‘As we all know’: Examining Chinese EFL learners' use of interpersonal grammatical metaphor in academic writing

English for Specific Purposes 50 (2018) 64–80

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

English for Specific Purposes journal homepage: http://ees.elsevier.com/esp/default.asp

‘As we all know’: Examining Chinese EFL learners’ use of interpersonal grammatical metaphor in academic writing Cassi L. Liardét* Macquarie University, Department of Linguistics, Room 518, Building C5A, New South Wales, 2109, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:

This article investigates Chinese EFL learners’ use of evaluation and stance in academic texts by exploring their deployment of interpersonal grammatical metaphors (IGM), a construct mapped within Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL; Halliday, 1985; e.g., I BELIEVE, IT IS EVIDENT, etc.). The data is drawn from the Chinese Longitudinal Learner Corpus (CLLC), a two-year diachronic study into university learners’ development of academic literacy (Liardet, 2014a). When examining IGM, it is important to distinguish which metaphors of modality achieve the registers valued in academic discourse, namely, epistemic metaphors construed objectively (Hyland, 1998a; Schleppegrell, 2002). In the analysis of the CLLC, a widely used construction emerged, that of AS WE ALL KNOW (e.g., IT IS KNOWN TO ALL, AS WE KNOW, etc.). To account for this construct, an additional axis has been mapped across Halliday’s (1985) model of IGM. Building on SFL’s framework of Appraisal and specifically, the system of ‘engagement’, the axis of expansion is used here to distinguish expressions that expand the ‘dialogic space’ (e.g., IT IS SUGGESTED; Martin & White, 2005; see also, Hyland, 2000, 2002) from those that contract this space (e.g., IT IS CERTAIN). In addition to the Chinese EFL learners’ reliance on such deontic, contracting metaphors, this paper explores their preference for subjective realizations and identifies key areas for pedagogical intervention. Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Academic discourse Stance Grammatical metaphor Corpus analysis Systemic functional linguistics (SFL)

1. Introduction For students learning English as an Additional (EAL) or Foreign Language (EFL), academic writing and advanced English proficiency are often a minefield of contradictions. One linguistic paradox is the co-occurring development of oral proficiency with the demands of academic, written language. As learners establish their English ‘voice’, they are encouraged to employ informal, colloquial expression, demonstrating their advanced linguistic competence through mutually intelligible discourse. Coinciding with this aural development are the requirements of academic, written language, oftentimes related to standardized language exams (e.g., TOEFL, IELTS, etc.) and enrollment in tertiary education. Academic ‘student’ genres tend to prescribe a non-interactive, lexically dense, impersonal register, a significant departure from aural interactions (Biber, 2006a; Hyland, 2006; Schleppegrell, 2001).1

* Macquarie University, Faculty of Human Sciences, Department of Linguistics, Building C5A, Rm. 518, New South Wales, 2109, Australia. E-mail address: [email protected]. 1 While impersonality is often a defining feature of scientific registers (i.e., downplaying the authorial voice “to highlight the phenomena under study”, Hyland, 2006, p.32), the use of self mention has increasingly been examined as “a powerful rhetorical strategy”, particularly in research writing and within certain disciplines (Hyland, 2002, p. 1091; 2001). The distinction of academic ‘student’ genres is used here to refer to the language more typical of schoolbased, ‘written’ genres (Biber, 2006a, b; Hyland, 2009; Schleppegrell, 2001), and more specifically, the language taught in English for General Academic Purposes (i.e., EGAP) courses, rather than disciplinary discourses. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.11.005 0889-4906/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

C.L. Liardét / English for Specific Purposes 50 (2018) 64–80

65

When navigating these distinct modes, genres and registers, EAL learners often struggle to establish their scholarly voice and appropriately convey their personal assessments in academically valued ways. Argument or expository genres are particularly precarious as learners must evaluate meanings and position assertions epistemically while inviting the audience to negotiate the certainty or veracity of the claims. Adapting to such genres requires learners to demonstrate advanced pragmatic competence to navigate and appropriately accommodate the nuanced linguistic demands of these distinct discourses. As Coffin and Donahue (2014) point out: “While some individuals may move seamlessly from a spoken, interactive, domestic world into one that is written and increasingly abstract, such a smooth trajectory is not the experience for all” (p. 3). The present study seeks to examine this ‘transition’ from spoken, dynamic interactions to written, static expression. In particular, it examines Chinese EFL learners’ development of these linguistic resources across two years of undergraduate study at a Chinese university. Now considered to be the largest concentration of EFL learners in the world, English language teaching and learning in China has grown dramatically across the past three decades (Lam, 2002; Wang & Gao, 2008). Further, Chinese learners represent a significant portion of students studying abroad. For example, in Australia alone, more than a quarter of the nearly 500 thousand international students are Chinese (Department of Education & Training, 2016). With such significant representation, further study into the experiences and learning trajectories of these students is necessary. Written academic or ‘institutionalized’ discourses involve language that is technical and specialized according to the disciplines within which they operate. Across the fields of second language writing and English Language Teaching (ELT), there is a growing body of research examining written academic discourses. In particular, in the 1980s, a community of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) research emerged, investigating distinctive features of academic registers such as formality, objectivity and precision (Hyland, 1998a, b; Hyland & Bondi, 2006; Russell, 1991). This approach led to broad descriptions of scientific writing, identifying how it “represented meaning in an objective and formal way through resources such as lexical density, nominalized style and impersonality” (Hyland, 2006, p. 17; see also; Hyland & Jiang, 2016a, b). Similarly, the emergence of Corpus Linguistics studies in the 1980s began providing empirical descriptions of academic discourse, often focusing on mode distinctions between written and spoken language (e.g., Biber, 2006b; Hunston, 2002). These studies reveal specific features found across extensive analyses of academic texts, allowing for generalizations to be made across modes and registers (Biber, Conrad, & Cortes, 2003; Butler, 1997). For example, Biber and Barbieri (2007) characterize ‘written’ academic prose as “highly ‘informational’, ‘elaborated in reference’, and marked for ‘impersonal styles’” (p. 282; see also Biber, 2006a; Hyland, 2008a; Hyland, 2009). In parallel to these corpus linguistic investigations into academic discourse, Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) has provided fine-grained descriptions of the meaning making resources language users require to function effectively within discourse communities. As a theory that views language as a social semiotic, SFL is fundamentally concerned with the choices users make to communicate in various contexts (Martin & Rose, 2008; Schleppegrell, 2004). In recent decades, an extensive body of SFL research has focused on the language patterns necessary to achieve academically valued texts. In short, the language of academic discourse is characterized as abstract, having high lexical density, elaborated nominal groups, impersonal modality and objective evaluation that projects an authoritative stance to a non-interacting audience (Halliday, 1993; Schleppegrell, 2001, 2004). To engender these features of academic language, SFL researchers have identified a powerful resource that simultaneously builds cohesion, foregrounds meanings in static nominal groups, and backgrounds personal, subjective voice. This tool is grammatical metaphor and it is the key linguistic resource for achieving academic expression. 2. Interpersonal grammatical metaphor Grammatical metaphor (GM) is a resource for expanding the meaning potential of an expression by scrambling the realization relationship between the semantics and the grammar (Martin, 2008, p. 829). The most widely known pattern of GM is nominalization, or the reconstrual of congruent processes2 as static Things (e.g., he is able to sing as his singing ability). Nominalizations are but one pattern of experiential GM that often co-occur with other ideational3 reconstruals, namely logical GM, to reorganize clause complexes into lexically dense, relationally oriented simple clauses.

2 SFL transitivity descriptions are used throughout this study to describe the experiential representations of language (e.g., participants realized through nominal groups; Thing and Quality of Thing as participant or nominal group constituents; see Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004). Clause elements are annotated using lower case letters; group constituents are capitalized. 3 The ideational metafunction examines the ways meanings interact to construe experience (experiential) and organize it (logical). The interpersonal metafunction examines the ways relationships are construed between speaker and hearer (or reader and writer), encoding propositions, obligations, inclinations and attitude (Martin & Rose, 2003; Taverniers, 2006, pp. 323–324). The textual metafunction focuses on packaging a clause to effectively communicate its purpose and context (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004; Martin & Rose, 2003; Taverniers, 2006).

66

C.L. Liardét / English for Specific Purposes 50 (2018) 64–80

In general, ideational GM inherently works toward creating impersonal, objective expressions, functioning to achieve the goals of the interpersonal metafunction by reorganizing language into non-agentive, ‘de-humanized’ expression. For example, in Sentence 1, the participants, the soldiers and one hundred Syrian civilians are realized congruently as nominal groups and the processes killed and injured are realized congruently as a verbal group. This congruent relationship positions the US soldiers as the actor or human entity squarely responsible for the atrocity. 1. The US soldiers killed and injured over 100 Syrian civilians in today’s drone strike. [i]4 2. Today’s drone strike resulted in over 100 Syrian casualties. [i] In contrast, the metaphorical representation of this clause (Sentence 2) reorganizes the congruent ‘action’ (i.e., killed and injured) into a metaphorical nominal group, over 100 Syrian casualties, and effectively backgrounds the victims as a nonagentive effect (i.e., resulted in) of a non-human participant, Today’s drone strike. The actors or perpetrators of the action, The US soldiers, are obscured and the news is reported as an event resulting in another event, eliminating any explicit personal, human reference. While these ideational reconstruals accomplish some goals of the interpersonal metafunction, interpersonal metaphors more fully allow writers to communicate their stance or attitudes toward the information conveyed. Within the interpersonal metafunction, two types of GM can be mapped: metaphors of mood and metaphors of modality. Metaphors of mood involve indirect speech acts or the construal of one type of mood for another (Painter, 1999). For example, a speech command such as Be quiet! can be reconstrued as the interrogative, would you mind lowering your voice? Grammatically, the latter is construed as a question; however, semantically it realizes a command, Be quiet! (see also Taverniers, 2006). For purposes of this study, metaphors of mood will not be analyzed as these indirect speech acts tend to be characteristic of spoken discourse and are less appropriate in written genres (Schleppegrell, 2001, p. 450). Metaphors of modality, however, are an important resource in the construction of academic texts. These metaphors function to construct a space for negotiating the certainty of an expression by extracting the modality from within the clause and reconstruing it as another clause element (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004; Ravelli, 1988). For example, the modal adverb likely in Sentence 3 can be extracted and reconstrued as a projecting clause (e.g., IT IS LIKELY5, Sentence 4), a circumstance (e.g., IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, Sentence 5) or a participant (e.g., LIKELIHOOD, Sentence 6). 3. 4. 5. 6.

Housing prices will most likely continue to rise. [i] IT IS LIKELY that housing prices will continue to rise. [i] IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, housing prices will continue rise. [i] There is a high LIKELIHOOD that housing prices will continue to rise. [i]

In each of the above examples, the position of the modal likely shifts to convey different levels of certainty. As the modal itself is reconstrued, it can be repositioned to foreground the level of likelihood (i.e., as theme in the projecting clause and circumstance; Sentences 4 and 5) and evaluate the strength of the likelihood (i.e., in the case of the qualified participant, high LIKELIHOOD, Sentence 6), thus functioning to linguistically situate the intention of the writer while priming the reader to align with this intention (Wang, 2010). In his original descriptions of interpersonal metaphors, Halliday (1985) maps metaphorical realizations along axes of explicitness (i.e. congruency) and objectivity, as illustrated in Figure 1. Along these axes, implicit, congruent expressions may be deployed subjectively (e.g., must) or objectively (e.g., clearly) while explicit or metaphorical realizations may also be deployed subjectively (e.g., I BELIEVE) or objectively (e.g., IT IS OBVIOUS). As illustrated in the opaque rectangle, Halliday (1985) further identifies intermediate implicit-explicit realizations. Such metaphors are realized as prepositional phrases functioning as circumstances and may be construed either subjectively (e.g., IN MY OPINION) or objectively (e.g., IN ALL LIKELIHOOD). In total, Halliday identifies four general types of interpersonal metaphor: subjective and objective intermediate explicit-implicit and, subjective and objective explicit. Building upon Halliday’s early descriptions of GM, Ravelli (1988) identifies an additional pattern in which the modal adverb is reconstrued metaphorically as a nominal group. Ravelli (1988) classifies these instances as ideational metaphors (i.e., modal as Thing; e.g., possibly as POSSIBILITY); however, the reconstrual of modality serves an interpersonal function and as such will be mapped along other patterns of interpersonal reconstrual, as outlined in Table 1.

4 Example illustrations are identified as invented [i] or are taken from the data. Excerpts from the CLLC are identified first by a letter indicating the subcorpus in which the text was written (i.e. A represents the first semester of the CLLC, B represents the second semester, etc.) and a four-digit number assigned to the author to protect anonymity. 5 Following Liardet, 2014a, all GM are annotated using small capital letters.

C.L. Liardét / English for Specific Purposes 50 (2018) 64–80

67

Figure 1. Interpersonal metaphor axes (adapted from Halliday, 1985, p. 333). Table 1 Interpersonal grammatical metaphor patterns (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, p. 615; Halliday, 1985, p. 333; Ravelli, 1988). Type of reconstrual

Congruent / Incongruent examples

Functional label

Intermediate implicit-explicit subjective Intermediate implicit-explicit objective Explicit-subjective Explicit-objective Modal as thing

Possibly, probably / IN MY OPINION Likely, certainly / IN ALL PROBABILITY Possibly, probably / I THINK, I BELIEVE Likely, certainly / IT IS LIKELY, IT IS CLEAR Likely, possibly / LIKELIHOOD, POSSIBILITY

Circumstance Projecting Clause Participant

Although more commonly explored in spoken conversation (e.g., Yang, 2013), interpersonal metaphors can be integrated into academic texts to evaluate and negotiate the certainty of a proposition while obscuring the author’s voice as the source of the evaluation, presenting the assertions as objective and impersonal (see also Biber, 2006a; Hewings & Hewings, 2002; Hyland & Tse, 2005; Martin & White, 2005; Wu, 2007). The most extensively explored pattern of interpersonal metaphor is the anticipatory –it lexical bundle6 (e.g., IT IS IMPORTANT TO . , IT IS CLEAR THAT.; Biber & Conrad, 1999; Hewings & Hewings, 2002). When these interpersonal metaphors are placed in theme position of a clause, they take on three interpersonal roles: hedges (i.e., tentativeness or certainty of the proposition; e.g., IT IS LIKELY, IT COULD BE ARGUED), attitude markers (i.e., expressing the author’s opinion of the assertion; IT IS INTERESTING, IT IS IMPORTANT), and emphatics (i.e., stressing the veracity of the claim; e.g., IT IS EVIDENT, IT IS ESSENTIAL; Hewings & Hewings, 2002, p. 6). Several studies have examined how the use of anticipatory –it structures vary across different registers (e.g., Biber & Conrad, 1999; Biber, Conrad, & Cortes, 2004; Biber & Barbieri, 2007), disciplinary fields (Cortes, 2002, 2004; Freddi, 2005; Hyland, 2008b; Jalali, Rasekh, & Rizi, 2009) and different degrees of writing expertise (e.g., Cortes, 2002, 2006; Larsson, 2016), noting that they are often

6 One critical indicator of whether an expression is functioning metaphorically is whether it can be unpacked to its congruent agnate (e.g., the nominal group her writing development may be unpacked as the clause she developed her writing). In the case of interpersonal metaphors of modality, the congruent agnate involves a modal adverb in the original assertion (e.g., it is important to note that her writing has developed may be unpacked as Importantly, she has developed her writing). In their classification of anticipatory –it expressions, Hewings and Hewings (2002) identify a fourth metadiscursive role these lexical bundles take on, that of attribution. However, not all anticipatory –it expressions demonstrate incongruency. Namely, in the case of attributive expressions (e.g., it has been proposed, it is estimated), no clear congruent modal adverb is discernible.

68

C.L. Liardét / English for Specific Purposes 50 (2018) 64–80

strong discriminators of academic, formal discourse among expert English language users. In short, the use of projecting anticipatory –it interpersonal metaphors enables authors to evaluate the ensuing proposition while simultaneously distancing themselves as the depersonalized source of the evaluation (Hewings & Hewings, 2002; Hyland & Tse, 2005). Other comparative corpus studies of learners’ use of evaluation and stance in academic writing reveal key insights into the problems learners have when construing appropriate degrees of certainty and doubt (e.g., Aull & Lancaster, 2014; Biber, 2010; Jiang, 2015; Lancaster, 2014; Ringbom, 1998). For example, Wei and Lei (2011) examine the use of lexical bundles in the academic writing of advanced Chinese EFL learners. While they found the Chinese EFL learners over-relied on lexical bundles, anticipatory –it structures (e.g., IT IS NECESSARY, IT IS LIKELY) were comparatively underused (see also Hyland, 2000, 2002). Similarly, in a comparative corpus analysis of Cantonese speaking students with British students, Hyland and Milton (1997) identify key distinctions in the Cantonese learners’ use of qualification and certainty. Their study reveals the Cantonese learners’ reliance on a limited range of modal tools, their overuse of stronger commitments and their inability to express precise degrees of certainty (p. 183; see also Charles, 2006, 2007; Hyland, 1998a, 1998b, 2008b; Petch-Typson, 1998; Salager, 1994; Xie, 2016). As Hyland and Milton (1997) argue, these tendencies may cause such learners to violate “communicative norms as their writing may appear as too direct, running the risk of being considered as either brusque or dogmatic, or as too tentative, and therefore seen as equivocal, diffident or naïve” (p. 186; see also Bloch & Chi, 1995). The present study builds upon these investigations to examine how Chinese EFL learners deploy interpersonal metaphors to evaluate meanings in their academic writing. Specifically, it presents a corpus-assisted analysis of interpersonal evaluations in Chinese EFL learners’ writing across a two-year longitudinal study, exploring the following three questions: 1. How do Chinese EFL learners use interpersonal grammatical metaphor to evaluate assertions in their academic writing? 2. What patterns, if any, do Chinese EFL learners rely upon when deploying interpersonal grammatical metaphors and how do these patterns contribute to or detract from their arguments? 3. How does Chinese EFL learners’ deployment of interpersonal grammatical metaphors develop over a two-year period of intense English medium instruction?

3. The study This study employs an integrated SFL, corpus-assisted methodology to examine Chinese EFL learners’ development of interpersonal GM across two years of university study in Mainland China. The texts analyzed here form the Chinese Longitudinal Learner Corpus (CLLC), a specialized corpus of 130 students’ argumentative essays collected across two years of university study in an English language degree, beginning with students’ first week of enrollment (see also Liardet, 2013, 2014a, 2015, 2016). The CLLC comprises four subcorpora representing each of the first four semesters with each of the 130 participants writing a total of four texts (i.e., one text per semester, 520 texts total). The essays were written in a simulated examination situation as practice exercises for the Chinese National Test for English Majors wherein students are required to write a short expository academic essay (TEM; Cheng, 2008; Zou, 2003).7 Concurrent with the four semesters of the CLLC, students are enrolled in a series of Writing courses (English Writing 1–4) designed to prepare students to write the 3- and 5paragraph argumentative essays required. On the exam, the highest Band of achievement (i.e., Band 5 Score 20-18), or “Effective communication with accuracy” defines the benchmark for success as: The writing effectively addresses the writing task. It demonstrates a well developed logical organizational structure with clearly stated main ideas and sufficient supporting details. It has almost no errors of vocabulary, spelling, punctuation or syntax, and it displays an adequate ability to use the language with appropriacy. No difficulty is experienced by the reader. (Liu & Stapleton, 2014, p. 126, p. 126) As part of a larger study into Chinese EFL learners’ development of academic writing, the present study examines how these students develop the resources of interpersonal metaphor across four semesters.8 Texts from each of the four subcorpora are examined using a corpus-assisted methodology, first employing a manual analysis of a sample corpus (i.e., fifty texts) to identify specific forms of interpersonal metaphor, followed by a concordance analysis of the identified forms across all 130 texts (i.e., for each subcorpus; Liardet, 2016). This method allows for atypical, or intermediate, developmental realizations to be identified that may otherwise be missed using corpus-tagging software (e.g., Baratta, 2010; Biber, Conrad, Reppen, Byrd, & Helt, 2002). For example, Excerpt 7 illustrates an alternative variation of the more typical metaphor, THERE IS NO DOUBT (i.e., IT’S NO DOUBT). In such occurrences, the congruent agnate is perceptible (i.e., obviously globalization will improve the economy), demonstrating that a metaphorical reconstrual has occurred; however, the form varies somewhat from the more commonly deployed iterations (i.e., THERE IS NO DOUBT).

7 The same prompt was used each semester to ensure learner familiarity with the topic: “As international communication and transportation increase and improve, the world is becoming more connected. As a result, languages and cultures have crossed national boundaries to influence people around the world. Write a composition of about 300 words to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of globalization and its influence on China” (Liardet, 2014a, p. 116). 8 The CLLC does not claim to be representative of all Chinese EFL learners and all mentions of ‘Chinese EFL learners’ hereafter are simply shorthand references to these 130 students.

C.L. Liardét / English for Specific Purposes 50 (2018) 64–80

7. IT’S

NO DOUBT

69

that globalization will improve the economy of the world as a whole (A5164)

Without this layer of manual analysis of the sample corpus, such instances may be overlooked and, in some studies, may simply be disregarded as mistakes (Derewianka, 1995, 2003; Ravelli, 2003). For purposes of mapping learner development, these atypical realizations provide significant insights into the ways learners play with the language and allow for more delicate descriptions of metaphorical development, supporting Ravelli’s (2003) argument that “it is in the exploration of actual instances of data that the need to augment or adjust the theory of metaphor becomes evident” (p. 44). Once the concordances are compiled, the patterns of interpersonal reconstrual and the different forms of these reconstruals can be calculated. For example, the five patterns of interpersonal metaphor outlined from Halliday (1985) and Ravelli (1988) in Table 1 can be summarized as three types of reconstrual (i.e., interpersonal circumstance, interpersonal projecting clause, and interpersonal participant). The different realizations of these patterns are considered the different forms of interpersonal metaphor (e.g., IN MY OPINION, IN ALL PROBABILITY, I BELIEVE, etc.). While the quantitative analysis of variation and frequency provides some insight into learners’ expanding paradigmatic repertoire across the two years, when coupled with the qualitative description of metaphorical enrichment, a nuanced mapping of learner development is revealed (Liardet, 2014b, 2016). Metaphorical enrichment refers to “the degree and quality of meaning” or the “commitment and formality infused into the lexis” (Liardet, 2016). In the mapping of ideational metaphors, metaphorical enrichment describes “the levels of technicality, formality and nuanced meaning committed to the metaphor” (e.g., the difference between the less enriched nominalization, the KILL, and more enriched variations such as MANSLAUGHTER, HOMICIDE and ASSASSINATION; Liardet, 2016, p. 20). When mapping the varying degrees of metaphorical enrichment in interpersonal metaphors, two variables are considered: personal positioning (i.e., objectivity) and the dialogic space of negotiation (i.e., expansion). The first variable of personal positioning refers to the axis of objectivity. In academic discourse, interpersonal metaphors negotiate a space of certainty and usuality, disguising personal opinion and thus promoting objectivity (Halliday, 1994). As Hyland (1998b) argues, the modulated tool of hedging functions to indicate the degree of confidence that the writer has in his or her claims while limiting personal commitment to those claims (pp. 166, 176). The deployment of subjective interpersonal metaphors (e.g., IN MY OPINION, I BELIEVE) construes tentativeness. With such metaphors, the source of the evaluation (i.e., the writer) is foregrounded. However, when construed objectively, “the responsibility for the evaluative comment is not individuated” and the authority valued in academic ‘student’ registers is achieved (Schleppegrell, 2002, 2004, p. 184; see also; Hyland & Milton, 1997). Both interpersonal circumstances and projecting clauses can be realized either objectively or subjectively. The third type of reconstrual, the interpersonal participant, can only be realized in an impersonal, objective manner. In addition to the notion of objectivity, the axis of expansion provides further descriptions of metaphorical enrichment. Within the interpersonal metafunction, SFL provides a framework for dealing with the resources of evaluative language, that of Appraisal. The Appraisal framework consists of three systems: ‘attitude’, ‘engagement’ and ‘graduation’. For the purposes of this study, the ‘engagement’ system is most relevant as it “deals with sourcing attitudes and the play of voices around opinions in discourse” (Martin & White, 2005, p. 35). Within the engagement system, an important distinction can be made between those heteroglossic resources that dialogically contract and those that expand the space for negotiation. In other words, resources considered ‘dialogically contractive’ function to “restrict the scope” of alternative voices and perspectives; whereas ‘dialogically expansive’ resources function to open up or expand the ‘dialogic space’, allowing for alternative viewpoints (Ibid, p. 102, p.117; Hyland, 2002). Building on Martin and White’s (2005) understandings of dialogic contraction,9 the term contracting here is used to describe a nuanced level of exclusivity (i.e., through reference to an ‘in group’ or an exclusive circle of knowledge, e.g., we all know) and proclamation. By referencing this exclusive body of shared knowledge, these metaphors are not inviting input or argument from the wider community of readers. Instead, they are in effect obligating those outside or external to this “knowledge” to adhere to it (i.e., if you didn’t know this or agree with this statement already, then you should now; Liardet, 2014a, pp. 101–102). For example, in Excerpts 8 and 9, the metaphors AS WE ALL KNOW and IT IS KNOWN TO US ALL refer to an ‘in group’ or exclusive circle of knowledge (‘we all’ and ‘to us all’). At one level, the appeal to shared knowledge invokes a presumed shared attitude and belief of the putative reader, as Martin and White (2005, p. 95) explain: “when speakers/writers announce their own attitudinal positions they not only self-expressively ‘speak their own mind’, but simultaneously invite others to endorse and to share with them the feelings, tastes or normative assessments they are announcing” (p. 95). However, the question can arise whether the author is inviting this endorsement or in effect, obligating it, thus contracting the space for a dissenting or critical reader to contradict or question the proposition (i.e., a reader who does not identify with the ‘we’ alignment). If the reader is not privy to this in-group understanding, a sense of exclusion is created, limiting the discussion to only those with the shared knowledge (i.e., narrowing the scope of who qualifies as an ‘acceptable’ putative reader10).

9 Although these constructions appear at first to achieve a proclaim: concur function, similar to such locutions as naturally, of course or obviously, when examined in context, their evaluative function conveys a stronger sense of pronouncement more aligned to there is no doubt. In a sense, these realizations are demanding alignment through proclaim: pronounce. Martin and White (2005) describe the proclaim: pronounce category as involving “authorial emphases or explicit authorial interventions or interpolations” such as “The facts of the matter are that . , We can only conclude that . ,” and “You must agree that . ” (p. 127). This interpolation of the authorial presence may be valued in certain discourses; however, they are less valued when pursuing the objective aims of academic ‘student’ writing (i.e., obscuring the source of the evaluation). 10 The appeal of the author to the putative reader identified in the ‘we’ grouping could arguably be construing ‘solidarity’ in the text. However, in invoking such a narrow scope for the knowledge and shared belief, the author fails to expand the space for building solidarity with readers who may disagree with the assertion. Thus, the metaphor positions the assertion as more absolute and appears unwilling to engage with those who hold an alternative position.

70

C.L. Liardét / English for Specific Purposes 50 (2018) 64–80

Similar to these constructions are the contracting pronouncements THERE IS NO DOUBT and IT IS CERTAIN in Excerpts 10 and 11. Such realizations are often referred to as deontic stance markers, expressing “obligation, necessity, prohibition, or (dis) approval, displaying an absolute stance” and are less valued in academic writing (Uccelli, Dobbs, & Scott, 2013, p. 46; see also; Reilly, Baruch, Jisa, & Berman, 2002). 8. 9. 10. 11.

AS WE ALL KNOW, the economy of the world is developing faster and faster. (B4123) IT IS KNOWN TO US ALL that globalization has more good influence on China. (B2141) THERE IS NO DOUBT that globalization has a deep effect on China. (C5085) IT IS CERTAIN that globalization is unavoidable and so are the impacts it has (B5007)

The alternative to contracting realizations is expanding, referring to the openness of the group beyond any isolated, predefined fraternity and a willingness to entertain alternative viewpoints. These epistemic stance markers express the writer’s certainty or belief regarding the veracity, certainty or reliability of the claim and are prevalent across academic genres (Biber, 2006b; Gray & Biber, 2012). For example, in Excerpts 12–14, the metaphors IN MY OPINION, I BELIEVE, and IT SEEMS allow for and even invite others to negotiate the evaluations (i.e., through expand: entertain). They are dialogically expansive in that they project “an audience which is potentially divided over the issue at stake and hence one which may not universally share the value position being referenced” (Martin & White, 2005, p. 108). In other words, expanding metaphors invite the reader to entertain the notion with varying levels of endorsement rather than obligating the reader didactically to align. In the case of Excerpts 12 and 13, the subjective forms, IN MY OPINION and I BELIEVE, foreground the writer as the source of the evaluation, presenting his or her assessment and authority in making the assessment as negotiable (i.e., I believe X; however, you are welcome to disagree with my belief). The objective realization in Excerpt 14, however, obscures and disassociates the author as the source of the evaluation (i.e., “it”), only indirectly submitting the assessment for negotiation (i.e., it seems that X; however, you may argue that it is less so). This objective form is stronger and less permeable in an argument; however, both invite and expand the space for negotiation (for further discussion, see Liardet, 2014a, pp. 100–104). 12. IN MY OPINION, globalization is necessary for China. (A5175) 13. I BELIEVE China will become a more popular nation (A5145) 14. IT SEEMS that what globalization brings to people are all beneficial. (D4072) For purposes of illustration, this additional axis of expansion can be overlaid on Halliday’s (1985, p. 333) original mapping of interpersonal metaphors. To achieve this, Figure 2 removes the explicit-implicit axis (i.e., congruent-incongruent) to include only metaphorical realizations. In other words, all realizations mapped in Figure 2 demonstrate a metaphorical reconstrual of the modal.

Figure 2. Interpersonal metaphors mapped for objectivity and expansion (Liardet, 2014a, p. 103).

C.L. Liardét / English for Specific Purposes 50 (2018) 64–80

71

As illustrated in Figure 2, when allowing for the three functional realizations (i.e., circumstance, projecting clause and participant) alongside the axes of objectivity and expansion, nine different types of interpersonal metaphor are identified (see Figure 3).11

Figure 3. Example realizations of the nine types of interpersonal metaphor (adapted from Liardet, 2014a, p. 105).

Unlike ideational metaphors in which most occurrences contribute to the development of academic registers, not all types of interpersonal metaphors achieve these same aims. Thus, the metaphorical enrichment descriptors mapped along the axes of objectivity and expansion distinguish those metaphors valued in academic discourse. Specifically, all subjective and contracting realizations are treated as less enriched than their objective and expanding counterparts. For example, the subjective metaphors in Excerpts 12 and 13 (i.e., IN MY OPINION and I BELIEVE) fail to disguise the author’s personal voice while the contracting realizations in Excerpts 8–11 (i.e., AS WE ALL KNOW, IT IS KNOWN TO US ALL, THERE IS NO DOUBT and IT IS CERTAIN) fail to engage the reader in a dialog about the likelihood or veracity of the claims, instead contracting this space of negotiation.

4. Findings Within the CLLC, nine types of interpersonal metaphor are identified; however, due to the scarcity of interpersonal participants and objective circumstances in the data (i.e., only five instances and six instances, respectively, across all four semesters; or 0.00004 instances per 1,000 words12), these patterns will not be included in the findings discussion. Further, for purposes of brevity, contracting metaphors will be distinguished for objectivity and not by function (i.e., not by circumstance and projecting clause). Across the four semesters of the study, the deployment of interpersonal metaphors is most frequent in the second semester (i.e., 6.9 instances) with the lowest frequency found in Semester 3 (i.e., 4.1 instances), as illustrated in Figure 4.

11 12

Interpersonal participants are unique in that they can only be realized as objective and expanding. All frequency calculations are normalized to occurrences per 1,000 words per subcorpus.

72

C.L. Liardét / English for Specific Purposes 50 (2018) 64–80

Figure 4. Frequency of interpersonal metaphor deployment per semester (adapted from Liardet, 2014a, pp. 239, 241).

As referenced above, this marginal increase in the frequency of interpersonal metaphors (i.e., from 5.2 instances in Semester 1 to 5.7 in Semester 4) does not necessarily indicate a lack of development. On the contrary, the deployment of subjective and contracting metaphors detracts from the general aims of English for Academic Purposes (e.g., EGAP) and thus, a reduction in the occurrence of such realizations is an indicator of development. To investigate these patterns of deployment, Figure 5 summarizes the overall frequency of the five types of interpersonal metaphor found in the CLLC.

Figure 5. Frequency of deployment per type of reconstrual (per 1,000 words; adapted from Liardet, 2014a, p. 240).

Notably, the most frequently deployed type of interpersonal metaphor is the expanding subjective projecting clause (i.e., I THINK, I BELIEVE). This pattern is deployed more than twice as frequently as any other pattern (i.e., 9 instances). When these frequencies are examined in proportion to one another, further insights into the Chinese EFL learners’ reliance are revealed.

C.L. Liardét / English for Specific Purposes 50 (2018) 64–80

73

Figure 6. Proportion of interpersonal metaphor by type of reconstrual (adapted from Liardet, 2014a, p. 241).

As illustrated in Figure 6, the occurrence of subjective metaphors constitutes 78% of all interpersonal metaphor deployment across the CLLC, indicating a clear preference for subjective realizations over objective ones (i.e., 21% contracting, 40% expanding projecting clauses and 17% interpersonal circumstances). Of these subjective realizations, the most prevalent type is the Expanding Subjective Projecting clause (e.g., I BELIEVE, I THINK) followed by contracting subjective realizations (e.g., AS WE ALL KNOW). Contracting metaphors (i.e., both objective and subjective) occur 6.4 times per 1,000 words across the CLLC and comprise 31% of all interpersonal metaphors. Significantly, the second least frequently deployed pattern of reconstrual, expanding objective projecting clauses, is the most valued pattern of interpersonal metaphor. These three key findings are explored in the following sections.

4.1. Subjective metaphors The occurrence of the most prevalent subjective realization, projecting clauses, can be further classified into three patterns: “I/we þ Mental process” (i.e., of inclination or perception; e.g., I THINK), “I/we” þ Verbal Process (e.g., I MUST SAY) and the “Can see” pattern (e.g., YOU CAN SEE). The first and most common pattern, the “I/we þ Mental process”, pairs a first person pronoun with a Mental process of perception or inclination (e.g., think, believe, hope), as illustrated in Excerpts 15–17. 15. 16. 17. 18.

I THINK it’s easy for us to be unfamiliar with our own cultures and languages. (B3070) WE BELIEVE that it will make our country stronger and more harmony. (B4102) I HOPE we Chinese can look globalization as a chance. (A1052) I STILL HOLD THE IDEA that it’s not a good begin. (D5020)

Excerpt 18 illustrates one further variation of this pattern in which the same sentiment is conveyed functionally, yet with a dissimilar structure (i.e., I STILL HOLD THE IDEA). The second pattern of subjective projecting clauses similarly pairs a first person pronoun with a Verbal process, emphasizing the importance of the assertion through personal declaration. The deployment of these Verbal processes function as loosely veiled Mental processes (i.e., believe, know, think). For example, while the assertion in Excerpt 19 is that it must be said, the meaning conveyed is one of I must say this because it is what I believe. Finally, the third subjective projecting clause pattern, the “can see” pattern, involves a Mental process, similar to those found in the first pattern, yet invokes greater certainty and clarity similar to a more objective form such as IT IS EVIDENT (i.e., ‘see’ as ‘evidently’). For example, in Excerpts 20–21, the YOU CAN SEE and WE CAN SEE constructions reconstrue the modal clearly. While both of these forms achieve a metaphorical reconstrual of the modal, by invoking the personal pronouns I and we, they demonstrate less enrichment than their objective alternative (i.e., IT IS EVIDENT, IT IS CLEAR).

74

C.L. Liardét / English for Specific Purposes 50 (2018) 64–80

19. I MUST SAY, the advantages of globalization is more important than the disadvantages. (B4051) 20. YOU CAN SEE that we get more and more communication in our culture. (B4166) 21. WE CAN SEE that globalization has both advantages and disadvantages. (D5167) Notably, this final WE CAN SEE pattern is also found in an earlier investigation of Chinese learners’ academic writing. Using contrastive corpus keyword analysis, Lee and Chen (2009) found that this lexical bundle occurs in their Chinese learner corpus (i.e., the CAWE13) considerably more frequently than their reference expert corpora (i.e., the EXJA and BAWE). The comparably low occurrence of this construction in the expert corpora indicates it may be less appropriate in academic writing and thus instruction guiding the Chinese EFL learners to alternative linguistic forms may be beneficial (Lee & Chen, 2009, p. 289, p. 289) These three patterns of subjective projecting clauses are found throughout the CLLC, despite their steady decline from 2.8 instances in Semester 1 to only 1.4 instances in Semester 4, and indicate a clear preference for hedging and tentativeness. This preference is reinforced when coupled with the less frequently deployed subjective expanding circumstances (e.g., IN MY OPINION). In the CLLC, the Chinese EFL learners deploy ten different forms of interpersonal circumstance (e.g., IN MY JUDGMENT, IN MY POINT OF VIEW, ON MY PART, TO MY MIND, PERSONALLY SPEAKING, etc.); however, these constructions occur only 3.8 times and comprise 17% of all interpersonal metaphors. Despite their relatively low frequency, however, when combined with the projected clauses discussed above, a clear preference for subjective realizations emerges (i.e., 57% of all interpersonal metaphors). Another notable finding with these patterns is the co-occurrence of subjective projecting clauses with subjective circumstances. For example, in Excerpts 22–25, the subjective circumstances PERSONALLY, AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, FROM MY POINT OF VIEW and IN MY OPINION precede the subjective projecting clauses (i.e., I THINK). This accumulation of subjective metaphors further modulates the assertions, positioning them as even more tentative. 22. 23. 24. 25.

PERSONALLY, I THINK it’s good to China. (A2082) AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, I DO THINK globalization is good chance for China’s developing. (B4123) FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, I PREFER TO THINK that advantages of globalization outweighs disadvantages. (C5015) IN MY OPINION, I THINK that China can control the balance between advantages and disadvantages (C5015)

The prevalence of this accumulated subjectivity across all four semesters of the CLLC suggests an inherent need by the Chinese participants to qualify their assertions with extensive personal reference, mitigating the strength and authority of their statements. In addition to these juxtaposed co-occurrences, this increased qualification and subjective accumulation is seen across consecutive clauses. For example, in Excerpts 26–27, the subjective metaphors WE CAN NOT DENY, I’M SURE, I THINK, AS I CAN SEE, and I BELIEVE accumulate subjective tentativeness across two and three consecutive clauses, respectively, suggesting a perceived need to extensively qualify statements to ensure the validity and certainty of the correlating assertions are attributed explicitly to the writer and not a presumed authority. 26. WE CAN NOT DENY there are still some bad influence. I’M SURE the advantages are more than disadvantages. (B5099) 27. To China, I THINK the advantages are more than disadvantages. AS I CAN SEE it makes China develop well and I BELIEVE China can make good use of globalization to develop. (B3070) 28. AS WE KNOW, China has made great progress for these years. I THINK it is the result of globalization. (C5150) 29. WE ALL KNOW China is a fast-developing country. WE CAN SEE the great progress that China has made. (B4035). Another equally hedged pattern is illustrated in Excerpts 28–29 with the co-occurrence of subjective projecting clauses (i.e., I THINK and WE CAN SEE) with contracting subjective realizations (i.e., AS WE KNOW and WE ALL KNOW). Notably, the co-occurrence with subjective contracting metaphors is prevalent across the first three semesters of the study, with no instances found in the fourth and final semester. The omission of the extensively accumulated subjective and contracting co-occurrence in the final semester may suggest increased development in the students’ writing. This development is further supported in the frequency comparison of subjective and objective interpersonal metaphors across the four semesters. As illustrated in Figure 7, apart from the increase in the frequency of subjective realizations in the second semester, there is a slight decrease in these less valued metaphors from 4.6 instances in Semester 1 to 3.2 instances in Semester 4. This decrease is concurrent with a gradual, yet inconsistent, increase in the deployment of the more valued objective realizations, from only 0.6 instances in the first semester to 2.5 instances in the fourth semester. In short, when the rate of

13 Lee and Chen (2009) use keyword analysis to compare Chinese undergraduate dissertations (CAWE; i.e., Chinese Academic Written English) with a corpus of peer-reviewed, published scholarly articles (EXJA; Expert Journal Articles) and a subset of written English (BAWE; British Academic Written English).

C.L. Liardét / English for Specific Purposes 50 (2018) 64–80

75

Figure 7. Comparison of objective and subjective deployment frequency across the four semesters (adapted from Liardet, 2014a, p. 244).

subjective metaphors is compared with the increasing occurrence of objective realizations, a clearer picture of development emerges. 4.2. Contracting metaphors The second most frequently deployed type of interpersonal metaphor across the CLLC is the contracting realization (i.e., 6.4 instances; e.g., AS WE ALL KNOW, THERE IS NO DOUBT). Unlike the development noted in the overall decrease of subjective realizations, the frequency of contracting metaphors more than doubles across the four semesters of the CLLC (i.e., from 0.7 instances in Semester 1 to 1.6 instances in Semester 4) while the occurrence of expanding metaphors decreases (i.e., from 4.5 instances in Semester to 4.1 instances in Semester 4), as illustrated in Figure 8.

Figure 8. Comparison of contracting and expanding deployment frequency across the four semesters (adapted from Liardet, 2014a, p. 242).

The most prevalent pattern of contracting subjective metaphors involves a variation of the most common form: AS WE ALL As the students progress across the four semesters, they show greater creativity and language play, deploying an additional 9 forms (e.g., WE ALL KNOW, AS WE KNOW, AS FAR AS I/WE KNOW, AS IS KNOWN TO US ALL, IT IS KNOWN TO US and WE MUST KNOW), as illustrated in Excerpts 30–38. In each of these examples, subjectivity is maintained through the deployment of personal

KNOW.

76

C.L. Liardét / English for Specific Purposes 50 (2018) 64–80

pronouns (i.e., I, we, us) just as contraction is realized through reference to exclusive knowledge (i.e., know, known, all, must), and subsequent implied obligation. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38.

AS WE ALL KNOW, China become weaker and weaker under this theory. (C3156) AS WE KNOW, wide communication will cause conflicts. (B3027) AS FAR AS WE ALL KNOW, globalization has being a trend all over the world (D1149) AS IS KNOWN TO US, our world has been rapidly globalizing in the recent decades. (B5080) AS IS KNOWN TO US ALL, globalization is a tendency which we can’t prevent. (B4002) WE ALL KNOW some powerful countries want a control other countries (A1026) WE MUST KNOW that the situation is based on the development of society (C3131) IT IS KNOWN TO US that China is a developing country. (C2077) IT’S KNOWN TO US ALL that more and more children like eating hamburgers. (D2141)

Beginning in the second semester, in addition to the language play observed within the contracting subjective pattern, the Chinese EFL learners begin to deploy contracting objective alternatives (e.g., AS IS KNOWN TO/BY ALL, AS IS KNOWN TO THE WORLD, IT IS KNOWN TO ALL), as illustrated in Excerpts 39–42. 39. 40. 41. 42.

AS IS KNOWN, China is still a developing country. (B2114) IT IS WELL-KNOWN at every country that technology is the most important force to produce. (D3156) IT IS UNIVERSALLY KNOWN that globalization is a world-class trend (D5104) IT IS OBVIOUSLY KNOWN that globalization has brought a lot of advantages to China (C5099)

Notably, the first two variations of the objective forms (i.e., AS IS KNOWN and IT IS WELL-KNOWN) contract the space of negotiation slightly less with their less exclusive qualifications. For example, the generic known in Excerpt 39 and well-known in Excerpt 40 temper the assertions, allowing for a slight expansion of the space of negotiation through the provision that although it is well known, it may not be exclusively known. In contrast, the forms illustrated in Excerpts 41 and 42 (i.e., IT IS UNIVERSALLY KNOWN and IT IS OBVIOUSLY KNOWN) magnify the contraction through the extended qualification universally and the implicit modality obviously. The second most prevalent pattern of contracting metaphors involves an existential clause (i.e., there is) proclaiming certainty through the absence of doubt (i.e., no doubt). Similar to the contraction noted in the AS WE ALL KNOW forms, these constructions restrict the dialogic space, reducing the possibility for alternative or opposing views (i.e., there is no doubt, therefore, if you doubt, you are wrong and your opinion is not welcome). The Chinese learners play around with this form slightly, deploying four different forms (THERE IS NO DOUBT, NO DOUBT, IT’S NO DOUBT and IT IS WITHOUT DOUBT), as illustrated in Excerpts 43–46. 43. 44. 45. 46.

THERE IS NO DOUBT that people from different nations can communicate more (C5085) NO DOUBT that globalization contributes to the advancement of the whole world (D1106) IT’S NO DOUBT that globalization do good to national developing. (B5071) IT IS WITHOUT DOUBT that globalization make the world’s development speed up and (C5164)

The final pattern of contracting metaphors involves an anticipatory –it pattern of relational attributive clauses in which the Carrier, it, is related to various Attributes projecting the conclusiveness with which the subsequent assertions are meant to be interpreted (e.g., obvious, certain), as illustrated in Excerpts 47–48. 47. IT 48. IT

IS CERTAIN IS OBVIOUS

that globalization is unavoidable (B5007) that translational corporations and joint venture have sprang up (D5037)

Contracting metaphors are arguably the least enriched and least acceptable type of interpersonal metaphor in academic texts; those realized subjectively may then be considered even less enriched than their objective counterparts (e.g., the difference between AS WE ALL KNOW and IT IS CERTAIN). Notably, several studies reinforce this argument, identifying this practice of contracting the dialogic space as characteristic of unsuccessful academic texts “precisely because it does not leave room for considering other alternatives” (Miller, Mitchell, & Pessoa, 2014, p. 116; see also; Ryshina-Pankova, 2014; Wu & Allison, 2005). Although infrequent when compared to the overall occurrence of expanding metaphors, they are the second most frequent type of interpersonal metaphor, occurring more than twice as frequently as the most valued pattern of expanding objective projecting clauses (i.e., 6.4 instances as compared to 2.7 instances, see Figure 4). 4.3. Objective metaphors The least frequently deployed type of interpersonal metaphor is the most valued pattern, that is, expanding objective projecting clauses (e.g., IT IS EVIDENT, IT IS ESSENTIAL). In the CLLC, the Chinese EFL learners follow three main patterns when

C.L. Liardét / English for Specific Purposes 50 (2018) 64–80

77

deploying this type of reconstrual. The most prevalent pattern defers to a general third person reference (e.g., many people, some people, they), projecting the evaluations captured in Mental or Verbal processes on a third party ‘expert’. For example, in Excerpts 49–52, the projected clauses THEY BELIEVE, THEY THINK, SOME PEOPLE HOLD THE VIEW and MANY PEOPLE ARGUE project these evaluations onto an ambiguous ‘other’, referring to an occluded expert (or group of experts) rather than fully depersonalizing the evaluation into an anticipatory –it structure (e.g., IT IS BELIEVED, IT IS ARGUED). 49. 50. 51. 52.

THEY BELIEVE that globalization will has a bad effect on the world. (D2094) THEY THINK that the globalization just benefits a limited field of people (D4177) SOME PEOPLE HOLD THE VIEW that the advantages is less than disadvantages (D4051) MANY PEOPLE ARGUE that all the things are influenced by money. (D4177)

The second and third patterns involve an ambiguous it participant. The second pattern pairs the it participant with projecting Verbal propositions such as said, and believed (Excerpts 53–54). The third pattern of objective expanding projecting clauses is an anticipatory –it pattern of relational attributive clauses in which the Carrier, it, is related to various Attributes according to the esteem to which the subsequent clauses are meant to be interpreted (e.g., good, essential), as illustrated in Excerpts 55–56. 53. 54. 55. 56.

IT IT IT IT

that the world is becoming more connected. (C5100) that every corner of the world has been influenced by the globalization. (D3076) GOOD that one country can admire and absorb the valuable points of another (B1026) ESSENTIAL that different countries should cling to the principle of intern (A1176)

HAS BEEN SAID IS BELIEVED IS IS

In all of these forms, varying levels of certainty are achieved, opening the space for negotiation and debate, while objectivity is maintained through the absence of personal reference. Although these objective projecting clauses are infrequent across the CLLC, some development is noted in their three-fold increase from the first to fourth semesters (i.e., from 0.5 instances to 1.6 instances). 4.4. Summary of findings To further examine general trends of development, Figure 9 summarizes the deployment patterns of the three general categories of interpersonal metaphor: contracting (i.e., both subjective and objective), subjective expanding (i.e., both circumstances and projecting clauses) and objective expanding (i.e., projecting clauses).

Figure 9. Frequency of general types across the four semesters.

In short, three key findings emerge from the data. The first finding involves the Chinese EFL learners’ preference for subjective interpersonal metaphors. Of all occurrences of interpersonal metaphor in the CLLC, 78% are realized subjectively (i.e., including those contracting subjective realizations). In addition to this preference for subjective realizations, the participants often hedge their evaluations with multiple co-occurring subjective metaphors (as illustrated in Excerpts 22–29). Despite this distinctive preference for subjective forms, the Chinese EFL learners’ deployment of these realizations decreases across the four semesters (i.e., from 4 instances in Semester 1 to 2.5 instances in Semester 4).

78

C.L. Liardét / English for Specific Purposes 50 (2018) 64–80

The second notable finding involves a secondary preference for contracting metaphors. Unlike the development demonstrated in the decreasing frequency of subjective expanding metaphors, the Chinese EFL learners increasingly rely upon contracting metaphors, with the most frequent deployment occurring in Semesters 2 and 4 (i.e., 2.7 instances and 1.5 instances, respectively). While these calculations provide some insight into the increased reliance on these less valued resources, a proportional analysis reveals a two-fold increase from Semester 1 to Semester 4 (i.e., 13% of all interpersonal metaphors to 27%, respectively), as illustrated in Figure 10. Even more significant is their prevalence in Semesters 2 and 3 when more than a third of all interpersonal metaphors contract the space of negotiation (i.e., 39% and 34%, respectively).

Figure 10. Proportion of interpersonal GM deployment across the CLLC.

The third notable finding involves the deployment of expanding objective projecting clauses (e.g., IT IS ESSENTIAL). The frequency of these realizations more than triples across the four semesters, from only 0.5 instances per 1,000 words in Semester 1 to 1.6 instances in Semester 4. When examined proportionately, this development is clearer. In Semester 1, only 9% of all interpersonal metaphors are realized objectively whereas in Semester 4 this proportion increases to 29%. This steady increase in reliance is perhaps the greatest indicator of development observed in the Chinese EFL learners’ interpersonal metaphor deployment. 5. Conclusion Building upon existing SFL descriptions, this study has introduced an elaborated framework for mapping learners’ development of interpersonal metaphors and explored the different ways Chinese EFL learners evaluate meanings metaphorically in their academic writing. This framework identifies varying levels of metaphorical enrichment along axes of objectivity and expansion. Academic writing tends to privilege objective realizations over subjective ones and values certainty and negotiation over obligation and contraction, thus the exclusivity and subjectivity expressed in contracting metaphors detracts from the achievement of academic discourse. The findings have revealed a marked reliance on less valued forms of interpersonal metaphor and how this preference for less enriched realizations (i.e., subjective and contracting) impedes the construction of academically valued texts. Across the four semesters, the frequency with which Chinese EFL learners deploy interpersonal metaphors increases only marginally. However, unlike the deployment of ideational metaphors, development can be mapped through the decrease of less enriched subjective realizations with subtle increases in the deployment of objective expanding metaphors. On the whole, however, when evaluating meanings metaphorically, the Chinese EFL learners hedge and qualify their statements subjectively, tempering the certainty and authority of their assertions rather than using the resources of interpersonal metaphor to reinforce and substantiate their arguments. These tendencies reveal a key area for pedagogical intervention. Namely, instruction could focus on the value of construing metaphors objectively to obscure the author as the source of the evaluation. Similarly, raising students’ awareness of the space of negotiation and the value of offering assertions on a cline of certainty (e.g., IT IS EVIDENT) rather than through exclusive declarations of shared knowledge (e.g., AS WE ALL KNOW) is critical for academic writing refinement. Instructional interventions such as these are key areas for further investigation. In short, the increased frequency of objective metaphors concurrent with the decrease in subjective realizations and the overall low proportion of contracting metaphors indicate the Chinese EFL learners are gradually developing and progressing

C.L. Liardét / English for Specific Purposes 50 (2018) 64–80

79

toward more enriched interpersonal reconstruals. However, the prevailing deployment of less enriched metaphors throughout all four semesters suggests that explicit instruction is necessary to raise learners’ awareness of these distinctions and guide them toward more valued interpersonal realizations.

References Aull, L. L., & Lancaster, Z. (2014). Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written Communication, 31, 151-183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088314527055. Baratta, A. M. (2010). Nominalization development across an undergraduate academic degree program. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1017-1036. Biber, D. (2006a). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam, Netherlands/Philadelphia, USA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Biber, D. (2006b). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 97-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006. 05.001. Biber, D. (2010). What can a corpus tell us about registers and genres? In A. O’Keefe, & M. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (1st ed.). (pp. 241-254). New York, USA: Routledge. Biber, D., & Barbieri, F. (2007). Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 263-286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. esp.2006.08.003. Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (1999). Lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose. In H. Hasselgard, & S. Oksefjell (Eds.), Out of corpora: Studies in honor of Stig Johansson (pp. 181-189). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Rodopi. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2003). Lexical bundles in speech and writing: An initial taxonomy. In A. Wilson, P. Rayson, & T. McEnery (Eds.), Corpus linguistics by the lune: A festschrift for Geoffrey Leech (pp. 71-92). Frankfurt, Germany/Maine, USA: Peter Lang. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at.: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25, 371-405. https://doi. org/10.1093/applin/25.3.371. Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., & Helt, M. (2002). Speaking and writing in the university: A multidimensional comparison. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 948. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588359. Bloch, J., & Chi, L. (1995). A comparison of the use of citations in Chinese and English academic discourse. In D. Belcher, & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language (pp. 231-271). Norwood, NJ, USA: Ablex. Butler, C. S. (1997). Repeated word combinations in spoken and written text: Some implications for functional grammar. In C. Butler, J. Connolly, R. Gatward, & M. Wismans (Eds.), A fund of ideas: Recent development in functional grammar (pp. 60-77). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Institute for Functional Research into Language and Language Use. Charles, M. (2006). The construction of stance in reporting clauses: A cross-disciplinary study of theses. Applied Linguistics, 27, 492-518. https://doi.org/10. 1093/applin/aml021. Charles, M. (2007). Argument or evidence? Disciplinary variation in the use of the noun that pattern. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 203-218. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.esp.2006.08.004. Cheng, L. Y. (2008). The key to success: English language testing in China. Language Testing, 25, 15-37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532207083743. Coffin, C., & Donahue, J. (2014). Language, teaching, and learning: General orientations. Language Learning, 64, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12037. Cortes, V. (2002). Lexical bundles in freshman composition. In R. Reppen, S. M. Fitzmaurice, & D. Biber (Eds.), Using corpora to explore linguistic variation (pp. 131-145). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Cortes, V. (2004). Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 397423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2003.12.001. Cortes, V. (2006). Teaching lexical bundles in the disciplines: An example from a writing intensive history class. Linguistics and Education, 17, 391-406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2007.02.001. Department of Education &Training. (2016). International student data 2016 (Australian Government). Retrieved from https://internationaleducation.gov.au/ research/International-Student-Data/Pages/InternationalStudentData2016.aspx#Annual_Series. Derewianka, B. (1995). Language development in the transition from childhood to adolescence: The role of grammatical metaphor. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Sydney, Australia: Macquarie University. Derewianka, B. (2003). Grammatical metaphor in the transition to adolescence. In A. M. Simon-Vandenbergen, M. Taverniers, & L. J. liar (Eds.), Grammatical metaphor: Views from systemic functional linguistics (pp. 5-33). Amsterdam, Netherlands/Philadelphia, USA: John Benjamins. Freddi, M. (2005). Arguing linguistics: Corpus investigation of one functional variety of academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 5-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2003.09.002. Gray, B., & Biber, D. (2012). Current conceptions of stance. In K. Hyland, & C. Sancho-Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 15-33). London, UK: Palgrave. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London, UK: Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Toward a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5, 93-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/0898-5898(93)90026-7. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London, UK: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. London, UK: Hodder Education. Hewings, M., & Hewings, A. (2002). “It is interesting to note that”: A comparative study of anticipatory ‘it’ in student and published writing. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 367-383. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(01)00016-3. Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Hyland, K. (1998a). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text, 18, 349-382. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1998.18.3.349. Hyland, K. (1998b). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. Hyland, K. (2000). ‘It might be suggested that.’: Academic hedging and student writing. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 16, 83-97. https://doi.org/ 10.1075/aralss.16.06hyl. Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091-1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S03782166(02)00035-8. Hyland, K. (2006). Disciplinary differences: Language variation in academic discourses. In K. Hyland, & M. Bondi (Eds.), Academic discourse across disciplines (pp. 17-48). Bern, Germany: Peter Lang. Hyland, K. (2008a). Academic clusters: Text patterning in published and postgraduate writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18, 41-62. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2008.00178.x. Hyland, K. (2008b). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 4-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2007.06. 001. Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse: English in a global context. London, UK: Continuum. Hyland, K., & Bondi, M. (Eds.). (2006). Academic discourse across disciplines. Bern, Germany: Peter Lang. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2016a). Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance. Written Communication, 33, 251-274. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0741088316650399. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2016b). “We must conclude that.”: A diachronic study of academic engagement. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 24, 29-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.09.003.

80

C.L. Liardét / English for Specific Purposes 50 (2018) 64–80

Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, 183-205. https://doi.org/10. 1016/S1060-3743(97)90033-3. Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005). Evaluative that constructions: Signaling stance in research abstracts. Functions of Language, 12, 39-64. https://doi.org/10.1075/fol. 12.1.03hyl. Jalali, H., Rasekh, A. E., & Rizi, M. T. (2009). Anticipatory ‘it’ lexical bundles: A comparative study of student and published writing in applied linguistics. Iranian Journal of Language Studies (IJLS), 3, 177-194. Jiang, F. (2015). Nominal stance construction in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 90-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jeap.2015.07.002. Lam, A. (2002). English in education in China: Policy changes and learners’ experiences. World Englishes, 21, 245-256. Lancaster, Z. (2014). Exploring valued patterns of stance in upper-level student writing in the disciplines. Written Communication, 3, 27-57. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0741088313515170. Larsson, T. (2016). The introductory it pattern: Variability explored in learner and expert writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 22, 64-79. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.01.007. Lee, D. Y. W., & Chen, S. X. (2009). Making a bigger deal of the smaller words: Function words and other key items in research writing by Chinese learners. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 281-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2009.05.004. Liardet, C. L. (2013). An exploration of Chinese EFL learners’ deployment of grammatical metaphor: Learning to make academically valued meanings. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 161-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.008. Liardet, C. L. (2014a). A corpus-assisted study of Chinese EFL learners’ development of academic literacy. Unpublished PhD Thesis. The University of Sydney. Liardet, C. L. (2014b). A ‘speedful development’: Academic literacy in Chinese learners of English as a second language. In M. Gotti, & D. S. Giannoni (Eds.), Corpus analysis for descriptive and pedagogical purposes (pp. 303-324). Bern: Peter Lang. Liardet, C. L. (2015). Academic literacy and grammatical metaphor: Mapping development. TESOL Journal International, 10, 29-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jeap.2016.01.009. Liardet, C. L. (2016). Nominalization and grammatical metaphor: Elaborating the theory. Journal of English for Specific Purposes. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp. 2016.04.004. Liu, F., & Stapleton, P. (2014). Counterargumentation and the cultivation of critical thinking in argumentative writing: Investigating washback from a highstakes test. System, 45, 117-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.05.005. Martin, J. R. (2008). Incongruent and proud: De-vilifying ‘nominalization’. Discourse and Society, 19, 827-836. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926508095895. Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London, UK: Continuum. Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. London, UK: Equinox. Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York, USA: Palgrave Macmillan. Miller, R. T., Mitchell, T. D., & Pessoa, S. (2014). Valued voices: Students’ use of engagement in argumentative history writing. Linguistics and Education, 28, 1107-1120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2014.10.002. Painter, C. (1999). Learning through language in early childhood. London, UK: Cassell. Petch-Typson, S. (1998). Writer/reader visibility in EFL written discourse. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 107-118). London, UK/New York, USA: Addison Wesley Longman. Ravelli, L. J. (1988). Grammatical metaphor: An initial analysis. In E. H. Steiner, & R. Veltman (Eds.), Pragmatics, discourse and text: Some systemically-oriented approaches (pp. 133-147). London, UK: Pinter. Ravelli, L. J. (2003). Renewal of connection: Integrating theory and practice in an understanding of grammatical metaphor. In A. M. Simon-Vandenbergen, M. Taverniers, & L. J. Ravelli (Eds.), Grammatical metaphor: Views from systemic functional linguistics (pp. 37-64). Amsterdam, Netherlands/Philadelphia, USA: Benjamins. Reilly, J. S., Baruch, E., Jisa, H., & Berman, R. A. (2002). Propositional attitudes in written and spoken language. Written Language and Literacy, 5, 183-218. https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.5.2.04rei. Ringbom, H. (1998). Vocabulary frequencies in advanced learner English: A cross-linguistic approach. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 41-52). London, UK/New York, USA: Addison Wesley Longman. Russell, D. (1991). Writing in the academic disciplines, 1870–1990: A curricular history. Carbondale, Illinois, USA: Southern Illinois University Press. Ryshina-Pankova, M. (2014). Exploring academic argumentation in course-related blogs through engagement. In G. Thompson, & L. Alba-Juez (Eds.), Evaluation in context (pp. 281-302). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. Salager, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13, 149-170. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/0889-4906(94)90013-2. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2001). Linguistic features of the language of schooling. Linguistics and Education, 12, 431-459. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0898-5898(01) 00073-0. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2002). Challenges of the science register for ESL students: Errors and meaning-making. In M. J. Schleppegrell, & M. C. Colombi (Eds.), Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages: Meaning with power (pp. 119-142). Mahway, New Jersey, USA/London, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). Technical writing in a second language: The role of grammatical metaphor. In L. J. Ravelli, & R. A. Ellis (Eds.), Analysing academic writing: Contextualized frameworks (pp. 172-189). New York, USA: Continuum. Taverniers, M. (2006). Grammatical metaphor and lexical metaphor: Different perspectives on semantic variation. Neophilologus, 90, 321-332. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11061-005-0531-y. Uccelli, P., Dobbs, C. L., & Scott, J. (2013). Mastering academic language: Organization and stance in the persuasive writing of high school students. Written Communication, 30, 36-62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312469013. Wang, X. F. (2010). Grammatical metaphor and its difficulties in application. US-China Foreign Language, 8, 29-37. Wang, W. F., & Gao, X. S. (2008). English language education in China: A review of selected research. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 29, 380-399. Wei, Y. Y., & Lei, L. (2011). Lexical bundles in the academic writing of advanced Chinese EFL learners. RELC, 42, 155-166. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0033688211407295. Wu, S. M. (2007). The use of engagement resources in high-and low-rated undergraduate geography essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 254271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2007.09.006. Wu, S. M., & Allison, D. (2005). Evaluative expressions in analytical arguments: Aspects of appraisal in assigned English language essays. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2, 105-127. https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.2005.2.1.105. Xie, J. (2016). Direct or indirect? Critical or uncritical? Evaluation in Chinese English-major MA thesis literature reviews. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 23, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.05.001. Yang, Y. N. (2013). A corpus-based study of interpersonal grammatical metaphor in spoken Chinese. Language Sciences, 38, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. langsci.2012.12.003. Zou, S. (2003). The alignment of language teaching syllabus and language testing: TEM8 test development and administration. Foreign Language World, 98, 71-78. Cassi Liardét is a Lecturer of Linguistics at Macquarie University, Sydney Australia where she teaches academic and research communication and oversees the Research Scholar Program, an integrated support program for higher degree research students’ development of scholarly communication. Her research interests include academic literacy, English for Research Publication Purposes, Systemic Functional Linguistics, Corpus Linguistics and Grammatical Metaphor.