Publication: Politeness Strategies in Research Articles: A Cross-disciplinary Study
Submitted Date
Received Date
Accepted Date
Issued Date
2013
Copyright Date
Announcement No.
Application No.
Patent No.
Valid Date
Resource Type
Edition
Resource Version
Language
en
File Type
No. of Pages/File Size
ISBN
ISSN
2287-0024
eISSN
DOI
Scopus ID
WOS ID
Pubmed ID
arXiv ID
item.page.harrt.identifier.callno
Other identifier(s)
Journal Title
PASAA Journal
Volume
46
Issue
Edition
Start Page
47
End Page
74
Access Rights
Access Status
Rights
Rights Holder(s)
Physical Location
Bibliographic Citation
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Title
Politeness Strategies in Research Articles: A Cross-disciplinary Study
Alternative Title(s)
Author(s)
Author’s Affiliation
Author's E-mail
Editor(s)
Editor’s Affiliation
Corresponding person(s)
Creator(s)
Compiler
Advisor(s)
Illustrator(s)
Applicant(s)
Inventor(s)
Issuer
Assignee
Other Contributor(s)
Series
Has Part
Abstract
This corpus-based study investigates cross-disciplinary differences in the use of politeness strategies in research articles (RAs). The corpus consists of thirty-six RAs from applied linguistics, educational technology, and economics
journals published in the year 2009. The data were statistically analyzed. Findings indicate that in academic/research writing, writers employed both positive and negative politeness strategies when expressing opinions but the negative politeness strategies, especially impersonality devices and hedges, were the most frequently used by writers of RAs in the three disciplines. The use of impersonality and the use of hedging devices play a vital part in RAs especially in the Introduction, Results, and Discussion sections where writers mitigate the imposition and reduce their commitment to the truth of their claims. With regard to cross-disciplinary differences, differences were found only in the use of positive
politeness strategies. The first strategy “claiming common grounds” was used most often in Economics and least often in Technology. With reference to the second strategy “the use of the inclusive pronoun “we” and its related cases”, significant differences were found across the three disciplines. The use of this strategy was more frequent in Applied Linguistics than in Economics or Technology.