Engagement Resources Used by Experts and Novice EFL Academic Writers
محورهای موضوعی : نشریه زبان و ترجمه
Moharram Sharifi
1
(PhD Candidate in TEFL, Department of English, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran)
Biook Behnam
2
(Associate Professor, Department of English, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran)
Saeideh Ahangari
3
(Assistant Professor, Department of English, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran)
کلید واژه: Literacy Skills, Engagement resources in writing, Expert writer, Novice writer,
چکیده مقاله :
The purpose of this study was to show how expert and novice writers take position and stance in Research Article and Master of Art theses Introductions, so Engagement resources were investigated in 30 Research Articles and 30 Master of Art theses written by non-native Iranian speakers. Through paired samples t-test analysis, we found out that the mean occurrences of heteroglossia items in both RA and Master thesis Introductions were larger than those of monoglots items, indicating the awareness of both groups of writers to ‘engage’ alternative positions in Introduction sections. The results also revealed that wide choices were preferred over contractive options in both corpora, implying both groups of writers’ respects to alternative voices cautiously by welcoming rather than closing down the possibility of different perspectives and stances. Furthermore, unlike novice academic writers who used more Attribute features than Entertainment ones in their MATs introduction sections, expert academic writers employed a balanced number of Entertainment and Attributed in their RA introduction sections. The balanced deployment of Entertain and Attribute features in RA Introductions by expert writers might be characteristics of the writers’ demonstration of politeness, which is commonly accepted as an essential feature in academic writing discourse. Finally, through qualitative analysis, it was demonstrated that MAT writers as novice academic writers suffered from lacking appropriate evaluative stance and authorial voice towards propositions
هدف این تحقیق این بود که نشان دهد چگونه نویسندگان علمی تازه کار و ماهر مواضع خود را در بخش مقدمه مقالات تحقیقی و پایاننامه ها نشان میدهند. بنابراین، منابع تعامل متنی بر اساس سیستم ارزشگذاری (مارتین و وایت، 2005) در بخش مقدمه 30 مقاله از نویسندگان ماهر و 30بخش مقدمه پایاننامه کارشناسی ارشد از نویسندگاه علمی نوآموز ایرانی در رشته زبانشناسی کاربردی مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. از طریق تحلیل آزمون نمونه‌های زوجی t معلوم گردید که میانگین وقوع عناصر چند صدایی در هر دو پیکره زبانی بیشتر از عناصر تک صداییمیباشد که نشانده آگاهی هر دو گروه از نویسندگان برای "تعامل" با مواضع دیگر در بخش مقدمه است. نتایج همچنین نشان داد که عناصر بسیط بر عناصر انقباضی در هر دو گروه ترجیح داده شده است ، و این نشان دهنده احترام هر دو گروه نویسندگان به مواضع جایگزین است نه انکا احتمال هر دیدگاه و موضع گیری های مختلف. بعلاوه ، برخلاف نویسندگان دانشگاهی تازه کار که از ویژگیهای نسبت دهی بیشتری نسبت به عناصر پذیرش در بخشهای مقدمه پایاننامه های کارشناسی ارشد خود استفاده می کردند ، نویسندگان دانشگاهی ماهر تعداد متعادلی از نسبت دهی و عناصر پذیرش را در بخشهای مقدمه مقالات پژوهشی خود به کار میگیرند. استفاده متعادل از ویژگیهای پذیرش و نسبت دهی در بخش مقدمه مقالات توسط نویسندگان ماهر ممکن است از ویژگیهای ادب نویسندگان باشد که معمولاً به عنوان یک ویژگی اساسی در نوشتار دانشگاهی پذیرفته می شود سرانجام ، از طریق تجزیه و تحلیل کیفی ، نشان داده شد که نویسندگان کارشناسی ارشد به عنوان نویسندگان دانشگاهی تازه کار از فقدان موضع ارزیابی مناسب رنج می برند.
Ansarin, A. A., & Tarlani-Aliabdi, H. (2011). Reader Engagement in English and Persian Applied Linguistics Articles. English Language Teaching, 4(4), 154-164.
Babaii, E., Atai, M. R., & Saidi, M. (2017). Are Scientists Objective? An Investigation of Appraisal Resources in English Popular Science Articles. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 5(1), 1-19. Retrieved from http://ijlt r.urmia.a c.ir/articl e_20339_ 965caa92d 97c377c31e9498c0d221eec.pdf
Becher, T. (1990). The counter-culture of specialisation. European Journal of Education, 333-346.
Becher, T. (1994). The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education, 19(2), 151-161. doi:10.1080/03075079412331382007
Bolton, K., Nelson, G., & Hung, J. (2003). A corpus‐based study of connectors in student writing: Research from the International Corpus of English in Hong Kong (ICE‐HK). International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 7, 165-182. doi:10.1075/ijcl.7.2.02bol
Bruce, I. (2014). Expressing criticality in the literature review in research article introductions in applied linguistics and psychology. English for Specific Purposes, 36, 85–96. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2014.06.004
Coffin, C. (2009). Historical discourse: The language of time, cause and evaluation: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Coffin, C., & Hewings, A. (2004). IELTS as preparation for tertiary writing: Distinctive interpersonal and textual strategies. Analysing academic writing: Contextualized frameworks, 153-171.
Du, P. (2010). An appraisal analysis of English academic article abstracts in journals of Linguistics. Unpublished master dissertation). Shandong Normal University, China.
Flowerdew, J., & Peacock, M. (2001). Issues in EAP: A preliminary perspective. Research perspectives on English for academic purposes, 824.
Fryer, D. L. (2013). Exploring the dialogism of academic discourse: Heteroglossic Engagement in medical research articles. In English corpus linguistics: Variation in time, space and genre (pp. 183-207): Brill Rodopi.
Geng, Y., & Wharton, S. (2016). Evaluative language in discussion sections of doctoral theses: Similarities and differences between L1 Chinese and L1 English writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 22, 80-91.
Halliday, M. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2” d ed.) London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.).
Hewings, M. (2007). An'important contribution'or'tiresome reading'? A study of evaluation in peer reviews of journal article submissions. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(3), 247-274.
Hood, S. (2004a). Appraising research: Taking a stance in academic writing: University of Technology, Sydney Sydney, Australia.
Hood, S. (2004b). Managing attitude in undergraduate academic writing: A focus on the introductions to research reports. Analysing academic writing: Contextualized frameworks, 24-44.
Hood, S. (2010). Appraising research: Evaluation in academic writing: Springer.
Hyland, K. (1999). Academic attribution: Citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied linguistics, 20(3), 341-367.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses : social interactions in academic writing. Harlow, England; New York: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2002b). Activity and evaluation: Reporting practices in academic writing. In Academic discourse (pp. 125-140): Routledge.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing (1st ed.): Bloomsbury Publishing.
Jalilifar, A., Bardideh, A., & Shooshtari, Z. (2018). From academic to journalistic texts: A qualitative analysis of the evaluative language of science. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 37(1), 127-158.
Jalilifar, A., & Moazzen, F. (2014). Attitudinal language in research article discussions: A contrastive study of ISI and non-ISI journals. Taiwan International ESP Journal, 6(1), 1-30.
Kwan, B. S., Chan, H., & Lam, C. (2012). Evaluating prior scholarship in literature reviews of research articles: A comparative study of practices in two research paradigms. English for Specific Purposes, 31(3), 188-201.
Lancaster, Z. (2014). Exploring valued patterns of stance in upper-level student writing in the disciplines. Written Communication, 31(1), 27-57.
Liu, X. (2013). Evaluation in Chinese University EFL Students’ English Argumentative Writing: An APPRAISAL Study. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 10(1).
Martín, P. M. (2008). The mitigation of scientific claims in research papers: A comparative study. International Journal of English Studies, 8(2), 133-152.
Martin, R., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause (2nd ed.): Bloomsbury Publishing.
Martin, R., & White, P. (2005). The Language of Evaluation:Appraisal in English. England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mei, W. S. (2007). The use of engagement resources in high-and low-rated undergraduate geography essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(3), 254-271.
Monreal, C. S., & Salom, L. G. (2011). A cross-language study on citation practice in PhD theses. International Journal of English Studies, 11(2), 53-75.
