A Comparative Analysis of Interactive Metadiscourse Features in Discussion section of Research Articles Written in English and Persian

2012 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gholam Hassan Khajavy ◽  
Seyyedeh Fatemeh Asadpour ◽  
Ali Yousefi
2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 9-25
Author(s):  
Yasir Bdaiwi Al-Shujairi

      The discussion section forms an integral part in the writing process of a research article (RA). Research authors find it difficult to write and produce a well-structured discussion for their findings. The reason could be due to the unawareness of the main components (rhetorical moves) that shape this section. Therefore, this paper aims to provide a review of the studies that have been done to analyze the discussion section of RAs over the last 36 years. Also, this review seeks to examine the discussion section of RAs across various scientific disciplines and different types of journals. The review showed that the rhetorical structure of RAs discussion section witnessed some changes over the course of time. New moves such as Research Implications and Research Limitations started to be parts of the discussion section of RAs. In addition, it was revealed that differences in writing the discussion section can be varied broadly across disciplines such as soft sciences (e.g., applied linguistics, sociology, psychology) and hard sciences (e.g., engineering, chemistry, biology) and slightly across types of journals such as ISI and local journals. In conclusion, this paper offered several suggestions for further research to be conducted in the area.  


2019 ◽  
pp. 523-526
Author(s):  
Ayhan Cömert ◽  
Eyyub S. M. Al‐Beyati

Author(s):  
Sajjad Ahmad ◽  
Sana Aziz ◽  
Zahoor Ul Haq

The conclusion section of the article is an essential part as it is the last chance and to conclude the article. But this very essential part of the article was usually considered a part of the Discussion section of a research article, the one exception being Yang and Allison's (2003) study of the final section where they found conclusion as part-genre. For current research, the researcher randomly chose 15 high impact factor research articles across three different disciplines from social sciences. All the conclusion sections were selected from high impact factor research articles, published between 2008 and 2013. A Four-move model adapted from Yang and Allison (2003) and Bunton (2005) models are used to analyze the selected corpus for the current research. The analysis shows that there is an agreement between both corpora in classifying the moves as obligatory or optional. While Move 1, summarizing, and Move 2, evaluating, are obligatory, Move 4, future research is conventional; however, there is a difference in Move 3. M3, practical implications are optional in social sciences research articles. However, there are also several variations between the conclusion section in the corpus and the suggested model of analysis. The study concludes that these variations between the conclusion and the proposed model indicate that writers should choose the moves that best serve their purposes rather than including all the moves.


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 263-280

The aim of this descriptive analytical study was to examine research articles discussion sections from four disciplines to measure the functions and frequencies of hedges and boosters. To this end, scholarly research articles were randomly selected from leading and reputable journals in mechanical and industrial engineering as representatives of hard science disciplines and management and psychology as representatives of soft science disciplines. The size of the corpus in each discipline was around 17000 words. The data were analyzed in light of Hyland's (2005) model of interactional metadiscourse for hedges and boosters devices. Results of descriptive and inferential statistics showed that the use of hedges was significantly more in soft science disciples while boosters were overused in hard science disciplines, corresponding to the fact that by virtue of being less personal and more objective, hard sciences are represented through more frequent use of boosters than hedges to express facts. On the other hand, soft sciences are influenced by their subjectivity which results in higher frequencies of hedges. The findings of this study have implications for English for Academic/Specific purposes courses. Keywords: Discussion section, Research article, Metadiscourse, Booster, Hedge.


Author(s):  
Janet L. Peacock ◽  
Philip J. Peacock

Communicating statistics 128 Producing journal articles 130 Research articles: abstracts 132 Research articles: introduction and methods sections 134 Research articles: results section 136 Research articles: discussion section 138 Presenting statistics: managing computer output 140 Presenting statistics: numerical results 142 Presenting statistics: P values and confidence intervals ...


2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 1123-1128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel J. Simons ◽  
Yuichi Shoda ◽  
D. Stephen Lindsay

Psychological scientists draw inferences about populations based on samples—of people, situations, and stimuli—from those populations. Yet, few papers identify their target populations, and even fewer justify how or why the tested samples are representative of broader populations. A cumulative science depends on accurately characterizing the generality of findings, but current publishing standards do not require authors to constrain their inferences, leaving readers to assume the broadest possible generalizations. We propose that the discussion section of all primary research articles specify Constraints on Generality (i.e., a “COG” statement) that identify and justify target populations for the reported findings. Explicitly defining the target populations will help other researchers to sample from the same populations when conducting a direct replication, and it could encourage follow-up studies that test the boundary conditions of the original finding. Universal adoption of COG statements would change publishing incentives to favor a more cumulative science.


2020 ◽  
Vol V (I) ◽  
pp. 57-66
Author(s):  
Tayyabba Yasmin ◽  
Intzar Hussain Butt ◽  
Muhammad Naeem Sarwar

Decorous exploitation of reporting verbs is a fundamental component of academic writing. It facilitates in constructing authors’ assertions as well as situating those assertions with the previously published literature in the field (Bloch, 2010). This study has been carried out to examine the phenomena of reporting verbs in the research articles of Education and English written by Pakistani and native speakers of English. A corpus-based approach has been adopted in this study. The corpus of the study comprises of 152 research articles, authored by native and Pakistani researchers in the fields of Education and English. The findings of the study exhibited dissimilarities in the ways the authors accredit the other sources in their work and demonstrate the reported statements in Pakistani and native corpora. This study will assist the research scholars to enhance their awareness regarding an appropriate selection of reporting verbs in their academic writings.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 157-183
Author(s):  
Alfin Zalicha Hilmi ◽  
Toyyibah Toyyibah ◽  
Nur Afifi

This study aimed at: 1) investigating the move and steps found in quantitative and qualitative research articles discussion; 2) investigating the rhetoric structure patterns of quantitative and qualitative research article discussion. This study is a qualitative-research focusing on genre analysis on qualitative and quantitative RA discussions. There were 20 qualitative and 20 quantitative research article discussions of EFL and applied linguistics journals were investigated in this research. Using Yang & Allison’s (2003) framework to analyze the data, it is found that all moves in the framework were employed in RA discussion of both qualitative and quantitative research. However, the number of occurrences of each move were different between discussion section of these two different approaches. Furthermore, the patterns of both qualitative and quantitative RA discussion was not significantly different. There were two types of patterns in RA discussion both in qualitative and quantitative, repetitive pattern and organized pattern. although there were some variations in each of those patterns. The present study provides more evidence of generic structure of RA discussion section as well as proposes some useful insights related to move analysis on research article discussion in ELT and Linguistics area. Limitations and recommendations are discussed in this study.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document