چکیده:
This study aimed to investigate the disciplinary and cross-disciplinary variations of research article Introduction sections in 2 disciplines (i.e., humanities and basic sciences). Ninety research article Introduction sections (i.e., 15 from each discipline of applied linguistics, sociology, psychology, biology, agriculture, and geology) were examined. The study was conducted with reference to the onion model of discourse analysis developed by Humphrey and Economou (2015), and the data were coded by MAXQDA10. Results pointed to a general underlying pattern that moved from descriptive and taxonomic reports to more challenging genres like persuasion and critique, regardless of the disciplines. Findings, however, indicated that individual disciplines manifested their own systematic regularities in terms of rhetorical conventions of writing. Besides, the process of knowledge-making was reflected and reinforced through lexicogrammatical and appraisal resources. The study has implications both for teaching and materials development.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Peeling the Onion: A Textual CDA of Research Articles in Humanities and Basic Sciences1 Sara Shahab2, Nasser Rashidi3, Firooz Seddighi4, & Morteza Yamini5 Received: 07/01/2018 Accepted: 29/09/2018 Abstract This study aimed to investigate the disciplinary and cross-disciplinary variations of research article Introduction sections in 2 disciplines (i.
2. Significance and Objectives of the Study Overall, whereas there have been attempts to identify genres in academic contexts from a number of disciplinary perspectives (Coffin, 2004, 2006; Hood, 2010; Melles & Lockheart, 2011), according to Humphrey and Economou (2015), “ambiguities appear in distinguishing their discourse patterns and in the description of the relationships between them” (p.
A variety of studies have been conducted to analyze discourse patterns in research articles based on different approaches within the onion model, that is, considering descriptive, analysis, argumentative, or critique genres in academic writing (Coffin, 2007; Hood, 2010; Humphrey, 1996; Humphrey & Economou, 2015; Iedema, White, & Feez, 1994; Martin & Rose, 2008; Martin & White, 2005; Unsworth, 2001; Veel, 1997).
Nevertheless, to date, almost no studies have focused on the analysis of research article Introduction sections in the disciplines of humanities and basic sciences with respect to the onion model.
(Qin & Uccelli, 2016) Likewise, in studies carried out on research articles within the discipline of humanities (Hyland, 1998; Love, 1993; Mei & Allison, 2009; Rashidi & Shahab, 2014; Reason & Bradbury, 2001), the data aimed at challenging the students’ ideas and involving them in further interpretation of the theories.