دانشگاه الزهرا

  اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات25
تعداد شماره‌ها932
تعداد مقالات7,652
تعداد مشاهده مقاله12,494,309
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله8,885,695
Soltani, Kimia, Kuhi, Davud, Hadidi Tamjid, Nasrin. (1400). Move Recycling in Soft Science Research Articles: English Native Speakers vs. Iranian Speakers. جلوه هنر, 5(2), 115-137. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2021.33356.1376
Kimia Soltani; Davud Kuhi; Nasrin Hadidi Tamjid. "Move Recycling in Soft Science Research Articles: English Native Speakers vs. Iranian Speakers". جلوه هنر, 5, 2, 1400, 115-137. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2021.33356.1376
Soltani, Kimia, Kuhi, Davud, Hadidi Tamjid, Nasrin. (1400). 'Move Recycling in Soft Science Research Articles: English Native Speakers vs. Iranian Speakers', جلوه هنر, 5(2), pp. 115-137. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2021.33356.1376
Soltani, Kimia, Kuhi, Davud, Hadidi Tamjid, Nasrin. Move Recycling in Soft Science Research Articles: English Native Speakers vs. Iranian Speakers. جلوه هنر, 1400; 5(2): 115-137. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2021.33356.1376

Move Recycling in Soft Science Research Articles: English Native Speakers vs. Iranian Speakers

Journal of Language Horizons
مقاله 6، دوره 5، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 10، مهر 2021، صفحه 115-137    اصل مقاله (491.1 K)
نوع مقاله: Research article
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22051/lghor.2021.33356.1376
نویسندگان
Kimia Soltani1؛ Davud Kuhi* 2؛ Nasrin Hadidi Tamjid3
1PhD Candidate, Department of English, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran
2Assistant Professor, Department of English, Maragheh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Maragheh, Iran.
3Assistant Professor, Department of English, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran.
چکیده
Inspired by intercultural rhetoric theories and their distinctions between big and small cultures, the current study strived to investigate whether Move Recycling (MR) in English soft science research articles (RAs) was sensitive to cultural and disciplinary variations. To this end, 600 English RAs, half of which were written by Iranians and the other half by native English authors in six soft science disciplines, published from 2006 to 2018, were selected. Weissberg and Buker’s (1990) Move model was used to determine the main Moves prevalent in the RAs; then, the frequencies of recycled Moves in various sections of the RAs were calculated. The quantitative data analysis results revealed that the use of MR was not associated with the authors’ cultural background. However, some differences were found in the distribution of recycled Moves across RA sections and disciplines. That is, MR was most frequently found in the Discussion and least frequently in the Method sections. Moreover, it was most often observed in Economics RAs and least often in Psychology RAs, which was attributed to discipline-specific conventions. In the qualitative phase of the study, some RA authors’ rationales for using MR elicited via emails underwent content analysis, and their three common reasons for using MR, including reader guidance, discipline conventions, and RA length, were identified. The findings of this study may serve as a guide for course designers to prepare discipline-specific materials for EAP writing classes in which MR is emphasized.
کلیدواژه‌ها
big culture؛ intercultural rhetoric؛ move recycling؛ small culture؛ soft sciences
عنوان مقاله [English]
تکرارپذیری حرکت‌های متنی-کارکردی در مقاله‌های پژوهشیِ علوم نرم: انگلیسی زبانان در مقابل فارسی زبانان
نویسندگان [English]
کیمیا سلطانی1؛ داود کوهی2؛ نسرین حدیدی تمجید3
1دانشجوی دکتری، گروه زبان انگلیسی، واحد تبریز، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تبریز، ایران
2استادیار گروه زبان انگلیسی، واحد مراغه، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، مراغه، ایران.
3استادیار گروه زبان انگلیسی، واحد تبریز، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تبریز، ایران.
چکیده [English]
پژوهش حاضر، با الهام از نظریه‌های بلاغت بینافرهنگی و تمایز‌هایشان میان فرهنگ‌های کوچک و بزرگ، کوشید تا بررسی کند که آیا تکرارپذیری حرکت‌های متنی-کارکردی در مقاله‌های انگلیسی علوم نرم به متغیرهای فرهنگی و بینارشته‌ای حساس است. به این منظور، ۶۰۰ مقاله پژوهشی انگلیسی، که نیمی از آن‌ها به وسیلة نویسندگان ایرانی و نیمی دیگر توسط نویسنده‌های انگلیسی‌زبان در ۶ حوزة علم نرم نوشته شده، از 2006 تا 2018 چاپ شده بودند، انتخاب گردیدند. مدل حرکت ویسبرگ و بوکر (1990) به کار گرفته شد تا حرکت‌های فراگیر اصلی در مقاله‌های پژوهشی مشخص گردد؛ سپس، فراوانی‌های حرکت‌های متنی-کارکردی در بخش‌های مختلف مقاله‌های پژوهشی اندازه‌گیری شود. یافته‌های تحلیل کمی داده‌ها نشان داد که کاربرد حرکت‌های متنی-کارکردی با پیشینه فرهنگی نویسندگان مرتبط نبود. هر چند، برخی تفاوت‌ها در پراکندگی حرکت‌های تکرارپذیر در حوزه‌ها و بخش‌های مقالات پژوهشی یافت ‌شدند. به این معنا که حرکت‌های متنی-کارکردی تکراری، بیشترین فراوانی را در بخش بحث و کمترین فراوانی را در قسمت روش به دست دادند. افزون بر این، غالباً بیشترین میزان فراوانی در مقاله‌های پژوهشی رشته اقتصاد و کمترین آن در مقاله‌های پژوهشی رشته روان‌شناسی دیده شد که به قرادادهای خاصِ رشته نسبت داده شد. در مرحله کیفی پژوهش، استدلال‌های برخی نویسندگان مقاله‌های پژوهشی برای بهره‌گیری از حرکت‌های متنی-کارکردی تکراری که با ایمیل به دست آمده بود، مورد تحلیل محتوایی قرار گرفت و سه دلیل رایج‌شان برای استفاده از حرکت‌های متنی-کارکردی، از قبیل راهنمایی خواننده، قراردادهای حوزه‌ای، و طول مقاله پژوهشی مشخص شد. یافته‌های این پژوهش می‌تواند به عنوان راهنمایی برای طراحان دورة درسی به کار رود تا مواد خاصِ رشته برای کلاس‌های نگارش انگلیسی با اهداف دانشگاهی که در آن ها حرکت‌های متنی-کارکردی مورد تأکید قرار گرفته‌اند، فراهم شود.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
فرهنگ بزرگ, بلاغت کلامی بینافرهنگی, تکرارپذیری حرکت‌های متنی-کارکردی, فرهنگ کوچک, علوم نرم
مراجع
  1. Afshar, H. S., Doosti, M., & Movassagh, H. (2018). A genre analysis of the introduction section of applied linguistics and chemistry research articles. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 21(1), 163-214. http://ijal.khu.ac.ir/article-1-2856-fa.html
  2. Amnuai, W., & Wannaruk, A. (2013). Investigating move structure of English applied linguistics research article discussions published in international and Thai journals. English Language Teaching, 6(2), 1-13. http://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n2p1
  3. Atai, M. R., & Falah, S. (2005). A contrastive genre analysis of result and discussion sections of applied linguistic research articles written by native and non-native English speakers with respect to evaluated entities and ascribed values. http://www.paaljapan. org/resources/proceedings/PAAL10/pdfs/atai.pdf
  4. Atkinson, D. (1999). Scientific discourse in sociohistorical context. Erlbaum.
  5. Atkinson, D. (2004). Contrasting rhetorics/contrasting cultures: Why contrastive rhetoric needs a better conceptualization of culture. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(4), 277-289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2004.07.002
  6. Basturkmen, H. (2009). Commenting on results in published research articles and master’s dissertations in language teaching. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(4), 241-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2009.07.001
  7. Basturkmen, H. (2012). A genre-based investigation of discussion sections of research articles in dentistry and disciplinary variation. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 134-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.10.004
  8. Behnam, B., & Golpour, F. (2014). A genre analysis of English and Iranian research articles abstracts in applied linguistics and mathematics. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 3(5), 173-179.          http://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.5p.173
  9. Bhatia, V. K. (1997). Introduction: Genre analysis and world Englishes. World Englishes, 16(3), 313-319. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-971X.00066
  10. Chalak, A., & Norouzi, Z. (2013). Rhetorical moves and verb tense in abstracts: A comparative
  11. analysis of American and Iranian academic writing. International Journal of Language Studies, 7(4), 101-110. http://www.ijls.net/pages/volume/vol7no4.html
  12. Chen, T. Y., & Kuo, C. H. (2012). A genre-based analysis of the information structure of master’s theses in applied linguistics. The Asian ESP Journal, 8(1), 24-52. https://www.asian-esp-journal.com/april-2012/
  13. Connor, U. (2004). Intercultural rhetoric research: Beyond texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(4), 291-304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2004.07.003
  14. Connor, U., & Rozycki, W. (2013). ESP and intercultural rhetoric. In B. Paltridge & S. Starfield (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes (pp.427-443). Wiley-Blackwell.
  15. Cooper, C. (1985). Aspects of article introductions in IEEE publications [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Aston.
  16. Crookes, G. (1986). Towards a validated analysis of scientific text structure. Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 57-70. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/32302578.pdf
  17. El Malik, A., & Nesi, L. (2008). Publishing research in a second language: The case of Sudanese contributors to international medical journals. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(2), 87-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.007
  18. Ershadi, S., & Farnia, M. (2015). Comparative generic analysis of discussions of English and Persian computer research articles. Culture and Communication Online, 6(6), 15-31. http://komunikacijaikultura.org/index.php/kk/article/view/283
  19. Farzannia, S., & Farnia, M. (2017). Genre-based analysis of English and Persian research article abstracts in mining engineering journals. Beyond Words, 5(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.33508/bw.v5i1.1111
  20. Ge, D. M., & Yang, R. Y. (2005). A genre analysis of research article abstracts. Modern Foreign Languages, 28(2), 138-146. https://caod.oriprobe.com/issues/332993/toc.htm
  21. Ghasemi, T., & Alavi, S. M. (2014). A comparative move analysis study of theses abstracts written by Iranian MA students of TEFL and English literature. Online International Journal of Arts and Humanities, 3(1), 5-15.
  22. Harwood, N. (2005). “We do not seem to have a theory . . . The theory I present here attempts to fill this gap”: Inclusive and exclusive pronouns in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 343-375. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami012
  23. Hirano, E. (2009). Research article introductions in English for specific purposes: A comparison between Brazilian Portuguese and English. English for Specific Purposes, 28(4), 240-250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2009.02.001
  24. Holliday, A. R. (1999). Small cultures. Applied Linguistics, 20(2), 237-264. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/20.2.237
  25. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Pearson.
  26. Hyland, K. (2002). Genre: Language, context, and literacy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 113-135. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190502000065
  27. Jalilifar, A., & Dastjerdi, H. (2010). A contrastive generic analysis of thesis and dissertation abstracts: Variations across disciplines and cultures.  Journal of the Faculty of Letters and Humanities, 26(23), 20-50. https://www.sid.ir/en/journal/JournalList.aspx?ID=276
  28. Joseph, R., & Lim, J. M. H. (2018). Background information in the discussion sections of forestry journals: A case study. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 18(1), 198-216. http://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2018-1801-12
  29. Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005). Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 24(3), 269-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2004.08.003
  30. Kanoksilapatham, B. (2007). Rhetorical moves in biochemistry articles. In D. Biber, U. Connor, & T. A. Upton (Eds.), Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure (pp. 73-119). John Benjamins.  https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.28.06kan
  31. Kanoksilapatham, B. (2015). Distinguishing textual features characterizing structural variation in research articles across three engineering sub-discipline corpora. English for Specific Purposes, 37, 74-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2014.06.008
  32. Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1966.tb00804.x
  33. Keshavarz, M. H., Atai, M. R., & Barzegar, V. (2007). A contrastive study of generic organization of research article introductions written by Iranian and non-Iranian writers in applied linguistics. Journal of Teaching English Language and Literature Society of Iran, 1(2), 13-34. https://teljournal.org/article_113086_274945bbbead3049b243f605605c5d8a.pdf
  34. Kubota, R. (1999). Japanese culture constructed by discourses: Implications for applied linguistics research and English language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 33(1), 9-35.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3588189
  35. Lim, J. M. (2006). Method sections of management research articles: A pedagogically motivated qualitative study. English for Specific Purposes, 25(3), 282-309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2005.07.001
  36. Lim, J. M. (2010). Commenting on research results in applied linguistics and education: A comparative genre-based investigation. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(4), 280-294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.10.001
  37. Lim, J. M. (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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.05.002
  38. Loi, C. K., & Evans, M. S. (2010). Cultural differences in the organization of research article introductions from the field of educational psychology: English and Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(10), 2814-2825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.03.010
  39. Martin, K. I., & Ellis, N. C. (2012). The roles of phonological short-term memory and working memory in L2 grammar and vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 379-413. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26328949
  40. Matsuda, P. K., & Atkinson, D. (2008). A conversation on contrastive rhetoric: Dwight Atkinson and Paul Kei Matsuda talk about issues, conceptualizations, and the future of contrastive rhetoric. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout, & W. Rozycki (Eds.), Contrastive rhetoric: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric (pp. 277-298). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.169.18mat
  41. Moreno, A. (2008). The importance of comparable corpora in cross-cultural studies. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout, & W. Rozycki (Eds.), Contrastive rhetoric: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric (pp. 25-41). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.169.04mor
  42. Nwogu, K., N. (1997). The medical research paper: Structure and function. English for Specific Purposes, 16(2), 119-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)85388-4
  43. Ozturk, I. (2007). The textual organization of research article introductions in ALs: Variability within a single discipline. English for Specific Purposes, 26(1), 25-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2005.12.003
  44. Peacock, M. (2002). Communicative move in discussion section of research articles. System, 30(4), 479-497. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00050-7     
  45. Peacock, M. (2011). The structure of the methods section in research articles across eight disciplines. Asian ESP Journal, 7(2), 99-144. https://scholars.cityu.edu.hk/en/publications/publication
  46. Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Erlbaum. 
  47. Pennycook, A. (2008). English as language always in translation. European Journal of English Studies, 12(1), 33-47. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825570801900521
  48. Posteguillo, S. (1999). The schematic structure of computer science research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 139-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(98)000015
  49. Rezaee, A.A., & Sayfouri, N. (2009). Iranian ISI and Non-ISI medical research articles in English: A comparative ESP/EAP move analysis. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 52(2), 136-160. https://elt.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_643.html
  50. Samraj, B. (2002). Introductions in research articles: Variations across disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 21(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00023-5
  51. Sheldon, E. (2011). Rhetorical differences in research articles introductions written by English L1 and L2 and Castilian Spanish L1 writers. English for Academic Purposes, 10(4), 238-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.08.004
  52. Sheldon, E. (2019). Knowledge construction of discussion/conclusion sections of research articles written by English L1 and L2 and Castilian Spanish L1 writers. English for Academic Purposes, 35, 13-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.11.002
  53. Spack, R. F. (1988). Initiating ESL students into the academic discourse community: How far should we go? TESOL Quarterly, 22(1), 29-52. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587060
  54. Spack, R. F.  (1997). The rhetorical construction of multilingual students. TESOL Quarterly, 31(4), 765-774. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587759
  55. Stoller, F. L. & Robinson, M. S. (2013). Chemistry journal articles: An interdisciplinary approach to move analysis with pedagogical aims. English for Specific Purposes, 32(1), 45-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2012.09.001
  56. Swales, J. M. (1981). Aspects of article introductions in ESP research reports. University of Michigan Press.
  57. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
  58. Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Exploration and applications. Cambridge University Press.
  59. Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2009). Abstracts and the writing of abstracts. University of Michigan Press.
  60. Tavakoli Gheinani, M., & Tabatabaei, O. (2018). A structural move analysis of the abstract section of ISI articles of Iranian and native scholars in the field of agricultural engineering. International Journal of Research, 7(3), 109-122 https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrsll.2017.1864
  61. Tessuto, G. (2015). Generic structure and rhetorical moves in English-language empirical law research articles: Sites of interdisciplinary and interdiscursive cross-over. English for Specific Purposes, 37, 13-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2014.06.002
  62. Weissberg, R., & Buker, S. (1990). Writing up research: Experimental research report writing for students of English. Prentice Hall.
  63. Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford University Press.
  64. Widdowson, H. G. (1979). Explorations in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
  65. Williams, I. A. (1999). Results sections of medical research articles: Analysis of rhetorical categories for pedagogical purposes. English for Specific Purposes, 18(4), 347-366. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(98)00003-9
  66. Wood, A. (2001). International scientific English: The language of research scientists around the world. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp.71-83). Cambridge University Press.
  67. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.03.002
  68. Yang, R., & Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes, 22(4), 365-384. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00026-1
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 699
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 273


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب