CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 10Discourse Analysis in Language StudiesLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisLinguistics and Language Analysis

The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Question illocutionary force indicating devices in academic writing: A corpus-pragmatic and contrastive approach to identifying and analysing direct and indirect questions in English, French, and Spanish

Open access
Curry, Niall·2023·International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
DOI 10.1075/ijcl.20065.cur
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Corpus research on questions as reader engagement markers in academic writing typically focuses on direct questions. Such questions are signalled by question marks and are relatively easily searchable in a corpus. However, indirect questions can be more challenging to identify, as they can be introduced by a range of forms. Based on a contrastive analysis of a corpus of English, French, and Spanish economics research articles, this paper provides pertinent evidence on direct and indirect questions as reader engagement markers. Firstly, it shows that direct and indirect questions as reader engagement markers are a rhetorical and generic feature of academic writing in the economics research article and, secondly, it presents a comprehensive list of indirect question illocutionary force indicating devices, valuable for future studies of indirect questions. Methodologically, this paper illustrates a replicable process for functional analysis and discusses the value of theoretically merging corpus and contrastive linguistic approaches.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1075/ijcl.20065.cur

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 43 references

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Anthony, 2019, AntConc
  2. Aston, 2001, Learning with corpora: An overview, 7
  3. Clyne, 1994, Inter-cultural Communication at Work: Cultural Values in Discourse
  4. Ciapuscio, 2002, Las conclusiones de los artículos de investigación desde una perspectiva contrastiva, Revista del Instituto de Investigaciones Lingüísticas y Literarias RILL, 15, 117
  5. Loffler-Laurian, 1980, L’Expression du locuteur dans les discours scientifiques, Revue de Linguistique Romane, 44, 135
  6. McEnery, 2008, Parallel and comprarble corpora: What is happening?, 18
  7. Mur-Dueñas, 2007, Same genre, same discipline; however, there are differences: A cross-cultural analysis of logical markers in academic writing, ESP across Cultures, 4, 37
  8. Salager-Meyer, 2011, Scientific discourse and contrastive linguistics: Explicitness and the concept of reader/writer responsible languages, European Science Editing, 37, 71
  9. Swales, 1990, Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 10

Related

Metadata

Authors
Curry, N.
Affiliations
Coventry University (GB)
Corresponding author
Curry, Niall
ORCID
Curry, Niall
Venue
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Publisher
John Benjamins Publishing Company
Published
2022-07-18
Volume
28
Issue
1
Pages
91-119
ISSN
  • 1384-6655 (ISSN-L)
  • 1569-9811
DOI
10.1075/ijcl.20065.cur
OpenAlex
W4285726664
Cited by
10
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2
FWCI
16.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of Corpus Linguistics (publishedVersion)
  • Pure (Coventry University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • e-space (Manchester Metropolitan University) (acceptedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
  • Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Linguistics and Discourse Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistics and Language Analysis
Keywords
indirect questions, direct questions, illocutionary force, academic writing, rhetorical devices, functional analysis, contrastive linguistics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review