Choice and Use of Context Frames to Augment the Writing of Result and Discussion Section of Research Articles across Four Disciplines
Abstract
This study focuses on the use and discourse functions of context frame markers in the result and discussion section of research articles across four disciplines. Sixteen result and discussion sections from four disciplines, namely, English Language Teaching, Economics, Biology, and Civil Engineering (four from each discipline) were analysed by adapting Gosden’s (1992) taxonomy. Findings showed disciplinary differences in relation to the realisation of the context frame types, frequencies, and associated discourse functions. These differences in terms of types, frequencies, and discourse functions of context frames are imposed by the nature of the rhetorical section of result and discussion, the nature of the discipline, and both the nature of rhetorical section of result and discussion and the discipline, respectively. Findings suggest that context frames are an important means which the writer uses to deliver claims and arguments in results and discussion. As a result of the dictums imposed by the generic RA section and the nature of the discipline, marked disciplinary differences are found in the writing endeavour.
Keywords: context frames, discourse function, result and discussion section, disciplinary difference
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/3L-2015-2101-07
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Basturkmen, H. (2009). Commenting on results in published research articles and masters dissertations in Language Teaching. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 8 (4), 241-251.
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.
Berkenkotter, C. & Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/culture/power. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Brett, P. (1994). A genre analysis of the results section of sociology articles. English for Specific Purposes 13(1), 47-59.
Davies, F. (1988). Reading between the lines: Thematic choices as a device for presenting writers viewpoint in academic discourse. The Especialist 9 (2), 173-200.
Ebrahimi, S. F., Chan, S. H. & Ain, N. A. (2014). Discourse functions of grammatical subject in result and discussion section of research article across four disciplines. Journal of Writing Research 6 (2), 125-140.
Fries, P. H. (1994). Theme, method of development, and texts . World Englishes 21(2), 317- 359.
Fries, P. H. & Francis, G. (1992). Exploring theme: Problems for research. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics 6, 45-60.
Gillaerts, P. & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic purposes 9(2), 128-139.
Gosden, H. (1992). Discourse functions of marked theme in scientific research articles. Journal of English for Specific Purposes 11, 207-224.
Gosden, H. (1993). Discourse functions of subject in scientific research articles. Applied Linguistics 14(1), 56-75.
Halliday, M.A.k. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Britain: Edward Arnold.
Harwood, N. (2005). ‘Nowhere has anyone attempted… In this article I aim to do just that’: A corpus-based study of self-promotional I and we in academic writing across four disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics 37(8), 1207-1231.
Holmes, R. (1997). Genre analysis, and the social sciences: An investigation of the structure of research article discussion sections in three disciplines. English for Specific Purposes 16(4), 321-337.
Hunston, S. (1994). Evaluation and organisation in a sample of written academic discourse. Advances in written text analysis, 191-218.
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.
Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied linguistics 17(4), 433-454.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for specific purposes 27(1), 4-21.
Jalilifar, A. R. (2009). Research article in applied linguistics: A gender-based writing guide. Ahwaz: Shahid Chamran University Press.
Jalilifar, A. (2010). The status of theme in applied linguistics articles. The Asian ESP Journal 6 (2), 7-39.
Johns, A. & Swales, J. (2002). Literacy and disciplinary practices: Opening and closing perspectives. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 1(1), 13-28.
Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005). Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. English for specific purposes 24 (3), 269-292.
Kashiha, H. & Chan, S.H. (2014). Discourse functions of formulaic sequences in academic speech across two disciplines. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies 14(2), 15-27.
Khedri, M., Ebrahimi, S. J. & Chan, S. H. (2013). Interactional metadiscourse markers in academic research article result and discussion sections. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies 19(1), 65-74.
Lores, R. (2004). On RA abstracts: From rhetorical structure to thematic organization. Journal of English for Specific Purposes 23, 280-302.
Martinez, I.A. (2003). Aspects of theme in the method and discussion sections of biology journal article in English. Journal of English for Academic Purpose 2, 103-123.
Peacock, M. (2002). Communicative moves in the discussion section of research articles. System 30(4), 479-497.
Ruiying, Y. & Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusion. Journal of English for Specific Purposes 22 (4), 103-123.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research setting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Whittaker, R. (1995). Theme processes and the realisation of meaning in academic articles. In M. Ghadessy (Eds.), Thematic development in English text (pp. 105 – 128). London: Pinter.
Williams, I.A. (1999). Results sections of medical research articles: Analysis of rhetorical categories for pedagogical purposes. English for Specific Purposes 18(4), 347-366.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
eISSN : 2550-2247
ISSN : 0128-5157