Exploring interpersonal functions of negation in linguistics research article introductions

Authors

  • Zhemin Chen

    Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
  • Afendi Bin Hamat

    Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
  • Anis Nadiah Binti Che Abdul Rahman

    Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i1.7795
Received: 18 October 2024 | Revised: 2 December 2024 | Accepted: 5 December 2024 | Published Online: 25 December 2024

Abstract

Researchers often aim to capture readers’ attention through the development of introductions that are both engaging and appealing. While prior studies have examined the rhetorical characteristics of introductions in depth, little attention has been drawn to the interpersonal role of negation in introductions. This study seeks to remedy the oversight by exploring how negation functions as an interpersonal resource in research introductions. The study analyzed 70 research article introductions from prestigious linguistics journals (2017-2023). Using an interpersonal model of negation as our analytical framework, we identified negative markers and coded their interpersonal functions. It is found that “not”, “no”, “little”, and “few” are the most frequently used negative markers in introductions. Additionally, in terms of functional uses, expert writers tend to employ interactive negations, with a relatively higher frequency of negative markers that serve as hedging (within the interactional dimension) and as markers of consequence (within the interactive dimension) in their introductions. The analysis also reveals that the choice of negative markers in introductions is a sophisticated process governed by both the intended strength of negation and specific interpersonal purposes. The implications of these findings are further explored in relation to English for Academic Purposes writing research and pedagogy.

Keywords:

Negation; Interpersonal Function; Research Article Introductions; Linguistics; Academic Discourse

References

[1] Swales, J.M., 2004. Research Genres: Explorations and Applications. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, United Kingdom. pp. 226–259.

[2] Cortes, V., 2013. The Purpose of This Study Is to: Connect Lexical Bundles and Moves in Research Article Introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 12, 33–43.

[3] Lu, X., Casal, J.E., Liu, Y., et al., 2021. The Relationship between Syntactic Complexity and Rhetorical Move-Steps in Research Article Introductions: Variation among Four Social Science and Engineering Disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 52, 101006.

[4] Hyland, K., 2004. Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, United States. pp. 122–127.

[5] Hyland, K., 2005. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. Continuum: London, United Kingdom. pp. 195–196.

[6] Martin, J.R., White, P.R.R., 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan: New York, United States. pp. 118–120.

[7] Swales, J.M., 2019. The Futures of EAP Genre Studies: A Personal Viewpoint. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 38, 75–82.

[8] Miestamo, M., 2007. Negation—An Overview of Typological Research. Language and Linguistics Compass. 1(5), 552–570.

[9] Jiang, F.K., Hyland, K., 2022. “The Datasets Do Not Agree”: Negation in Research Abstracts. English for Specific Purposes. 68, 60–72.

[10] Wang, H., Wei, Y., Yao, M., 2024. Exploring the Interpersonal Functions of Negation in Science Writing across 35 years. Written Communication. 41(4), 664–692.

[11] Zolfaghari, F., 2023. The Rhetoric of Negation in Research Articles: A Cross-Disciplinary Analysis of Appraisal Resources. English for Specific Purposes. 70, 192–206

[12] Sun, S., Crosthwaite, P., 2022a. “The findings might not be generalizable”: Investigating negation in the limitations sections of PhD theses across disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 59, 101155.

[13] Sun, S., Crosthwaite, P., 2022b. “Establish a niche” via negation: A corpus-based study of negation within the Move 2 sections of PhD thesis introductions. Open Linguistics. 8(1), 189-208.

[14] Li, X., Jiang, F.K., Ma, J., 2023. A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Negation Used in Thesis Writing by L1 and L2 PhD Students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 64, 101264.

[15] Jiang, F.K., Hyland, K., 2023. Changes in Research Abstracts: Past Tense, Third Person, Passive, and Negatives. Written Communication. 40(1), 210–237.

[16] Sinclair, J., Airlie, M., Scrimgeour, R., et al., 2017. Collins Cobuild English grammar. Collins Cobuild: London, United Kingdom. pp. 648.

[17] Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., et al., 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Longman: Harlow, United Kingdom. pp. 158–159.

[18] Tottie, G., 1991. Negation in English Speech and Writing: A Study in Variation. Academic Press: London, United Kingdom. pp. 88-89.

[19] Dahl, Ö., 2010. Typology of Negation. In L. Horn (Ed.), The Expression of Cognitive Categories: ECC 4. The Expression of Negation. De Gruyter: Berlin, Germany. pp. 9–38.

[20] Webber, P., 2004. Negation in linguistics papers. In G. Del Lungo Camiciotti, E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Academic discourse: New insights into evaluation, Peter Lang: Bern, Switzerland,. pp. 181-202.

[21] Hyland, K., Wang, W., Jiang, F., 2022. Metadiscourse across Languages and Genres: An Overview. Lingua. 265, 103205.

[22] Thompson, G., 2001. Interaction in Academic Writing: Learning to Argue with the Reader. Applied Linguistics. 22(1), 58–78.

[23] Li, Z., 2021. Authorial Presence in Research Article Abstracts: A Diachronic Investigation of the Use of First Person Pronouns. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 51, 1–13.

[24] Liu, J., Xiao, L., 2022. A Multi-Dimensional Analysis of Conclusions in Research Articles: Variation across Disciplines. English for Specific Purposes. 67, 46–61.

[25] Cheng, F., Unsworth, L., 2016. Stance-taking as Negotiating Academic Conflict in Applied Linguistics Research Article Discussion Sections. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 24, 43–57.

[26] Chen, L., Hu, G., 2020. Mediating Knowledge through Expressing Surprises: A Frame-Based Analysis of Surprise Markers in Research Articles across Disciplines and Research Paradigm. Discourse Processes. 57, 659–681.

[27] Xu, X., Nesi, H., 2019. Differences in Engagement: A Comparison of the Strategies Used by British and Chinese Research Article Writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 38, 121–134.

[28] Montgomery, D.P., 2023. “This Study is not Without Its Limitations”: Acknowledging Limitations and Recommending Future Research in Applied Linguistics Research Articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 65, 101291.

[29] Ruan, Z., 2018. Structural compression in academic writing: An English Chinese comparison study of complex noun phrases in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 36, 37–47.

[30] Biber, D., Gray, B., 2016. Grammatical Complexity in Academic English: Linguistic Change in Writing. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, United Kingdom. pp. 52-57.

[31] Yin, S., Gao, Y., Lu, X., 2023. Diachronic Changes in the Syntactic Complexity of Emerging Chinese International Publication Writers’ Research Article Introductions: A Rhetorical Strategic Perspective. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 61, 101205.

[32] Bondi, M., 2014. Changing Voices: Authorial Voice in Abstracts. In M. Bondi, R. L. Sanz (Eds.), Abstracts in Academic Discourse: Variation and Change. Peter Lang: Bern, Switzerland. pp. 242–269.

[33] Gillaerts, P., 2014. Shifting Metadiscourse: Looking for Diachrony in the Abstract Genre. In M. Bondi & R. L. Sanz (Eds.), Abstracts in Academic Discourse: Variation and Change. Peter Lang: Bern, Switzerland. pp. 271–286.

[34] Candarli, D., Jones, S., 2019. Paradigmatic Influences on Lexical Bundles in Research Articles in the Discipline of Education. Corpora, 14(2), 237–263.

[35] Biber, D., Conrad, S., 2009. Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, United Kingdom. pp. 129–131.

[36] Anthony, L., 2022. AntFileConverter. Available from: https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software (cited 5 July 2024).

[37] Hyland, K., Jiang, F.K., 2016. Change of Attitude? A Diachronic Study of Stance. Written Communication. 33(3), 251–274.

[38] Hyland, K., Jiang, F.K., 2018. "In This Paper, We Suggest": Changing Patterns of Disciplinary Metadiscourse. English for Specific Purposes. 51, 18–30.

[39] Carter, R., McCarthy, M., Mark, G., et al., 2011. English Grammar Today: An A–Z of Spoken and Written Grammar. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, United Kingdom. pp. 219.

[40] Larsen-Freeman, D., Celce-Murcia, M., 2016. The Grammar Book: Form, Meaning, and Use for English Language Teachers. Cengage Learning: Boston, United States. p. 198.

[41] Ishikawa, S., 2010. A Corpus-Based Study on Asian Learners' Use of English Linking Adverbials. Themes in Science and Technology Education. 3, 139–157.

[42] Brezina, V., 2018. Statistics in Corpus Linguistics: A Practical Guide. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, United Kingdom. pp. 200.

[43] Miestamo, M., 2009. Negation. In F. Brisard, J.-O. Östman, J. Verschueren (Eds.),Grammar, Meaning and Pragmatics. John Benjamins:Amsterdam, Netherlands. pp. 208–229.

[44] Uludag, K., 2024. Exploring the Association between Textual Parameters and Psychological and Cognitive Factors. Psychology Research and Behavior Management. 17, 1139-1150.

Downloads

How to Cite

Chen, Z., Bin Hamat, A., & Abdul Rahman, A. N. B. C. (2025). Exploring interpersonal functions of negation in linguistics research article introductions. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 7(1), 381–391. https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i1.7795

Issue

Vol. 7 , Iss. 1 (January 2025)

Article Type

Article

License

Copyright © 2025 Zhemin Chen, Afendi Bin Hamat, Anis Nadiah Binti Che Abdul Rahman

Creative Commons License

This is an open access article under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License.