Document Type : Review Article


Assistant Professor of English Language Teaching, ٍEnglish Language Department, Maragheh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Maragheh, Iran


This paper assumes that developing strong models of academic discourse analysis would not by itself guarantee researchers’ access to the realities of academic communication and that any development in the theory of academic discourse analysis should also be informed and equipped with developments in wider applied linguistics research methodology. The current paper proposes that the departure point of this dialogue between academic discourse theory and research methodology should be the concept of “triangulation”. While in applied linguistics research context, the concept has been defined as a research strategy aiming at developing diverse dimensions to approach the phenomena under investigation, I have argued that triangulation should be redefined and further operationalized in light of the realities of academic discourses and the very demands and desires of academic discourse researchers. To do so, a set of options including genre-based triangulation, culture-based triangulation, discipline-based triangulation, language-based triangulation, mode-based triangulation, time-based triangulation, expertise-based triangulation, analyst-based triangulation, corpus-based triangulation, and audience-based triangulation has been proposed.


Main Subjects

Article Title [Persian]

ما نیازمند افق های نو هستیم: در جستجوی گزینه هایی جهت سه‌سویه‌سازی مطالعات گفتمانهای آکادمیک

Author [Persian]

  • دکتر داود کوهی

استادیار آموزش زبان انگلیسی، گروه زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد مراغه، مراغه، ایران

Abstract [Persian]

مقاله حاضر بر این استدلال تاکید می­ورزد که ایجاد الگوهای جامع و کارآمد تحلیل گفتمان­های آکادمیک صرفا از طریق توسعه  نظریه­های گفتمان محور ممکن نیست و برای حصول به چنین چهارچوبی باید میان حوزه پژوهش گفتمان­های آکادمیک و حوزه گسترده­تر پژوهش در زبانشناسی کاربردی تعامل بیشتری صورت گیرد. به نظر محقق، این مکالمه مفهومی بین دو حوزه مذکور با تاکید بر مفهوم سه­سویه­سازی میسر خواهد شد. هر چند مفهوم سه­سویه­سازی در مطالعات زبانشناسی کاربردی به عنوان رهیافتی پژوهشی برای ایجاد امکان نگاهی چند بعدی به پدیده­ها مورد توجه قرار گرفته است، اما مولف بر این عقیده است که مفهوم مذکور نیازمند تعریف و عملیاتی­سازی دوباره در محیط مطالعات تحلیل گفتمان آکادمیک می­باشد. از این رو تلاش می­شود محصول این باز­تعریف و عملیاتی­سازی در قالب الگویی اولیه ارائه شود. به اعتقاد مولف، این الگو در صورت توجه به ویژگی­های ناظر بر واقعیتهای ارتباطات آکادمیک می­تواند زوایای جدیدی برای کشف ابعاد پیچیده گفتمان­های آکادمیک فراهم سازد.

Keywords [Persian]

  • گفتمان آکادمیک
  • تحلیل گفتمان آکادمیک
  • زبانشناسی کاربردی
  • رهیافت پزوهشی
  • سه سویه سازی
Babapoor, M., & Kuhi, D. (2018). Popularization of scientific discourses and penetration of informal elements. The Journal of Applied Linguistics and Applied Literature, 6(2), 49-97.
Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual inquiry and the culture of disciplines. Society for Research in Higher Education and Open University Press.
Belcher, D., & Braine, G. (1995). Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy.  Praeger.
Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/culture/power. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bhatia, V. (2004). Worlds of written discourse: A genre-based view. Continuum.
Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Carnell, E., MacDonald, J., McCallum, B., & Scott, M. (2008). Passion and politics: Academics reflect on writing for publication. University of London.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). Routledge.
Curry, M. J. (2014). Graphics and invention in academic engineers’ writing for publication. In M. J. Curry & D. I. Hanauer (Eds.), Language, literacy, and learning in STEM education: Research methods and perspectives from applied linguistics (pp. 87-106). John Benjamins.
Denzin, N. (1970). The research art in sociology. Croom Helm.
Devitt, A. (1991). Intertextuality in tax accounting: Generic, referential, and functional. In C. Bazerman, & J.
Paradis (Eds.), Textual dynamics of the professions: Historical and contemporary studies of writing in professional  communities (pp. 336-357). University of Wisconsin Press.
Devitt, A. J. (1997). Genre as a language standard. In W. Bishop & H. Ostrum (Eds.), Genre and writing (pp. 45-46). Boynton/Cook.
Dudley-Evans, T. (1994). Genre analysis: An approach to text analysis for ESP. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 219-228). Routledge.
Fleck, L. (1979). The genesis and development of a scientific fact. University of Chicago Press.
Hashemi, M. R. (2020). Expanding the scope of mixed method research in applied linguistics. In J. Mc Kinley & H. Rose (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of research methods in applied linguistics (pp.39-51). Routledge.
Hewings, M. (2004). An ‘important contribution’ or ‘tiresome reading’? A study of evaluation in peer reviews of journal article submissions. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 247-274.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2006). English for academic purposes: An advanced resource book. Routledge.
Khoshsima, H., Talati-Baghsiahi, A., Zare-Behtash, E., & Safaei-Qalati, M. (2018). Interactional metadiscourse in the writings of novice vs. established members of academic communities. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 22, 63-86.
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge.
Kuhi, D., & Behnam, B. (2011). Generic variations and metadiscourse use in the writing of applied linguists: A comparative study and preliminary framework. Written Communication. 28(1), 97-141.
Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Li, Y. (2005). Multidimensional enculturation: The case of an EFL Chinese doctoral student. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 15, 53-70.
Li, Y. (2007). Apprentice scholarly writing in a community of practice: An interview of an NNES graduate student writing a research article. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 55-79.
Lillis, T. M., & Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic writing in a global context: The politics and practices of publishing in English. Routledge.
Miller, J. C. (1984). Culture and the development of everyday social explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46 (5), 961-78.
Mur Dueñas, P. (2012). Getting research published internationally in English: An ethnographic account of a team of Finance Spanish scholars’ struggles. Ibérica, 24, 139-156.
Paltridge, B., Starfield, S., Ravelli, L., Nicholson, S., & Tuckwell, K. (2012b). Doctoral writing in the visual and performing arts: Two ends of a continuum. Studies in Higher Education, 37, 989-1003.
Paltridge, B., Starfield, S., Ravelli, L., & Tuckwell, K. (2012a). Change and stability: Examining the macrostructures of doctoral theses in the visual and performing arts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11, 332-344.
Paltridge, B. (2004). The exegesis as a genre: An ethnographic examination. In L. Ravelli & R. Ellis (Eds.), Analyzing academic writing: Contextualized frameworks (pp. 84-103). Continuum.
Paltridge, B. (2012).  Discourse analysis (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury.
Paltridge, B. (2017). The discourse of peer review: Reviewing submissions to academic journals. Palgrave Macmillan.
Paltridge, B. (2020). Multi-perspective research. In J. Mc Kinley & H. Rose (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of research methods in applied linguistics (pp.20-38). Routledge.
Ravelli, L., Paltridge, B., Starfield, S., & Tuckwell, K. (2013). Extending the notion of text: The creative arts doctoral thesis. Visual Communication, 12, 395-422.
Rezaei, S., Kuhi, D., & Saeidi, M. (2020). Gearing discursive practice to the evolution of discipline: Diachronic corpus analysis of stance markers in research articles’ methodology section. The Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice, 12 (25), 219-235.
Riazi, M. (2016). The Routledge encyclopedia of research methods in applied linguistics. Routledge.
Pun, J. (2020). Interdisciplinary research. In J. Mc Kinley & H. Rose (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of research methods in applied linguistics (pp.108-121). Routledge.
Severo, C. G., & Makoni, S. B. (2020). Solidarity and the politics of ‘us’: How far can individuals go in language policy? Research methods in non-western contexts. In J. Mc Kinley & H. Rose (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of research methods in applied linguistics (pp.87-97). Routledge.
Soltani, K., Kuhi, D., & Hadidi, N. (2021). Move recycling in soft science research articles: English native speakers vs. Iranian speakers. Journal of Language Horizons, 5(2), 115-137.
Starfield, S., Paltridge, B., & Ravelli, L. (2012). “Why do we have to write?” Practice-based theses in the visual and performing arts and the place of writing. In V. K. Bhatia, C. Berkenkotter, & M. Gotti (Eds.), Insights into academic genres (pp. 169–190). Peter Lang.
Swales, J. M. (1981). Aspects of article introductions. The University of Aston, Language Studies Unit.
Swales, J. M. (1985). English as an international language of research. RELC Journal, 16(1), 1-7.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. (1997). English as a tyrannosaurus rex. World Englishes, 16, 373-82.  971X.00071.
Swales, J. M. (1998). Textography: Toward a contextualization of written academic discourse. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 31, 109-121.
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. (2018). Other floors, other voices: A textography of a small university building (20th anniversary ed.). University of Michigan Press.
Swales, J. M., Ahmed, U. K., Chang, Y., Chavez, D., Dressen, D. F., & Seymour, R. (1998). Consider this: The role of imperatives in scholarly writing. Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 97-121.
Vasheghani Farhani, M. (2020). Metadiscourse in academic written and spoken English: A comparative corpus based inquiry. Research in Language, 18(3), 319-341.
Ventola, E. (1992). Writing scientific English: Overcoming intercultural problems. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 191-220.
Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz R. D., & Sechrest, L. (1966). Unobtrusive measures: Nonreactive research in the social sciences. Rand McNally.
Yakhontova, T. (2002). ‘Selling’ or ‘telling’? The issue of cultural variation in research genres. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 216-232). Longman.