Linking Words as Discourse Markers

 

Scientific texts being conservative in the choice of expressive means are characterized by the abundance of clichés and stock phrases. Typical word-combinations and phrases travel from text to text creating some linguistic patterns of scientific texts. All this simplifies the perception and comprehension of scientific information and makes it clear, plain, and straightforward. Some of the phrases under consideration are of phraseological character (they were partially described in the paragraph above), but the others are not, though it doesn’t make them less important or characteristic.

Anyway, research findings, ideas and arguments should be connected in such a way that readers may follow and can be convinced of the given argumentation. Signposting devices or discourse markers are used to provide the linking of sentences and the relationship between them. So, the groups that follow are both logical linkers and indicators of certain categories inherent in the scientific prose. They provide the integrity, coherence and logic of the texts:

Indicators of certainty: to be sure; needless to say; true; to tell the truth; it is true that; there is every indication that…; it is a safe assumption that; it is safe to assume that;

Indicators of opposition and contrast:

* although, despite, in spite of

* but, however, nevertheless, nonetheless, yet

* on the contrary, by comparison, by contrast, in contrast to, on the one hand…on the other hand

* instead, alternatively, conversely, whereas

The peculiarities of positioning the markers of opposition in the scientific texts are caused by 1) a necessity to draw the addressee’s attention to the essential differences or to the questions which haven’t been considered before (initial / pioneer position); 2) a need for specific opposition, specification or detailed information, structuring of the information presented in the text (medium position); 3) an importance of giving additional information, the author’s reflections, deviation from the subject (final or initial position), which attaches a certain informality and ease to the scientific prose.

Indicators of similarity: Likewise; similarly;

Indicators of cause and effect. Words and phrases for expressing cause and effect are necessary for linking the different parts of a text. They are used to establish a logical connection between facts. This connecting function may be expressed by conjunctions, adjectives, adverbs, verbs and/or nouns.

The most common phrases for introducing causeare:

* due to, owing to, because of, resulting from

* be caused by, spark off, give rise to, provoke, generate, bring about, stem from, arise out of, originate from, result from, enable

* cause of, reason for, purpose of, with the aim of

* since, for, because

Effectmay be expressed by:

* hence, thus, consequently, as a consequence, as a result, therefore, that is why, eventually, so, finally

* result in, lead to, produce

* the result of, the consequence of

* as a result, with the result that, so that, thus, therefore, consequently, as a consequence, hence, thereby, for this reason, because of this

Indicators of limitation: to say nothing of; not to mention; only;

Indicators of obviousness: it has long been an accepted fact that; it has been (generally) established; it has been recognized that;

Indicators of sequencing: referring backwards or forwards. Time relationships may be signaled by various phrases and words, such as adjectives, adverbs and verbs or noun phrases. These can also be used to show the logical relationship between ideas or to connect what you are saying with something you said previously. Words and phrases include:

* so far, earlier, previous(ly), before that, until now, already, formerly

* at present, presently, meanwhile, at this point

* first of all, to begin with, to start with

* secondly, then, next

* finally, eventually, afterwards, later, above all, last but not least

Indicators of conclusion: To sum up; to summarize; to generalize; in summary

Indicators of generalization. This sometimes involves summation, or the summing up of what has gone before: in general, on the whole, by and large, in total, as a rule, for the most part, broadly speaking, speaking generally, usually

Indicators of addition. When you want simply to add a point or idea to reinforce or support what you have already said, you can use these conjunctions, adverbs and phrases: also, again, furthermore; moreover, too, in addition, equally, likewise, similarly, correspondingly

Indicators of reformulation. This is where you want to express an idea in a different way, either to reinforce its importance or to make something clearer. Sometimes you want to suggest an alternative to what you said before.

* to put it simply, better, rather, that is to say

* in other words, alternatively, again

Indicators of inference. This indicates a deduction from what you implied in the previous sentence. You can use phrases like:

* otherwise, or else, that being so, in that case.

Indicators of highlighting. You can emphasize or pick out particular words, points or ideas by using the following phrases.

* namely, particularly, specifically

* especially, notably, mainly, mostly, chiefly

Indicators of transition to a new topic

* with reference to, with respect to, with regard to, as for

* let us now turn to, it follows that

 

Hedging in Scientific Prose

 

There is one more group of indicators used in scientific texts which should be considered separately due to its being untypical of the discourse studied. This is a category of uncertainty (or doubt) which in some way contradicts the main characteristics of the scientific prose such as accuracy and reasonability. This category is often named hedging which means not making blunt, absolute or categorical statements; it means avoiding over-generalizations; it means toning down the positiveness of your statements to allow the others to disagree with them.

Authors of scientific articles generally write in an impersonal style in order to sound more objective and convincing. They also want to avoid showing their personal attitude to their subject or an over-strong commitment to a particular conclusion, so hedging what they say is a way of accomplishing this. It thus involves not expressing the truth of a claim too strongly. Too direct and straightforward argumentation may give the impression of over-confidence and this could puzzle some readers or listeners who may consider it offensive.

Thus, the following reasons for hedging in scientific texts can be distinguished:

- a need for avoiding embarrassment or confusion in front of the scientific community;

- a need for conveying scientific nonprecision (as some kind of precision), so-called “precision in vagueness” (A. Wierzbicka);

- unavailability of necessary information;

- a way to demonstrate the level of certainty about the statements or hypothesis;

- an attempt to avoid needless details which are, in the author’s opinion, inessential;

- an inability to get at the absolute truth;

- no need for exact data (in the cases when approximate scope is enough for understanding the process or phenomenon);

- the specificity of conveying the author’s attitude;

- the peculiar way of criticizing;

- a try to support the addressee;

- a desire to avoid opponents’ criticism;

- etiquette necessity to provide a chance for alternative views.

Thus, the scientific discourse which is deprived of dogmatism tends to avoid “hard and fast lines”. It represents some balancing between “yes” and “no”, combines categoricity and noncategoricity. In order to avoid overgeneralising (especially in experimental descriptions) or to avoid being too critical or direct, there are a number of hedging phrases and other techniques that can be used to help establish better communication and rapport with the reader. These hedging devices are found quite frequently in introductions and conclusions as well as in other parts of the text.

So, hedging techniques include: linguistic means of approximation, depersonalization, noncategorical negation, epistemic modality, punctuation.

Approximators as pragmatic instruments of etiquette are mostly used to present approximate data in case the exact ones can’t be found or seem unnecessary.

In English and American scientific discourse there are such etiquette a pproximators of quantity (in many cases; for the most part; some; many; certain; approximate(ly); primarily; essentially; an increasing number; practically/virtually/almost/nearly/around/about/ something like/ say [+quantifier]; plus/minus [+quantifier]; maybe/perhaps[+quantifier]; myriad; a plethora (of) тощо), a pproximators of generalization (chief(ly); main(ly); not solely), a pproximators of restriction (in a way; in a sense; in some cases; to a certain degree/extent; in principle), a pproximators of quality (some kind/sort of; somewhat; rough(ly); so to say/speak), approximators of time (for some time; maybe/perhaps/around/about + [time marker]), a pproximators of location (someplace), a pproximators of hypothesis (at least; as far as we know/ can tell; for all we know), “diplomatic” a pproximators (both yes and no; to a grater or lesser extent; more or less; somehow;“middle-of the road” estimate).

Appoximators are able to attract the addressee’s attention (an awesome amount of attention), to communicate noncategorical probable assumption (maybe 40 000; recently, maybe a year ago), to give an approximate definition (basically, X may be defined as…; Х is sometimes called …), to weaken the addresser’s certainty that the statement is true (to the author's knowledge), to imply alternativeness (primarily but not exclusively; an interim technology), to define approximate parameters or frames of the process (within which the process may take place) (in a sense; marginally, more in...), to reduce the categoricity of statements, first of all, when the idea expressed does not agree with the other’s opinion, to make a comparison, to give a warning, to evaluate / estimate smth. In a reserved way (somewhat ambiguous), to convey the meaning of “both yes and no” “diplomatically” (something in-between), to create “an effect of objectiveness” (some commentators), to soften a failure (scientists have sometimes failed to...). This attention drawing is maximized through a combination of approximators and emphatic markers (even a cursory glance; well over a decade).

Depersonalization in English and American scientific discourse performs important etiquette functions. With the help of some depersonalized expressions the influence on the addressee is decreased and the maximum objectivity is achieved. (one can note), besides it promotes solidarity with the addressee (a classic way; it is often said), implies alternatives (it could be concluded):

Much has been written about various aspects related to standards and standardization (Communications Magazine).

In English and American scientific prose noncategorical negation takes a special place. From the point of view of the etiquette, polypragmatic model yes…but … can be used to soften negative moments because first there is a positive moment, then – negative and only after that there is a cautious negation. In the scientific discourse in order to decrease the categoricity of negation a rhetorical figure of apophasis is used. It concerns foreseeing possible negations, moreover the addresser makes them up oneself to show the readiness to answer all probably coming observations / comments and willingness to communicate with the addressee:

It might seem/appear/be anticipated (at first)

At first glance/Iinitially/On the surface/It is tempting_

..._but / however (if)

in reality / in actuality__Ideally/In the ideal situation

Under ideal circumstances

In the ideal (perfect) world

In the best of all worlds_

..._in practice

in the real world realistically

Noncategorical negation is also realized through the conditional mood (I wish I could say otherwise). Or there is also an implicit noncategorical negation which is put into practice thanks to the lexical units seemingly; deceptively; seductively; as well as supposedly; presumably; allegedly; reputedly (як всі гадають); ostensibly (як здається). With the help of the rhetorical figure of aporia – a doubt, real or professed, about what to do or say – (only time will tell) the addresser’s uncertainty of the statement is conveyed along with the alternativeness. Noncategorical negation can be implied through the rhetorical device of antithema, a rhetorical question. Typical of noncategorical negation is the use of unfortunately/alas, which explicitly or implicitly forego the negation proper or the statement of improbability / unfeasibility. There is also the use of “inverted commas” (for example, "a mistake ") and euphemisms, such as to put it mildly; yet-to-be-specified; an open question; to be compromised; overly optimistic so far.

The etiquette of the scientific discourse is connected with the use of epistemic modality which generally reduces the categoricity of statements. The linguistic means of epistemic modality are the verbs (surmise; suggest; indicate etc.), modals and their equivalents (may; might; be going to, etc.), adverbs (arguably; possibly; tacitly, etc.), nouns (feeling; sign; scenario, etc.), adjectives (probable; tentative; putative, etc.), the numeral one, the indefinite article a / an, some cases of the zero article use:

preliminary conclusion (implication: the one that introduces more important conclusions, the one that may be just tentative);

a possible conclusion (implication: other conclusions may be drawn as well);

one/a conclusion (implication: one of many other possible conclusions).

It looks like

Perhaps it’s true in all cases:: It’s true in almost all cases

Probably

probably because…; X might be attributed to…; Y may be explained by…; it could/may be concluded…

there may even be....

Punctuation can also be a means of modulating categoricity / noncategoricity of statements: setting the expression in brackets or commas softens categoricity, the dash (–) makes it stronger and the exclamation mark – even stronger:

And, others were predicting in the 1870s, after a further century the grand total of mother-tongue speakers would almost certainly reach 1,000 million – at least! (D. Crystal).

Parenthesis can also emphasize the uncertainty:

"… An officer and another sailor saw the rocket, theythought, so it seems at least, that perhaps someone was having a party on board".

Pauses while speaking andother nonverbal elements of communicationcan be of a certain use as well.

 

References

 

1. Банкевич В.В. Грамматические и лексические трудности в английской научно-технической литературе / В.В. Банкевич. – С.-П.: РГГМУ, 2001. – 135 c.

2. Бацевич Ф.С. Основи комунікативної лінгвістики: підручник / Ф.С. Бацевич. – К.: Видавничий центр «Академія», 2004. – 344 с.

3. Докштейн С.Я. Практический курс перевода научно-технической литературы / С.Я. Докштейн, Е.А. Макарова. – М.: Военное издательство, 1973. – 448 c.

4. Карабан В.І. Переклад англійської науково-технічної літератури / В.І. Карабан. – Ч. 1: Граматичні труднощі. – Вінниця: Нова книга, 2001. – 272 с.

5. Карабан В.І. Переклад англійської науково-технічної літератури / В.І. Карабан. – Ч. 2: Лексичні, термінологічні та жанрово-стилістичні труднощі. – Вінниця: Нова книга, 2001. – 304 с.

6. Коваль А.П. Науковий стиль сучасної української мови: cтруктура наукового тексту / А.П. Коваль. – К.: Вища школа, 1970. – 306 с.

7. Колесникова Н.И. От конспекта к диссертации: учебное пособие по развитию навыков письменной речи / Н.И. Колесникова. – М.: Флинта: Наука, 2008. – 288 с.

8. Непийвода Н.Ф. Мова української науково-технічної літератури (функціонально-стилістичний аспект) / Н.Ф. Непийвода. – К.: ТОВ “МФА”, 1997. – 303 с.

9. Разинкина Н.М. Стилистика английского научного текста / Н.М. Разинкина. – М.: УРСС, 2005. – 211 с.

10. Bailey S. Academic writing: a practical guide for students / S. Bailey. – NY: RoutledgeFalmer, 2003. – 200 p.

11. Bell R. T. Translation and translating: theory and practice / Roger T. Bell. – Longman, 1991. – 298 р.

12. Gould J. R. Opportunities in technical writing careers / Jay R. Gould, Wayne A. Losano. – [Revised edition]. – McGraw-Hill, 2008. – 152 р.

13. Kirkman J. Good style. Writing for science and technology / John Kirkman. – [2 edition]. – Routledge, 2005. – 139 p.

14. Rogers S.M. Mastering scientific and medical writing: a self-help guide / S.M. Rogers. – Leipzig: Springer, 2007. – 153 p.

15. Routledge Encyclopedia of translation studies / ed. by Mona Baker, Gabriela Saldanha. – [2 edition]. – Routledge, 2009. – 674 p.

16. Woolever K. R. Writing for the technical professions / Kristin R. Woolever. – [4 edition]. – Longman, 2008. – 498 p.

17. Yang J.T. An outline of scientific writing: for researches with English as a foreign language / Jen Tsi Yang. – Singapore: World Scientific, 1999. – 176 p.