Discourse Analysis
Parviz Ajideh; Mohammad Zohrabi; Rougia Oghbatalab
Abstract
In academic discourse across diverse fields, the cultivation of authorial competence in crafting compelling and persuasive texts is of paramount importance. Scholars in the field of linguistics, particularly those involved in discourse analysis, have been attentive to this necessity. Within the realm ...
Read More
In academic discourse across diverse fields, the cultivation of authorial competence in crafting compelling and persuasive texts is of paramount importance. Scholars in the field of linguistics, particularly those involved in discourse analysis, have been attentive to this necessity. Within the realm of academic writing, the strategic utilization of engagement markers plays a pivotal role in achieving persuasive communication and fostering reader engagement. The cultural positioning of academic writers is often reflected in the incorporation of these linguistic elements within written discourse. This study undertook an examination of 60 research articles spanning the domains of hard and soft sciences, with a focus on discerning potential disparities in the employment of engagement markers between two distinct cohorts of authors: native English speakers and non-native Iranian writers. Employing Hyland's (2005b) model of engagement markers as an analytical framework, the study sought to ascertain the frequency of these linguistic devices within academic research articles produced by the aforementioned groups. The findings of the analysis revealed significant differences in the overall and categorical distribution of engagement markers in the scholarly works of native English and non-native Iranian authors across hard and soft science disciplines. These differences may be ascribed to the cultural positioning of academic writers or the potential lack of familiarity with the established conventions of English rhetoric, pragmatics, and sociolinguistics among non-native Iranian authors. The implications of these findings are significant, as they can inform the development of pedagogical materials aimed at enhancing the academic writing proficiency of authors.
Discourse Analysis
Ali Akbar Farahani; Ali Geravand
Abstract
Having active participation in today’s more universally-networked research community through publishing in valid English journals has become delicate for the most populated contemporary users of English as a foreign language known as ‘ESP writers. This challenge is typically experienced in ...
Read More
Having active participation in today’s more universally-networked research community through publishing in valid English journals has become delicate for the most populated contemporary users of English as a foreign language known as ‘ESP writers. This challenge is typically experienced in ESP authors’ variation in employing the generic move patterns in the overall structure of the academic research articles (RAs) ‘Conclusions’ sections, probably caused by heterogeneity in ‘English’ across the authors’ discipline-specific fields of expertise. Thus, the purpose of the present study was to analyze the organizational moves/steps of the RAs ‘conclusions’ to examine any significant difference/s in the discipline-specific authors’ writing styles in terms of the ‘type’ and ‘frequency’ of the moves/steps under study. To this end, 160 randomly selected RAs conclusions (RACs) from eight academic disciplines equally representing the hard sciences and soft sciences, were comparatively analyzed based on a conflated ESP move analysis model of Yang and Allison (2003), and Moritz, Meurer and Dellagnelo (2008). The results of the study obtained from the Frequency counts, Chi-square tests and the Effect Size measure revealed statistically significant differences between the frequency of moves/steps of the RACs in both discipline-specific groups of sciences; in addition, it was found that generic move patterns of the RACs did not strictly follow the proposed model. However, Pedagogical and practical implications along with suggestions for further studies are presented.
Discourse Analysis
Kimia Soltani; Davud Kuhi; Nasrin Hadidi
Abstract
Although a plethora of research endeavors have investigated the rhetorical structure of the Research Articles (RAs) through the lens of move analysis, Move Recycling (MR) across RA sections has remained unnoticed. The current study sought to bridge this gap by exploring cross-disciplinary variations ...
Read More
Although a plethora of research endeavors have investigated the rhetorical structure of the Research Articles (RAs) through the lens of move analysis, Move Recycling (MR) across RA sections has remained unnoticed. The current study sought to bridge this gap by exploring cross-disciplinary variations in the recycling of the Objective move (research questions/hypotheses/purposes) across four conventional sections (Introduction, Method, Result, and Discussion) of RAs. To this end, 600 English RAs from four prestigious journals in six soft science disciplines, published between 2006 and 2018, were selected. The quantitative data analysis results revealed that the Objective move’s recycling was sensitive to the disciplinary variations and RA sections. That is, Economics RAs were the main platforms for recycling the Objective move, and Psychology RAs witnessed the least amount of its recycling. Moreover, Objective move recycling was observed most frequently in the Discussion sections and least frequently in the Method sections of RAs. In the study’s qualitative phase, the RA authors’ rationales for MR, which were received via email, underwent content analysis. Based on the recurrent themes in the RA authors’ responses, four main reasons for MR, including editorial policy, readers’ guidance, discipline conventions, and RA length, were identified. This study’s findings might provide a concise view of MR for researchers, teachers, and students in various disciplines. EAP instructors can raise students’ awareness of MR and encourage them to use it in their RAs as a comprehension facilitator.