فصلنامه علمی

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

دانشکده زبان، دانشگاه چمران اهواز

10.22061/tej.2011.281

چکیده

تحقیق حاضر به بررسی مقایسه­ای عبارت­های احتیاط­آمیز و افزاینده­های زبانی در مقالات پژوهشی در دو رشته   زبان­شناسی کاربردی و روان­پزشکی پرداخته است. این تحقیق همچنین سعی بر آن داشته تا تفاوت­ها و شباهت­های احتمالی از لحاظ نوع و کاربرد این کلمات را پیدا نماید. بدین­منظور 90 مقاله پژوهشی از متون فارسی، فارسی- انگلیسی و انگلیسی انتخاب شده و سپس عبارت­های احتیاط­آمیز و افزاینده­های زبانی درآن مشخص شده و بر اساس طبقه­بندی­های فرا گفتمانی دسته­بندی شدند. نتایج تجزیه و تحلیل تفاوت­های آشکاری را از لحاظ کثرت نوع و کاربرد این عبارات در متون مورد بررسی نشان داد. این تفاوت­ها ناشی از عدم آشنایی با قوانین ساختاری زبان انگلیسی، عدم آموزش مستفیم و در معرض نبودن با علم کاربرد شناسی و قوانین اجتماعی زبانی توسط فارسی زبان می­باشد. پژوهش­های تطبیقی بیشتر در رشته­های دیگر به تعمیم منطقی دقیق­تر نسبت به نقش فرا گفتمان­ها در مقالات تحقیقی کمک خواهد کرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

World of Attitudes in Research Article Discussion Sections: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective

نویسنده [English]

  • AliReza Jalilifar

English Languege Department, Shahid Chamran University of

چکیده [English]

This study aimed to account for metadiscourse variations in the discussion sections of  articles written in Persian and English and published in Iranian as well as international scholarly journals in English Language Teaching and Psychiatry. For this purpose, 90 research article discussions were selected, and then hedges and boosters were identified based on the taxonomies of metadiscourse markers. The results of the quantitative and qualitative analyses revealed significant differences in frequency, type, and functions of these devices in the texts. These differences might be attributed to lack of awareness of the conventional rules of English rhetoric, limited and fragile knowledge of academic English by Persian writers, and lack of explicit instruction and exposure to pragmatic and sociolinguistic rules of English by Persian researchers. Further research in other disciplines will help to make more accurate generalizations about the role of metadiscourse markers in research articles.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Hedge
  • Booster
  • Persian
  • English
  • Psychiatry
  • English Language Teaching

[1] Crompton P., Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems, English for Specific Purposes, Vol.16, 1997, pp. 271-287. [2] Hyland K., The author in the text: Hedging scientific writing, Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching, Vol.18, 1995, pp.33-42. [3] Hyland K., Writing without conviction: Hedging in science research articles, Applied Linguistics, Vol.17, 1996, pp.239-256. [4] Salager-Meyer F., I think that perhaps you should: A study of hedges in written scientific discourse, In Miller T. (Ed.), Functional approaches to written text: Classroom applications, Washington, United States Information Agency, 1997, pp.105-118. [5] Dafouz-Milne E., The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse, Journal of Pragmatica, Vol.40, 2008, pp. 95-113. [6] Hyland K. and Tse., Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal, Applied Linguistics, Vol.25, 2004, pp.156-177. [7] Lakoff G., Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts, Chicago Linguistic Society Papers, Vol.8, 1972, pp.183-228. [8] Silver M., The stance of stance: A critical look at ways stance is expressed and modeled in academic discourse, English for Academic Purposes,Vol. 2, 2003, pp. 359-374. [9] Falahati R., The use of hedging across different disciplines and rhetorical sections of research articles, Retrieved 28 September 2007, from http://www.sfu.ca/gradlings/NWLC_ proceeding/ flahati 99- 112.html, 2004. [10] Lin H.C. and Liou M.C., Development of online materials for academic English writing: Contribution of text analysis on the discussion section and hedge use of research articles, Retrieved 23 December 2007, from http://formoosa.fl.nthu.edu.tw/moodle/file.php/1/ progree_ report/_ Lin3- 20- 2006.pdf. 2007. [11] Vass H., Socio-cognitive aspects of hedging in two legal discourse genres, IBERICA, Vol.7, 2004, pp. 125-141. [12] Feng H., Research grant proposals in China: A contrastive genre-based study, Working Papers in English and Communication, Vol.16, 2004, pp. 1-32. [13] Figueiredo-Silva M.I., Teaching academic reading: Some initial findings from a session on hedging, Retrieved 23 December from http: // www.ling.ed. ac. Uk/pgc/ archive/ 2001/ Isabel-Figueiredo-Silva 01. pdf., 2001. [14] Zarei G.R. and Mansoori S., Metadiscourse in academic prose: A contrastive analysis of English and Persian research articles, The Asian ESP Journal, Vol.3, 2007, pp. 24–40. [15] Atai M.R. and Sadr L., A cross-cultural genre study on hedging devices in discussion sections of Applied Linguistic research articles, Proceedings of the conference of Pan-Pacific A.R. Jalilifar Journal of Technology of Education/ Vol. 5, No.3, Spring 2011 166 Association of Applied Linguistic, 2006, pp. 42-57. [16] Jalilifar A.R. and Dadvand S., All the way through the hedges: A corpus analysis of hedges in research articles, Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities of Shiraz University, Vol.26, 2008, pp. 23-47. [17] Vassileva I., Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing, English for Specific Purposes, Vol.20, 2001, pp. 83-102. [18] Hyland K., Hedges, boosters, and lexical invisibility: Noticing modifiers in academic texts, Language Awareness, Vol.9, 2000, pp. 179-190. [19] Wishnoff L.A., Hedging your bets: L2 learners’ acquisition of pragmatic devices in academic writing and computer-mediated discourse, Second Language Studies, Vol.19, 2000, pp. 119-148. [20] Becher T., Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines, Milton Keynes: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, 1989. [21] Ruiying Y. and Allison D., Research articles in Applied Linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions, English for Specific Purposes, Vol. 22, 2003, pp.365-385. [22] Clemen G., Hedging in English journalistic Economics, Retrieved 23 August, 2007 from http: // www. uwasa. fi / comm/ publications/ interkult/ extdoc / 6clemen, 1996. [23] Quatman T., Sampson K., Robinson c. and Watson C.M., Academic, motivational, and emotional correlates of adolescent dating, Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, Vol.127, 2001, pp. 211-234. [24] Rubin V.L., Linddy E.D. and Kando N., Certainty identification in texts: Categorization model and manual tagging results, Springer Netherlands, Vol.20, 2006, pp. 61-76. [25] Clifford M.M. and Chou F.C., Effects of payoff task context on academic risk taking, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol.83, 1991, pp. 499-507. [26] Varttala T., Remarks on the communicative functions of hedging in popular scientific and specialist research articles on medicine, English for Specific Purposes, Vol.18, 1999, pp. 177-200. [27] Saxon et al. [28] Hyland K., Patterns of engagement: Dialogic features and L2 undergraduate writing, In Ravelli L.J. and Ellis R.E., Analyzing academic writing: Contextualized frameworks, London, Continuum, 2004, pp.5-23. [29] Recski L., Interpersonal engagement in academic spoken discourse: A functional account of dissertation defenses, English for Specific Purposes, Vol.24, 2005, pp. 5-23. [30] Lehman, 1996. [31] Noor R., Contrastive rhetoric in expository prose: Approaches and achievements, Journal of Pragmatics, Vol.33, 2001, pp. 255-269. [32] Hyland K., Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles, English for Specific Purposes, Vol.20, 2001, pp. 207- 226.