Directives in Research Articles Across Disciplines: Impoliteness Strategies or Engagement Markers?

Arizavi, Saleh

doi:10.22049/jalda.2025.30073.1734

Articles in Press

Document Type : Research Article

Author

Saleh Arizavi

Assistant Professor, Department of English for Sciences, Center for Preparatory Studies, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman

https://doi.org/10.22049/jalda.2025.30073.1734

Abstract

This study examines whether the use of directives in academic writing, esp. research articles (RAs) written in social and natural sciences, should be considered as an impoliteness strategy or engagement marker. Eighty RAs from four disciplines (two social sciences and two natural sciences) were analyzed, and 429 directives were identified. Two informants from each discipline assigned functions to the directives, and then rated them on a scale of impoliteness. Findings suggest except for text-external Implication/Suggestion directives in social sciences and Cognitive Warning directives in both social and natural sciences, which may carry shades of impoliteness, the other functions should be viewed as engagement markers. Thus, directives are not impolite strategies in this conservative genre. Furthermore, no significant differences in directive functions were observed between the two branches of science. RA authors often follow the prescriptive rules conventionalized in their fields; however, they also tend to use elements that are less legitimized in academic writing.

Keywords

Main Subjects

2. Applied Linguistics (Inspirations from neighbor disciplines)

Article Title [Persian]

ادراک مصاحبه‌شوندگان از دستورات در مقالات پژوهشی در رشته‌های مختلف: راهبردهای بی‌ادبی یا نشانگرهای تعامل؟

Author [Persian]

دکتر صالح عریضاوی

استادیار، گروه زبان انگلیسی برای علوم، مرکز مطالعات مقدماتی، دانشگاه سلطان قابوس، مسقط، عمان

Abstract [Persian]

این مطالعه بررسی می‌کند که آیا استفاده از دستورات در نوشتار آکادمیک، به‌ویژه مقالات پژوهشی (RAs) نوشته‌شده در علوم اجتماعی و طبیعی، باید به عنوان یک راهبرد بی‌ادبی در نظر گرفته شود یا یک نشانگر تعامل. هشتاد مقاله پژوهشی از چهار رشته (دو علوم اجتماعی و دو علوم طبیعی) تحلیل شدند و 429 دستور شناسایی شد. دو مصاحبهشونده از هر رشته، کارکردهایی را به دستورات اختصاص دادند و سپس آن‌ها را در مقیاسی از بی‌ادبی رتبه‌بندی کردند. یافته‌ها نشان می‌دهد که به جز دستورات تلویحی/پیشنهادی برون‌متنی در علوم اجتماعی و دستورات هشدار شناختی در هر دو علوم اجتماعی و طبیعی، که ممکن است سایه‌هایی از بی‌ادبی را به همراه داشته باشند، سایر کارکردها باید به عنوان نشانگرهای تعامل در نظر گرفته شوند. بنابراین، دستورات در این ژانر محافظه‌کارانه، راهبردهای بی‌ادبانه نیستند. علاوه بر این، هیچ تفاوت معناداری در کارکردهای دستوری بین دو شاخه علم مشاهده نشد. نویسندگان مقالات پژوهشی اغلب از قوانین تجویزی متعارف در زمینه‌های خود پیروی می‌کنند؛ با این حال، آن‌ها همچنین تمایل دارند از عناصری استفاده کنند که در نوشتار آکادمیک کمتر مشروعیت دارند.

Keywords [Persian]

نوشتار آکادمیک
دستورات
نشانگر تعامل
راهبرد بی‌ادبی
مقاله پژوهشی

References

Anthony, L. (2014). TagAnt (Version 1.1.2) [Computer Software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. Available from http://www.laurenceanthony.net/

Blitvich, P. G. C., & Sifianou, M. (2019). Im/politeness and discursive pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 91-101.

Brown, P. and Levinson, S.C. (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085

Chang, Y., & Swales, J. (1999). Informal elements in English academic writing: Threats or opportunities for advanced non-native speakers? In C. N. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, Processes, and Practices (pp. 145-167). Longman. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315840390-8

Culpeper, J. (2005). Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: The Weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behavior, Culture 1(1), 35–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.35

Culpeper, J. (2010). Conventionalized impoliteness formulae. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(12), 3232-3245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.05.007

Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975752

Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. (2013). Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203431269

Hyland, K. (2002). Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied linguistics, 23(2), 215-239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/23.2.215

Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse studies, 7(2), 173-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365

Ishak, C. N., Basthomi, Y., Widiati, U., Hidayati, M., & Yannuar, N. (2021). See: How Indonesian student writers use directives in academic texts. Journal of Education and e-Learning Research, 8(1), 65-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.20448/journal.509.2021.81.65.76

Jalilifar, A., & Mehrabi, K. (2014). A cross-disciplinary and cross-cultural study of directives in discussions and conclusions of research articles. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 2(1), 27-44.

Leech, G. N. (2014). The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001

Liggett T. (2009). Unpacking white racial identity in English language teacher education. In Kubota R. & Lin A. (Eds.), Race, Culture, and Identities in Second Language Education: Exploring Critically Engaged Practice (pp. 27–43). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Maddamsetti, J. (2020). Where all the good teachers are Cape Verdean Americans: A White teacher’s identity positionings in an urban elementary school. The Urban Review, 52(3), 100–126.

Morillo, F., Bordons, M., & Gómez, I. (2003). Interdisciplinarity in science: A tentative typology of disciplines and research areas. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(13), 1237-1249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.10326

Picower, B. (2009). The Unexamined Whiteness of Teaching: How White Teachers Maintain and Enact Dominant Racial Ideologies. Race Ethnicity and Education, 12(2), 197-215.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13613320902995475

Ronan, P. (2022). Directives and politeness in SPICE-Ireland. Corpus Pragmatics, 6(2), 175–199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41701-022-00122-x

Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1–23.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006837

Scott, M. (2015). WordSmith Tools (Version 6) [Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software]. http://lexically.net/wor dsmith/

Spencer, D., & Wilson, D. (2002). Pragmatics, modularity and mind‐reading. Mind & Language, 17(1‐2), 3-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00186

Swales, J. M., Ahmad, U. K., Chang, Y. Y., Chavez, D., Dressen, D. F., & Seymour, R. (1998). Consider this: The role of imperatives in scholarly writing. Applied linguistics, 19(1), 97-121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.1.97

Swales, J. M. & Feak, C. B. (2012). Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Tasks and Skills. University of Michigan Press ELT. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.2173936

Thompson, P., & Tribble, C. (2001). Looking at citations: Using corpora in English for Academic Purposes. Language, Learning and Technology, 5(3), 91-105.

Journal of Applied Linguistics and Applied Literature: Dynamics and Advances

Directives in Research Articles Across Disciplines: Impoliteness Strategies or Engagement Markers?

References

References

Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript
Available Online from 10 April 2025

Directives in Research Articles Across Disciplines: Impoliteness Strategies or Engagement Markers?

References

References

Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript Available Online from 10 April 2025

Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript
Available Online from 10 April 2025