پیوندهای مفید
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 30 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 440 |
| تعداد مقالات | 4,284 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 6,851,624 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 5,080,499 |
Disciplinary and Cross-Cultural Variation of Stance and Engagement Markers in Soft and Hard Sciences Research Articles by Native English and Iranian Academic Writers: A Corpus-based Analysis | ||
| Interdisciplinary Studies in English Language Teaching | ||
| دوره 1، شماره 1، فروردین 2023، صفحه 87-102 اصل مقاله (749.44 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Original Article | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22080/iselt.2021.22028.1019 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Haniye Seyri1؛ Saeed Rezaei* 2 | ||
| 1Faculty of Foreign Languages and Literature, University of Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2Languages and Linguistics Center, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran | ||
| تاریخ دریافت: 07 اردیبهشت 1402، تاریخ بازنگری: 08 خرداد 1402، تاریخ پذیرش: 12 خرداد 1402 | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Drawing on a corpus-based approach, this study analyzed two different sub-corpora including Non-Native English-Speaking (NNES) and Native English-Speaking (NES) sub-corpus. There were 60 research articles from soft sciences including Applied Linguistics, Sociology, Economics and hard sciences including Chemical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, and Biology. To examine the frequency of stance and engagement markers in the two sub-corpora separately, MAXQDA software was utilized. Several Chi-square tests were run to investigate the differences found in the frequencies of the two groups. The results demonstrated that writers of different fields of study and from different cultural backgrounds exerted varying degrees of authorship and interaction in their texts. Regarding disciplinary variation, it was found that the researchers in soft disciplines used more stance and engagement markers than the ones in hard disciplines. With regard to cross-cultural variation, native academic writers preferred to draw more on interactional markers than non-native Iranian academic writers. The findings of the present study offer implications to academic writers from different fields of study and different cultural backgrounds so that they become cognizant of their own presence in texts and their interaction with readers based on the use of stance and engagement markers. The results can also be implemented in EAP/ESP courses and syllabi. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| Corpus-Based Approach؛ Cross-cultural Variation؛ Disciplinary Variation؛ Research Articles؛ Stance and Engagement Markers | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Abdi, R. (2011). Metadiscourse strategies in research articles: A study of the differences across subsections. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 3(1), 1-16. DOI: 10.22099/jtls.2012.391
Abdollahzadeh, E. (2011). Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 288-297. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.019
Atkinson, D. (2003). Writing and culture in the post-process era. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(1), 49-63. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00126-1
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press/SRHE.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Çandarlı, D., Bayyurt, Y., & Marti, L. (2015). Authorial presence in L1 and L2 novice academic writing: Cross-linguistic and cross-cultural perspectives. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 192-202.DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2015.10.001
Clyne, M. (1987). Cultural differences in the organization of academic texts: English and German. Journal of Pragmatics, 11(2), 211-241.doi:10.1016/0378-2166(87)90196-2
Clyne, M. (1991). The socio-cultural dimension: The dilemma of the German-speaking scholar. In H. Shroder (Ed.), Subject-oriented texts, language for special purposes and text theory (pp. 49–68). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Cmejrkovä, C., & Danes, F. (1997). Academic writing and cultural identity: The case of Czech academic writing. In A. Duszak (Ed.), Culture and styles of academic discourse (pp. 41-62). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Connor, U. (2004). Intercultural rhetoric research: Beyond texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(4), 291-304. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2004.07.003.
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. S. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10(1), 39-71.DOI: 10.1177/0741088393010001002
Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second language proficiency. Language Learning, 39, 81-141.DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1989.tb00592.x
Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline?. Journal of pragmatics, 36(10), 1807-1825.
Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2021). Engaging with the reader in research articles in English: Variation across disciplines and linguacultural backgrounds. English for Specific Purposes, 63, 18-32.
Duszak, A. (1997). Cross-cultural academic communication: A discourse-community view. In A. Duszak (Ed.), Culture and styles of academic discourse (pp. 11-40). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hinkel, E., (2002). Second language writers’ text: Linguistic and rhetorical features. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hofstede, G., (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455.doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5
Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20(3), 207-226.DOI: 10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00012-0
Hyland, K. (2002a). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091-1112.doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00035-8
Hyland, K. (2002b). Options of identity in academic writing. ELT Journal, 56(4), 351-358.DOI: 10.1093/elt/56.4.351
Hyland, K. (2005a). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.DOI: 10.1177/1461445605050365
Hyland, K. (2005b). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2005c). Representing readers in writing: Student and expert practices. Linguistics and Education, 16(4), 363–377.DOI: 10.1016/j.linged.2006.05.002
Hyland, K. (2008a). Disciplinary voices: Interactions in research writing. English Text Construction, 1(1), 5-22.doi:10.1075/etc.1.1.03hyl
Hyland, K. (2008b). Persuasion, interaction and the construction of knowledge: Representing self and others in research writing. IJES, 8(2), 1-23. doi:10.6018/ijes.8.2.49151.
Hyland, K. (2009). Teaching and researching writing. London: Routledge.
Hyland, K. (2018). The essential Hyland. London: Bloomsbury.
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2016). We must conclude that…: A diachronic study of academic engagement. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 24, 29-42.doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2016.09.003
Işık-Taş, E. E. (2018). Authorial identity in Turkish language and English language research articles in Sociology: The role of publication context in academic writers' discourse choices. English for Specific Purposes, 49, 26-38.doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2017.10.003
Kachru, Y. (1983). Linguistics and written discourse in particular languages: Contrastive studies: English and Hindi. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 3, 50-77.
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural communication. Language Learning, XVI, 1-20.
Kaplan, R. B. (1976). A further note on contrastive rhetoric. Communication Quarterly, 24(2), 12-19.
Kaplan, R. B. (1990). Writing in a multilingual/multicultural context: What's contrastive about contrastive rhetoric?. Writing instructor, 10(1), 7-18.
Lafuente‐Millán, E. (2014). Reader engagement across cultures, languages, and contexts of publication in business research articles. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 201-223.DOI: doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12019
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224.doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
Martínez, I. A. (2005). Native and non-native writers’ use of first-person pronouns in the different sections of biology research articles in English. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 174-190.doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2005.06.001
Mauranen, A, (2001). Descriptions or explanations? Some methodological issues in contrastive rhetoric. In M. Hewings, (Ed.), Academic Writing in Context (pp. 43-54). Birmingham: University of Birmingham Press.
McGrath, L., & Kuteeva, M. (2012). Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research articles: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practices. English for Specific Purposes, 31(3), 161-173.DOI: 10.1016/j.esp.2011.11.002
Sharifian, F. (2003). On cultural conceptualizations. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 3(3), 187-207.doi:10.1163/156853703322336625
Sharifian, F. (2009). Cultural conceptualizations in English as an international language. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), English as an international language: Perspectives and pedagogical issues (pp. 242- 253). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Shaw, P. (2003). Evaluation and promotion across languages. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(4), 343-357.DOI: 10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00050-X
Steinman, L. (2003). Cultural collisions in L2 academic writing. TESL Canada Journal, 80-91.DOI: 10.18806/tesl.v20i2.950
Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58-78. doi:10.1093/applin/22.1.58.
Vázquez Orta, I., & Giner, D. (2009). Writing with conviction: The use of boosters in modelling persuasion in academic discourses. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 22, 219-237.doi: 10.14198/raei.2009.22.14
Widdowson, H. G. (1979): Aspects of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Xu, X., & Nesi, H. (2019). Differences in engagement: A comparison of the strategies used by British and Chinese research article writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 38, 121-134.DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2019.02.003
Yakhontova. T. (2006). Cultural and disciplinary variation in academic discourse: The issue of influencing factors. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(2), 153-167.DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2006.03.002
Yang, W. (2014). Stance and engagement: A corpus-based analysis of academic spoken discourse across science domains. LSP Journal-Language for special purposes, Professional Communication, Knowledge Management and Cognition, 5(1), 62-78. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 611 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 475 |
||