Textual Analysis of Discussion Sections of English Language Journals in Sport Management by English Native and Iranian Authors: A Focus on the Hyland`s Metadiscourse Model
محورهای موضوعی : Applied Linguistics
1 - Department of English, Maragheh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Maragheh, Iran
کلید واژه: Metadiscourse, Discourse, Research Article, academic writing,
چکیده مقاله :
In general, the development of written academic discourse and the acquisition of English, especially for academic purposes, has increased the study of language and communication styles that researchers and students must master in order to adequately socialize in a research environment. This study investigated the use of meta-discourse elements by Native and Iranian writers using 20 sports management research papers (10 English speakers and 10 Iranian authors). We sought to check if the use of meta-discourse elements is different. To this end, Hyland's (2005) model of metadiscourse is used as an analytical framework for identifying the properties of metadiscourse elements. The results of the independent t-test showed that there are no significant differences in the overall use of metadiscourses between English and Iranian writers. The results of the research can lay a solid foundation for the development of teaching materials. Traditional academic writing requires researchers to adopt an objective and personal style when reporting research
به طور کلی، توسعه گفتمان آکادمیک مکتوب و فراگیری زبان انگلیسی، به ویژه برای اهداف آکادمیک، مطالعه زبان و سبک های ارتباطی را افزایش داده است که محققان و دانشجویان باید به منظور اجتماعی شدن کافی در یک محیط تحقیقاتی تسلط داشته باشند. این پژوهش با استفاده از 20 مقاله پژوهشی مدیریت ورزشی (10 انگلیسی زبان و 10 نویسنده ایرانی) به بررسی استفاده از عناصر فراگفتمانی توسط نویسندگان بومی و ایرانی پرداخته است. ما به دنبال بررسی این بودیم که آیا استفاده از عناصر فراگفتمانی متفاوت است یا خیر. برای این منظور، مدل هایلند (2005) از فراگفتمان به عنوان چارچوبی تحلیلی برای شناسایی ویژگی‌های عناصر فراگفتمانی استفاده می‌شود. نتایج آزمون t مستقل نشان داد که تفاوت معناداری در استفاده کلی از فراگفتمان ها بین نویسندگان انگلیسی و ایرانی وجود ندارد. نتایج تحقیق می تواند پایه محکمی برای توسعه مواد آموزشی ایجاد کند.
Adel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Adel, A. (2010). Just to give you kind of a map of where we are going: A taxonomy of meta discourse in spoken and written academic English. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9 (2), 69-97.
Bunton, D. (1998). The use of higher level metatext in PhD theses. English for Specific Purposes, 18 (Suppl), S41-S56.
Cheng, X., & Steffensen, M.S. (1996). Meta discourse: A technique for improving student writing. Journal of Research in the Teaching of English, 30 (2), 149-181.
Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers: Meta Discourse as Rhetorical Act. New York: Peter Lang.
Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1990). Meta discourse in popular and professional science discourse. InW. Nash (Ed.), the writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse (pp.118-136). Newburg Park, CA: Sage
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: a study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10 (1), 39-71.
Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of Academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36 (4), 1807-125.
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). London: Routledge
Farrokhi, F., & Ashrafi, S. (2009). Textual meta discourse resources in research articles. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 52 (212), 39-75.
Hoey, M. (2001). Textual Interaction: An Introduction to Written Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge
Hyland, K. (1998). Exploring corporate rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEO’s letter. Journal of Business Communication, 35 (2), 224–245.
Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30 (2), 437-455.
Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory course books. English for Specific Purposes, 18 (1), 3-26.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary Discourse: Social Interaction in Academic Writing. London. Longman.
Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20 (3), 207-226.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Meta discourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13 (2), 133–151.
Hyland, K. (2005). Meta Discourse. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2007). Applying a gloss: Exemplifying and reformulating in academic discourse. Applied Linguistics, 28 (2), 266–285.
Hyland, K. (2008). ‘Small bits of textual material’: A discourse analysis of Swales’ writing. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 143–160.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Meta discourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177
Jalilifar, A., Hayati, A., & Namdari, N. (2012). A Comparative Study of Research Article Discussion Sections of Local and International. Applied Linguistic Journals. Journal of Asia Level, 9 (1), 1-29.
Johnson, D., & Roen, D. (1992). Complimenting and involvement in peer reviews: gender variation. Language in Society, 21, 27-57.
Kanoksilapatham, B. (2007). Rhetorical moves in biochemistry RAs. In D. Biber, U. Connor, & T. A. Upton (Eds.). Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure. Studies in corpus linguistics, 28, (pp. 73–119). Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Khalili Sabet. M., & Kazempouri, M. (2015). Generic Structure of Discussion Sections in ESP Research Articles across International and Iranian Journals. Australian International Academic Centre, Australia, ALLS 6(2), 87-95.
Khany, R., & Tazik, K. (2010). A Comparative Study of Introduction and Discussion sections of Sub-disciplines of Applied Linguistics Research Articles. Journal of Applied Language Studies (JALS), 1 (2), 2010.
Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural differences in academic rhetoric: A text linguistic study. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Nodoushan, M., & Khakbaz, N. (2011). Theses ‘Discussion’ sections: A structural move analysis. International Journal of Language Studies (IJLS), 5(3), 111-132.
Nystrand, M. (1986). The structure of written communication: Studies in reciprocity between writers and readers. Orlando: Academic Press.
Schiffrin, D. (1980). Metatalk: Organizational and evaluative brackets in discourse. Sociological Inquiry: Language and Social Interaction, 50 (3/4), 199-236.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis. English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taavitsainen, I. (1999). Meta discursive practices and the evolution of early English medical writing. (1375– 1550). In J.M. Kirk (Ed.), Corpora Galore: Analyses and techniques in describe English (pp. 191–207).
Thetela, P. (1997). Evaluated entities and parameters of value in academic research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 16 (2), 101-118.
Tse, P., & Hyland, K. (2008). ‘Robot Kung Fu’: Gender and professional identity in biology and philosophy reviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1232-1248.
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some Exploratory Discourse on Metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36 (1), 82-93.
Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20 (1), 83-102.
