Abstract
This article is concerned with “abstract rhetors”, i.e. inanimate nouns used as subjects of active verbs, in Polish and English academic texts. The few existing studies that deal with abstract rhetors in Polish indicate that their use is limited in comparison with English in both quantitative and qualitative terms. However, no suggestions have been offered so far as to the potential factors that may underlie these limitations, especially with regard to the qualitative differences. Focusing on a special type of abstract rhetors, namely active verbs used with text-denoting subjects, the article offers a comparable corpus-based analysis of Polish and English abstracts of research articles in linguistics with a view to determining their frequencies and shedding some light on the possible causes of the limited use of the structure in Polish. The results show that the use of active verbs with nouns referring to the abstracted article or its part is more than twice less frequent in Polish than in English, with considerable differences between the types of verbs employed in such contexts in the two languages. Three factors are proposed as potentially affecting the compatibility of the Polish verb with an inanimate, text-denoting noun: the type of agency, the supported metaphor/metonymy for the research article, and verb aspect/telicity.
References
Cruse, Alan D. 1973. Some thoughts on agentivity. Journal of Linguistics 9(1). 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226700003509.Search in Google Scholar
Dirven, René & Marjolin Verspoor. 2004. Cognitive exploration of language and linguistics, 2nd Revised edn. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/clip.1Search in Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W. 2005 [1991]. A semantic approach to English grammar, 2nd edn. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Doms, Steven. 2015. Non-human agents in subject position: Translation from English into Dutch: A corpus-based translation study of “give” and “show”. In Claudio Fantinouli & Federico Zanettin (eds.), New directions in corpus-based translation studies, 115–135. Berlin: Language Science Press.10.26530/OAPEN_559833Search in Google Scholar
Duszak, Anna. 1994. Academic discourse and intellectual styles. Journal of Pragmatics 21(3). 291–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90003-5.Search in Google Scholar
Duszak, Anna. 1998. Tekst, dyskurs, komunikacja międzykulturowa. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.Search in Google Scholar
Górnicz, Mariusz. 2010. Zapożyczenia terminologiczne i nieterminologiczne w tekstach specjalistycznych a transfer kulturowy. In Sambor Grucza, Marchwiński Adam & Monika Płużyczka (eds.), Translatoryka: Koncepcje – modele – analizy, 242–247. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Instytutu Kulturologii i Lingwistyki Antropocentrycznej, Uniwersytet Warszawski.Search in Google Scholar
Halloran, Michael S. 1984. The birth of molecular biology: An essay in the rhetorical criticism of scientific discourse. Rhetoric Review 3. 70–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350198409359083.Search in Google Scholar
Harris, Randy. 2002. Knowing, rhetoric, science. In James D. Williams (ed.), Visions and revisions: Continuity and change in rhetoric and composition, 163–219. Carbondale/Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 1996. Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics 17(4). 433–454. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.4.433.Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 1998. Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.10.1075/pbns.54Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2005a. Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies 7(2). 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365.Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2005b. Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London/New York: Continuum.10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi003Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2014. Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles. In Christopher N. Candlin & Ken Hyland (eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices, 99–121. London/New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315840390-6Search in Google Scholar
Johns, Tim. 2001. From evidence to conclusion: The case of ‘indicate that’. In Hewings Martin (ed.), Academic writing in contexts: Implications and applications, 55–62. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Search in Google Scholar
Khedri, Mohsen. 2016. Are we visible? An interdisciplinary data-based study of self-mention in research articles. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 52(3). 403–430. https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2016-0017.Search in Google Scholar
Kowalski, Grzegorz. 2015a. Cross-cultural variation in the use of abstract rhetors in Polish and English scientific discourse. In Dorota Brzozowska & Władysław Chłopicki (eds.), Culture’s software: Communication styles, 176–192. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Kowalski, Grzegorz. 2015b. Claim-making and claim-challenging in English and polish linguistic discourses. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.10.3726/978-3-653-03330-4Search in Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Low, Graham. 1999. ‘The paper thinks…’: Investigating the acceptability of the metaphor an essay is a person. In Lynne Cameron & Graham Low (eds.), Researching and applying metaphor, 221–248. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524704.014Search in Google Scholar
Master, Peter. 1991. Active verbs with inanimate subjects in scientific prose. English for Specific Purposes 10. 15–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(91)90013-m.Search in Google Scholar
Master, Peter. 2001. Active verbs with inanimate subjects in scientific research articles. In Hewings Martin (ed.), Academic writing in contexts: Implications and applications, 169–181. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Search in Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna. 2010. Discourse reflexivity – a discourse universal? The case of ELF. Nordic Journal of English Studies 9(2). 13–40. https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.216.Search in Google Scholar
McGrath, Lisa. 2016. Self-mentions in anthropology and history research articles: Variation between and within disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 21. 86–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.11.004.Search in Google Scholar
Nishimura, Yoshiki. 1993. Agentivity in cognitive grammar. In Richard A. Geiger & Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (eds.), Conceptualizations and mental processing in language, 487–530. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110857108.487Search in Google Scholar
Radden, Günter & René Dirven. 2007. Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/clip.2Search in Google Scholar
Sancho Guinda, Carmen. 2014. Abridged abstracts: Rushing the research race? Revista Canaria De Estudios Ingleses 69. 15–33.Search in Google Scholar
Šeškauskienė, Inesa. 2009. The paper suggests: Inanimate subject + active verb in English linguistic discourse. Kalbotyra 60(3). 84–93. https://doi.org/10.15388/klbt.2009.7628.Search in Google Scholar
Taylor, John. 1989. Linguistic categorisation. Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Search in Google Scholar
Thompson, Geoff & Puleng Thetela. 1995. The sound of one hand clapping: The management of interaction in academic discourse. Text 15(1). 103–127.10.1515/text.1.1995.15.1.103Search in Google Scholar
Toumi, Naouel. 2009. A model for the investigation of reflexive metadiscourse in research articles. In Lynda J. O’Brien & Davide S. Giannoni (eds.), Language studies working papers, vol. 1, 64–73. Reading: University of Reading.Search in Google Scholar
Wiraszka, Łukasz. 2020. Viewpoint in translation of academic writing: An illustrative case study. Między Oryginałem a Przekładem 26/1(47). 111–138. https://doi.org/10.12797/moap.26.2020.47.06.Search in Google Scholar
Dictionaries
ODE = Oxford Dictionary of English (2010). Ed. by A. Stevenson. Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
