discourse

� Tel.: +44-1582

E-mail address

1475-1585/$ - see

doi:10.1016/j.jeap

-743791.

: [email protected] (D. Koutsantoni).

front matter # 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

.2003.08.001

Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3 (2004) 163–182
www.elsevier.com/locate/jeap
Attitude, certainty and allusions to commonknowledge in scientific research articles

Dimitra Koutsantoni �

Language Research Centre, University of Luton, The Spires, 2, Adelaide Street, Luton,

Bedfordshire, LU1 5DU, UK

Abstract

Acceptance of claims made in scientific research articles depends on the stance authorstake and their resources for appraisal (Martin and White, http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal). Stance has been defined as ‘the ways authors project themselves into their texts tocommunicate their relationship to subject matter and the readers’, (Writing Texts, Processesand Practices (1999)), while appraisal represents the ways authors’ evaluations, attitude andemotions are expressed and managed interpersonally (http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/AppraisalGuide/Unframed/Appraisal-Overview.htm).

This paper explores some appraisal resources employed by authors of research articles,and the means by which scientific authors are positioned interpersonally and intertextually.It looks at resources by which authors express their attitude and certainty to claims, and cre-ate solidarity between themselves and their readers. The paper explores three categories ofmarkers: attitude, certainty, and common knowledge markers, and its main aim is to compilea taxonomy of the lexical and discourse-based realisations of these markers and their prag-matic functions, as they are manifested in RAs from the field of electronic and electricalengineering.

The analysis indicates that employment of these markers by authors assists them in assert-ing their authority and expertise by presenting claims as given based on shared knowledgeand consensual understandings, exploiting the complex dynamics of power and solidarity inorder to gain readers’ agreement and community consensus.# 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Attitude; Certainty; Common knowledge; Power; Solidarity

http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal


http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/AppraisalGuide/Unframed/Appraisal-Overview.htm


D. Koutsantoni / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3 (2004) 163–182164

1. Introduction

The research article occupies a prominent position in research publications, andis considered the main means employed by the hard sciences for the disseminationof knowledge, the publicisation of claims, and their ratification. The structure of anarticle, its language and style, the author’s persona and use of the literature aremainly determined by the social structure of the scientific community, the processof negotiation through which the community constructs knowledge, and in effect,the way a discipline’s gatekeepers expect them to be and find them more persuasive(Myers, 1990). Acceptance of claims depends on the stance authors take and theirresources for appraisal (Martin, 2000; White, 2002, 2003, http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal). Stance has been defined as ‘the ways authors project themselvesinto their texts to communicate their relationship to subject matter and the read-ers’, and the ways their persona is socially defined (Hyland, 1999a: 101). Hylandwrites that stance has three components: evidentiality, affect, and relation. Evidenti-ality refers to the writer’s expressed commitment to the truth of propositions andtheir strategic manipulation for interpersonal goals. Affect involves the declarationof a range of attitudes, including emotions, perspectives and beliefs. Relation con-cerns the extent to which writers choose to engage with readers, and their degree ofintimacy or remoteness (1999a: 101). Along similar lines, Conrad and Biber (2000)regard stance as comprising both epistemic (commenting on certainty, reliability,and limitations of propositions) and attitudinal (conveying attitudes, feelings, orvalue judgments) stance, and use the term as cover term for the expression of per-sonal feelings and assessments in both of the above domains. In agreement withthe above, appraisal has been defined as the ways authors’ evaluations, attitude andemotions are expressed and managed interpersonally (http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/AppraisalGuide/Unframed/Appraisal-Overview.htm). Attitudinalvalues can be managed and negotiated interpersonally, and constitute the means bywhich writers vary and negotiate arguability by adjusting the dialogic status ofpropositions. These negotiations of arguability are referred to in the Appraisalframework as engagement (http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/stage5-Engagement.htm). Authors can engage with alternative positions by ‘acknowledg-ing’ and ‘entertaining’, ‘disclaiming’ (‘denying’ and ‘counter-expecting’), and ‘pro-claiming’ (‘concurring’ and ‘pronouncing’) propositions (White, 2003).

This paper looks at resources by which scientific authors ‘disclaim’ alternativepositions and ‘proclaim’ their own (http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/stage5-Engagement.htm), by stating their personal attitude and opinion towards proposi-tions, expressing their certainty and conviction to claims, and strengthening theirpositions by making explicit allusions to common knowledge. It classifies theseresources under three types of marker: attitude, certainty and common knowledgemarkers. Such formulations are shown to ‘contract’ the dialogic space betweenauthors and readers (http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/stage5-Engagement.htm), imposing either directly or indirectly opinions and interpretations on readerswhile presenting them as given and consensual. The main aim of this paper is toprovide a taxonomy of these markers, drawn from a small corpus of RAs from the





http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/stage5-Engagement.htm






165D. Koutsantoni / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3 (2004) 163–182

field of electronic and electrical engineering, and to investigate the ways scientificauthors exploit the complex dynamics of power and solidarity in order to solicitreaders’ acceptance for claims.

The findings of this paper are part of a larger PhD study on engineering rhet-oric, which analyses both RAs and students’ writing (Koutsantoni, 2003).

2. Materials and methods

The choice of discipline was instigated by the limited attention electronic andelectrical engineering has received in studies on scientific discourse. Scientific dis-course and its conventions have been investigated by a number of researchers(Bazerman, 1988; Myers, 1989, 1990; Hyland, 1996a, 1996b, 1998a, 1998b, 1999a,2000, 2001a, 2001b, 2002a, 2002b; Salager-Meyer, 1994; Vartalla, 1998; Kuo, 1999;Martinez, 2000; Soler, 2002, to name but a few). Electronic and electrical engineer-ing features only in Hyland (1998a, 1999a, 2001a, 2001b, 2002a, 2002b) and inKuo (1999), but it has not been investigated exclusively.

The corpus of this paper consists of 34 articles taken from relatively recent issuesof leading electronic and electrical engineering journals, namely The InternationalElectronic and Electric Engineering (IEEE) Transactions on Communications, Infor-mation Theory, Magnetics, Biomedical Engineering, Multimedia, Image Processing,The IEEE Signal Processing Letters, and The International Journal of Electronics,dating from 1989 to 2000.1 These particular journals were selected because theywere found to be referenced in students’ work, and because specialist informantsrecommended them as key journals in their field. Some of the articles that wereanalysed were actually referenced in students’ work, while others were randomlychosen.2

The methodological approach adopted in this thesis was both qualitative andquantitative. The quantitative approach served to identify frequency of occurrencesand to produce comparable data, while the qualitative approach was used to ident-ify pragmatic usage. Certain lexical and discourse-based items that indicated atti-tude, certainty and alluded to common knowledge were identified and counted.Following that, the functions of all the items were examined qualitatively based ontheir actual occurrences in context. My corpus of materials is not electronic, so thecounting of items was conducted manually and particular attention was paid to thecontext in which they were used. The frequency of occurrence of each group ofitems was calculated in percentages.

1 The IEEE publishes 21 of the top 25 journals in electrical and electronics engineering, according to

recently released results from the annual Institute for Scientific Information Journal Citation Study

(2001 edition) (http://www.ieee.org/products/citations.html). The International Journal of Electronics

publishes papers in experimental and theoretical aspects of electronics, and major universities (such as

the University of Birmingham) are included in its list of subscribers.2 A complete list of the materials of the analysis is supplied in the Further Reading section at the end

of this article.



3. Taxonomies of attitude, certainty, and common knowledge markers

The taxonomies of attitude, certainty, and common knowledge markers thispaper presents are based on a combination of attitude markers, certainty markers,emphatics and boosters taxonomies suggested by researchers, such as Vande Kop-ple (1985), Crismore et al. (1993) and Hyland (1998a, 1998b, 1999a, 1999b, 2000),together with some additions and modifications informed by the materials of thisstudy.

Attitude markers have been defined as devices that express writers’ affectivevalues, and their attitudes towards the propositional content and/or readers(Vande Kopple, 1985; Crismore et al., 1993; Hyland, 1998b, 1999a, 1999b).Emphatics have been defined as devices that allow writers to underscore what theyreally believe or want their readers to believe (Vande Kopple, 1985) and as devicesthat emphasise force or writers’ certainty in the message (Hyland, 1998b, 1999a,1999b). Certainty markers are defined as items that express writers’ full commit-ment to the truth-value of the proposition (Crismore et al., 1993), while boostersare maintained to allow writers to express conviction and assert a proposition withconfidence (Hyland, 1998a, 2000).

All the above types of marker present authors’ views as obvious based on sharedknowledge, and presuppose readers’ endorsement of these attitudes, conviction,and certainty on the basis of shared understandings. However, there are certainwords and expressions that exclusively underscore authors’ beliefs by presentingthem as given, as knowledge shared by all members of the community. I call thistype of marker common knowledge markers, and differentiate it from the other twoas it explicitly invokes received knowledge and takes certain propositions for gran-ted.

The research on use of what have been referred to as attitude markers, boosters,certainty markers, and emphatics in scientific writing has not provided us withdetailed taxonomies of linguistic expressions that fall into each of these categories.Vande Kopple (1985) proposed that emphatics include items such as clearly, un-doubtedly, it’s obvious that, and that attitude markers are expressed by words andclauses such as surprisingly, I find it interesting that, and it’s alarming to note that.Crismore et al.’s (1993) certainty markers taxonomy includes ‘adverbs’ like cer-tainly, while their attitude markers taxonomy includes ‘expressions of surprise, ofthinking that something is important, of concessions, agreement and disagreement’,‘higher verbs expressing attitude’ (I hope, I agree, I disagree) and ‘sentence adver-bials’ (unfortunately, most importantly) (Crismore et al., 1993: 53). Hyland (1998a,2000) investigated frequency of use of boosters by searching for items that were lis-ted in grammars, dictionaries or earlier studies, as well as from the most frequentitems in the texts themselves. The most frequently occurring devices in his datainclude verbs such as show, find, determine, demonstrate, will, and know, adverbssuch as clearly, and particularly, and expressions such as the fact that (Hyland,2000: 91). These researchers’ suggestions were helpful indications of the kind ofitems that usually function as attitude, certainty and common knowledge markers,and formed the starting point of the taxonomy that is presented in this paper. The


taxonomies have, however, been enriched with other items that were identified inthis particular corpus of RAs and were found to define authors’ attitudinal andepistemic stance.

4. Attitude markers

The analysis of this particular corpus of RAs indicated that attitude markerscomprise:

. evaluative adjectives (such as significant, interesting, important)

. evaluative, intensifying, and attitudinal stance adverbs (such as significantly, con-siderably, unfortunately, respectively)

. obligation and necessity expressions and modals (it is necessary, must, should), and

. discourse-based negative evaluations of previous research.

The frequency by which each category occurs in the corpus is shown in Table 1.Evaluative adjectives are the most frequently occurring linguistic realizations of

attitude markers (60% of all items). They are expressions of authors’ appreciation,that is, evaluation of propositions, methods, results, or points (Martin, 2000,http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/Guide/Unframed/stage3-Attitude-Apprec-iation.htm). These adjectives are considered to render the text more subjective, asthey ‘add either a positive or negative judgment to the modified noun, and reflectthe writers’ favourable or unfavourable position towards the modified noun’(Soler, 2002: 155):

1. F
or test pattern generation the ability to propagate fault effects to the primaryoutputs is very important and the ExOr gates in this circuit play a crucial role(Moore, 1998).
2. T
here are fundamental difficulties associated with the design and analysis of suchsystems (Williams, Benson & Duffy, 1997).
3. T
he ULTRAHIGH frequency (UHF) band has become increasingly attractivefor medical and biological implant communications (Scanlon, Burns & Evans,2000).
Table 1

Frequency of lexical and discourse-based expressions of attitude markers

A
ttitude markers
A
djectives Adverbs Obligation expres-
sions and modals

Discourse-based

expressions of

negative evalu-

ation

Totals

No of items 2
11 53 62 21 347
Percentages 6
0% 15% 18% 6%
http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/Guide/Unframed/stage3-Attitude-Appreciation.htm

http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/Guide/Unframed/stage3-Attitude-Appreciation.htm


Evaluative adjectives with positive values can emphasise the importance of theresearch area and function, therefore, as justifications of researchers working in it:

4. T
he camera tracking module is the most crucial part of virtual studio systems(Xiroudakis, Drossopoulos & Delopoulos, 2001).
5. T
he most promising solution to this challenging task seems to lie in data hand-ling techniques (Bassia, Pittas & Nikolaidis, 2001).
6. O
ne of the major advantages of a code-division multiple-access (CDMA) systemis its flexibility (Halford & Brandt-Pearce, 1998).
They are additionally employed to stress the originality of the authors’ work:

7. I
n this paper a novel methodology for direct mapping on N-dimensional. . . ispresented (Soudris et al., 1998).
8. T
he evolutionary strategy we adopted is an example. . . (Robertson, Miller &Thompson, 1996)
9. Q
uantitative and qualitative analyses of the experimental results obtained fromthe analysis of BS recorded from controls and patients with gastrointestinal dys-function show very reliable and robust performance (Hadjileontiadis, Liatsos,Mavrogiannis, Rokkas & Panas, 2000).
Such adjectives are also employed to positively or negatively evaluate previousresearch, methods, algorithms, or models, emphasise authors’ intertextual position-ing, and their ‘endorsement’ or ‘disendorsement’ of attributions (http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/appraisalGuide/UnFramed/stage4-Inter-textuality.htm):

10. P
erturbation techniques are widely used to determine unknown dialecticproperties (Donovan et al., 1993). They provide very accurate results whenused with controlled geometries over an appropriate frequency range (Wil-liams, Benson & Duffy, 1997).
11. T
hese techniques are often unreliable and limited to special cases (Vassiliadis,Angelidis & Sergiadis, 1993).
Appreciation can also be expressed with evaluative adverbs, such as successfully:

12. A
guard ring structure has been demonstrated successfully by Zhu et al. (1985).(Irvine & Woods, 1997)
13. W
e see that the estimator performance improves significantly as the obser-vation interval length is increased (Hebley & Taylor, 1998).
Expressions of appreciation are intensified and emphasised with intensifyingadverbs, such as highly:

14. E
lectromagnetical tracking has been widely adopted, since it can be highly
http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/appraisalGuide/UnFramed/stage4-Intertextuality.htm




accurate (Xiroudakis, Drossopoulos & Delopoulos, 2001).
15. T he estimator is remarkably insensitive to symbol timing offsets over a wide
range of offsets (Hebley & Taylor, 1998).

The meaning of evaluative adjectives and adverbs acquires significance within theunderstandings of the particular disciplinary community, and depends on thevalue-system of the scientific community in which discourse is generated (Soler,2002). Whether a method is novel, a result accurate, or a structure has been demon-strated successfully, ultimately depends on what the particular disciplinary com-munity considers novel, accurate or successful, in accordance with its standards andideals. These adjectives on the one hand express authors’ appreciation of models,techniques, or methods, and impose it on readers, since, if a difficulty is evaluatedas fundamental or a solution as most promising, readers are guided into seeing themthis way too. However, as it is the community which assigns positive or negativevalues to these adjectives (Hunston, 1989), they also allude to shared under-standings within the community and emphasise community membership.

Adverbs constitute 15% of all attitude markers. In them are included what Con-rad and Biber (2000) refer to as attitudinal stance adverbs that convey feelings orexpectations ((un)fortunately, surprisingly, amazingly). Such adverbs evaluate claimsin affectual terms, which ‘foreground authors’ subjective presence’ (http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/appraisalGuide/UnFramed/stage1-Attitude-Affect.htm). Formulations with such adverbs and adjectives usually engage readersin disclaiming propositions. By using them, authors invoke alternative propositionsonly to deny and replace them, and therefore contract the dialogic space, as theyreject alternative positions and emphasise the one put forth. At the same time,however, they try to establish an interpersonal bond with readers, asking them tosee their affectual responses as justified and valid in some way (http://www.gram-matics.com/appraisal/appraisalGuide/UnFramed/stage1-Attitude-Affect.htm):

16. F
rom the available studies related to BS analysis, only two take into accountthe necessity of separating bowel sounds from inevitable superimposed noiseand extracting their original structure before any further diagnostic evaluation(8), (9). Unfortunately, the method used for noise reduction in [8] was basedonly on assumptions . . . (Hadjileontiadis, Liatsos, Mavrogiannis, Rokkas &Panas, 2000)
17. F
orest and Mitchell (1993) found the performance of their random mutationhill-climber (RMHC) vastly superior to both the NAHC and SAHC on a setof theoretical fitness functions (Royal Road) designed to study GA perform-ance. Unfortunately, the RMHC is of no use in practical search spaces due toits inability to escape local optima (Robertson, Miller & Thompson, 1996).
Other linguistic means used to express authors’ opinions are obligation and necess-ity expressions and modals (18% of all attitude markers), which focus attentionand emphasise important points (Hyland, 2001a). Authors pronounce their posi-

http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/appraisalGuide/UnFramed/stage1-Attitude-Affect.htm






tions towards certain points, make it clear that they consider them important, andstress how important they believe it is to take certain actions. Authors are fore-grounded as the responsible sources of the utterance as they claim the authority todeclare certain actions as necessary and direct readers towards particular directions(Hyland, 2001a, 2002b):

18. A
nother fact that should not be neglected is the realisation of self-checkingcapabilities within an array (Soudris et al., 1998).
19. I
t must be noted that the processing of the same fluorescent signals with theimplementation of the single algebraic algorithms which are based on theintensity difference of the recorded spectra did not have the same rate of suc-cess (Rovithakis et al., 2001).
20. T
he authors claim that the watermark must be placed in perceptually signifi-cant regions of a signal (Bassia, Pittas & Nikolaidis, 2001).
Such devices are classified as directives (Hyland, 2002b) and constitute an explicitexpression of authors’ desire to control their readers’ inferences, to lead themtowards actions that they consider to be correct, and to impose their opinion onreaders in this way. However, the implication is that these courses of action arenecessary for accurate understanding of procedures (Hyland, 2001a), for the benefitof the whole scientific community and the progress of the discipline, and stresstherefore the collective nature of scientific endeavour. The interplay of power andsolidarity and the fact that they are manifested with the same linguistic meansbecome rather clear in such cases. Despite the belief that power precludes solidarityand that solidarity operates only in the absence of power (Hodge & Kress, 1988), ithas been argued that in reality they entail each other (Tannen, 1986). Tannen hasdemonstrated that controlling others involves them in a relationship (power entail-ing solidarity), the same way that claiming intimacy has an element of control(solidarity entailing power). By emphasising certainty in and attitude towardsclaims, and by presenting them as given and shared, authors control readers’ infer-ences and demand their agreement and sharing of their views (power entailing soli-darity). On the other hand, by alluding to shared understandings and commonknowledge they ‘oblige’ readers to see views presented as consensual and to agreewith them (solidarity entailing power). The use of directives in the form of obli-gation and necessity expressions by scientific authors displays a desire to controlthe thoughts, inferences, and actions of their readers, and to demonstrate power,but with a view to soliciting their agreement and involvement, and, therefore, theirsolidarity.

Apart from lexical realisations of attitude markers, discourse-based expressionscan express authors’ attitude towards propositions. Such discourse-based expres-sions are expressions that constitute negative evaluations of previous research (6%of all attitude markers). Negative evaluation can be made both explicitly andimplicitly. Sentences may contain what appraisalists refer to as ‘inscribed’ values ofnegative appreciation or judgment (http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/Guide/Unframed/stage2-Attitude-Judgment.htm) (for instance, nouns such as

http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/Guide/Unframed/stage2-Attitude-Judgment.htm

http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/Guide/Unframed/stage2-Attitude-Judgment.htm


shortcome, disadvantage, or problem) together with other features that ‘evoke’ nega-tive judgment in the form of limitations and gaps in knowledge:

21. A
major shortcome of those techniques is that although they give useful infor-mation regarding the mechanical and geometrical features of the vessel they donot acquire data related to the biochemical composition of the tissue (Rovithakiset al., 2001).
22. F
ault-tolerant array design is generally not supported at all by the existing arraycomplier systems (. . .). This approach has several disadvantages. It is only appli-cable to mesh-type architectures. . . (Soudris et al., 1998)
23. C
haracterisation of this infrared channel has been performed using experi-mental measurements (1), (2) and simulation through ray-tracing techniques(3), which both have drawbacks as the primary technique for modelling (Car-ruthers & Kahn, 1997).
24. K
nowledge of bowel sounds (BS) has advanced little since Cannon’s pioneeringwork [1], which used the sounds as a way of studying the mechanical activityof the gastrointestinal tract. This lack of interest in abdominal auscultation isdue in part to its lack of support in scientific fact and definitely not due to itslack of diagnostic information. Bowel sounds patterns in normal people havenot been clearly defined as only a small number of them have been studied (2)–(5). The trivial signal processing methods which have been involved (6), (7)have also been a problem (Hadjileontiadis, Liatsos, Mavrogiannis, Rokkas &Panas, 2000).
25. S
ome results in testing exclusive-OR CLA adders are given by Gizopoulos etal. (1996a,b). However, although Gizopoulos et al. (1996a,b) give a non-mini-mal 12-test set for a 4-bit exclusive-OR CLA, their haphazard choice of testvector leads to non-minimum test sets for block CLAs. They suggest modifyingthe CLA logic to avoid this increase in test size but this is not necessary, as isshown later (Moore, 1998).
Negative judgments can also be made implicitly, with absence of items that carrynegative value, but with tokens that evoke negative judgment from readers (http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/appraisalGuide/UnFramed/stage2-Attitude-Judgment.htm):

26. O
f the previous papers on parallel acquisition none of them have focused onoptimal detection rules for frequency-selective fading channels (Rick & Mil-stein, 1998).
27. T
he numerical study of implanted UHF sources within a realistic model of thehuman body has not yet appeared in the literature (Scanlon, Burns & Evans,2000).
Even though the use of none or not yet are general indications of negativity, thereis no explicit accusation of limitations or gaps in previous research in the examplesabove. However, the sentences have the ability to evoke negative judgments of lim-

http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/appraisalGuide/UnFramed/stage2-Attitude-Judgment.htm




itations or gap of knowledge to readers who are familiar with the field. As such,they allude to shared understandings and communality of opinion.

Negative evaluation of previous research is the expression of overt disagreementand criticism of previous research using evaluative language with negative values.By using it authors convey negative judgment of other researchers or negativeappreciation of their models, techniques, results, etc., or disclaim and deny alterna-tive positions. Authors impose their negative evaluation to readers, as ‘deny’ valuesare essentially non-negotiatory with respect to alternative positions (White, 2002).

Disagreement is traditionally seen as ‘disaffiliative’ and as ‘largely destructive ofsocial solidarity’ (Heritage, 1984: 269), and as an exhibition of power in the sensethat it enforces authors’ evaluations and opinions on readers. In reality, however,it can be seen as representing scientists’ attempt to make readers see their point ofview, bring authors and readers together in criticising previous research only inorder to make clear that they agree that more research is needed in order to rectifythe existing limitations and oversights, which is necessary for the benefit of thewhole of the community.

5. Certainty markers

In the RAs analysed, certainty markers were found to comprise:

. certainty adverbs (such as clearly, obviously);

. certainty adjectives (such as obvious, apparent, evident);

. verbs such as will and be going to; and

. demonstrate and show;

. discourse-based expressions of confidence in results or contributions of research.

The frequency of occurrence of each category is shown in Table 2.With certainty markers authors emphasise their certainty and conviction to

claims and ideas. Typical ways are adverbs and adjectives that express certaintyand conviction as regards the interpretation of results (30 and 20% of all items, re-spectively):

28. C
learly, this is a valuable tool and increased confidence will help to addresssome problems that have otherwise not been tackled (Williams, Benson &Duffy, 1997).
29. I
t is clear that the overall level of agreement between two sets of results isexcellent (Williams, Benson & Duffy, 1997).
30. F
rom this figure it is evident that. . . (Larsen & Frost, 1997) 31. F rom this table it is apparent that . . . (Rovithakis et al., 2001)
Their use can be motivated by epistemological reasons and be based on the resultsand findings themselves, and combined with social goals in scientific communities,such as gaining agreement and consensus by appealing to common knowledge and


shared understandings. Hyland (1998a, 2000) maintains that expressions of cer-tainty impose views on readers, control readers’ inferences, do not allow room fordisagreement or negotiations, and regard readers as passive recipients of ideasunable to make their own evaluations and judgements. However, as Hyland(1998a) adds, expressions of certainty work towards the acceptance of claims byaddressing readers as knowledgeable peers who are familiar with the ideas pre-sented and able to follow the author’s reasoning. By saying that an observation isclear or obvious authors imply that it is so not only to themselves, but should be totheir readers as well, based on their ability to make the same inferences (Hyland,1998a). They also make it very difficult for readers to disagree with or oppose theclaim, as readers who do not find the claim obvious or clear may ‘suspect their ownjudgments’ rather than the authors’, and think that ‘they are missing the obvious’(Hoey, 2000: 33–34).

Certainty adjectives and adverbs are also used to express values of ‘proclaim’:‘expect’ (former term) or ‘proclaim’: ‘concur’ (revised term) in the engagementframework (White, 2003: 5):

32. O
f course this is a particular implementation of the ripple-carry adder cell andas such is not very interesting to the general testing of CLA adders (Moore,1998).
33. O
bviously, grid nodes that do not possess any discriminatory power should bediscarded (Kotropoulos, Tefas & Pittas, 2000).
Such evaluations can be said to be averrals which are expressed as though derivingfrom a source, in this case, implied consensus (Hunston, 2000). As White writes,‘such formulations present propositions as uncontentious, as given, being in accordwith what is generally known or accepted’ (2003: 5). They ‘explicitly invest in theviewpoint being advanced’, and ‘head off contradictions’ or ‘rule out possible alter-natives’ (White, 2003: 5), while at the same time presenting them as given, as gener-ally held and as consensual (White, 2002).

Other ways of expressing certainty include verbs such as show and demonstrate:

34. T
he performance of Gas has been shown to be better than that of. . . (Irvine &Woods, 1997)
Table 2

Frequency of lexical and discourse-based expressions of certainty markers

C
ertainty markers
A
dverbs Adjectives Will/going to Demonstrate/show D iscourse-based
expressions of

confidence in

results

Totals

No of items 4
7 31 21 12 4 7 158
Percentages 3
0% 20% 13% 8% 3 0%


35. W
e have demonstrated that the statistical phenomenon of self-similarity can beobserved in a deterministic model of data transfer (Deane, Smythe & Jeffries,1996).
36. W
e will show that a single parameter of the channel impulse response, the nor-malised delay spread, is an excellent predictor. . . (Carruthers & Kahn, 1997)
. . . and will and going to, which are often combined with show and demonstrate:

37. T
he work described below will therefore have direct implications for future stu-dies in these systems (Scanlon, Burns & Evans, 2000).
38. O
ur analysis will clearly show that one has to apply. . . (Hadjileontiadis &Panas, 1997)
39. I
t will be demonstrated that the output of the DIPA is a linear function. . .(Efstathiou & Papadopoulos, 2000)
Expressions of certainty with will, and going to constitute 13% of all certainty mar-kers, while certainty is expressed with demonstrate and show at 8%. The verbs dem-onstrate and show carry the assumption of an objective fact (Myers, 1992), andpronounce authors’ certainty and conviction regarding what the research hasaccomplished or can accomplish. Uses of the modal verb will and the verb be goingto pronounce authors’ certainty in expected outcomes (Hyland, 1998a) and theimplications of the research. Formulations with all the above verbs channel readerstowards seeing that the aims set out are accomplished or will be accomplished, andunderscore what authors want their readers to believe.

Authors also express certainty by discourse-based expressions of confidence inresults or contributions of their research (30% of all certainty markers). These maynot contain items from the above categories, but it may be the general tone of thesentence that expresses this confidence, together with positive evaluative nounssuch as advantage, novelty, etc., or verbs such as be able to, ensure, guarantee, orverify. These discourse-based expressions of confidence can be instigated by cer-tainty that derives from hard data and the desire to give certain knowledge andindicate great commitment to claims. It is argued that with such formulationsauthors pronounce their evaluation of results and guide readers towards also eval-uating them positively:

40. A
lthough the development in this paper is necessarily complex it does not hidethe clear minimality of the test sets (Moore, 1998).
41. T
he overall gains are smaller; however, the pilot-signal-based erasure flaggingonce again proves to be the most accurate method (Welburn & Cavers, 1999).
42. T
he WTST-NST filter used in this study proved to be a very efficient tool fornoise removal and the enhancement of BS morphology (Hadjileontiadis, Liat-sos, Mavrogiannis, Rokkas & Panas, 2000).
43. I
n this experiment we had 100% success in watermark detection (Bassia, Pittas& Nikolaidis, 2001).
44. T
he results verified that the method is inherently robust to this kind of attack


(Bassia, Pittas & Nikolaidis, 2001).
45. O ne additional advantage of the proposed approach is that features are dis-
tinguished without enlarging the key-color region and in a well-defined and accu-rate manner, in contrast to marker-based approaches (Xiroudakis et al., 2001).

Such expressions also acquire significance within the discourse and the under-standings and value system of this particular discourse community. The elementsof methods, techniques, tools that are referred to as being advantageous are con-sidered to be so depending on the research that has been conducted before, thegaps in that research, the community expectations of any new research in the field,and its needs. Even though such expressions impose evaluations on readers, theydo so by creating a sense of solidarity between authors and readers; the dynamicsof power and solidarity once again at play. This is especially obvious when theevaluation is implicit and the positive judgment is evoked:

46. W
e avoid using ‘tricks’ (e.g. to reduce the resolution of the original image inorder to claim a faster algorithm execution or to report computational time onmore powerful platforms, etc.) (Kotropoulos, Tefas & Pittas, 2000)
47. T
he probabilistic mutation was implemented in the following way (. . .) Nooptimisation of the populations size was attempted, nor did we try to ascertainthe most advantageous probability density function (Robertson, Miller &Thompson, 1996).
48. A
similarity in first and second heart sound is assumed in both previous schemes(. . .). In our scheme, the LOREE algorithm searches for true locations of thetwo heart sounds, without assuming similarity in the two heart sounds (Hadji-leontiadis & Panas, 1997).
In the above examples, readers are expected to positively evaluate authors’ techni-ques, methods, tools, or results on the grounds that are not similar to previousones. Even though there are no inscribed negative judgment values as regards pre-vious studies nor positive judgment values as regards the present one, readers areexpected to evaluate them negatively as being erroneous or as having limitationsbased on shared understandings that enable them to see the positive value of thetechniques, methods, tools, or results presented.

6. Common knowledge markers

Common knowledge markers consist of devices that stress common knowledgeof authors with readers. They were found to include:

. evaluative adjectives, such as well-known or common

. expressions of generalised attribution (van Leeuwen, 1996) such as it is known, itis widely accepted.

Table 3 displays the frequency of occurrence of each of the two categories:


The function of this type of marker is to stress authors’ commitment in proposi-tions and to add to the argumentative force by presenting the view as one which isnot theirs alone, but one which is shared with the wider community or with rel-evant experts (White, 2002). Common knowledge markers also indicate endorse-ment of sources which are highly respected in the field and carry the status ofobjective facts. At the same time authors emphasise their own status as members ofthis scientific community by showing awareness of these sources and by showingtheir relevance to their work.

Seventy-one per cent of common knowledge markers are adjectives, such as well-known, or well-established, which are appreciations of techniques, methods, algo-rithms and give positive social values to these techniques, methods, or algorithmsbased on the value system of this particular discourse community:

48. F
or that purpose the well-established back-propagation algorithm (38) is uti-lized (Rovithakis et al., 2001).
49. A
well-known BIST technique is the signature analysis (Soudris et al., 1998). 50. T he designer of the synthesiser can apply most of the well-known techniques
(prescaling, down conversion) to the feedback line of the loop (Efstathiou &Papadopoulos, 2000).

Common knowledge markers can also be adjectives such as usual or common,which convey normality. Such adjectives are used to justify authors’ methodologi-cal choices by indicating that the methodological procedures they use are standardand used by everyone in the field. They also indicate that they are familiar toeveryone in the field, take certain knowledge as given and as shared among authorsand readers, and create an atmosphere of solidarity:

52. W
hen only a finite set of input–output vectors is given, a common approach isto use some of these pairs for training and the rest for testing the efficiency ofthe network designed (Kotropoulos, Tefas & Pittas, 2000).
53. A
s usual in such cases, we express the latter integral over the finite intervalfrom. . . (Jackson, 2000)
Common knowledge markers also consist of expressions of generalised attribution,such as it is well known, it is true, it is widely accepted, which are used to refer topoints that are considered facts in the community and are self-explanatory (19% of

Table 3

Frequency of lexical expression of common knowledge markers

C
ommon knowledge markers
E
xpressions of general-
ised attribution

Adjectives
Totals
No of items 6
15 21
Percentages 2
9% 71%


common knowledge markers). By using them authors make ‘high externality’claims (Pinch, 1985), type 5 claims in Latour and Woolgar’s (1979) taxonomy ofclaims, and refer to taken-for-granted facts that are no longer contested. Authorsuse this sort of marker to support their own claims and therefore strengthen them,by stressing the fact that they are based on knowledge that everyone in the field is(or should be) familiar with. Such markers are attributions, the source of infor-mation of which is received knowledge, which as Hunston (1993: 62) maintains,‘pushes the statement up the certainty scale’. They also indicate endorsement ofsources which are highly respected in the field and carry the status of objectivefacts. At the same time, authors emphasise their own status as members of thisscientific community by showing awareness of these sources and by showing theirrelevance to their work:

54. I
t is well known that ripple carry adders are easy to test with a very small num-ber of test vectors (Moore, 1998).
55. I
t is widely accepted that. . . (Halford & Brandt-Pearce, 1998) 56. I t is true that the more dominant the DS component of the system, the better
the performance (Lygouras, Tarhanidis, Tsalides & Dimitriadis, 1998).

The linguistic expressions of emphatics in the papers analysed and their pragmaticfunctions are summarised in Tables 4 and 5.

7. Conclusion

This paper has looked at appraisal resources of scientific authors, and hasattempted to compile a taxonomy of their lexical and discourse-based realisations,as manifested in a small corpus of electronic and electrical engineering researcharticles. Three types of marker have been investigated: attitude, certainty and com-mon knowledge markers, which express authors’ attitudes and opinions, certainty

Table 4

Attitude, certainty and common knowledge markers taxonomies

Attitude markers (express attitude)
Certainty markers (express certainty and
conviction)

Common knowledge

markers (allude to com-

mon knowledge and

shared understandings)

. Evaluative adjectives

. Evaluative, intensifying, and

attitudinal stance adverbs

. Obligations and necessity

expressions and modals

. Discourse-based negative

evaluations of previous research

. Certainty adverbs

. Certainty adjectives

. Demonstrate/show

. Will/be going to

. Discourse-based expressions of

confidence in results or contributions

of research

. Generalised attribution

. Evaluative adjectives

Tab

le5

Pra

gm

ati

cfu

nct

ion

so

fatt

itu

de,

cert

ain

ty,

an

dco

mm

on

kn

ow

led

ge

mark

ers

base

do

nth

eap

pra

isal

fram

ewo

rk(h

ttp

://w

ww

.gra

mm

ati

cs.c

om

/ap

pra

isal

Th

eA

pp

rais

al

Web

site

,2003

an

dW

hit

e,2003)

Att

itu

de

mark

ers

Att

itu

de:

ap

pre

ciati

on

(po

siti

ve/

neg

ati

ve

soci

al

valu

e)

Att

itu

d:

jud

gem

ent

(po

siti

ve/

neg

ati

ve/

insc

rib

ed/ev

ok

ed)

Att

itu

de:

aff

ect

(po

siti

ve/

neg

ati

ve)

Dis

claim

(co

un

ter-

exp

ect)

Dis

claim

(den

y)

Pro

claim

(pro

no

un

ce)

.E

valu

ati

ve

ad

ject

ives

/ad

ver

bs

.In

ten

sify

ing

ad

ver

bs

.D

isco

urs

e-b

ase

d

neg

ati

ve

evalu

ati

on

.E

valu

ati

ve

ad

ject

ives

.D

isco

urs

e-b

ased

neg

ati

ve

eval

uati

on

Att

itu

din

al

stan

cead

ver

bs

Att

itu

din

al

stan

cead

verb

s

Dis

cou

rse-

base

dn

egati

ve

eval

uati

on

Ob

ligati

on

exp

ress

ion

san

d

mo

dals

Cer

tain

ty

mark

ers

Pro

claim

(co

ncu

r)P

rocl

aim

(pro

no

un

ce)

Att

itu

de-

ap

pre

ciati

on

(po

siti

ve/

neg

ati

ve

soci

al

valu

e)

Att

itu

de-

jud

gem

ent

(po

siti

ve/

neg

ati

ve/

insc

rib

ed/ev

ok

ed)

.C

erta

inty

ad

ject

ives

.C

erta

inty

ad

ver

bs

.W

ill/

go

ing

to

.S

ho

w/d

emo

nst

rate

.D

isco

urs

e-b

ased

con

fid

ence

inre

sult

s

.D

isco

urs

e-b

ase

dco

nfi

den

ce

inre

sult

s

.D

isco

urs

e-b

ase

dco

nfi

den

ce

inre

sult

s

Co

mm

on

kn

ow

led

ge

mark

ers

En

do

rsem

ent

of

att

rib

uti

on

Att

itu

de-

ap

pre

ciati

on

(po

siti

ve

soci

al

valu

e,n

orm

ality

)

.G

ener

alise

datt

rib

uti

on

.E

valu

ati

ve

ad

ject

ives




and conviction to propositions, and allude to shared understandings within thecommunity. It was argued that all the above markers define authors’ epistemic andattitudinal stance towards propositions and engage readers in the construction ofclaims.

The use of these linguistic devices is closely linked to the functions of the RA asa genre, its employment as the mains means for the publicisation and ratificationof claims in the hard sciences and engineering, and its essentially persuasive nature(Latour & Woolgar, 1979). Epistemological reasons, such as evidence from harddata and experimental results, and the achievement of social goals in scientificcommunities, namely the need for negotiation of knowledge before claims areaccepted and consensus is reached, are the main motivating factors behind theiremployment.

It was shown that attitude, certainty and common knowledge markers limit theroom for negotiation of claims by imposing attitudes, interpretations, and assess-ments of truth-value, and by predisposing readers towards certain inferences. How-ever, they also allude to shared understandings within this community of engineers,and its shared value system. By exploiting the complex dynamics of power andsolidarity, they prove to be very powerful resources for engineers in their effort tocreate research space for themselves, assert their learned authority and expertise,solicit readers’ acceptance of claims, and reach consensus.

The taxonomies of attitude, certainty and common knowledge markers pre-sented in this paper are specific to the discourse community of electronic and elec-trical engineering. As was indicated earlier, engineering discourse is under-represented in studies of scientific discourse and conventions, which means that thefindings of this paper could have important pedagogical implications for the teach-ing of EAP. The RAs analysed in this study constitute successful examples of aca-demic communication since they have achieved publication and have gainedaccreditation by gatekeepers. The models of rhetorical behaviour identified in themcould, therefore, be used to devise discipline-specific EAP teaching materials andstrategies for students preparing to enter engineering communities, and familiariseprospective engineers with the rhetorical behaviour that is considered appropriateby this disciplinary community.

Since the corpus of this study is rather small, more studies on the linguisticexpression and pragmatic usage of these types of marker in RAs from the field ofelectronic and electrical engineering and other fields could validate the findings ofthis paper, and would be of great use to EAP educators.

References

Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge. Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press.

Conrad, S., & Biber, D. (2000). Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In S. Hunston, & G.

Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. S. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing. Written

Communication, 10(1), 39–71.

Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.


Hodge, R., & Kress, G. (1988). Social semiotics. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Hoey, M. (2000). Persuasive rhetoric in linguistics: a stylistic study of some features of the language of

Noam Chomsky. In S. Hunston, & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: authorial stance and the

construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hunston, S. (1989). Evaluation in experimental research articles. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of

Birmingham.

Hunston, S. (1993). Evaluation and ideology in scientific writing. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.), Register analy-

sis: theory and practice. London: Pinter.

Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation and the planes of discourse: status and value in persuasive texts. In S.

Hunston, & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: authorial stance and the construction of dis-

course. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hyland, K. (1996a). Talking to the academy: forms of hedging in science research articles. Written Com-

munication, 13(2), 251–281.

Hyland, K. (1996b). Writing without conviction? Hedging in scientific research articles. Applied Linguis-

tics, 17(4), 433–453.

Hyland, K. (1998a). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text, 18(3), 349–

382.

Hyland, K. (1998b). Persuasion and context: the pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of

Pragmatics, 30, 437–455.

Hyland, K. (1999). Disciplinary discourses: writer stance in research articles. In C. N. Candlin, & K.

Hyland (Eds.), Writing: texts, processes and practices. London: Longman.

Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: metadiscourse in introductory coursebooks. ESP Journal, 18(1),

3–26.

Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.

Hyland, K. (2001a). Bringing in the reader: addressee features in academic articles. Written Communi-

cation, 18(4), 549–574.

Hyland, K. (2001b). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. ESP Journal,

20, 207–226.

Hyland, K. (2002a). Authority and invisibility: authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Prag-

matics, 34, 1091–1112.

Hyland, K. (2002b). Directives: argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics,

23(2), 215–239.

Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineering (IEEE). Institute for Scientific Information Journal

Citation Study (2001 edition). Available at: www.ieee.org/products/citations.html. Last accessed 18/

3/2003.

Koutsantoni, D. (2003). Rhetoric and culture in published and unpublished scientific communication: a

comparative study of texts produced by Greek and native English speaking engineers. Unpublished

PhD Thesis, University of Birmingham.

Kuo, C.-H. (1999). The use of personal pronouns: role relationships in scientific journal articles. ESP

Journal, 18(2), 121–138.

Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: the construction of scientific facts. Princeton: Prince-

ton University Press.

Martin, J. R. (2000). Beyond exchange: APPRAISAL systems in English. In S. Hunston, & G. Thomp-

son (Eds.), Evaluation in text: authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford Uni-

versity Press.

Martinez, I. A. (2000). Impersonality in the research article as revealed by analysis of the transitivity

structure. ESP Journal, 20, 227–247.

Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 1–35.

Myers, G. (1990). Writing biology: texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge. Madison, WI:

The University of Wisconsin Press.

Myers, G. (1992). ‘In this paper we report. . .’: Speech acts and scientific facts. Journal of Pragmatics, 17,

295–313.


Pinch, T. (1985). Towards and analysis of scientific observation: the externality and evidential signifi-

cance of observational reports in physics. Social Studies of Science, 15, 3–36.

Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written dis-

course. ESP Journal, 13(2), 149–170.

Soler, V. (2002). Analysing adjectives in scientific discourse: an exploratory study with educational appli-

cations for Spanish speakers at advanced university level. ESP Journal, 21, 145–165.

Tannen, D. (1986). That’s not what I meant: how conversational style makes or breaks your relations with

others. New York: William Morrow.

The Appraisal Website. Available at: www.grammatics.com/appraisal. Last accessed 20/7/2003.

Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). The representation of social actors. In C. Caldas-Coulthard, & M. Coulthard

(Eds.), Texts and practices: readings in critical discourse analysis. London: Routledge.

Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and

Communication, 36, 82–93.

Vartalla, T. (1998). Remarks on the communicative functions of hedging in popular scientific and

specialist research articles on medicine. ESP Journal, 18(2), 177–200.

White, P. R. R. (2002). Attitude and arguability: appraisal and the linguistics of solidarity. Unpublished

manuscript.

White. P. R. R. (2003). Appraisal and the resources of intersubjective stance. Available at: www.gram-

matics.com/appraisal. Last accessed 20/7/2003.

Further reading

Bassia, P., Pittas, I., & Nikolaidis, N. (2001). Robust audio watermarking in the time domain. IEEE

Transactions on Multimedia, 3(2), 232–241.

Bisdounis, L., Gouvetas, D., & Koufopavlou, O. (1998). A comparative study of CMOS circuit design

styles for low-power high-speed VLSI circuits. International Journal of Electronics, 84(6), 599–613.

Boulgouris, N. V., Tzovaras, D., & Strintzis, M. G. (2001). Lossless image compression based on opti-

mal prediction, adaptive lifting, and conditional arithmetic coding. IEEE Transactions on Image Pro-

cessing, 10(1), 1–14.

Carruthers, J. B., & Kahn, J. M. (1997). Modeling of nondirected wireless infrared channels. IEEE

Transactions on Communications, 45(10), 1260–1267.

Davidson, K. L., & Loughlin, P. J. (2000). Compensating for window effects in the calculation of spec-

trographic instantaneous bandwidth. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 47(4), 556–558.

Deane, J. H. B., Smythe, C., & Jeffries, D. J. (1996). Self-similarity in a deterministic model of data

transfer. International Journal of Electronics, 80(5), 677–691.

Efstathiou, K., & Papadopoulos, G. (2000). Implementation of a high speed frequency synthesizer

employing a dual input phase accumulator. International Journal of Electronics, 87(1), 43–65.

Hadjileontiadis, L. J., & Panas, S. M. (1997). Adaptive reduction of heart sounds from lung sounds

using fourth-order statistics. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 44(7), 642–648.

Hadjileontiadis, L. J., Liatsos, C. N., Mavrogiannis, C. C., Rokkas, T. A., & Panas, S. M. (2000).

Enhancement of bowel sounds by wavelet-based filtering. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineer-

ing, 47(7), 876–885.

Halford, K. W., & Brandt-Pearce, M. (1998). New-user identification in a CDMA system. IEEE Trans-

actions on Communications, 46(1), 144–155.

Hebley, M. G., & Taylor, D. P. (1998). The effect of diversity on a burst-mode carrier-frequency esti-

mator in the frequency-selective multipath channel. IEEE Transactions on Communications, 46(4),

553–560.

Irvine, A. C., & Woods, R. C. (1997). Recombination current in GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructure bipolar

transistors. International Journal of Electronics, 83(6), 761–777.

Jackson, L. B. (2000). A correction to impulse variance. IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 7(10), 273–275.

Kotropoulos, C. L., Tefas, A., & Pittas, I. (2000). Frontal face authentication using discriminating grids

with morphological feature vectors. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 2(1), 14–26.


Larsen, M. F., & Frost, R. L. (1997). Complexity-constrained trellis quantizers. IEEE Transactions on

Information Theory, 43(4), 1134–1143.

Lazaros, A., & Vomvoridis, J. L. (1998). Density and energy modulations of a gyrotron electron beam

in a periodically corrugated beam channel. International Journal of Electronics, 85(1), 87–102.

Lygouras, J. N., Tarhanidis, K. N., Tsalides, P., & Dimitriadis, C. M. (1998). Nonlinear circuit cancels

the nonlinearity of a DC motor. International Journal of Electronics, 84(2), 147–156.

Malassiotis, S., & Strintzis, M. G. (1997). Motion estimation based on spatiotemporal warping for very

low bit-rate coding. IEEE Transactions on Communications, 45(10), 1172–1175.

Moore, W. R. (1998). Minimal C-testable tests for block-CLA adders. International Journal of Electro-

nics, 85(5), 611–628.

Price, J. R., & Hayes, M. M. (1998). Resampling and reconstruction with fractal interpolation functions.

IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 5(9), 228–230.

Rick, R. R., & Milstein, L. B. (1998). Optimal decision strategies for acquisition of spread-spectrum sig-

nals in frequency-selective fading channels. IEEE Transactions on Communications, 46(5), 686–692.

Robertson, G. I., Miller, J. F., & Thompson, P. (1996). Non-exhaustive search methods and their use in

the minimization of Reed-Muller canonical expansions. International Journal of Electronics, 80(1), 1–

12.

Rovithakis, G. A., Maniadakis, M., Zervakis, M., Philippidis, G., Zacharakis, G., Katsamouris, A. N.,

& Papazoglou, T. G. (2001). Artificial neural networks for discriminating pathologic from normal

peripheral vascular tissue. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 48(10), 1088–1095.

Samaras, D., Georgiou, J., Panas, S., & Litsardakis, G. (1989). Hexagonal ferrite particles for perpen-

dicular recording prepared by ion exchange. IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, 26(1), 18–20.

Scanlon, W. G., Burns, B. J., & Evans, N. E. (2000). Radiowave propagation from a tissue-implanted

source at 418 MHz and 916.5 MHz. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 47(4), 527–533.

Soudris, D., Poechmueller, P., Kyriakis-Bitzaros, E. D., Birbas, M., Goutis, C., & Thanalikakis, A.

(1998). Design methodology for systematic derivation of fault-tolerant processor array architectures.

International Journal of Electronics, 84(6), 615–624.

Tolias, Y. A., & Panas, S. M. (1998). On applying spatial constraints in fuzzy image clustering using a

fuzzy rule-based system. IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 5(10), 245–247.

Tzionas, P. (1996). A cellular neural network learning the pseudorandom behaviour of a complex sys-

tem. International Journal of Electronics, 80(3), 405–413.

Vassiliadis, K. P., Angelidis, P. A., & Sergiadis, G. D. (1993). Reconstruction of magnetic resonance

images using one-dimensional techniques. IEEE Transactions in Medical Imaging, 12(4), 758–763.

Watterson, P. A. (2000). Energy calculation of a permanent magnet system by surface and flux integrals

(the flux-mmf method). IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, 36(2), 470–475.

Welburn, L., & Cavers, J. K. (1999). Pilot signals improve the performance of a reed-solomon errors

and erasures decoder in rayleigh fading channels. IEEE Transactions on Communications, 47(5), 689–

696.

Williams, A. J. M., Benson, T. M., & Duffy, A. P. (1997). Determining the accuracy of TLM in simulat-

ing the behavior of resonant cavities with arbitrary dielectric loading. International Journal of Elec-

tronics, 83(5), 645–660.

Williams, B. W. (1998). An IGBT turn-on snubber circuit with passive energy recovery. International

Journal of Electronics, 85(4), 521–533.

Xiroudakis, Y. S., Drossopoulos, A. I., & Delopoulos, A. N. (2001). Efficient optical camera tracking in

virtual sets. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 10(4), 609–621.

Dimitra Koutsantoni is senior project researcher at the Language Research Centre of the University of

Luton. She holds a PhD from the University of Birmingham, which analysed cross-cultural variation in

scientific conventions in English and Greek engineering writing. Her research interests include Discourse

Analysis, Contrastive Rhetoric, Sociolinguistics, and EAP. She has taught EAP at the Universities of

Warwick and Aston.

discourse

Documents