Grammatical Subject in Results and Discussion Section of Research Articles: Disciplinary Variations

Document Type: Research Paper


1 English Department, Shadegan Branch, Islamic Azad university, Shadegan, Iran

2 University Putra Malaysia, Malaysia


Frequencies and discourse functions of grammatical subject types were investigated in a corpus of forty results and discussion sections selected from four disciplines (Applied Linguistics, Psychology, Chemistry, and Environmental Engineering). The results and discussion sections were selected from research articles that were published in 2008-2012 issues of prestigious high journals of the four disciplines. The results and discussion sections were analyzed for realizations and discourse functions of grammatical subject types adopting the taxonomy suggested by Ebrahimi (2014). The results suggested that the selections, frequencies and discourse functions of grammatical subject types were highly imposed by the macro functions of the results and discussion sections and the conventional rules of writing in the disciplines. One immediate implication for the outcome of this study is that writers and instructors need to keep in mind that they must be fully aware (and follow suit) of how the implementation of grammatical subjects are imposed and restricted by disciplinary conventions.


Bailey, F. G. (1977). Morality and expediency. Oxford: Blackwall.

Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual inquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Becher, T. (1994). The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education, 19(2), 151-161.

Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of the subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 195-203.

Bloor, T., & Bloor, M. (1995). The functional analysis of English: A Hallidayan approach. London: Arnold.

Borg, E. (2003). Key concepts in ELT: Discourse community. ELT Journal, 57(4), 398-400.

Bruce, I. (2008). Cognitive genre structures in Methods sections of research articles: A corpus study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(1), 38-54.

Davies, F. (1988). Reading between the lines: Thematic choices as a device for presenting writers viewpoint in academic discourse. The Specialist, 9(2), 173-200.

Ebrahimi, S. F. (2014). Thematic in English academic research articles across disciplines in hard and soft sciences, Unpublished PhD thesis, UPM, Malaysia.

Ebrahimi, S. F. & Chan, S. H. (2015). Manifestation of the theme as a point of departure in the result and discussion section of academic research articles. Pertanika: Journal of Social Science and Humanities. 21 (S), 29-40.

Ebrahimi, S. F., Heng, C. S., & Ain, A. N. (2014). Discourse functions of the grammatical subject in results and discussion sections of the research article across four disciplines. Journal of Writing Research, 6(2), 125-140.

Ebrahimi, S. F., & Chan, S. H. (2015). Research article abstracts in applied linguistics and economics: Functional analysis of the grammatical subject. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 35(4), 381-397.

Ghadessy, M. (1999).  Thematic organization in academic articles abstracts. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 7, 141-161.

Gosden, H. (1993). Discourse functions of subject in scientific research articles.  Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 56-75.

Hasselgard, H., Johansson, S., & Lysvag, P. (1998). English grammar: theory and use. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

Hewings, M., & Hewings, A. (2002). “It is interesting to note that…” a comparative study of anticipatory ‘it’ in student and published writing. English for Specific Purposes, 21(4), 367-383.

Hunston, S., & Sinclair, J. (2000). A local grammar of evaluation. In S. Hunston & J. Sinclair, Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 74-101). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hyland, K. (2009). Writing in the disciplines: research evidence for specificity. Taiwan International ESP Journal, 1, 5–22.

Jalilifar, A. R. (2009). Research article in Applied Linguistics: A gender-based writing guide. Ahwaz: Shahid Chamran University Press.

Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005). Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. English for specific purposes, 24(3), 269-292.

Karahan, P. (2013). Self-mention in scientific articles written by Turkish and non-Turkish Authors. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 305-322.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

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

Lores, R. (2004). On RA abstracts: From rhetorical structure to thematic organization. Journal of English for Specific Purposes, 23, 280-302.

Mauranen, A. (1996). Discourse competences-evidence from thematic development in native and non-native texts. In E. Ventola & A. Mauranen (Eds.), Academic writing: Intercultural and textual issues (pp. 195-230). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1995). A contemporary grammar of the English language. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research setting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Swales, J. M. (2004). Research Genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Thompson, G. (1994). Collins COBUILD English Guides 5: reporting. London: HarperCollins.