دانشگاه الزهرا

  اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات24
تعداد شماره‌ها796
تعداد مقالات6,575
تعداد مشاهده مقاله9,652,642
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله7,326,569
زارع, جواد, ناصری, زهره سادات. (1400). ساختار بلاغی مقدمه در مقالات مروری انگلیسی. جلوه هنر, 13(41), 167-188. doi: 10.22051/jlr.2021.34140.1958
جواد زارع; زهره سادات ناصری. "ساختار بلاغی مقدمه در مقالات مروری انگلیسی". جلوه هنر, 13, 41, 1400, 167-188. doi: 10.22051/jlr.2021.34140.1958
زارع, جواد, ناصری, زهره سادات. (1400). 'ساختار بلاغی مقدمه در مقالات مروری انگلیسی', جلوه هنر, 13(41), pp. 167-188. doi: 10.22051/jlr.2021.34140.1958
زارع, جواد, ناصری, زهره سادات. ساختار بلاغی مقدمه در مقالات مروری انگلیسی. جلوه هنر, 1400; 13(41): 167-188. doi: 10.22051/jlr.2021.34140.1958

ساختار بلاغی مقدمه در مقالات مروری انگلیسی

زبان پژوهی
مقاله 7، دوره 13، شماره 41، دی 1400، صفحه 167-188  XML اصل مقاله (498.88 K)
نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22051/jlr.2021.34140.1958
نویسندگان
جواد زارع email orcid 1؛ زهره سادات ناصریorcid 2
1دکتری تخصصی زبان‌شناسی کاربردی، استادیار گروه زبان‌شناسی کاربردی، دانشگاه کوثر بجنورد
2دکتری تخصصی زبان‌شناسی، استادیار زبان‌شناسی همگانی، دانشگاه شهید چمران اهواز
چکیده
هدف از انجام این پژوهش، بررسیِ ساختار بلاغیِ بخشِ مقدمة مقاله­ های مروریِ نظری انگلیسی چاپ‌شده در مجله‌های معتبر بین­ المللیِ رشته­ های زبان‌شناسی و زبان‌شناسی کاربردی است. به این منظور، روش تحلیلی دو مرحله ­ایِ مبتنی بر گام و زیرگام، با رویکرد تحلیلی کلامیِ پیکره ­محورِ از بالا به پائین به کار گرفته شد. مجموعه­ ای متشکل از 100 مقدمة مقالة مروریِ نظری انگلیسی‌ زبانِ چاپ‌شده در مجله‌های معتبرِ بین ­المللی انگلیسی‌ زبان، مبنایِ انجام این پژوهش قرار گرفت. یافته‌های این پژوهش نشان داد که نخست، از جنبة ویژگی‌های بلاغی، مقدمة مقاله‌های مروریِ نظریِ انگلیسی با مقدمة مقاله‌های پژوهشی اندکی تفاوت دارند. دوم آنکه، این تفاوت به بهره‌گیری از سه گام زیر به­ همراه زیرگام­ هایشان مربوط می‌شود. این گام­ها و زیرگام­ها مشتمل اند بر (1) معرفی حوزه: الف) بیان اهمیت/محوریت موضوع، ب) ارائه خلاصه‌ یافته‌های پژوهش‌های موجود و استنباط از آن­ها؛ (2) معرفی شکاف مطالعاتی/پرسش پژوهش: الف)  اشاره به شکاف موجود، ب) طرح پرسش؛ (3) معرفی پژوهش حاضر: الف) بیان اهداف پژوهش حاضر، ب) ارائه فرضیه، پ) بیان تعریف‌ها/ توضیح‌ها، ت) ارائه یافته­ ها و پیامدها، ث) بیان ساختار کلی مقاله. دامنه و فراوانی بالای این گام­ها و شباهت آن­ها با گام­های مقدمة مقاله‌های پژوهشی، نمایانگر اهمیت و جامعیت آن‌ها، بدون در نظر گرفتن ویژگی­ های فردی است. از یافته­ های پژوهش حاضر می­توان برای ارائة یک مدل بلاغی پیکره ­محور و تهیه مطالب درسی مرتبط با نگارش علمی و آموزش نگارش مقالات مرروی نظری بهره گرفت.
 
کلیدواژه‌ها
مقاله­ های مروری نظری انگلیسی؛ مقدمه؛ ساختار بلاغی
عنوان مقاله [English]
The Rhetorical Structure of Introductions in English Review Articles
نویسندگان [English]
Javad Zare1؛ Zohreh Sadat Naseri2
1Assistant professor of applied linguistics, Kosar University of Bojnord
2Assistant professor of general linguistics, Department of English Language, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz,
چکیده [English]
INTRODUCTION                                                                                                                                                       
Review articles are important in academic research. Therefore, the reader can read only one review article instead of several research articles. Moreover, review articles have a higher citation rate than other articles and can thus increase the impact factor of journals. Yet, these types of articles are not very common and very few of them are published in scientific journals, especially in the fields of linguistics and applied linguistics. One of the reasons for the very few number of such articles is that such articles are difficult to write. Unfortunately, research on such articles is rare. To the best of our knowledge, only Zare & Naseri (2021) have examined the rhetorical structure of English conceptual review articles.
Zare & Naseri (2021) examined the moves and steps, used in the abstracts of English conceptual review articles, published in linguistics and applied linguistics fields in prestigious international journals. Based on their observations, the writers of English conceptual review articles use moves and sub-moves in their abstracts which are different from those. These moves include a) territory, b) problem, c) purpose, d) structure, and e) conclusion. The ‘territory’ move clarifies the scope of the paper and summarizes the results of previous research. The ‘problem’ move points to the abundance of research and indicates a gap or a problem in the field. The ‘purpose’ move expresses the goals of the article and states limitations in the scope of the article, if any. The ‘structure’ move describes the methodology and structure of the article. Finally, the ‘conclusion’ move reflects the author's views and suggestions, and expresses the relevance and contribution of these views to previous research. The purpose of this study was to investigate the rhetorical structure of the introduction section of English conceptual review articles, published in prestigious international journals in the fields of linguistics and applied linguistics.
 

MATERIALS AND METHOD
A corpus consisting of the introduction section of 100 English-language conceptual review articles formed the basis of this study. These articles had been published in international highprofile journals in linguistics and applied linguistics from 2000 to 2018. Each major (linguistics and applied linguistics) accounted for 50 articles. In selecting the articles, different authorship aspects such as the number of authors, nationality, English language level, and whether English was their mother tongue or not were not considered. Also, only articles with separate introduction sections formed the corpus. In terms of the analytical procedure, a two-stage analytical method, based on move and sub-move, with a top-down corpus-driven discourse-analytic genre analysis approach was used. The top-down approach refers to the recognition of moves and sub-moves based on the rhetorical functions of discourse units, rather than their lexical or structural features. The corpus-driven approach refers to the fact that in order to examine the rhetorical structure of English conceptual review articles, the researchers of this study approached the articles in the corpus with a blank slate and without considering what earlier research had to offer. Therefore, we first studied some of the articles to see what moves emerged. Then, we examined them in the entire corpus. MAXQDA 2018 was used to detect and code the moves and sub-moves. After coding the moves and sub-moves, their range and frequency distribution were calculated. A third coder was invited in case disagreements happened between the two coders.
 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results of this study showed that, firstly, in terms of rhetorical structure, the introduction of English conceptual review articles is slightly different from the introduction of research articles. Second, this difference is related to the use of the following three moves, along with their sub-moves. These moves and sub-moves are: (a) Introducing the field, including 1) Expressing the importance/ centrality of the subject, 2) Summarizing the results of existing studies and inferring from them, (b) Stating the gap/ research question in the field, including 1 ) Referring to the existing gap, 2) Stating the question(s), (c) Introducing the present research, including 1) Expressing the objectives of the present research, 2) Presenting the hypothesis, 3) Presenting definitions/ explanations, 4) Presenting findings and implications, 6) Expressing the general structure of the article. The high frequency and range of these moves and their similarity to the moves of introductions in research articles indicate their importance and comprehensiveness, regardless of individual characteristics.
 

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
The results of the present study, although not definitive, considering the limitations of the research, can be useful. Theoretically, the findings of the present study can be used to provide a corpus-driven rhetorical model for the introduction of English conceptual review articles. Practically, the results of the present study can be used to prepare textbooks, related to the writing of such articles, and teach them to those who do not have sufficient knowledge of English or even those who have a high command of English, but have difficulty in writing English conceptual review articles.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
Rhetorical Structure, The English Conceptual Review Article, The Introduction
سایر فایل های مرتبط با مقاله
مراجع
  1. زارع، جواد (1398). «دسته‌بندی و بررسی عبارات نشانگر اهمیت مطلب بر اساس نقش کلامی و موقعیت قرارگیری در ارائه‌های علمی فارسی». زبان‌پژوهی. سال 11. شماره 32. صص 231-252.
  2. Amnuai, W., & Wannaruk, A. (2013). Move analysis if the conclusion sections of research articles published in international and Thai journals. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 19(2), 53-63.
  3. Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition /Culture /Power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  4. Connor, U., Davis, K., & De Rycker, T. (1995). Correctness and clarity in applying for overseas jobs: a cross-cultural analysis of U.S. and Flemish applications. Text, 15(4), 457-475.
  5. Cortes, V. (2013). The purpose of this study is to: Connecting lexical bundles and moves in research article introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(1), 33-43.
  6. Cross, C., & Oppenheim, C. (2006). A genre analysis of scientific abstracts. Journal of Documentation, 62(4), 428-446.  https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410610700953
  7. Dochy, F. (2006). A guide for writing scholarly articles or reviews for the educational research review. Educational Research Review, 4(1-2), 1-21.
  8. Gasparyan, A. Y. (2010). Thoughts on impact factors and editing of medical journals. Inflamm Allergy Drug Targets, 9, 2-5. https://doi.org/10.2174/187152810791292908.
  9. Gravetter, F. J., & Forzano, L. B. (2016). Research methods for the behavioral sciences (6nd         ed). Boston, Massachusetts, United States: Cengage Learning.
  10. Hagger, M. S. (2012). What makes a ‘good’ review article? Some reflections and recommendations. Health Psychology Review, 6(2), 141-146.
  11. Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005). Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. English for       Specific Purposes, 24(3), 269-292. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2004.08.003
  12. Kawase, T. (2018). Rhetorical structure of the introductions of applied linguistics PhD Dissertation. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 31, 18-27 
  13. Lim, J. M. H. (2012). How do writers establish research niches? A genre-based investigation into management researchers’ rhetorical steps and linguistic mechanisms. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(3), 229-245
  14. Loi, C.K. (2010). Research article introductions in Chinese and English: A comparative genre-based study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(4), 267-279
  15. Mahzari, A. (2008). A contrastive study of the introduction section genre of English and Persian medical research articles. Iranian Journal of Language Studies, 1(3), 373-384.
  16. Mayer, P. (2009). Guidelines for writing a Review Article. Zurich-Basel Plant Science Center. Retrived from <http://www.plantscience.ethz.ch/education/Masters/courses/Scientific_Writing>.
  17. Moghaddasi, Sh., & Graves, H.A.B. (2017). “Since Hadwiger’s conjection is still open”: Establishing a niche for research in discrete mathematics research article introductions. English for Specific Purposes, 45, 69-85
  18. Moreno, A. I., & Swales, J. M. (2018). Strengthening move analysis methodology towards bridging        the function-form gap. English for Specific Purposes, 50(1), 40-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.11.006
  19. Ozturk, I. (2007). The textual organization of research article introductions in applied linguistics: Variability within a single discipline. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 25-38
  20. Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (2007). Thesis and dissertation writing in a second language: A handbook for supervisors. UK: Routledge.
  21. Petticrew, M, & Roberts H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Hoboken: Blackwell Publishing.
  22. Pho, P. D. (2008). Research article abstracts in applied linguistics and educational technology: A study of linguistic realizations of a study of rhetorical structure and authorial stance. Discourse Studies, 10(2), 231-250.
  23. Rahimi, S., & Farnia, M. (2017). Comparative generic analysis of introductions of English and    Persian dentistry research articles. Research in English Language Pedagogy, 5(1), 27-40.
  24. Rubio, M. M. (2012). A pragmatic approach to the macro-structure and metadiscoursal features of research article introductions in the field of Agricultural Sciences. English for Specific Purposes, 30(4), 258-271
  25. Samraj, B. (2002). Introductions in research articles: Variation across disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 1-17.
  26. Santos, M. B. (1996). The textual organization of research paper abstracts in applied linguistics. Text, 16(4), 481-499. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1996.16.4.481
  27. Shehzad, W. (2008). Move two: Establishing a niche. Ibérica, 15, 25–50.
  28. Sheldon, E. (2011). Rhetorical differences in RA introductions written by English L1 and L2 and Castilian Spanish L1 writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10, 238-251.
  29. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  30. Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  31. Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2009). Abstracts and the writing of abstracts. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
  32. Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2010). From text to task: Putting research on abstracts to work. In M. F. Ruiz-Garrido, J. C. Palmer-Silveira, & I. Fortanet Goméz (Eds.), English for professional and academic purposes (pp. 167-180). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
  33. Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2012). Academic writing for graduate students, 3rd edition: essential skills and tasks. Michigan: Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
  34. Tankó, G. (2017). Literary research article abstracts: An analysis of rhetorical moves and their linguistic realizations. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 27(1), 42-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.04.003
  35. Tognini-Bonelli, E. (2001). Corpus linguistics at work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  36. Uman, L. S. (2011). Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,         20(1), 57-59.
  37. Virgo, J. A. (1971). The review article: Its characteristics and problems. The Library Quarterly, 41(4), 275-291.
  38. Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), xiii-xxiii.
  39. Zare, J. (2019). An investigation and classification of importance highlighting expressions based on discourse function and positioning. Zabanpazhuhi, 11 (32), 231-252. doi:10.22051/JLR.2018.18087.1456 [In Persian].
  40. Zare, J., & Naseri, Z. (2020). Lexical bundles in English review articles. Iranian Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 41-56.
  41. Zare, J., & Naseri, Z. (2021). Communicative moves in English conceptual review article abstracts: A genre-based corpus-driven discourse analytic approach. Langauge Related Research, 12(1), 1-30.
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 318
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 71


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب