Exploring the Interpersonal Functions of Negation in Science Writing Across 35 Years

Huiyu Wang Harbin Institute of Petroleum ; Ying Wei Nanjing University ; Mingxin Yao Nanjing University

Abstract

Researchers’ investment in reader engagement includes the construction of an appealing abstract. While numerous studies have been conducted on abstracts’ rhetorical features, scant empirical attention has been paid to negation use in academic writing. The current study seeks to narrow the research gap from a general and diachronic perspective by adopting an interpersonal model of negation. We found that while not, no, and little tend to be the commonly used negative markers in Science abstracts, little increased diachronically but decreased for not and no. Functionally, writers prefer to use interactive negations and employ relatively more negative markers that function as consequence (interactive dimension) and hedging (interactional dimension) in their abstracts. Finally, we discuss the possible reasons for such results as well as their pedagogical implications.

Journal
Written Communication
Published
2024-10-01
DOI
10.1177/07410883241263525
CompPile
Open Access
Closed
Topics
Export

Citation context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

References (42) · 1 in this index

  1. Longman grammar of spoken and written English
  2. 10.1515/ling.1979.17.1-2.79
     ↗
  3. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.03.015
     ↗
  4. 10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.004
     ↗
  5. Reading for professional purposes: Methods and materials in teaching languages
Show all 42 →
  1. Collins cobuild English grammar
  2. 10.1515/text.1.1998.18.3.349
     ↗
  3. Writing: Texts, processes and practices
  4. 10.3998/mpub.6719
     ↗
  5. 10.1177/1461445605050365
     ↗
  6. Teaching and researching writing
  7. Written Communication
  8. 10.4324/9780429433962
     ↗
  9. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.06.018
     ↗
  10. 10.1093/applin/25.2.156
     ↗
  11. 10.1016/j.esp.2004.02.002
     ↗
  12. 10.1016/j.esp.2022.06.003
     ↗
  13. The grammar book: Form, meaning, and use for English language teachers
  14. 10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100851
     ↗
  15. 10.1057/9780230511910
     ↗
  16. International Journal of English Studies
  17. 10.1515/9783110197631
     ↗
  18. 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00026.x
     ↗
  19. 10.1075/hoph.5.12mie
     ↗
  20. 10.11613/BM.2017.030201
     ↗
  21. 10.1093/applin/10.1.1
     ↗
  22. 10.1371/journal.pone.0231305
     ↗
  23. Advances in written text analysis
  24. Language typology and syntactic description
  25. The sense of style
  26. 10.1353/lan.2011.0035
     ↗
  27. 10.1017/S002222670000815X
     ↗
  28. 10.1126/science.1182597
     ↗
  29. 10.1016/j.jeap.2019.01.003
     ↗
  30. 10.1093/applin/22.1.58
     ↗
  31. 10.1111/j.1467-9582.1987.tb00779.x
     ↗
  32. Negation in English speech and writing: A study in variation
  33. 10.1136/bmj.h6467
     ↗
  34. Academic discourse: New insights into evaluation
  35. 10.1002/asi.4630210507
     ↗
  36. 10.1093/applin/amab037
     ↗
  37. 10.1177/002383098502800301
     ↗