عناصر فراگفتمان و چگونگی تکامل آنها در طول زمان : بررسی تکامل تاریخی نشانگرهای موضع در بخش روش شناسی مقالات تحقیقی

Subject Areas : آموزش زبان انگلیسی

شیرین  رضایی ¹ (گروه انگلیسی، واحد تبریز،دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تبریز، ایران)
داود  کوهی ² (گروه انگلیسی، واحد مراغه،دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، مراغه، ایران)
مهناز  سعیدی ³ (گروه انگلیسی، واحد تبریز،دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تبریز، ایران)

Received: 2020-09-17 Accepted : 2020-09-17 Published : 2020-01-01

Keywords: روش شناسی, زبان شناسی کاربردی, تاریخی, فراگفتمان, موضع,

Abstract :

علیرغم علاقه و تحقیقات گسترده در بین زبان شناسان کاربردی دراستفاده از عناصر فراگفتمان ، اطلاعات کمی در مورد چگونگی تکامل آنها در طول زمان در پاسخ به شیوه های در حال توسعه مجامع دانشگاهی وجود دارد . با داشتن چنین انگیزه ای ، پژوهش حاضر با استفاده از 4.3 میلیون کلمه از سه ژورنال برتر زبانشناسی کاربردی به منظور یررسی تکامل تاریخی نشانگرهای موضع در بخش روش شناسی مقالات تحقیقی از سال 1996 تا 2016 شکل گرفنه است. مدل فراگفتمان Hyland's (2005b) برای تجزیه و تحلیل مجموعه داده های انتخاب شده مورد استفاده قرار گرفت. داده ها با استفاده از نرم افزار AntConc مورد بررسی قرار گرفت (آنتونی ، 2011). علاوه بر این ، ازمونChi-Square برای تعیین اهمیت آماری یه کار گرفته شد. تجزیه و تحلیل داده ها کاهش قابل توجهی در فراوانی کلی نشانگرهای موضع در بخش روش شناسی نشان داد. جالب اینجاست که این کاهش کاملاً ناشی از کاهش کلی استفاده ازضمایرابراز خود بود. با بررسی تعاملی نوشتار آکادمیک از چنین منظر تاریخی، می توان چنین استدلال کرد که استفاده انتخابی از نشانگرهای موضع توسط نویسندگان دانشگاهی در طول زمان به معنای ان است که فراگفتمان در خلاء عمل نمی کند و نسبت به تغییرات در رشته های دانشگاهی و شیوه های آنها حساس است.

References:

Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Anthony, L. (2011). AntConc 3.4.3.   http://www.laurenceanthony.net/software.html.

Atkinson, D. (1999). Scientific discourse in sociohistorical context. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Becher, T., & Trowler, P.R. (2001). Academic Tribes and Territories. Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Benson, P., Chik, A., Gao, X., Huang, J., & Wang, W. (2009). Qualitative research in language teaching and learning journals, 1997-2006. Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 79-90.

Berliner, D. (2003). Educational research: the hardest science of all. Educational Researcher, 32, 18–20.

Brumfit, C. (2004). Applied linguistics in 2004: Unity in diversity? AILA Review, 17(1), 133-136. DOI: 10.1075/aila.17.12bru

Bygate, M. (2005). Applied linguistics: A pragmatic discipline, a generic discipline? AppliedLinguistics, 26(4),568581.https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami032

Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers: metadiscourse as rhetorical act. New York: Peter Lang.

Davies, A., & Elder, C. (Eds.). (2004). The handbook of applied linguistics.  Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Freeman, M., DeMarrais, K., Preissle, J., Roulston, K., & St. Pierre, E. A. (2007). Standards of evidence in qualitative research: An incitement to discourse. Educationalresearcher, 36(1),2532.https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X06298009

Gass, S. (2009). A survey of SLA research. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 3–28). Bingley, UK: Emerald.

Gillaerts, P. ( 2013). Move Analysis of Abstracts from a Diachronic Perspective: A Case Study. In Johannesson, Nils-Lennart / Melchers, Gunnel / Björkmann, Beyza (eds) Of butterflies and birds, of dialects and grenres. Essays in honour of Philip Shaw.

Gillaerts, P. (2014). Shifting metadiscourse: Looking for diachrony in the  abstract genre. In M. Bondi, &  R. Lor_es Sanz (Eds.), Abstracts in academic discourse: Variation and change (pp. 271-286). Bern: Peter Lang.

Gillaerts, P., & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal  of English for Academic purposes, 9(2), 128-139.

Harwood, N. (2005a). “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, 343-375.

Harwood, N. (2005b). “Nowhere has anyone attempted . . .. In this article I aim to do just that”: A corpus- based study of self-promotional I and we in academic writing across four disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics, 37,   1207-1231.

Hyland, K (1998a). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam: John  Benjamins.

Hyland, K. (1999a). Talking to students:  Metadiscourse in introductory textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 3-26.

Hyland, K. (1999b). Academic attribution: Citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 20, 341-367.

Hyland, K. (2001a). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 207-226.

Hyland, K. (2001b). Bringing in the reader: addressee features in academic writing. Written Communication. 18. 549-574.

Hyland, K. (2002a). Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23, 215-239.

Hyland, K. (2002b). Options of identity in academic writing. ELT Journal,56, 351- 358.

Hyland, K. (2002c). Genre: Language, context, and literacy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 113-135.

Hyland, K. (2002d). Specificity revisited: How far should we go now? English for Specific Purposes, 21, 385–395.

Hyland, K. (2002e). Activity and evaluation: Reporting practices in academic writing. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 115-130). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses. Social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing.  London: Continuum.

Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse studies, 7(2), 173-192.

Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156–177.

Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2016b). “We must conclude that…”: A diachronic study of academic engagement. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 24, 29-42.

Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2018a). “In this paper we suggest”: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse. English for Specific  Purposes, 51, 18-30.

Kaplan, R. B. (2002). The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Kaplan, R. B. (2010). The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.Kramsch, C. (2018). Trans-spatial utopias. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 108-115.

Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. (2nd edn). Chicago: University Chicago Press.

Kuhi, D., & Dustsadigh, Z. (2012). A cross-cultural diachronic study on hedging devices diversity in chemistry research articles. Paper presented  at the Second International Conference on Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sarajevo.

Kuhi, D., & Mousavi, Z. (2015). A diachronic study of interpersonality in  research article discussion section: The field of applied linguistics. International Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Studies,2(4), 6–13.

Lang D.J., Wiek A., Bergmann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., Swilling, M., & Thomas, C.J. (2012). Transdisciplinary research in  sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability science, 7(1), 25- 43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x

Lazaraton, A. (2000). Current trends in research methodology and statistics in applied linguistic TESOL Quarterly, 34, 175–181. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588103

Manathunga, C., & Brew, A. (2012). Beyond tribes and territories: New metaphors for new times. In Trowler, P., Saunders, M., & Bamber, V. (Eds.), Tribes and territories in the 21st century: Rethinking the significance of disciplines in higher education. (pp. 44–56). Routledge.

McNamara, T. (2015). Applied linguistics: The challenge of theory. Applied Linguistics, 36(4), 466-477. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv042

Plonsky, L. (2015b). Quantitative considerations for improving replicability in CALL and applied linguistics. CALICO Journal, 32(2), 232–244. doi: 10.1558/cj.v32i2.26857

 

Nwogu, K. N. (1997). The medical research paper: Structure and functions . English for Specific Purposes,16(2), 119–138.

Rajagopalan, K. (2005). “The Philosophy of Applied Linguistics”. In D. Alan and C. Elder (eds) The Handbook of Applied Linguistics. 397 – 420. New York: Blackwell Publishing.

Richards, K. (2009). Trends in qualitative research in language teaching since 2000. Language teaching, 42(2), 147-180. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444808005612

Salager-Meyer, F. (2001). From self-highlightedness to self-effacement: a  genre-based study of the socio-pragmatic function of criticism in medical discourse. LSP and professional communication (2001-2008), 1(2).

Schmitt, N. (2002). An introduction to applied linguistics. New York: Arnold.

Storer, N., & Parsons, T. (1968). ‘The disciplines as a differentiating force’. In E. B. Montgomery  (ed.), The Foundations of Access to Knowledge (pp. 101–21). Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.

Trowler, P. (2012). Disciplines and academic practices. In P. Trowler, M.  Saunders & V. Bamber (Eds.), Tribes and territories in the 21st century  (pp.30–38). London: Routledge.

Trowler, P. (2014). Academic Tribes and Territories: the theoretical trajectory. Österreichische Zeitschrift Für Geschichtswissenschaften,  25(3), 17–26.

Trowler, P., Saunders, M., & Bamber, V. (Eds.). (2012). Tribes and  territories in the 21^st century: Rethinking the significance of disciplines in higher education. International studies in higher education, London;New York: Routledge.

Wilkins, D. A. (1999). Applied linguistics. In B. Spolsky (Ed.). Concise encyclopedia of educational  linguistics (pp. 6-17). Amsterdam:Elsevier.

Vande Kopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82-93.

Vande Kopple, W. (2002). Metadiscourse, discourse, and issues in composition and rhetoric. In E. Barton & G. Stygall (Eds.), Discourse  studies in composition (pp. 91–113). Cresshill, NJ: Hampton Press.