Article published In: Languages in Contrast
Vol. 17:1 (2017) ► pp.18–42
A contrastive analysis of reporting clauses in comparable and translated academic texts in English and Italian
Published online: 13 February 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.17.1.02mol
https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.17.1.02mol
Abstract
This article investigates the use of finite reporting clauses with that-clause complementation (e.g. I will suggest that…) as devices for the expression of stance in academic texts (Hyland, K. and Tse, P. 2005. Hooking the Reader: A Corpus Study of Evaluative That in Abstracts. English for Specific Purposes 24(2): 123–139. ; Charles, M. 2006. The Construction of Stance in Reporting Clauses: A Cross-Disciplinary Study of Theses. Applied Linguistics 27(3): 492–518. ). These constructions are compared to their functional equivalents in Italian, i.e. reporting clauses with che (‘that’) complementiser. The comparison is carried out using a corpus-based approach, involving the analysis of a parallel corpus of Political Science papers in English and their translations into Italian, as well as a comparable corpus of articles originally written in Italian within the same discipline. Thanks to their ability to convey evaluative meanings, reporting clauses are analysed as structures that may provide insights into the epistemological negotiations taking place in the encounter of different research traditions through the practice of translation.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Reporting that-clauses, writer stance and epistemology
- 3.Cross-linguistic observations
- 4.Materials and methods
- 4.1From Socialist Register to Socialist Register Italia
- 4.2Design criteria in the compilation of the comparable corpus
- 4.3Analytical procedure
- 5.Results
- 5.1Source
- 5.2Grammatical subject
- 5.3Type of verb
- 6.Discussion
- 7.Concluding remarks
- Notes
References
References (43)
Acquaviva, P. 1991. Frasi argomentali: completive e soggettive. In Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, Vol. II1, L. Renzi and G. Salvi, G. (eds), 633–674. Bologna: il Mulino.
Baker, M. 1993. Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies: Implications and Applications. In Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair, M. Baker, G. Francis, and E. Tognini-Bonelli (eds), 233–252. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bazzanella, C. 1991. Il passivo personale con e senza cancellazione dell’agente: verso un approccio multidimensionale. In Tra rinascimento e strutture attuali: Saggi di linguistica italiana (Atti del primo convegno della Società Internazionale di Linguistica e Filologia Italiana, Siena, 28–31 marzo 1989, vol. 11), L. Giannelli, N. Maraschio, T. Poggi Salani and M. Vedovelli (eds), 373–385. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.
Becher, T. 1981. Towards a Definition of Disciplinary Cultures. Studies in Higher Education 6(2): 109–122.
Biber, D., Johanasson S., Leech G., Conrad S. and Finegan E. 1999. The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
Biber, D. 1999. A Register Perspective on Grammar and Discourse: Variability in the Form and Use of English Complement Clauses. Discourse Studies 1(2): 131–150.
Calaresu, E. 2004. Testuali parole. La dimensione pragmatica e testuale del discorso riportato. Milano: Franco Angeli.
Charles, M. 2006. The Construction of Stance in Reporting Clauses: A Cross-Disciplinary Study of Theses. Applied Linguistics 27(3): 492–518.
Dressen, D. 2003. Geologists’ Implicit Persuasive Strategies and the Construction of Evaluative Evidence. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2(4): 273–290.
Elsness, J. 1984.
That or Zero? A Look at the Choice of Object Clause Connective in a Corpus of American English. English Studies 65(6): 519–533.
Francis, G., Hunston, S. and Manning, E. 1996. Collins COBUILD Grammar Patterns 1: Verbs. London: HarperCollins.
2005. Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse. Discourse Studies 7(2): 173–192.
Hyland, K. and Tse, P. 2005. Hooking the Reader: A Corpus Study of Evaluative That in Abstracts. English for Specific Purposes 24(2): 123–139.
Ji, M. and Oakes, M. P., 2012. A Corpus study of early English translations of Cao Xueqin’s Hongloumeng. In Quantitative Methods in Corpus-Based Translation Studies. A Practical Guide to Descriptive Translation Research, M. P. Oakes and M. Ji (eds), 177–208. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Kaltenböck, G. 2006. ‘
That is the Question’: Complementizer Omission in Extraposed thatClauses. English Language and Linguistics 10(2): 371–396.
MacDonald, S. P., 1994. Professional Academic Writing in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.
Martínez, I. A., 2005. Native and Non-Native Writer’s Use of First Person Pronouns in the Different Sections of Biology Research Articles in English. Journal of Second Language Writing 14(3): 174–190.
Molino, A. 2010. Personal and Impersonal Authorial References: A Contrastive Study of English and Italian Linguistics Research Articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9(2): 86–101.
Moreno, A. I., 2008. The Importance of Comparable Corpora in Cross-Cultural Studies. In Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric, U. Connor, E. Nagelhout and W Rozycki (eds), 25–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mortara Garavelli, B. 1995. Il discorso riportato. In Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, Vol. III1, L. Renzi, G. Salvi and A. Cardinaletti (eds), 427–470. Bologna: il Mulino.
Mur Dueñas, P. 2007. ‘I/we focus on’: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Self-Mentions in Business Management Research Articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6(2): 143–162.
Mur Dueñas, P. 2011. An Intercultural Analysis of Metadiscourse Features in Research Articles Written in English and in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics 43(12), 3068–3079.
Murphy, A. C. 2005. Markers of Attribution in English and Italian Opinion Articles: A Comparative Corpus-Based Study. ICAME Journal 291: 131–150.
Olohan, M. 2001. Spelling out the Optionals in Translation: A Corpus Study. UCREL Technical Papers 131: 423–432.
2002. Leave it out! Using a Comparable Corpus to Investigate Aspects of Explicitation in Translation. Cadernos de Tradução IX1: 153–169.
Olohan, M. and Baker, M. 2000. Reporting That in Translated English. Evidence for Subconscious Processes of Explicitation? Across Languages and Cultures 1(2): 141–158.
Pérez-Llantada, C. 2012. Scientific Discourse and the Rhetoric of Globalization: The Impact of Culture and Language. Continuum: London.
Pym, A. 2008. On Toury’s Laws of How Translators Translate. In Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies, A. Pym, M. Shlesinger and D. Simeoni (eds), 311–328. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Renzi, L. and Salvi, G. (eds). 1991. Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, Vol. II1. Bologna: il Mulino.
Renzi, L., Salvi, G. and Cardinaletti, A. (eds). 1995. Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, Vol. III1. Bologna: il Mulino.
Salvi, G. 1991. La frase semplice. In Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, Vol. I., L. Renzi (ed.), 29–114. Bologna: il Mulino.
Suárez, L. and Moreno, A. 2008. The Rhetorical Structure of Academic Book Reviews of Literature. In Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric, U. Connor, E. Nagelhout and W. Rozycki (eds), 147–165. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Tadros, A. 1993. The Pragmatics of Text Averral and Attribution in Academic texts. In Data, description, discourse, M. Hoey (ed.), 98–114. London: HarperCollins.
Thompson, S. A., and Mulac, A. 1991. The Discourse Conditions for the Use of the Complementizer that in Conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics 15(3): 237–251.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Huang, Yueyue, Hao Yin & Dechao Li
Shang, Xin
2023. When Contrastive Analysis meets Translation Studies. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 35:2 ► pp. 186 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
