Modal Auxiliaries as Epistemic Devices in Marking Scientific Researchers’ Uncertainty on Covid-19

Nur Azwin Zulkarnain, Ridwan Wahid, Jariah Mohd Jan

Abstract


The early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic caused a lot of pressure to scientists due to the novel nature of the coronavirus. As experts in the field, they were expected to produce only reliable information. Owing to the limited data available at the time, there were many uncertainties surrounding the virus. However, studies that looked into how the uncertainties were navigated are scarce. This corpus-based study investigates this issue using the system value of modal operators by Halliday and Matthiessen (2014), along with Dong et al.’s (2020) classification of COVID-19 research themes to explore levels of scientific researchers’ certainty in presenting information about coronavirus. Specifically, their choices of modal auxiliaries as epistemic devices are analysed. Results demonstrate that researchers mainly conduct studies on epidemiology with the lowest degree of certainty by utilising modals such as may, could and might. Furthermore, while some of the propositions expressed do display researchers’ assumptions of possibilities, they however, are presented with insufficient evidence. These findings help to untangle scientific researchers’ expressions of uncertainty and certainty through their use of epistemic devices and contribute to a better understanding of their intentions in conveying vital information.

Keywords


Applied Semantics; Scientific Writing; Epistemic Modality; Uncertainty

Full Text:

PDF

References


Adegbola, O. F. (2019). Points of view and modality in the discourses of homosexuality in selected Nigerian newspapers. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation, 2(4), 80-88.

Akbas, E., & Hardman, J. (2018). Strengthening or weakening claims in academic knowledge construction: A comparative study of hedges and boosters in postgraduate academic writing. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18(4).

Amsalem, D., Dixon, L. B., & Neria, Y. (2021). The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak and mental health: current risks and recommended actions. JAMA Psychiatry, 78(1), 9-10.

Brown, T. S., & Walensky, R. P. (2020). Serosurveillance and the COVID-19 Epidemic in the US: Undetected, Uncertain, and Out of Control. Jama, 324(8), 749-751.

Correia, M. I. T. (2020). Nutrition in times of Covid-19, how to trust the deluge of scientific information. Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care, 23.

Dong, M., Cao, X., Liang, M., Li, L., Liu, G., & Liang, H. (2020). Understand research hotspots surrounding COVID-19 and other coronavirus infections using topic modeling. MedRxiv.

Flowerdew, J., & Peacock, M. (Eds.). (2001). Research Perspectives on English for Academic Purposes. Cambridge University Press.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. (2014). Halliday's Introduction to Functional Grammar. Routledge.

Hengeveld, K., & Mackenzie, J. L. (2008). Functional Discourse Grammar: A typologically-based theory of language structure. Oxford University Press.

Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17(4), 433-454.

Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192.

Iacobucci, G. (2020). Covid-19 makes the future of UK clinical research uncertain. BMJ, 369.

Koffman, J., Gross, J., Etkind, S. N., & Selman, L. (2020). Uncertainty and COVID-19: how are we to respond?. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 113(6), 211-216.

Li, W., Sun, K., Zhu, Y., Song, J., Yang, J., Qian, L., & Wang, S. (2021). Analyzing the Research Evolution in Response to COVID-19. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 10(4), 237.

Martín-Martín, P. (2008). The mitigation of scientific claims in research papers: A comparative study. International Journal of English Studies, 8(2), 133-152.

Ngula, R. S. (2017). Epistemic modal verbs in research articles written by Ghanaian and international scholars: A corpus-based study of three disciplines. Brno Studies in English 43(2), 5-27.

Orso, D., Federici, N., Copetti, R., Vetrugno, L., & Bove, T. (2020). Infodemic and the spread of fake news in the COVID-19-era. European Journal of Emergency Medicine.

Rozumko, A. (2017). Adverbial markers of epistemic modality across disciplinary discourses: A contrastive study of research articles in six academic disciplines. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 52(1), 73-101.

Simpson, P. (1993). Language, Ideology and Point of View. London : Routledge.

Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2020). Misinformation in Covid-19 media and literature, with an emphasis on open data policies. J. Advocacy Res. Educ., 7(2).

Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2021). COVID-19 research and publishing: Advance ambitiously, but cautiously, in 2021. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 14(10), 892-896.

Tran, B. X., Ha, G. H., Nguyen, L. H., Vu, G. T., Hoang, M. T., Le, H. T., ... & Ho, R. C. (2020). Studies of novel coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic: a global analysis of literature. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(11), 4095.

Winiharti, M. (2012). The difference between modal verbs in deontic and epistemic modality. Humaniora, 3(2), 532-539.

Yang, A., Zheng, S. Y., & Ge, G. C. (2015). Epistemic modality in English-medium medical research articles: A systemic functional perspective. English for Specific Purposes, 38, 1-10.

Yeo-Teh, N. S. L., & Tang, B. L. (2021). An alarming retraction rate for scientific publications on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Accountability in Research, 28(1), 47-53.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.25157/jall.v7i2.11313

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.