“Strengthening Connections with the Audience: Reformation and Exemplification in Mathematics Research Articles”

by Kristy Lesperance | Xchanges 11.2

Results & Discussions Cont.

Further Reformulation Findings

Code gloss markers such as this means, meaning, or we mean were used in education articles 69 percent less often than in theory articles, whereas equivalently and essentially were used solely in theory articles. On the other hand, specifically and especially were used 75 percent less often in theory than in education articles. The lexical bundle in other words was used similarly in both sub-disciplines at about 1.4 uses per 10,000 words.

It is important to note that a lack of proficient understanding of the subject matter (higher level mathematics), as well as technological and time constraints, prevented the search for parenthetical reformulations as well as relevant instances of the marker which. Both of these features were significant factors in Hyland’s analysis and may therefore also appear with notable frequency in my corpus. It may prove beneficial for future studies to search for these reformulations.

Exemplification — Comparison Across Sub-Disciplines

Despite the overall lower frequency of exemplification cues in the present corpus, a much broader variation in target exemplification cues was detected (52 different phrases, including 47 variations of the text surrounding example) compared with reformulation markers. A greater number of exemplification markers was observed in education articles (about 26 per 10,000 words) than in theory (about 14 per 10,000 words); however, a wider variety of markers was observed in theory than in education.

Both sub-disciplines tended to reuse certain markers more frequently than others, which corroborates Hyland’s finding that such as, for example, and e.g. were by far the most commonly used markers. The most substantial code gloss uses in education articles were the terms such as (with 6.9 instances), for example (5.9), like, and e.g. (3.4 instances each). Significant differences were found in theory articles, which used such as about 87 percent less frequently than education, e.g. about 76 percent less, and like about 50 percent less. On the other hand, theory tended to use say about 83 percent more frequently than education.

Particularly noteworthy in relation to exemplification use is the variety of phrases surrounding the code gloss marker example. Although theory used exemplification significantly less frequently than education, it did use a greater variety of phrases surrounding the word example — 40 variations were detected (55 percent more than used by education), including such creative forms as “one of the most interesting nonclassical examples of” and “the simplest possible example.” In contrast, education tended to use more literal indicators of examples, in simple bundles such as an example of, in this example, and an example from.

Limitations and Possibilities for Further Research

Understandably, Hyland’s comprehensive analysis reveals deeper levels of interpretation of both code gloss use and its rhetorical functions than was possible in the present study. Further research could also explore interdisciplinary differences in code gloss use by contrasting various mathematical topics (i.e., algebra, number theory, statistics), or by contrasting mathematics with another broadly categorized discipline. Additionally, it might be interesting to investigate the level of subjectivity embedded within reformulations by comparing reformulations of specific ideas amongst various authors — since Hyland cautions readers about accepting an author’s reformulations at face value, characterizing reformulation as “a rhetorical sleight of hand” due to its high level of subjectivity (2007, p. 277).