اخبار و اعلانات

دانشگاه الزهرا

آمار

تعداد نشریات24
تعداد شماره‌ها722
تعداد مقالات5,955
تعداد مشاهده مقاله8,745,572
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله6,853,442
Rezaee, Abbas, Ghobadi, Arezoo. (1400). A Comparative Study of Metadiscourse Markers in Geology Research Articles. جلوه هنر, 5(2), 7-26. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2021.31247.1299
Abbas Ali Rezaee; Arezoo Ghobadi. "A Comparative Study of Metadiscourse Markers in Geology Research Articles". جلوه هنر, 5, 2, 1400, 7-26. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2021.31247.1299
Rezaee, Abbas, Ghobadi, Arezoo. (1400). 'A Comparative Study of Metadiscourse Markers in Geology Research Articles', جلوه هنر, 5(2), pp. 7-26. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2021.31247.1299
Rezaee, Abbas, Ghobadi, Arezoo. A Comparative Study of Metadiscourse Markers in Geology Research Articles. جلوه هنر, 1400; 5(2): 7-26. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2021.31247.1299

A Comparative Study of Metadiscourse Markers in Geology Research Articles

Journal of Language Horizons
مقاله 1، دوره 5، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 10، پاییز و زمستان 2021، صفحه 7-26  XML اصل مقاله (393.93 K)
نوع مقاله: Research article
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22051/lghor.2021.31247.1299
نویسندگان
Abbas Ali Rezaee email 1؛ Arezoo Ghobadi2
1Associate Professor, University of Tehran. Iran
2PhD Candidate in TEFL, University of Tehran, (Alborz Campus)
چکیده
Interest in metadiscourse markers use in Research Articles (RAs) of different disciplines has grown among discourse and genre researchers. Among the hard sciences, Geology and its’ sub-disciplines have received scant attention. This is while Geology postgraduate students’ original research findings fail to get published in high ranked journals of their specialty, partly due to their insufficient knowledge of the correct use of metadiscourse markers in their RAs. In the present study, using Hyland and Tse’s theoretical framework (2004), we focused on the type and frequency of metadiscourse markers use in six main Geology sub-disciplines (i.e., Engineering Geology, Sedimentology, Seismology, Petrology, Palaeontology, and Geotechnics). To answer the research questions raised in the study, 180 RAs from 73 high ranked journals were selected from the main corpora. The results from the word by word analyses of the articles revealed that, except for endophoric markers, the six sub-disciplines demonstrated a statistically significant difference in the type and frequency of metadiscourse features. In addition, the results indicated that Petrology, Engineering Geology, and Sedimentology demonstrated a higher frequency in the employment of interactive markers compared to their three Geology counterparts. Contrarily, the three sub-disciplines, namely Seismology, Palaeontology, and Geotechnics showed a higher frequency in the application of interactional metadiscourse elements. The findings of the study have implications for genre researchers, ESP instructors, and Geology novice authors.
کلیدواژه‌ها
discourse markers؛ interactional elements؛ interactive elements؛ geology؛ rhetorical organization
عنوان مقاله [English]
بررسی تطبیقی نشانگرهای فراگفتمانی در مقاله‌های پژوهشی زمین‌شناسی
نویسندگان [English]
عباسعلی رضائی1؛ آرزو قبادی2
1دانشیار گروه زبان و ادبیات انگلیسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران
2دانشجوی دکتری آموزش زبان دانشگاه تهران (پردیس البرز). تهران. ایران
چکیده [English]
علاقه به کاربرد نشانگرهای فراگفتمانی در مقاله‌های پژوهشی رشته‌های گوناگون، در بین پژوهشگرانِ گفتمان و ژانر گسترش یافته‌است. در میان رشته‌های علوم سخت، زمین‌شناسی و زیرشاخه‌های آن کمتر مورد توجه قرار گرفته‌است. این در حالی است که یافته‌های پژوهشی اصیل دانشجویان تحصیلات تکمیلی زمین‌شناسی در مقاله‌های تخصصی، تا اندازه‌ای به سبب دانش اندک آن‌ها دربارة کاربرد درست نشانگرهای فراگفتمانی در مقاله‌های پژوهشی‌شان، در مجله‌های تخصصی با اعتبار بالای رشته­ های آن‌ها مورد پذیرش قرار نمی­گیرد. در پژوهش حاضر، با استفاده از چارچوب نظری هایلند و تسه ( 2004)، بر نوع و فراوانی کاربرد نشانگرهای فراگفتمانی در شش زیرشاخة اصلی زمین‌شناسی (یعنی مهندسی زمین‌شناسی، رسوب‌شناسی، لرزه‌شناسی، سنگ‌شناسی، دیرین‌شناسی و ژئوتکنیک) تمرکز شده‌است. برای پاسخ به پرسش‌های پژوهش، 180 مقاله پژوهشی از73 مجلة با رتبة بالای زمین‌شناسی، از پیکره اصلی انتخاب شد. یافته‌های بررسی دقیق واژه به واژة مقاله‌ها نشان داد که به جز نشانگرهای درون‌مرجع، شش زیرشاخة اصلی زمین‌شناسی از جنبة آماری تفاوت معناداری در نوع و فراوانی کاربرد ویژگی‌های فراگفتمانی نشان دادند. افزون بر این، نتایج نمایانگر آن بود که در سنگ‌شناسی، مهندسی زمین‌شناسی و رسوب‌شناسی، فراوانی بیشتری در کاربرد نشانگرهای تعاملی در مقایسه با سه زیرشاخه زمین‌شناسی همتایشان مشاهده شد. با این وجود، این سه زیرشاخه، یعنی لرزه‌شناسی، دیرین‌شناسی و ژئوتکنیک، فراوانی بالاتری در به‌کارگیری عناصر فراگفتمانی تقابلی نشان دادند. یافته‌های این پژوهش، کاربردهایی برای پژوهشگران ژانر، مدرسین زبان انگلیسی تخصصی و نویسندگان تازه‌کار زمین‌شناسی دارد.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
نشانگرهای گفتمان, عناصر تعاملی, عناصر تعامل‌گر, زمین‌شناسی, ساماندهی بلاغی
مراجع
  1. Abdi, R. (2002). Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies, 4(2), 139-145. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456020040020101
  2. Ahmadi, P., & Abdi, R. (2016). Analysis of interactive metadiscourse markers in Chemistry Engineering research articles. The 3rd International Conference on Research in Science and Technology (1-16). Karin Press.   https://scholar.conference.ac/index.php/download/file/7401-Analysis of%20Interactive-metadiscourse-markers-in-chemistry-engineering-research-articles
  3. Atai, M. R., & Sadr, L. (2008). A cross-cultural study of hedging devices in discussion section of applied linguistics RAs. Teaching English Language and Literature Society of Iran (TELLSI), 2, 1-2. https://www.sid.ir/en/journal/ViewPaper.aspx?ID=162198
  4. Attarn, A. (2014). Study of metadiscourse in ESP articles: A comparison of English articles written by Iranian and English native speakers. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 5(1), 63-71.     https://www.ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter/article/viewFile/87/36
  5. Bartholomae, D. (1986). Inventing the universality. Journal of Basic Writing, 5(1), 4-23. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43443456
  6. Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual inquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Oxford University Press.
  7. Behnam, B., & Mirzapour, F. (2012). A comparative study of intensity markers in engineering and applied linguistics. English Language Teaching, 5(7), 158-163. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n7p158
  8. Bunton, D. (1999). The use of higher level metatext in PhD theses. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1). 41-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906 (98)00022-2
  9. Cao, F., & Hu, G. (2014). Interactive metadiscourse in RAs: A comparative study of paradigmatic and disciplinary influences. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 15-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.007
  10. Charney, D. (2002). Evaluating professional discourse: How does it work for real readers? In E. Barton & G. Stygall, Discourse studies in composition (pp. 305-320). Hampton Press.
  11. Connor, U., & Kaplan, B. (1987). Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 texts. Addison.
  12. Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. Peter Lang.
  13. Crismore, A., & Abdollahzadeh, E. (2010). A review of recent metadiscourse studies: The Iranian context. NJES, 9(2), 195-219.  https://njesjournal.com/articles/10.35360/njes.223/
  14. Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1989). Mr. Darwin and his readers: Exploring interpersonal metadiscourse as a dimension of ethos. Rhetoric Review, 8(1), 91-112. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350198909388880
  15. Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1990). Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse. In W. Nash (Ed.), The writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse (pp. 118-136). Sage Publications.
  16. Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finish university students. Written Communication, 10(1), 39-71. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0741088393010001002
  17. Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of pragmatics, 40(1), 95-113.     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003
  18. Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in RAs: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36(10), 1807-1825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.004
  19. Ebadi, S., Salman, A. R., & Ebrahimi, B. (2015). A comparative study of metadiscourse markers in Persian and English academic papers. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language research, 2(4), 28-41. https://www.jallr.com/index.php/JALLR/article/view/60/pdf_57
  20. Estaji, M., & Vafaeimehr, R. (2015). A comparative analysis of interactional metadiscourse markers in the introduction and conclusion sections of Mechanical and Electrical engineering RAs. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 3(1), 37-56. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1127334.pdf
  21. Farzannia, S., & Farnia, M. (2016). Metadiscourse markers in introduction sections of Persian and English Mining engineering articles. English for Specific Purposes World, 49(17), 1-16. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301777292_Metadiscourse_Markers_in_Introduction_Sections_of_Persian_and_English_Mining_Engineering_
  22. Ghadyani, F., & Tahririan, M. H. (2015). Interactive markers in medical research articles written by Iranian and native authors of ISI and non-ISI medical journals: A contrastive metadiscourse analysis of method section. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(2), 309-317. https://doi.org/10.17507/TPLS.0502.10
  23. Ghaemi, F., & Sabadoust, G. (2017). Interactive and interactional markers in ISI and non ISI applied linguistics journal articles written by Iranian authors: A contrastive metadiscourse analysis of method section. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 4(1), 89-108. https://jmrels.journals.ikiu.ac.ir/article_1062.html
  24. Gholami, J., & Ilgamit, R. (2016). Metadiscourse markers in biology RAs and journal impact factors: Non-native writers vs. native writers. Journal of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 44(4), 349-360.       https://iubmb.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/bmb.20961
  25. Gillaerts, P., & De Velde, F. V. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 128-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.004
  26. Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 13(3), 239-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906%20(94)90004-3.
  27. Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science RAs. Applied Linguistics, 17(4), 433-454.  https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.4.433
  28. Hyland, K. (1998). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. TEXT, 18(3), 349-382. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1998.18.3.349
  29. Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 3-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00025-2
  30. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Longman.
  31. Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001
  32. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse. Continuum.
  33. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2018). In this paper we suggest: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse. English for Specific Purposes, 51, 18-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.02.001.
  34. Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156
  35. Jiang, F. K., & Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscoursive nouns: Interaction and cohesion in abstracts moves. English for Specific Purposes, 46, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2016.11.001
  36. Kahkesh, M., & Alipour, M. (2017). A comparative analysis of metadiscourse markers in the result and discussion sections of literatures and engineering RAs. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 9, 71-82. https://dx.doi.org/10.22111/ijals.2018.4192
  37. Keshavarz, M. H., & Kheiri, Z. (2011). Metadiscourse elements in English RAs written by native English and non-native Iranian writers in applied linguistics and civil engineering. Journal of English Studies, 1(3), 3-15.    https://journals.srbiau.ac.ir/article_5602_3405df545c74a5dbe3d33dbe2d5fb4ac.pdf
  38. Le, E. (2004). Active participation within written argumentation: Metadiscourse and editorialist’s authority. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(4), 687-714. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00032-8.
  39. Mur-Duenas, P. (2011). An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in RAs written in English and Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(12), 3068-3079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.002
  40. Musa, A. M., & Hussin, S. (2020). Interactional metadiscourse strategies in academic discourse: An analysis of research articles produced by Arab writers. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 28(1), 35-52.  http://www.pertanika.upm.edu.my/pjssh/browse/regular-issue?article=JSSH-3245-2018
  41. Pooresfahani, A. F., Khajavy, G. H., & Vahidinia, F. (2012). A contrastive study of metadiscourse elements in RAs written by Iranian Applied Linguistics and engineering writers in English. English Linguistics Research, 1(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.5430/elr.v1n1p88
  42. Sahragard, R., & Yazdanpanah, S. (2017). English engagement markers: A comparison of humanities and science journal articles. Language Art, 2(1), 111-130. https://doi.org/10.22046/LA.2017.06
  43. Schiffrin, D. (1980). Meta-talk: Organizational and evaluative brackets in discourse. Sociological Inquiry, 50(3), 199-236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00021.x.
  44. Shafqat, A., Arain, F., & Dahraj, M. T. (2020). A corpus analysis of metadiscourse markers used in argumentative essays by Pakistani undergraduate students. International Journal of Psychological rehabilitation, 24(4), 341-351.           https://doi.org/10.37200/IJPR/V24I4/PR201013
  45. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis. Cambridge University Press.
  46. Trowler, P., Saunders, M., & Bamber, V. (2012). Tribes and territories in the 21st century. Routledge.
  47. VandeKopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1) 82-93. https://doi.org/10.2307/357609
  48. VandeKopple, W. (2002). Metadiscourse, discourse, and issues in composition and rhetoric. In E. Barton & G. Stygall (Eds.), Discourse studies in composition (pp. 45-76). Hampton Press.
  49. Zali, M. M., Mohamad, R., Setia, R., Baniamin, R., & Razlan, R. M. (2020). Interactional metadiscourse analysis of evaluative essays. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 5, 120-129. https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=ql9UxbsAAAAJ&citation_for_view=ql9UxbsAAAAJ:d1gkVwhDpl0C.
  50. Zarei, G. R., & Mansoori, S. (2011). A contrastive study on metadiscourse elements used in humanities vs. non humanities across Persian and English. English Language Teaching, 4(1), 42-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n1p42
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 511
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 178


Contact Us | Help & Support | Site Map

Journal Management System. Designed by sinaweb.