The present study lies in the research domains of Appraisal (Martin and White 2005) and, more specifically, of dialogic Endorsement in Social Psychology Research Articles (RAs). While reporting their research and/or experiments, RA authors seem to assume attitudes which notably vary from (and within) Introductions through Methods and Results up to Discussions at epistemic as well as evaluative levels. Citation practices, reporting and‘coming-to know’ verbs, and evaluative lexis are among the linguistic resources that play a major role in persuading and engaging the reading audience. Quotations and references are crucial to scientific discourse and are chosen not only according to an implied relevance criterion, but also as preceding functional steps of the ongoing research. They are essential to engage the scientific community at global level into reading and accepting the work as belonging to a reliable tradition of studies. Endorsement has therefore become a constitutive element of Introductions, and, to a lesser degree, of Conclusions/Discussions as well. The manner and measure in which writers’ commitments to the propositions expressed in their statements vary is here discussed mainly in line with Martin and White’s AF. In particular we investigated both the way the authorial voice is expressed in its inter-textual positioning (Endorsement/Dis-Endorsement/Non-endorsing), and the dialogic Engagement (Disclaim; Proclaim; Entertain; Attribute). Our analysis also highlighted how in scientific communication Endorsement can play a debate-generating role and can become instrumental to dialogic expansion, rather than to contraction, which is, instead, the general prediction in the AF. Those dialogistic resources involve meanings which are ‘negotiatory’, and maintain a continual dialogue with other researchers, a polyphony of authorial voices, which informs and is informed by other works in the process of continuously reshaping knowledge.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.