Article published In:
Register StudiesVol. 2:1 (2020) ► pp.102–130
Stance and modals of obligation and necessity in academic writing
Variation has been demonstrated in modal use between written and spoken registers and between disciplines. This article investigates variation within a discipline by comparing modals of obligation and necessity used in three science genres. Obligation modals project strong authoritative stance, thus contrasting with the tendency in academic writing towards tentativeness. The modal auxiliaries must and should and quasi-modals have to and need to are investigated using student writing from the BAWE (British Academic Written English) corpus and a corpus of published research articles. Findings include a dearth of obligation modals in the empirical genres (research articles and laboratory reports). Also a greater prominence was found of dynamic modal meaning (where necessity arises from circumstances) rather than deontic meaning (where the necessity arises from human authority or rules). A further finding is the prominence of objective meaning in the science register compared with the International Corpus of English (Collins 2009a).
Keywords: obligation modals, stance, science writing, student writing, corpora
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 1.1Stance in academic writing
- 1.2Modal meaning
- 1.3Subjective and objective modality
- 1.4The source of the obligation
- 1.5Stance and obligation modals
- 2.Methods
- 2.1Data analysis
- 3.Quantitative results
- 3.1Obligation modals in academic and research writing in science
- 3.2Comparison of the use of obligation modals in science and their use in a general English corpus
- 4.Qualitative results: Meanings expressed and functions performed by modals in the three genres
- 4.1 Must
- 4.2 Should
- 4.3 Have to
- 4.4 Need to
- 5.Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
References
References (26)
Aull, L. L., & Lancaster, Z. (2014). Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written Communication, 31(2), 151–183. 
Biber, D. (2006). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2019). Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., Finegan, E., & Quirk, R. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
Collins, P. (2009a). Modals and quasi-modals in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
(2009b). Modals and quasi-modals in world Englishes. World Englishes, 28(3), 281–292.
Depraetere, I., & Verhulst, A. (2008). Source of modality: A reassessment. English Language & Linguistics, 12(1), 1–25.
Gardner, S., & Nesi, H. (2013). A classification of genre families in university student writing. Applied Linguistics, 34(1), 1–29.
Gray, B., & Biber, D. (2012). Current conceptions of stance. In K. Hyland & C. S. Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 15–33). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Arnold.
Hood, S. (2004). Managing attitude in undergraduate academic writing: A focus on the introductions to research reports. In L. J. Ravelli & R. A. Ellis (Eds.), Analysing academic writing: Contextualised frameworks, (pp. 24–44). London: Continnum.
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005). Evaluative that constructions: Signalling stance in research abstracts. Functions of Language, 12(1), 39–63.
Leech, G., Hundt, M., Mair, C., & Smith, N. (2009). Change in contemporary English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Martin, J. R. (1984). Language, register and genre. In F. Christie (Ed.), Language studies: Children’s writing: Reader (p. 984). Geelong, Australia: Deakin University Press.
Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 1–35.
Nesi, H., & Gardner, S. (2012). Genres across the disciplines: Student writing in higher education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nuyts, J. (2001). Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization: A cognitive pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Palmer, F. R. (1979). Modality and the English modals (1st ed.). London: Longman.
Rayson, P. (2016). Log-likelihood and effect size calculator. Retrieved from: <[URL]> (12 March 2018)
Scott, M. (1996). WordSmith Tools. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Scimago Journal rank (2016). Retrieved from: <[URL]> (15 October 2017).
The ICE Project. (2009). The design of the ICE corpora. Retrieved from: <[URL]> (19 March 2019).
Verhulst, A., Depraetere, I., & Heyvaert, L. (2013). Source and strength of modality: An empirical study of root should, ought to and be supposed to in present-day British English. Journal of Pragmatics, 551, 210–225.
Verstraete, J-C. (2001). Subjective and objective modality: Interpersonal and ideational functions in the English modal auxiliary system. Journal of Pragmatics, 331, 1505–1528.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Huang, Yueyue & Dechao Li
2023. Translatorial voice through modal stance: A corpus-based study of modality shifts in Chinese-to-English translation of research article abstracts. Lingua 295 ► pp. 103610 ff. 
Ostovar-Namaghi, Seyyed Ali, Fatemeh Khorram & Farhad Moezzipour
2022. Exploring the use of modality in EFL learners’ writing. English Text Construction 15:1 ► pp. 68 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.