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
Search in 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