چکیده:
One of the main concerns of scholars working in the field of EAP over the last 2 decades has been raising the awareness of EAP students and publishers of genre conventions in academic journals. In line with the above concern, many studies have aimed at exploring the general characteristics of research articles (RAs) in the field. Among these features, it seems that the generic moves and textuality have drawn the attention of researchers. Therefore, the purpose of this study was twofold: (1) to compare and contrast the Iranian local ESP journals with their international counterparts in terms of the given features by drawing upon existing research, and (2) to develop a more inclusive model for the analysis of moves and lexical cohesion patterns (LCPs) in the Discussion sections of ESP RAs. Results showed that the Discussion sections in the international ESP RAs tended to have a more cyclical evaluative move mechanism compared with their Iranian local counterparts. Findings also revealed that the organizational patterning and use of the LCPs in consolidating the Results sections of the RAs have a dual intrinsic relationship. Translation of such findings provides a better chance for nonnative EAP writers to publish in international journals.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Structure of Discussion Sections in ESP RAs Medical Sciences Chemistry Agriculture Biotechnology Kanoksilapatham’s model L I L I L I L I Move 1 Describing established 1 2 - - - - 4 1 knowledge making generalization 2 - - - - - 1 - Move 2 restating methodology 3 - 4 4 3 2 3 5 stating selected findings* 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 referring to previous findings* 10 8 6 7 10 10 10 9 explaining differences in 4 1 - - 1 1 - 2 findings making claims 2 2 - 1 3 5 4 2 Exemplifying - 3 - - - 1 - 2 Move 3 Stating limitations 2 1 - - - - - - Move 4 Suggesting further studies 2 5 - 1 1 - - 1 Nwogu’s model Move 8 by stating a specific outcome* 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 by explaining principles - - - - - - - - and concepts by indicating comments and views** 6 6 - 1 4 7 4 6 by indicating significance 2 3 7 1 4 5 5 9 of main research outcome by contrasting present and previous outcomes* 10 8 9 7 10 10 10 10 Note.