“Based on the data in …” Cohesive markers in Results and Discussion Section of Research Articles

Ebrahimi, Seyed Foad; Swee Heng, Chan

doi:10.22049/jalda.2019.26442.1116

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

¹ Lecturer in Applied Linguistics, Department of English, Shadegan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shadegan, Iran.

² Professor in Applied Linguistics, ELPTP Center, University Putra Malaysia (UPM), Malaysia.

https://doi.org/10.22049/jalda.2019.26442.1116

Abstract

Cohesive frames are linguistic elements that precede the grammatical subject in the main clause. This study investigated the frequencies and communicative purposes of cohesive frame types in results and discussion section of research articles from 4 disciplines. To run this study, 40 results and discussion sections of research articles were selected from 4 disciplines, namely Applied Linguistics, Psychology, Chemistry and Environmental Engineering (10 from each discipline). Then, the corpus was analyzed using Ebrahimi’s (2014) taxonomy of cohesive frame types. The results showed that writers of the four sets of results and discussion section of research articles showed similarities and differences concerning the frequencies and communicative purposes served through the use of cohesive frame markers. frequencies and communicative purposes of cohesive frame types were imposed by the rhetorical functions of results and discussion section and disciplinary conventions of writing. The results may have implications for teaching students in writing the results and discussion section of research articles, particularly for non native novice writers of English.

Keywords

20.1001.1.2383591.2019.7.1.8.5

Main Subjects

Discourse Studies

Article Title [Persian]

نشانگرهای انسجام متنی در قسمت نتایج و بحث مقالات علمی

References

Basturkmen, H. (2009). Commenting on results in published research articles and masters dissertations in Language Teaching. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(4), 241-251.

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.

Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/culture/power. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Bitchener, J. (2010). A reflection on ‘the language learning potential’of written CF. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 348-363.

Brett, P. (1994). A genre analysis of the results section of sociology articles. English for Specific Purposes, 13(1), 47-59.

Bruce, I. (2008). Cognitive genre structures in Methods sections of research articles: A corpus study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(1), 38-54.

Dressen-Hammouda, D. (2014). Measuring the voice of disciplinarity in scientific writing: A longitudinal exploration of experienced writers in geology. English for Specific Purposes, 34, 14-25.

Ebrahimi, S. F. (2014). Thematicity in English academic research articles across disciplines in hard and soft sciences, Unpublished PhD thesis, UPM, Malaysia.

Ebrahimi, S. F. (2017). “The overall aim of this work is….” Functional analysis of grammatical subject in research article introductions across four disciplines. Discourse and Interaction, 10(1), 5-30.

Gollin-Kies, S. (2014). Methods reported in ESP research articles: A comparative survey of two leading journals. English for Specific Purposes, 36, 27-34.

Gupta, R. (1995). Managing general and specific information in introductions. English for Specific Purposes, 14(1), 59-75.

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.

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.

Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005). Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 24(3), 269-292.

Kanoksilapatham, B. (2012). Research article structure of research article introductions in three engineering subdisciplines. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 55(4), 294-309.

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.

Lim, J. M. H. (2006). Method sections of management research articles: A pedagogically motivated qualitative study. English for Specific Purposes, 25(3), 282-309.

Lim, J. M. H. (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.

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.

Martín, P., & Périz, I. K. L. (2014). Convincing peers of the value of one’s research: A genre analysis of rhetorical promotion in academic texts. English for Specific Purposes, 34, 1-13.

Nguyen, L. T. T., & Pramoolsook, I. (2015). Rhetorical structure of introduction chapters written by novice Vietnamese TESOL postgraduates. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature®, 20(1), 61-74.

Ozturk, I. (2007). The textual organization of research article introductions in applied linguistics: Variability within a single discipline. English for Specific Purposes, 26(1), 25-38.

Paltridge, B. (2001). Genre and the language learning classroom. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Peacock, M. (2005). Communicative moves in the discussion section of research articles. System, 30(4), 479-497.

Salahshoor, F., & Afsari, P. (2017). An Investigation of Interactional Metadiscourse in Discussion and Conclusion Sections of Social and Natural Science Master Theses. The Journal of Applied Linguistics and Applied Literature: Dynamics and Advances, 5(2), 7-14.

Samraj, B. (2002). Introductions in research articles: Variations across disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 21(1), 1-17.

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(4), 238-251.

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research setting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. The University of Michigan: Ann Arbor.

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.

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.

“Based on the data in …” Cohesive markers in Results and Discussion Section of Research Articles

References

References

Volume 7, Issue 1March 2019Pages 83-104

Volume 7, Issue 1
March 2019
Pages 83-104