Document Type : Research Paper
Authors
1 Kharazmi University of Tehran
2 Kharazmi University
Abstract
The present study explored the rhetorical representation of authorial identity signaled by interactive/interactional metadiscourse strategies and integral/non-integral citation patterns in international and Iranian local research article discussion sections. The study also explored variation in metadiscourse and citation resources across three subdisciplines of Language Testing, English Language Teaching, and Discourse Analysis. To this end, a representative sample of 60 discussion sections of articles published in three prestigious international journals and three well-accredited Iranian local journals was collected. The comparisons revealed that Iranian local articles used a greater number of interactive metadiscourse strategies, whereas international articles tended to employ more interactional metadiscourse markers. In the interaction between authorial identity and citation perspectives, it was demonstrated that Iranian local articles employed more integral citation resources, while their international counterparts utilized more non-integral citation patterns. Furthermore, the findings showed subdisciplinary variation in the use of interactional metadiscourse strategies and non-integral citation patterns in international RAs. This can be attributed to their distinctive communicative purposes, target readership, scope of investigation, and final research products. The study concludes with some implications for post-graduate students to equip themselves with both macro-level generic and micro-level discoursal properties required for writing research article discussion sections, and, accordingly manifesting their authorial identity.
Keywords
Abdi, R. (2011). Meta-discourse strategies in research articles: A study of differences across subsections. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 3(1), 1-16.
Abdi, R., Tavangar, M., & Tavakoli, M. (2010). The cooperative principles in discourse communities and genres: A framework for the use of meta-discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(6), 1669-1679.
Abdollahzadeh, E. (2011). Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 288-297.
Afros, E., & Schryer, C. F. (2009). Promotional (meta) discourse in research articles in language and literary studies. English for Specific Purposes, 28(1), 58-68.
Basturkmen, H. (2012). A genre-based investigation of discussion sections of research articles in Dentistry and disciplinary variation. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 134- 144.
Biber, D. (2006). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(2), 97-116.
Bitchener, J. (2010). Writing an Applied Linguistics thesis or dissertation: A guide to presenting empirical research. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Charles, M. (2003). “This mystery. . .”: A corpus-based study of the use of nouns to construct stance in theses from two contrasting disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(4), 313-326.
Charles, M. (2006). The construction of stance in reporting clauses: A cross-disciplinary study of theses. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 492-518.
Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers: Meta-discourse as rhetorical act. New York: Peter Lang.
Crismore, A., & Abdollahzadeh, E. (2010). A review of recent meta-discourse studies: The Iranian Context. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 195-219.
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. (1993). Meta-discourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10(1), 39-71.
Dahl, T. (2004). Textual meta-discourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36(10), 1807-1825.
Flowerdew, L. (1997). Interpersonal Strategies: investigating inter-language corpora. RELC Journal, 28(1), 72-88.
Gao, Y., Li, l., & Lu, J. (2001). Trends in research methods in applied linguistics: China and the west. English for specific purposes, 20(1), 1-14.
Gillaerts, P., & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional meta-discourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 128-139.
Harwood, N. (2005). 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(4), 343-373.
Hewings, A., Theresa, L., & Vladimirou, D. (2010). Who’s citing whose writings? A corpus- based study of citations as interpersonal resource in English medium national and English medium international journals. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 102-115.
Hirvela, A., & Belcher, D. (2001). Coming back to voice: The multiple voices and identities of mature multilingual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1-2), 83-106.
Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(11), 2795-2809.
Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (Eds.). (2000). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics,30(4),437-455.
Hyland, K. (I999a). Disciplinary discourses: writer stance in research articles. In C. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.). Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp.99-121). London: Longman.
Hyland, K. (1999b). Talking to students: meta-discourse in introductory textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 3-26.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions 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. (2002). Authority and invisibility: authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091-1112.
Hyland, K. (2005a). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 6(2), 173-191.
Hyland, K. (2005b). Meta-discourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2010). Community and Individuality: Performing Identity in Applied Linguistics. Written Communication, 27(2), 159-188.
Hyland, K. (2011). The presentation of self in scholarly life: Identity and marginalization in academic homepages, English for Specific Purposes, 30(4) , 286-297.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Meta-discourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2009). ‘The leading journal in its field’: evaluation in journal descriptions. Discourse Studies, 11(6), 703-720.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2012). “She has received many honors”: Identity construction in article bio statements. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 155-165.
Jalilifar, A.R. (2011). World of Attitudes in Research Article Discussion Sections: A Cross- Linguistic Perspective. Journal of Technology & Education, 5(3), 177-186.
Jalilifar, A.R. (2012). Academic attribution: citation analysis in master’s theses and research articles in applied linguistic. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 23-41.
Jalilifar, A. R., & Hoseini Marashi, M. (2011). Authorial presence in single-authored research article introductions in English and Persian: A cross-disciplinary and cross-linguistic study, ESP Across Cultures, 8, 65-88.
Khedri, M., Heng, C.S., & Ebrahimi, S.F. (2013). An exploration of interactive meta-discourse markers in academic research article abstracts in two disciplines, Discourse Studies, 15(3), 319-331.
Kim, L.K., & Lim, J.M.H. (2013). Meta-discourse in English and Chinese research article introductions, Discourse Studies, 15(2), 129-146.
Lewin, B. A. (2005). Contentiousness in science: The discourse of critique in two sociology journals. Text, 25, 723-744.
Li, T., & Wharton, S. (2012). Meta-discourse repertoire of L1 Mandarin undergraduates writing in English: A cross-contextual, cross-disciplinary study. English for Academic Purposes, 11(4), 345-356.
Mansourizadeh, K., & Ahmad, U. K. (2011). Citation practices among non-native expert and novice scientific writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(3), 152-161.
Martinez, I. A. (2003). Aspects of theme in the method and discussion sections of biology journal articles in English. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(2), 103-123.
Matsuda, P. K., & Tardy, C. M. (2007). Voice in academic writing: The rhetorical construction of author identity in blind manuscript review. English for Specific Purposes, 26(2), 235-249.
McGrath, L., & Kuteeva, M. (2012). Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research articles: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practices. English for Specific Purposes, 31(3), 161-173.
Mur Duenas, P. (2011). “I/we focus on…:”A cross-cultural analysis of self-mentions in business management research articles, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(2), 143-162.
Nwogu, K.N. (1997). The medical research paper: structure and functions. English for Specific Purposes, 16(2), 119-138.
Parkinson, J. (2011). The discussion section as argument: The language used to prove knowledge claims. English for Specific Purposes, 30(3), 164-175.
Pecorari, D. (2006). Visible and occluded citation features in postgraduate second-language writing. English for Specific Purposes, 25(1), 4-29.
Petric, B. (2007). Rhetorical functions of citations in high- and low-rated master’s theses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(3), 238-253.
Rubio, M. (2011). A pragmatic approach to the macro-structure and metadiscoursal features of research article introductions in the field of Agricultural Sciences. English for Specific Purposes, 30(4), 258-271.
Sheldon, E. (2009). From one I to another: Discursive construction of self-representation in English and Castilian Spanish research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 28(4), 251- 265.
Shooshtari, Z. G., & Jalilifar , A. R.(2010). Citation and the construction of sub-disciplinary knowledge. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 2(1), 45-66.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J.M. (2002). On models in applied discourse analysis. In C.N. Candlin (Ed.). Research and Practice in Professional Discourse (pp. 61-77). Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press.
Swales, J. (2004). Research genres: Exploration and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tang, R., & John, S. (1999). The ‘I’ in identity: Exploring writer identity in student academic writing through the first person. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 23-39.
Thompson, P. (2005). Points of focus and position: Inter-textual reference in PhD theses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(4), 307-323.
Thompson, P., & Tribble, C. (2001). Looking at citations: using corpora in English for academic purposes. Language Learning & Technology, 5(3), 91-105.
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82-93.
Warchal, K. (2010). Moulding interpersonal relations through conditional clauses: Consensus- building strategies in written academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 140-150.
White, H. D. (2004). Citation analysis and discourse analysis revisited. Applied Linguistics, 25(1), 89-116.
', './data/jtls/coversheet/cover_en.jpg'))