Unpacking disciplinary stance: a corpus-based analysis of evidentiality-modality interaction configurations as register-specific epistemic grammars in English scientific discourse
https://doi.org/10.18384/2949-5075-2025-6-60-68
Abstract
Aim. To identify, quantify, and compare dominant Evidentiality (E) – Modality (M) interaction configurations (marker co-occurrence) in contrasting English scientific registers (linguistics vs biology), interpreting them as register-specific ‘epistemic grammars’. Methodology. A comparable corpus (1.2M words, 2020–2023 high-impact journals: Journal of Linguistics,
Applied Linguistics; Cell, Nature Ecology & Evolution) was analyzed. E-M markers were identified (spaCy + manual validation, κ = 0.82). Interaction was defined as co-occurrence within a 4-word window. Quantitative (frequency, Log-likelihood, Welch's t-test, Cohen's d; p < 0.01) and qualitative methods were used.
Results. Significant register differences (p < 0.001) emerged. Linguistics favoured [Reportative E + Hedge M] (14.2 vs 2.1 / 1k words; LL = 89.4), reflecting engagement with scholarly discourse. Biology preferred [Inferential E + High Certainty M] (12.8 vs 3.7 / 1k words; LL = 103.1), aligning with data-driven claims. Markers were syntactically closer in biology (M = 1.8 vs 3.2 words; p < 0.01, d = 1.15).
Research implications. E-M configurations are core to register-specific ‘epistemic grammars’ shaping knowledge claims. Findings refine SFL models by linking context with the selection of combined interpersonal resources, illuminate disciplinary epistemologies, and inform discourse analysis and academic writing pedagogy.
About the Author
N. V. Malkova
Prince Alexander Nevsky Military University of the Ministry of Defense of Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Natalya V. Malkova (Moscow) – Cand. Sci. (Education), Assoc. Prof., Department of Foreign Languages
Moscow
References
1. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
2. Aikhenvald, A. Y. (ed.). (2018). The Oxford handbook of evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.001.0001.
3. Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and Modality (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139167178.
4. Hyland, K. (2022). Teaching and researching writing (4th ed.). London: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9781003198451
5. Biber, D. (2006). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Philadelphia: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company.
6. Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Philadelphia: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company. (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, vol. 54). DOI: 10.1075/pbns.54.
7. Nuyts, J. (2001). Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization: A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/hcp.5.
8. Nuyts, J. (2012). Notions of (inter)subjectivity. In: English Text Construction, 5 (1), 53–76. DOI: 10.1075/etc.5.1.04nuy.
9. Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. In: Journal of Second Language Writing, 13 (2), 133–151. DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001.
10. Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2020). Metadiscourse in academic writing. In: P. Thompson & G. Pascual (Eds.), Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2020 (pp. 145–168). Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-58163-3_3.
11. Gray, B. (2015). Linguistic Variation in Research Articles: When discipline tells only part of the story. John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI: 10.1075/scl.71.
12. Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. In: English for Specific Purposes, 13 (2), 149–170. DOI: 10.1016/0889-4906(94)90013-2.
13. Halliday, M. A. K., Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780203783771.
14. Martin, J. R. & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: 10.1057/9780230511910.
15. Thompson, G. (2014). Introducing functional grammar (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
16. Mushin, I. (2001). Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance: Narrative Retelling. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI: 10.1075/pbns.87.
17. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18. Swales, J. M. (2023). Research genres: Explorations and applications (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Review
Views:
93
JATS XML
Email this article 
