Volume 5, Issue 1 (3-2020)                   IJREE 2020, 5(1): 1-18 | Back to browse issues page


XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Farnia M, Saeedi M, Ataei Z. A Cross-disciplinary Study on Evaluative Strategies in Research Articles Conclusion Sections. IJREE. 2020; 5 (1)
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-222-en.html
Department of English Language and Literature, Payame Noor University, Iran
Abstract:   (1180 Views)
In academia, different disciplines tend to represent themselves, their writers, and their readers in unique ways. To be able to probe into such cross-disciplinary discursive variations, the present cross-disciplinary study used Martin and White’s appraisal framework incorporating lexico-grammar and language evaluation strategies to explore the linguistic construal of evaluative stance in the conclusion section of academic research articles. To this end, a corpus of 160 research articles randomly selected from English international journals of psychology as a representative of soft sciences and industrial engineering as a representative of hard scienceswere examined in the light of Martin and White’s scheme, with a focus on graduation. To code the data, UAM Corpus Tool was used for the ease of descriptive analyses. In general, the findings indicated that the number of graduation words and graduation types were significantly higher in the hard science corpus compared to the soft science one, suggesting that the authors of hard science articles mainly attempted to express their appreciation and judgment and report the fluctuation of a specific feature in their findings.
 
Full-Text [PDF 623 kb]   (218 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special

References
1. Abdel Salam El-Dakhs, D. (2018). Why are abstracts in PhD theses and research articles different? A genre -specific perspective. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 36, 48-60. [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2018.09.005]
2. Amornrattanasirichok, A., & Jaroongkhongdach, S. (2017). Engagement in literature reviews of Thai and international research articles in applied linguistics. Online Proceedings of the International Conference: DRAL 3/19th ESEA 2017, 312-327. http://sola.kmutt.ac.th/dral2017/proceedings/5-6Additional/312-327_Engagement%20in%20literature%20reviews_Supattra%20Amornrattanasirichok%20and%20%20Woravut%20Jaroongkhongdach.pdf
3. Akinci, S. (2016). A cross-disciplinary study of stance markers in research articles written by students and experts. Unpublished masters' thesis. Iowa State University. http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/15144
4. Alcaraz-Ariza, M. Á. (2002). Evaluation in English-medium medical book reviews. International Journal of English Studies, 2(1), 137-153.doi: [DOI:10.6018/ijes/2011/1/137141]
5. Babaii, E., Atai, M. R., & Saidi, M. (2017). Are scientists objective? An investigation of appraisal resources in English popular science articles. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 5(1), 1-19. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312580984_Are_scientists_objective_An_investigation_of_appraisal_resources_in_English_popular_science_articles
6. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. (2nd Ed). Buckingham: Open University Press.
7. Bellés-Fortuño, B. (2017). A contrastive study between English and Spanish university lectures. Languages in Contrast, 18(2), 155-174. doi: 10.1075/lic.15018.bel [DOI:10.1075/lic.15018.bel]
8. Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psycholinguistics, 57(3), 195-203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0034701 [DOI:10.1037/h0034701]
9. Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: a marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36(10), 1807-1825. [DOI:10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.004]
10. Durrant, P. (2017). Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation in university students' writing: Mapping the territories. Applied Linguistics, 38(2), 165-193. doi: 10.1093/applin/amv011 [DOI:10.1093/applin/amv011]
11. Ebrahimi, S. F., & Heng, C. S. (2018). Grammatical subject in results and discussion section of research articles: Disciplinary variations. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 27(1), 97-125. doi: 10.22099/jtls.2018.30374.2557
12. Fernandes, A. (2011). Appraisal of evaluative language in people with phasia's Cinderella Narratives. Unpublished Master Thesis, University of Groningen.
13. Fitriati, S. W., & Solihah, Y. A. (2019). Non-native writers and the use of appraisal resources in research article introductions. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(3), 638-645. doi: 10.17509/ijal.v8i3.15265 [DOI:10.17509/ijal.v8i3.15265]
14. Gastil, R. G. (1960). The distribution of mineral dates in time and space. American Journal of Science, 258(1), 1-35. http://www.ajsonline.org/content/258/1/1.abstract [DOI:10.2475/ajs.258.1.1]
15. Ghaemi, F., & Sarlak, H. (2015). A critical appraisal of ESP status in Iran. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 9(1), 262-276. https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/6bee84 _552d1ca5c28a416c81592f0283a00112.pdf
16. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
17. Hood, S. (2004). Appraising research: Taking a stance in academic writing. PhD Thesis, Faculty of Education, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia. Retrieved online from: http://grammatics.com/appraisal/suehoodphd/hoods-phd-links.htm
18. Hu, G., & Liu, Y. (2018). Three minute thesis presentations as an academic genre: A cross-disciplinary study of genre analysis. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 35, 16-30. [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2018.06.004]
19. Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192. doi/pdf/10.1177/1461445605050365 [DOI:10.1177/1461445605050365]
20. Hyland, K. (2008). Persuasion, interaction, and the construction of knowledge: Representing self and others in research writing. International Journal of English Studies, 8(2), 1-23. Retrieved from https://revistas.um.es/ijes/article/view/49151
21. Hyland, K. (2010). Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 116-127. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.003 [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.003]
22. Hyland, K. (2011). Academic discourse. In K. Hyland, & B. Paltridge (Eds.), Continuum companion to discourse analysis (pp. 171-184). London/New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
23. Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177. doi: 10.1093/applin/25.2.156 [DOI:10.1093/applin/25.2.156]
24. Jalilifar, A., Bardideh, A., & Shooshtari, Z. (2018). From academic to journalistic texts: A qualitative analysis of the evaluative language of science. Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 37(1), 127-158. doi: 10.22099/jtls.2018.30299.2554
25. Jalilifar, A., Hayati, M., & Mashhadi, A. (2012). Evaluative strategies in Iranian and international research article introductions: Assessment of academic writing. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 81-109. http://rals.scu.ac.ir/article_10373.html
26. Johns, C., Chapman, M., & Woods, P. C. (1972). The characteristics of the literature used by historians. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 4(3), 137-156. doi: 10.1177/096100067200400301 [DOI:10.1177/096100067200400301]
27. Khoo, C. G., Nourbakhsh, A., & Na, J. (2012). Sentiment analysis of online news text: A case study of appraisal theory. Online Information Review, 36(6), 1-18. [DOI:10.1108/14684521211287936]
28. Li, X. (2016). An attitudinal analysis of English song discourse from the perspective of appraisal theory. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 7(3), 559-565. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0703.17 [DOI:10.17507/jltr.0703.17]
29. Li, T., & Wharton, S. (2012). Metadiscourse repertoire of L1 Mandarin undergraduates writing in English: a cross-contextual, cross-disciplinary study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(4), 345-356. [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2012.07.004]
30. Liu, X. (2010). An application of appraisal theory to teaching college English reading in China. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 1(2), 133-135. doi:10.4304/jltr.1.2.133-135 [DOI:10.4304/jltr.1.2.133-135]
31. Liu, X. (2013). Evaluation in Chinese university EFL students' English argumentative writing: An appraisal study. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 10(1), 40-53. http://e-flt.nus.edu.sg/archive/v10n12013.html
32. Liu, X., & McCabe, A. (2018). Attitudinal evaluation in Chinese university students' English writing: A contrastive perspective. Singapore: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-6415-9 [DOI:10.1007/978-981-10-6415-9]
33. Liu, X., & Thompson, P. (2009). Attitude in students' argumentative writing: A contrastive perspective. Language Studies Working Papers, 1, 3-15. https://www.reading.ac.uk/web/files/english-language-and-literature/ell_language_Liu_and_Thompson_vol_1.pdf
34. Llinares, A. (2015). The interpersonal function of language in CLIL secondary education: Analysis of a spoken and written corpus (INTER-CLIL). European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 343-347. doi: [DOI:10.1515/eujal-2015-0003]
35. Martin, J. R. (1997). Analyzing genre: Functional parameters. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genres and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school (pp. 3-39). London, UK: Cassell.
36. Martin, J. R. (2000). Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 142-175). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
37. Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause (2nd edition). London: Continuum.
38. Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan. [DOI:10.1057/9780230511910]
39. Mei, W. S., & Allison, D. (2003). Exploring appraisal in claims of student writers in argumentative essays. Prospect, 18(3), 71-91. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Exploring-appraisal-in-claims-of-student-writers-in-Mei-Allison/a9f6c67bd6786548a6570a09b3e166b5af0c5db4
40. Millán, E. L. (2014). The projection of critical attitude in research article introductions by Anglo-American and Spanish author. RevistaCanaria de EstudiosIngleses Año, 2(1), 137-153. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=5002745
41. Mizusawa, Y. (2010). Language use in English academic writing by a tertiary overseas student. Juntendo Health and Sports Science Research, 1(4), 494-501. https://www.juntendo.ac.jp/hss/sp/albums/abm.php? f=abm00008387.pdf&n=vol16_p494.pdf
42. Mori, M. (2017). Using the Appraisal framework to analyze source use in essays: a case study of engagement and dialogism in two undergraduate students' writing. Functional Linguist, 4(11), 1-22. [DOI:10.1186/s40554-017-0046-4]
43. Myskow, G., & Ono, M. (2018). A matter of facts: L2 writers' use of evidence and evaluation in biographical essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 41, 55-70. [DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2018.08.002]
44. Munday, J. S. (2015) Engagement and graduation resources as markers of translator/interpreter positioning. Target, 27 (3), 406- 412. https://doi.org/ 10.1075/target.27.3.05mun [DOI:10.1075/target.27.3.05mun]
45. Ngo, T., & Unsworth, L. (2015). Reworking the appraisal framework in ESL research: refining attitude resources. Functional Linguistics, 2(1), 1-24. doi: 10.1186/s40554-015-0013-x [DOI:10.1186/s40554-015-0013-x]
46. Omidian, T., Shahriari, H., & Siyanova-Chanturia, A. (2018). A cross-disciplinary investigation of multi-word expressions in the moves of research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 36, 1-14. [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2018.08.002]
47. Oteíza, T. (2017). The appraisal framework and discourse analysis. In T. Bartlett, G. & O'Grady (Eds.). The Routledge handbook of systemic functional linguistics (pp.457-472). London: Routledge.
48. Pascual, M. (2010). Appraisal in the research genres: An analysis of grant proposals by Argentinean researchers. RevistaSigos, 43(73), 261-280. https://scielo.conicyt.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&pid=S0718-09342010000200004&lng=es&nrm=iso&tlng=en [DOI:10.4067/S0718-09342010000200004]
49. Põldvere, N., Matteo, F., & Carita, P. (2016). A study of dialogic expansion and contraction in spoken discourse using corpus and experimental techniques. Corpora, 11(2), 191-225. doi: 10.3366/cor.2016.0092 [DOI:10.3366/cor.2016.0092]
50. Rahman, R. F. (2018). Engagement systems in the introduction sections of international journal articles. Proceeding of the 65th TEFLIN International Conference, Universitas Negeri Makassar, Indonesia 12-14 July 2018, 65(1), 261-265. https://ojs.unm.ac.id/teflin65/article/view/6282/3621
51. Sadeghi, E., & Tahririan, H. (2014). ESP for psychology and law tertiary level students: Attitudes, challenges and obstacles. Research in English Language Pedagogy, 2(2), 62-77. http://relp.khuisf.ac.ir/article_533614.html
52. Shahrokhi, M., Sadeghi, A., & Amiri Dehnoo, M. (2013). Lexical cohesion patterns in research articles: Hard science vs. soft science disciplines. International Journal of Social Science & Education, 4(1), 196-204. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Lexical-Cohesion-Patterns-in-Research-Articles%3A-vs.-Shahrokhi-Sadeghi/cdb8f9ea713e616af56245e0c57bb20df1ac8147
53. Sheldon, E. (2018). Knowledge construction of discussion/conclusion sections of research articles written by English L1 and L2 and Castilian Spanish L1 writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 37, 1-10. [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2018.11.002]
54. Su, W., & Hunston, S. (2019). Adjective complementation patterns and judgment: Aligning lexical-grammatical and discourse-semantic approaches in appraisal research. Text & Talk, 39(3), 415-435. https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/text.2019.39.issue-3/text-2019-2031/text-2019-2031.xml [DOI:10.1515/text-2019-2031]
55. Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
56. Thompson, G., & Yiyun, Y. (1991). Evaluation in the reporting verbs used in academic papers. Applied Linguistics, 12(4), 365-382. [DOI:10.1093/applin/12.4.365]
57. Taboada, M., Carretero, M., & Hinnell, J. (2014). Loving and hating the movies in English, German and Spanish. Languages in Contrast, 14(1), 127-161. doi: 10.1075/lic.14.1.07tab [DOI:10.1075/lic.14.1.07tab]
58. White, P. R. (1998). Telling media tales: The news story as rhetoric. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Sydney, Australia.
59. White, P. R. (2002). Appraisal-the language of evaluation and stance. In J. Verschueren, J. Östman, J. Blommaert, & C. Bulcaen (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp.1-23). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamin.
60. Wu, H. (2013). Appraisal perspective on attitudinal analysis of public service advertising discourse. English Language and Literature Studies, 3(1), 55-66. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ells.v3n1p55 [DOI:10.5539/ells.v3n1p55]
61. Wu, S. M., & Allison, D. (2003). Exploring appraisal in claims of student writers in argumentative essays. Prospect, 18(3), 71-91. http://www.ameprc.mq.edu.au/docs/prospect_journal/volume_18_no_3/18_3_5_WuSiewMei.pdf
62. Yang, R., & Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes, 22(4), 365-385. doi: [DOI:10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00026-1]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


© 2020 All Rights Reserved | International Journal of Research in English Education

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb