., Wilkins, D., Levinson, S., Kita, S., & Senft, G. (1998). Semantic typology and spatial conceptualization. Language, 74, 557–589.

Posteguillo, S. (1999). The schematic structure of computer science research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 139-160.

Speas, M. (2004). Evidentiality, logophoricity and the syntactic representation of pragmatic features. Lingua, 114, 255–276.

Schiffrin, D. (1980). Metatalk: Organizational and evaluative brackets in discourse. Sociological Inquiry, 50,199-236.

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Thompson, D. (1993). Arguing for experimental facts in science. Written Communication, 10(1), 106-128.

van Valin, R., La Polla, R., (1997). Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vande Kopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82-93.

Willett, T. (1988). A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Studies in Language, 12, 51–97.

Wood, A. (1982). An examination of the rhetorical structures of authentic chemistry texts. Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 121-143.

Zarei, G. R., & Mansoori, S. (2007). Metadiscourse in academic prose: A contrastive analysis of English and Persian research articles. The Asian ESP Journal, 3(2), 24-40.