Logical markers in L1 (Spanish and English) and L2

0 downloads 0 Views 532KB Size Report
The author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies to be used by way of offprints, for their personal use only. Permission is ...
John Benjamins Publishing Company

This is a contribution from English Text Construction 2:2 © 2009. John Benjamins Publishing Company This electronic file may not be altered in any way. The author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies to be used by way of offprints, for their personal use only. Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is accessible to members (students and staff) only of the author’s/s’ institute, it is not permitted to post this PDF on the open internet. For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com). Please contact [email protected] or consult our website: www.benjamins.com Tables of Contents, abstracts and guidelines are available at www.benjamins.com

Logical markers in L1 (Spanish and English) and L2 (English) Business research articles* Pilar Mur Dueñas

Universidad de Zaragoza

A great number of cross-cultural analyses of academic written genres have shown that there are cultural differences in the use of certain rhetorical and metadiscoursal features in texts produced in English and other languages. Intercultural studies of L2 (English) academic texts are more scarce. They tend to point out that these texts occupy a mid-position between those produced in the two L1s. The present research analyses logical markers in L1 research articles (RAs) in Spanish and English and L2 RAs in English in a specific discipline to try to unveil whether the use made of these metadiscoursal features by Spanish scholars in their English RAs resembles that in L1 English or Spanish texts. The use of additive, contrastive and consecutive logical markers is found to be rather different in the English and Spanish RAs and, in turn, their use in the English RAs written by Spanish scholars resembles that in RAs written by AngloAmerican peers. Thus, no transfer process seems to occur from L1 (Spanish) RAs into L2 (English) texts. It is hypothesized that some rhetorical and metadiscoursal features may be more likely than others to undergo this transfer in academic genres, a hypothesis which shall be confirmed by future research. The possible reasons for these results are also discussed as well as their pedagogical implications.

1. Introduction Intercultural studies of academic genres have proliferated in recent years, Intercultural Rhetoric (Connor 2004a, 2004b) becoming a key perspective of analysis within English for Academic Purposes (EAP). From the 1990s, the contrastive analysis of various rhetorical and linguistic features of different academic texts has been undertaken by many — mostly non-native — EAP scholars in several pairs of languages, such as English and: Finnish (Mauranen 1992, 1993a, 1993b), Portuguese (Johns 1992), Polish (Duszak 1994, 1998; Golebiowski 1998), Czech English Text Construction 2:2 (2009), 246–264.  doi 10.1075/etc.2.2.07mur issn 1874–8767 / e-issn 1874–8775 © John Benjamins Publishing Company



Logical markers in L1 (Spanish and English) and L2 (English) Business research articles 247

(Čmejrková 1996), Swedish (Melander et al. 1997), German (Kreutz and Harres 1997), Bulgarian (Vassileva 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001), French and Norwegian (Breivega et al. 2002; Dahl 2003, 2004; Fløttum, Dahl and Kinn 2006; Fløttum, Kinn and Dahl 2006; Vold 2006), Italian (Giannoni 2002), Ukranian and Russian (Yakhontova 2002, 2006), Danish (Shaw 2003, 2004), Slovene (Pisanski 2005), French (Carter-Thomas 2007, Swales and Van Bonn 2007); Greek (Koutsantoni 2007; Vladimirou 2008) and Spanish (Valero Garcés 1996; Moreno 1997, 1998, 2004; Pérez Ruiz 1999; Fortanet 1998; Martín Martín 2002, 2003, 2005; Burgess 2002; Salager-Meyer et al. 2003; Martín Martín and Burgess 2004; Martínez 2005; Lorés 2006; Suárez 2006; Moreno and Suárez 2006, 2008; Suárez and Moreno 2008; Lorés and Murillo 2007; Mur Dueñas 2007a, 2007b). Most of these studies have focused on the analysis of L1 academic texts. Research articles, abstracts or book reviews in English have been compared to similar texts in other languages. This research tends to underline the influence of the socio-cultural context on the realization of genres. Not only disciplines but also the particular linguistic and cultural context — which entails a different audience in terms of size and homogeneity — have been expounded as determining factors to explain the different use of many rhetorical and pragmatic features in academic genres in different languages. Only a few studies have presented a double comparison of, on the one hand, L1 academic genres in the two languages, and L2 texts in English on the other (e.g. Čmejrková 1996; Melander et al. 1997; Vassileva 2001; Burgess 2002; Yakhontova 2002; Shaw 2003; 2004; Martínez 2005). It is clear that scholars are influenced by the disciplinary and broader cultural context in which they are embedded when producing their academic texts in their L1. However, the role this broader cultural context (especially in the case of Spanish) has when writing academic texts in L2 English is still uncertain. There is a need to try and unveil the possible transfer of certain rhetorical features commonly used in L1 academic texts into L2 texts: the underuse, overuse or deviant use of features, and what is most important, the possible consequences of these phenomena. At a moment when scholars in most disciplines are commonly pressed to publish their research outcomes internationally in English to gain credentials and be promoted accordingly, it seems important to explore the language transfer process in this particular register. EAP intercultural research should try to ascertain what features are more (un)likely to be transferred in what languages and genres, and to what extent transferring rhetorical features interferes with successful publication. In this context the present research aims to contribute to the study of L2 academic genres by exploring a specific metadiscoursal category (logical markers) in research articles (RAs) from a single discipline — Business Management — written in English by Spanish-based scholars and by comparing its use with that in RAs in Spanish and in RAs in English by AngloAmerican authors.

© 2009. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

248 Pilar Mur Dueñas

Although logical markers in RAs have not been extensively explored at least from an intercultural perspective, the use of these markers in student writing has attracted great scholarly attention. A great deal of research has focused on the analysis of the use made of these markers by advanced non-native (Cantonese, French, Swedish, Hungarian, Taiwanese, etc.) learners (e.g. Field and Yip 1992; Milton and Tsang 1993; Granger and Tyson 1996; Altenber and Tapper 1998; Bolton et al 2002; Tankó 2004; Cheng 2006). This research further compares the use of connectors by L2 learners with the use made by mainly L1 students in similar texts. Most of these studies highlight that non-native students tend to overuse connectors possibly as a result of their overteaching. Further, certain common misuses (inappropriate functional and/or semantic uses) by non-native learners have also been underlined. Drawing on a previous study, which showed a different frequency of use of additive, contrastive and consecutive logical markers in RAs in Business Management in English and in Spanish (Mur Dueñas 2007b), this article will focus on the contrastive analysis of logical markers in a comparable Spanish-English sub-corpus. The specific aim is to see whether the use that Spanish Business Management scholars publishing their RAs internationally in English make of these features resembles that of their Anglo-American peers, or whether they transfer any conventionalised uses and norms they tend to display in their RAs in Spanish. Logical markers organise ideas and help to make the text cohesive and coherent, but also, importantly, they directly address readers so that they process information as intended. As Vande Kopple (1985: 83) states, readers are smoothly led through the discourse by these markers, as they no longer have to infer the semantic relationship that is established between what has already been stated and what comes next: this relationship is spelt out for readers. Therefore, logical markers fulfil a significant interactive metadiscoursal function (Hyland 2005). As such, the number of logical markers in a text, in this specific case, in a RA, may affect the writer-reader relationship established. Also, the type of markers most frequently used may help partly unveil the argumentative discourse flow. Three different sets of logical markers will be analysed contrastively in this article, and are illustrated by the examples below: (i) additive markers, which signal that the following stretch of discourse is an addition to the previous argument and follows the same line of argumentation (examples under 1), (ii) contrastive markers, which indicate the beginning of a counterargument and thus specify that the ensuing argument contrasts with the previous one in some respect (examples under 2), (iii) consecutive markers, which highlight that the ensuing argument comes as a consequence of what has been previously stated (examples under 3).

© 2009. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved





Logical markers in L1 (Spanish and English) and L2 (English) Business research articles 249

(1) In sum, our results suggest a different pattern of perceptions and role for control in discriminating threat and opportunity that may be related to cultural sensitivity to controllability. Further, results point to the potential fruitfulness of future research on cultural variation in strategic issue diagnosis.(ENGBM17)

The use of the “Global Manufacturing Futures Survey” scale partially assures the reliability of the questionnaire since its validity and reliability has already been proven in other studies. Moreover, this scale allows for international comparisons (Avella-Camarero et al., 1999). (SPENGBM15)

(2) The method most commonly used relies on performance measures from which (tolerant or aggressive) behavior is inferred. Nevertheless, some recent studies focus on a more direct evaluation of rivalry through the observation of the competitive actions that firms undertake. (SPENGBM24)

La investigación acerca de las fusiones y adquisiciones es abundante y se han estudiado múltiples cuestiones desde una gran variedad de perspectivas. Uno de los objetivos ha sido entender el resultado de estas operaciones. Sin embargo, la mayor parte de los trabajos se ha centrado en la fase de formulación en un intento de racionalizarlas. (SPBM 8) [Research on mergers and acquisitions is abundant and many issues have been studied from a great variety of perspectives. One of the objectives has been to unveil the result of these operations. However, most studies have focused on the formulation phase with the aim of streamlining them.]

(3) Because an inverse relationship between executive power and governance strength was anticipated, it was important to ensure that our measures for these variables were empirically distinct. Thus, we began the process of identifying acceptable measures by including three previously studied measures of each variable into a principal components factor analysis with “promax” oblique rotation, which is appropriate when theory predicts correlation among factors (Pedhazur & Schmeikin, 1991). (ENGBM3)

La carencia de fuentes de información fiables u organizadas frenan el desarrollo de nuevas ideas de negocio. De hecho, pocos emprendedores entrevistados sabían previamente donde acudir para recoger la información o pedir ayuda inicial. Por tanto, se perciben carencias en la financiación y ayudas públicas, así como en las fuentes de información y asesoramiento. (SPBM12) [The lack of reliable and organised sources of information hinders the development of new business ideas. In fact, few enterprising agents interviewed knew where to go to get information or ask for initial help. Thus/Therefore, shortages in public financing and incentives as well as in the sources of information and consultation are perceived.

© 2009. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

250 Pilar Mur Dueñas

Only parenthetical logical markers (Montolío 2001) or inter-sentential uses of logical markers, i.e. only logical markers which join two main clauses and which are most frequently separated from the rest of the discourse by punctuation marks, will be analysed. These markers are considered optional rhetorical choices. They are inserted in the text to explicitly indicate the relationship between the ideas developed throughout the article. Even though it is acknowledged that logicosemantic relationships of addition, contrast and consequence can be achieved intra- and inter-sententially by means of other lexico-grammatical elements besides logical markers, the analysis here presented is restricted to metadiscoursal, sentence-level logical markers. 2. Corpus and methodology The analysis is based on three sub-corpora of Business Management RAs published between 2001 and 2006: (1) ENGBM, comprising 24 RAs written in English by Anglo-American scholars and published in international high-impact journals (197,922 words); (2) SPENGBM, comprising 24 RAs written in English by Spanish scholars and published in international high-impact journals (192,546 words); and (3) SPBM, comprising 24 RAs written in Spanish by Spanish scholars published in local journals (166,114 words). These sub-corpora form part of a broader corpus, SERAC (Spanish-English Research Article Corpus), which contains a total of 576 RAs in 8 disciplines, 72 RAs per discipline divided into ENG, SPENG and SP RAs, to enable intercultural as well as interdisciplinary analyses. The selection of high impact journals from which to extract the articles was carried out with the help of some specialists who pointed out the most prestigious and commonly read publications in the field. For the ENGBM sub-corpus, three journals were chosen (Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Management and Strategic Management Journal); 8 RAs authored by scholars based at North American universities were randomly selected from the most recent to the least recent issues of those journals. In order to compile the SPENGBM sub-corpus, RAs published by Spanish-based scholars in these three top-journals were searched for. None were found in Academy of Management Journal or Journal of Management; 5 were found in Strategic Management Journal. To continue compiling the corpus, then, other international relevant publications in the field were consulted. Spanish Business Management scholars were found to publish some articles in English in: British Management Journal, Journal of Management Studies, Omega-International Journal of Management Science, Organization Studies and Research Policy. The Spanish authors of these articles were then contacted to enquire into the process of their writing. More specifically, they were asked whether they had originally

© 2009. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved



Logical markers in L1 (Spanish and English) and L2 (English) Business research articles 251

written the texts in English or whether they had had them translated by a professional. Those which had been translated were left out, as it is the language of the non-native scholars that I aimed at analysing. Some Spanish scholars mentioned that their RAs had been subject to light linguistic revision following suggestions, recommendations or corrections from referees and editors; however, we did not get access to previous versions of their papers and, as they explicitly said that they were minor revisions, their final products were incorporated into the corpus. Finally, 3 recognised journals in Spanish were also pointed out by some specialists (Cuadernos de Economía y Dirección de la Empresa, Dirección y Organización de Empresas and Revista Europea de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa) from each of which 8 articles were randomly selected. Additive, contrastive and consecutive logical markers were searched for in the corpus following a corpus-driven approach. That is, the study was not based on a given benchmark, but this was built as texts were read and carefully scanned for potential markers. Once a feature found in the corpus was taken to be a logical marker type, the corresponding tokens were retrieved using Wordsmith Tools 4.0. The concordances obtained were then manually revised before including them in the counts to ensure that tokens actually functioned as logical markers in the given co-text and were part of the author(s)’ argumentation. Types extracted were classified into the three sub-sets (i.e. additive, contrastive and consecutive) in the light of the existing literature on discourse markers and connectors. In particular the work of Quirk et al. (1985), Martin (1992) and Fraser (1996, 1999) were consulted for the texts in English and those of Martín Zorraquino and Portolés (1999), Montolío (2001) and Portolés (2001) were consulted for the texts in Spanish.1 3. Logical markers in Business Management RAs in English, SpanishEnglish and Spanish The overall frequency of use of the three different groups of logical markers (additive, contrastive and consecutive) was analysed in the three sub-corpora. Their relative frequency of use of particular markers was also examined within the three categories. The aim is to explore the possible influence of the linguistic/cultural context in the realization of this metadiscoursal category in L1 English and Spanish and L2 Business Management RAs. 3.1 Frequency of use of logical markers in the three sub-corpora As can be seen in Table 1, and in agreement with a previous pilot study (Mur Dueñas 2007b), the overall total and normalised figures indicate that logical markers are

© 2009. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

252 Pilar Mur Dueñas

Table 1.  Logical markers in the three sub-corpora. ENGBM Total   Per 10,000 w.

SPENGBM Total    Per 10,000 w.

SPBM Total   Per 10,000 w.

Additive

  242    12.2

  192    10.0

264     15.9

Contrastive

  377    19.0

  452    23.5

228     13.7

Consecutive

  545    27.5

  590    30.6

323     19.4

TOTAL

1,164    58.8

1,234    64.1

812    49.1

more frequently included in the RAs written in English by Anglo-American authors than in RAs in Spanish. It could thus be expected that Spanish Business Management scholars would transfer the less frequent use of explicit signals between clauses in RAs in Spanish when writing their RAs internationally in English. However, the results found do not support this expectation. The Spanish-English sub-corpus does not occupy an intermediate position between the two L1 sub-corpora. In fact, the Spanish-English RAs present a higher overall number of logical markers than the English ones. It seems then that the use that Spanish Business Management scholars writing their RAs in English make of logical markers is more in line with what seems to be the norm in international publications. Further, this high use of connectors in the Spanish-English sub-corpus seems to be in line with the results of previous research in student L2 English writing (e.g. Milton and Tang 1993; Granger and Tyson 1996; Altenberg and Tapper 1998; Bolton et al. 2002; Tankó 2004; Cheng 2006). As regards the relative frequency of the three categories of logical markers (additive, contrastive and consecutive), the results obtained show differences especially between the sub-corpus in Spanish and the two sub-corpora in English. In the English and Spanish-English RAs additive logical markers are the least common, followed by contrastive ones — the number of which in the SPENGBM sub-corpus is more than double than that of additive ones. Consecutive logical markers are by far the most frequent in the two sub-corpora in English. On the other hand, in the Spanish RAs the differences between the three categories of logical markers are less noticeable. Spanish BM scholars writing their RAs in Spanish make explicit the relationship of addition, contrast or consequence to a more similar extent. Nevertheless, in the Spanish texts additive logical markers are more common than contrastive ones, a result totally opposite to that found in the two other sub-corpora. 3.2 Types of logical markers used in the three sub-corpora Tables 2, 3 and 4 present the types of additive, contrastive and consecutive logical markers respectively in each of the three sub-corpora.

© 2009. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved



Logical markers in L1 (Spanish and English) and L2 (English) Business research articles 253

Table 2.  Additive logical markers in the three sub-corpora. ENGBM

SPENGBM

SPBM

moreover

48

moreover

51

además

63

in addition

46

furthermore

47

por otro lado

50

furthermore

40

in addition

46

asimismo/así mismo 44

further

40

similarly

15

por su parte

34

similarly

25

additionally

11

por otra parte

28

additionally

12

and

 8

adicionalmente

13

and

12

also

 8

igualmente

11

likewise

11

likewise

 5

y

 8

also

 8

further

 1

a su vez

 7

de igual forma

 3

de igual modo

 2

incluso

 1

It has been found that Spanish and Anglo-American Business Management scholars use a similar range of additive logical markers in their international RAs in English. In both sub-corpora the three top additive markers coincide: moreover, in addition, and furthermore. Nevertheless, additive connectors are restricted to the three top ones in the Spanish-English RAs, whereas the English RAs present a wider range of commonly used markers. The scarcity of frequent additive types used by the Spanish scholars in their RAs in English is specially striking when compared to the extensive set of additive markers they use in their Spanish texts. As a result, there are some connectors which are significantly less commonly used in the SPENGBM sub-corpus. That is especially the case with further, whose frequency of use is equal to that of furthermore in the ENGBM sub-corpus, whereas only one token of this marker appeared in the SPENGBM sub-corpus. Spanish Business Management scholars do not seem to be aware of the use of further as an explicit metadiscoursal feature signalling a relationship of addition or continuation between two parts of an argument. However is by far the most common contrastive logical marker in both the English and the Spanish-English RAs (Table  3). There is, however, more variation in the use of the other contrastive markers between both sub-corpora than in the case of additive logical markers. Whereas when writing their RAs in English Spanish authors restrict their use of additive markers to three markers, they resort to many different contrastive markers. The range of regularly used contrastive markers is thus wider in the Spanish-English than in the English texts. As such, there are some contrastive markers commonly found in the SPENGBM sub-cor-

© 2009. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

254 Pilar Mur Dueñas

Table 3.  Contrastive logical markers in the three sub-corpora. ENGBM however yet

SPENGBM 226 29

however on the other hand

SPBM 209

sin embargo

113

41

no obstante

50

in contrast

24

nevertheless

40

por el contrario

18

nevertheless

17

nonetheless

26

en cambio

16

rather

15

conversely

21

ahora bien

9

instead

14

but

19

pero

8

on the other hand

11

in contrast

18

a pesar de ello

6

by contrast

10

on the contrary

14

por contra

5

alternatively

9

alternatively

14

con todo

2

but

7

rather

14

aun así

1

though

4

instead

13

conversely

4

otherwise

5

otherwise

2

yet

5

still

2

by contrast

5

needless to say

1

still

4

nonetheless

1

needless to say

3

on the contrary

1

on the other side

1

pus which are rare in the ENGBM one; this is the case for the types: on the other hand (41 tokens in SPENG RAs and 11 in ENG RAs), nevertheless (40 tokens in SPENG RAs and 17 in ENG RAs), nonetheless (26 in SPENG RAs and 1 in ENG RAs), conversely (21 tokens in SPENG RAs and 4 in ENG RAs) and on the contrary (14 in SPENG RAs and 1 in ENG RAs). The use of these markers, frequent in the Spanish-English RAs but infrequent in the English RAs, may be considered possible deviant realizations of the explicit signalling of contrast between two clauses in this particular genre and discipline. Finally, although the range of consecutive logical markers used is rather similar in the two English sub-corpora, some differences can be observed in the extent to which certain markers are used (Table 4). Thus is the most frequent consecutive logical marker, followed by therefore in the ENGBM sub-corpus, whereas therefore ranks first and thus second in the SPENGBM sub-corpus. This difference may well go unnoticed to the international readership as the two most common markers in the two English sub-corpora coincide. As can be seen, the consecutive marker as such has not been used by Spanish Business Management scholars in their RAs in English. As in the case of the additive marker further, the Spanish scholars may not be aware of its use altogether, or of its particular use in these academic texts.

© 2009. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved



Logical markers in L1 (Spanish and English) and L2 (English) Business research articles 255

Table 4.  Consecutive logical markers in the three sub-corpora. ENGBM

SPENGBM

SPBM

thus

272

therefore

214

por tanto

therefore

118

thus

169

así

98

31

hence

61

por (todo) ello

31

consequently

131

as a result

29

consequently

54

así pues

12

so

21

so

23

por lo tanto

10

then

16

thereby

19

en consecuencia

9

as such

16

then

16

pues

7

thereby

15

as a consequence

10

entonces

7

accordingly

12

as a result

10

por este motivo

5

hence

10

for this/that reason

9

por esta razón

5

accordingly

5

por consiguiente

4

como consecuencia

2

como resultado

2

as a consequence

3

for this/that reason

2

Further, the markers consequently and hence have been far more commonly included in the SPENGBM sub-corpus than in the ENGBM one, and the opposite occurs with the marker as a result, which is more frequently included in the English RAs than in the Spanish-English ones. 4. Discussion Results indicate that the use of logical markers in the Spanish RAs has not been transferred into the Spanish-English RAs, but rather that its use generally conforms with the patterns favoured in English RAs written by Anglo-American scholars. Thus, the interactive writer-reader relationship ensuing from the extent of use of explicit markers indicating the logico-semantic relationship between stretches of discourse is similar in the RAs in Spanish-English and in English (more reader-oriented) but different from that in Spanish RAs (more writer-oriented; Hinds 1987). There can be several explanations for the higher overall inclusion of logical markers in the Spanish-English RAs and the similarities in the use of the different categories between the two sub-corpora in English. Spanish scholars may be aware of the rhetorical differences between the RAs in English and in Spanish in terms of the explicit signalling of the relationship between ideas and arguments and may accordingly insert a greater number of these signals (especially contrastive and consecutive ones) in their RAs in English. This awareness can be the result of overt

© 2009. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

256 Pilar Mur Dueñas

teaching of these metadiscoursal devices in face-to-face tutorials, consultation of materials or self-reading, and/or observation of international RAs in English. Another explanation may be that Spanish scholars addressing the international community in English in this discipline — aware or not of these rhetorical differences in the two linguistic/cultural contexts — may feel the need to be more precise and ensure the text is interpreted as expected by a more heterogeneous readership than when writing for a local, restricted audience. Writing for a different, wider audience may (un)consciously lead them to the inclusion of more metadiscoursal logical markers. In this international competitive context authors need to contextualise their research and highlight the main results in the light of the community knowledge-production, and to establish connections with it in terms of novelty, (in)consistency and (non-) support. This may lead Spanish (and Anglo-American) Business Management scholars publishing internationally in English to include a higher number of especially contrastive and consecutive logical makers. The differences in the relative use of each category of logical markers in the sub-corpora indicate that there are divergences in the way information is presented and developed in the RAs in the two languages and socio-cultural contexts. In the RAs in English, results and arguments tend to be presented antithetically (i.e. comparing and contrasting them), hence the high incidence of use of contrastive and consecutive markers. In contrast, in the Spanish RAs results and arguments tend to be more frequently cumulatively presented (i.e. listing them; including them one after another), hence the high incidence of use of additive markers. The examples under 4 below illustrate the characteristic contrasting introduction of results and arguments in the English and Spanish-English Business Management RAs.

(4) Specifically, the PSI positively correlated with the coalition tactic (r = .28, p < .01), and it did not correlate with assertiveness (r = .16, n.s.), both findings supportive of Hypothesis 3. However, the PSI exhibited a positive, but not a significant, correlation with the upward appeal tactic, which fails to support part of Hypothesis 3. (ENGBM 12)

Neither labour costs per employee, customer loyalty nor brand tenure had a significant effect on the probability of strategic change in the basic model. However, as can be seen in the last two columns of Table 4, all these variables exhibited a significant influence on the probability of strategic change depending on the time period of analysis considered. (SPENGBM4) This relationship merits serious concern because takeovers are generally followed by higher than normal rates of top management turnover (Waish, 1988). However, it is not yet fully understood why some CEOs stay and others depart following a firm’s acquisition (Lubat-kin, Schweiger, & Yaakov, 1999). (ENGBM 2)

© 2009. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved



Logical markers in L1 (Spanish and English) and L2 (English) Business research articles 257

Both Anglo-American and Spanish Business Management scholars writing their RAs in English tend to organise their results by contrasting those which support the hypotheses stated in the Introduction with those which do not; similarly, they compare variables which yield significance in their studies with those which do not. Further, in the RAs in English arguments tend to be contrasted, opposing them to arguments made in the previous literature or previous research. The examples under 5, on the other hand, exemplify the common additive presentation of results and arguments in the Spanish sub-corpus. (5) Asimismo, fue corroborada la validez convergente ya que los parámetros que relacionan los ítemes con los factores previstos se mostraron significativos y con un valor estandarizado superior a 0,5 (Steenkamp y Trijp, 1991). (SPBM17) [Also, convergent validity was confirmed, as the parameters which relate items to foreseen factors were significant, with a standardised value above 0.5]

Por otro lado, se detecta productividad marginal decreciente en el uso laboral de Internet, puesto que el coeficiente asociado a la variable NET2 es negativo y significativo (p=0,0026). (SPBM1) [In addition, decreasing marginal productivity was observed in the use of Internet at work, as the coefficient associated to the variable NET2 is negative and significant (p=0.0026).] De obligada mención son las aportaciones de Schumpeter, que enfatiza el rol innovador como rasgo distintivo de los emprendedores. McClelland, por su parte, se centra en los rasgos psicológicos del emprendedor (ímpetu, propensión moderada al riesgo…). Asimismo, cabe citar la definición de Shapero (1975), que considera que un emprendedor posee iniciativa, organiza ciertos mecanismos sociales y económicos y acepta el riesgo de fracasar. (SPBM12) [Schumpeter’s contributions should be mentioned here; he emphasises the innovative role as a distinguishing feature of enterprising managers. Further, McClelland, focuses on their psychological features (brisk, moderate tendency towards risk…). Moreover, Shapero’s (1975) definition can be cited here, who considers that an enterprising manager has initiative, organises some social and economic mechanisms and accepts the risk to fail.]

It has been found that Spanish scholars have not used certain logical markers in their RAs in English to the same extent as their Anglo-American peers. This is the case for further, as such, and to a lower extent, as a result. On the other hand, Spanish scholars have included certain logical markers in their RAs in English more frequently than their international counterparts. This is especially true for

© 2009. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

258 Pilar Mur Dueñas

the contrastive markers on the other hand, nevertheless, nonetheless, conversely and on the contrary and the consecutive marker consequently. It may be the case that as learners of the English language they have not mastered the use of these markers (as a result of their particular developmental stage) or that they may lack some genre and/or register-awareness as regards their use in this specific context. These likely deviant uses, which do not seem to fully comply with the norm or convention in international RAs in this discipline, have, nevertheless, not prevented the Spanish Business Management scholars’ publication of their research in international journals. As Shaw (2003, 2004) points out in relation to the case of sentence openings and evaluative features in Danish-English RAs in comparison to Danish and English RAs, it can be said that the above uses of contrastive logical markers do not apparently conflict too much with the expectations of editors, reviewers and readers and still fall within the limits of acceptable international norms in this particular context. 5. Concluding remarks The present research has focused on the intercultural analysis of the particular metadiscoursal category of logical markers in disciplinary-specific RAs. Results have shown differences in the frequency of use of these markers in Business Management RAs written in English — by Anglo-American and Spanish scholars — and in RAs in Spanish. It has been argued that the extent of use of logical markers may lead to a different writer-reader relationship in the two contexts of publication (i.e. national (local, restricted) vs. international (competitive, diverse)). Differences have also been shown in the extent to which the three categories of logical markers (additive, contrastive and consecutive) are used in the two languages. As has been highlighted, this variation in the choice of logical markers seems to point to a varying discourse-flow pattern in the international texts in English and in the Spanish ones. Overall, results indicate that when writing their RAs in English, Spanish Business Management scholars seem to accommodate their use of logical markers to that prevailing in high impact international publications in English. The different use of logical markers in the RAs in the two L1s analysed and the apparent need to adjust them to the norm prevailing in international publications in this field is to be seen as a challenge for Spanish Business scholars wishing to see their research published internationally in English. The adjustment appears to be necessary so that a similar discourse-flow is achieved and a similar writer-reader relationship established. A minor challenge, perhaps, for L2 (Spanish) scholars may be that of selecting the most appropriate logical markers within each category throughout

© 2009. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved



Logical markers in L1 (Spanish and English) and L2 (English) Business research articles 259

their RAs. It may be seen as a minor challenge as it seems that possible deviant uses can be accepted in international publications. Previous research has shown that the conventional use of some features in L1 academic genres has been transferred into comparable L2 texts. This is the case of hedging and boosting in English-Bulgarian RAs (Vassileva 2001), the rhetorical structure, use of pronouns and evaluative features in Ukrainian/Russian-English abstracts (Yakhontova 2002), and sentence openings and evaluative features in Danish-English (Shaw 2003, 2004). However, the results reported here do not show a transfer process from L1 (Spanish) RA writing conventions into L2 (English) texts as regards the use of logical markers. Thus, it can be hypothesised that some rhetorical or metadiscoursal features may be more likely than others to be transferred by scholars writing academic texts in English as their L2. More research is thus needed to unveil whether the transfer process is more likely to occur in relation to a certain type of rhetorical or metadiscoursal features and/or between given pairs of languages. Since research has shown that rhetorical and metadiscoursal features are subject to disciplinary (Hyland 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004a, 2005; Varttala 2001; Lafuente Millán 2008) and genre variation (Hyland 2002, 2004a, 2004b; Hyland and Tse 2004), these future intercultural analyses, such as the one presented here, should be based upon a specific academic genre in a given disciplinary domain. Another interesting aspect to explore in future research is to what extent the transfer, underuse, overuse or deviant use of certain L1 rhetorical or metadiscoursal features in L2 English in a given academic context may prevent publication. To do so, text-based analyses should be informed by the specialists and other agents intervening in the publication process (reviewers, editors and gatekeepers in general) to report on the writing process. This ethnographic approach combined with text-based analysis may help unveil at what point linguistic/cultural influence may interfere with successful published outcomes. The research presented here and the outcomes of future research along the lines sketched above can be of great benefit to EAP practitioners, as this can help them provide their learners with guidelines and advice which helps them get their research published internationally in English. It can help determine what the real challenges are for L2 scholars trying to achieve their credentials, influence and recognition through international publications in English. It does not follow that non-Anglo American writers should be systematically led to accommodate their writing to the norms prevailing in Anglo-Saxon international publications and to avoid transfer from culturally-grained academic conventions prevailing in their L1 contexts. Instead, they should be informed of the conventions that may be flouted with (possible) impunity, and of those which are better accepted if successful publication is aimed at. That is, text-based intercultural corpus analyses — ideally informed by specialists and the agents intervening in the publication process

© 2009. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

260 Pilar Mur Dueñas

— should give way not to a purely pragmatic approach to EAP, but rather to a critical pragmatic approach, which “acknowledges that students should be exposed to dominant discourse norms […and] stresses that students have choices and should be free to adopt or subvert the dominant practices as they wish” (Harwood and Hadley 2004: 357) or as they are allowed to.

Notes *  This research has been carried out within the framework of the project entitled InterLAE (Interpersonalidad en el Lenguaje Académico Escrito/Interpersonality in Written Academic Language), financially supported by local and national authorities (Diputación General de Aragón (245–122) and Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (HUM2005-03646)). 1.  For particular explanations on the categorisation of the types as logical markers and within these into additive, contrastive and consecutive, see Mur Dueñas (2007b).

References Altenberg, B & Tapper M. 1998. The use of adverbial connectors in advanced Swedish learners’ written English. In Learner English on Computer, S. Granger (ed). Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman Limited, 80–93. Bolton, K., Nelson, G & Hung, J. 2002. A corpus-based study of connectors in student writing: Research from the International Corpus of English in Hong Kong (ICE-HK). International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 7: 165–182. Breivega, K. et al. 2002. Traces of self and others in research articles. A comparative pilot study of English, French and Norwegian research articles in medicine, economics and linguistics. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 12: 218–239. Burgess, S. 2002. Packed houses and intimate gatherings: Audience and rhetorical strategies. In Academic Discourse, J. Flowerdew (ed). London: Longman, 196–225. Carter-Thomas, S. 2007. The ‘iffiness’ of medical research articles: A comparison of English if and French si. In Language and discipline perspectives on academic discourse, K. Fløttum (ed). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press, 161–187. Chen, C.W. 2006. The use of conjunctive adverbials in the academic papers of advanced Taiwanese EFL learners. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 11: 113–130. Čmejrková, S. 1996. Academic writing in Czech and English. In Academic Writing: Intercultural and Textual Issues, E. Ventola & A. Mauranen (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 137–153. Connor, U. 2004a. Introduction. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3: 271–276. Connor, U. 2004b. Intercultural rhetoric research: Beyond texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3: 291–304. Dahl, T. 2003. Metadiscourse in research articles. In Academic Discourse: Multidisciplinary Approaches, K. Fløttum & F. Rastier (eds). Oslo: Novus Press, 120–138. Dahl, T. 2004. Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics 36: 1807–1825.

© 2009. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved



Logical markers in L1 (Spanish and English) and L2 (English) Business research articles 261

Duszak, A. 1994. Academic discourse and intellectual styles. Journal of Pragmatics 21: 291– 313. Duszak, A. 1998. Academic writing in English and Polish: Comparing and subverting genres. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 8: 191–213. Field, Y. & Yip, L.M.O. 1992. A comparison of internal cohesive conjunction in the English essay writing of Cantonese speakers and native speakers of English. RELC Journal 23: 133–178. Fløttum, K., Dahl, T. & Kinn, T. 2006. Academic Voices — Across Languages and Disciplines. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fløttum, K., Kinn, T. & Dahl, T. 2006. ‘We now report on…’ versus ‘Let us now see how…’: Author roles and interaction with readers in research articles. In Academic Discourse across Disciplines, K. Hyland & M. Bondi (eds). Bern: Peter Lang, 203–224. Fortanet, I. 1998. Verb usage in academic writing: Reporting verbs in economics research articles in English and in Spanish. In Proceedings of the 11th European Symposium on Language for Special Purposes. LSP Identity and Interface Research, Knowledge and Society, L. Lundquist, H. Picht & J. Qvistgaard (eds). Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School, LSP Centre, 231–240. Fraser B. 1996. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics 6: 167–190. Fraser B. 1999. What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 31: 931–952. Giannoni, D. S. 2002. Worlds of gratitude: A contrastive study of acknowledgement texts in English and Italian. Applied Linguistics 23: 1–31. Golebiowski, Z. 1998. Rhetorical approaches to scientific writing: An English-Polish contrastive study. Text 18: 67–102. Granger, S. & Tyson, S. 1996. Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and nonnative EFL speakers of English. World Englishes 15: 17–27. Harwood, N. & Hadley, G. 2004. Demystifying institutional practices: critical pragmatism and the teaching of academic writing. English for Specific Purposes 23: 355–377. Hinds J. 1987. Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In Writing across Languages: Analyses of L2 Texts, U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (eds). Reading: Addison-Wesley, 141–152. Hyland, K. 1999. Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles. In Writing: Texts, Processes and Practices, C.N. Candlin & K. Hyland (eds). London: Longman, 99–121. Hyland, K. 2000. Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. London: Longman. Hyland, K. 2001. Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic discourse. Written Communication 18: 549–574. Hyland, K. 2002. Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics 23: 215–239. Hyland, K. 2004a. Patterns of engagement: Dialogic features and L2 undergraduate writing. In Analysing Academic Writing: Contextualized Frameworks, L.J. Ravelli & R. A. Ellis (eds). London: Continuum 5–23 Hyland, K. 2004b. Engagement and disciplinarity: The other side of evaluation. In Academic Discourse: New Insights into Evaluation, G. Del Lungo Camiciotti & E. Tognini-Bonelli (eds). Bern: Peter Lang, 13–30. Hyland, K. 2005. Metadiscourse. London: Continuum. Hyland, K. & Tse, P. 2004. Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics 25: 156–177. Johns, T. 1992. It is presented initially: Linear dislocation and inter-language strategies in Brazilian academic abstracts in English and Portuguese. Ilha do Desterro 27: 9–32.

© 2009. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

262 Pilar Mur Dueñas Kreutz, H. & Harres, A. 1997. Hedging in German and English academic writing. In Culture and Styles of Academic Discourse, A. Duszak (ed). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 181–201. Koutsantoni, D. 2007. Developing Academic Literacies: Understanding Disciplinary Communities’ Culture and Rhetoric. Bern: Peter Lang. Lafuente Millán, E. (2008). Epistemic and approximative meaning revisited: The use of hedges, boosters and approximators when writing research in different disciplines. In English as an additional language in research publication and communication, S. Burgess & P. Martín Martín (eds). Berlin: Peter Lang, 65–82. Lorés, R. 2006. ‘I will argue that’: first person pronouns as metadiscoursal devices in research article abstracts in English and Spanish. ESP Across Cultures 3: 23–40. Lorés, R. & Murillo, S. 2007. Authorial identity and reader involvement in academic writing: A contrastive study of the use of pronouns in RA abstracts. In Proceedings of the XIV AESLA Conference, R. Mairal (ed). Madrid: AESLA and UNED, 1249–1257. Martin J.R. 1992. English Text: System and Structure. Philadelphia /Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Martín Martín, P. 2002. A genre-based investigation of abstract writing in English and Spanish. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 44: 47–64. Martín Martín, P. 2003. A genre analysis of English and Spanish research paper abstracts in experimental social sciences. English for Specific Purposes 22: 25–43. Martín Martín, P. 2005. The Rhetoric of the Abstract in English and Spanish Scientific Discourse: A Cross-cultural Genre-analytic Approach. Bern: Peter Lang. Martín Martín, P. & Burgess, S. 2004. The rhetorical management of academic criticism in research article abstracts. Text 24: 171–195. Martín Zorraquino M. A. & Portolés, J. 1999. Los marcadores del discurso. In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, vol. 3, I. Bosque & V. Demonte (eds). Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 4051–4213. Martinez, I. 2005. Native and non-native writer’s use of first person pronouns in the different sections of biology research articles in English. Journal of Second Language Writing 14: 174–190. Mauranen, A. 1992. Reference in academic rhetoric: A contrastive study of Finnish and English writing. In Nordic Research on Text and Discourse, A.C. Linderberg, N. E. Enkvist & K. Wikberg (eds). Åbo: Åbo Akademi University Press, 237–250. Mauranen, A. 1993a. Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Mauranen, A. 1993b. Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes 12: 3–22. Milton, J. & Tsang E.S.C. 1993. A corpus-based study of logical connectrs in EFL students’ writing: Directions for future research. In Lexis in Studies, R. Perbertom & E.S.C. Tsang (eds). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 215–246. Montolío, E. 2001. Conectores de la lengua escrita. Barcelona: Ariel Practicum. Moreno, A. I. 1997. Genre constraints across languages: Causal metatext in Spanish and English RAs. English for Specific Purposes 16: 161–179. Moreno, A. I. 1998. The explicit signalling of premise-conclusion sequences in research articles: A contrastive framework. Text 18: 545–585. Moreno, A. I. 2004. Retrospective labelling in premise-conclusion metatext: An English-Spanish contrastive study of research articles on business and economics. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3: 321–339.

© 2009. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved



Logical markers in L1 (Spanish and English) and L2 (English) Business research articles 263

Moreno, A. I. & Suárez, L. 2006. The rhetorical structure of academic journal book reviews: A cross-linguist and cross-disciplinary approach. In Proceedings of the 5th International AELFE Conference, C. Pérez-Llantada, R. Pló & C. P. Neumann (eds). Zaragoza: Prensas Universitarias, 191–196. Moreno, A. I. & Suárez, L. 2008. A study of critical attitude across English and Spanish academic book reviews. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7: 15–26. Mur Dueñas, P. 2007a. ‘I/We focus on…’: A cross-cultural analysis of self-mentions in business management research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6: 143–162. Mur Dueñas, P. 2007b. Same genre, same discipline; however, there are differences: A crosscultural analysis of logical markers in academic writing. ESP Across Cultures 4: 37–53. Pérez Ruiz, L. 1999. Análisis contrastivo de los resúmenes en inglés y en español en artículos publicados en el campo de la epidemiología. ES 22: 167–176. Pisanski Peterlin, A. 2005. Text-organising metatext in research articles: An English-Slovene contrastive analysis. English for Specific Purposes 24: 307–319. Portolés J. 2001. Marcadores del discurso. Barcelona: Ariel Practicum. Quirk, R et al. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Harlow: Longman. Salager-Meyer, F. et al. 2003. The scimitar, the dagger and the glove: Intercultural differences in the rhetoric of criticism in Spanish, French and English medical discourse (1930–1995). English for Specific Purposes 22: 223–247. Shaw, P. 2003. Evaluation and promotion across languages. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2: 343–357. Shaw, P. 2004. Sentence openings in academic economics articles in English and Danish. Nordic Journal of English Studies 2: 67–84. Suárez, L. 2006. Modes of Evaluation and Rhetorical Patterns: A Contrastive Study of English and Spanish Book Reviews. Unpublished PhD. Universidad de León. Suárez L. & Moreno, A.I. 2008. The rhetorical structure of literary academic book reviews: An English-Spanish cross-linguistic approach. In Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric, U. Connor, E. Nagelhout & W. Rozycki (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 147–168. Swales, J. & Van Bonn, S. 2007. Similarities and differences in French and English EAP research article abstracts: The case of ASp. In Language and Discipline Perspectives on Academic Discourse, K. Fløttum (ed). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press, 275–294. Tankó, G. 2004. The use of adverbial connectors in Hungarian university students’ argumentative essays. In How to Use Corpora in the Language Classroom, J. Sinclair (ed). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 157–181. Valero Garcés, C. 1996. Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Spanish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes 15: 279–294. Vande Kopple, W. J. 1985. Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication 36: 63–94. Varttala, T. 2001. Hedging in Scientifically Oriented Discourse: Exploring Variation according to Discipline and Intended Audience. Electronic dissertation. Acta Electronica Universitatis Tamperensis 138. http://acta.uta.fi. Vassileva, I. 1997. Hedging in English and Bulgarian academic writing. In Culture and Styles of Academic Discourse. A. Duszak (ed). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 203–221. Vassileva, I. 1998. Who am I/Who are we in academic writing? International Journal of Applied Linguistics 8: 163–190.

© 2009. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

264 Pilar Mur Dueñas Vassileva, I. 2000. Who is the Author? A Contrastive Analysis of Authorial Presence in English, German, French, Russian and Bulgarian Academic Discourse. Sankt Augustin: Asgard Verlag. Vassileva, I. 2001. Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes 20: 83–102. Vladimirou, D. 2008. Pronominal references in linguists’ writings: Exploring the English-speaking and the Greek-speaking academic communities. In English as an Additional Language in Research Publication and Communication, S. Burgess & P. Martín (eds). Bern: Peter Lang, 173–195. Vold, E. T. 2006. Epistemic modality markers in research articles: A cross-linguistic and crossdisciplinary study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 16: 61–87. Yakhontova, T. 2002. ‘Selling’ or telling’? The issue of cultural variation in research genres. In Academic Discourse, J. Flowerdew (ed). London: Longman, 216–232. Yakhontova, T. 2006.Cultural and disciplinary variation in academic discourse: The issue of influencing factors. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5: 153–167.

Author’s address Pilar Mur Dueñas Departamento Filología Inglesa y Alemana Facultad de Educación Universidad de Zaragoza C/ San Juan Bosco 7 50009 Zaragoza Spain [email protected]

© 2009. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved