Peeling the Onion: A Textual CDA of Research Articles in Humanities and Basic Sciences

Document Type: Research Article

Authors

1 Department of English, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran

2 Department of Foreign Language and Linguistics, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

3 Zand Institute of Higher Education, Shiraz, Iran

Abstract

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.

Keywords


Atai, M. R., & Habibi, P. (2012). Genre analysis of applied linguistics research article Introductions: Exploring subdisciplinary variations. Taiwan International ESP Journal4(1), 25-44.

Banks, D. (2008). The development of scientific writing: Linguistic features and historical context. London, Oakville: Equinox.

Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science (Vol. 356). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analyzing genre: Language use in professional settings. London: Longman.

Bhatia, V. K. (1997). Introduction: Genre analysis and world Englishes. World Englishes16(3), 313-319.

Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 9(1), 93-124.

Bondi, M., & Hyland, K. (2006). Academic discourse across disciplines (Vol. 42). Bern: Peter Lang.

Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Chanock, K. (2000). Comments on essays: Do students understand what tutors write? Teaching in Higher Education, 5(1), 95-105.

Christie, F. (1987). Young children's writing: From spoken to written genres. Language and Education1(1), 3-13.

Coffin, C. (2006). Learning the language of school history: The role of linguistics in mapping the writing demands of the secondary school curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies38(4), 413-429.

Coffin, C. (2007). Constructing and giving value to the past: An investigation into secondary school history. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Knowledge structure: Functional linguistic and sociological perspectives (pp. 196-230).   London: Continuum.

Davies, W. M. (2008). Not quite right: Helping students to make better arguments. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(3), 327-340.

Gallardo, S. (2005). Pragmatic support of medical recommendations in popularized texts. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(6), 813-835.

Galve, I. G. (1998). The textual interplay of grammatical metaphor on the nominalizations occurring in written medical English. Journal of Pragmatics30(3), 363-385.

Gunnarsson, B. L. (2017). Languages of science in the Eighteenth century. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). The grammatical construction of scientific knowledge: The framing of the English clause. In J. J. Webster (Ed.), The language of science: Volume 5 of the collected works of M. A. K. Halliday (pp.102 134). London: Continuum.

Halliday, M. A. K. (2008). Complementarities in language. Beijing: The Commercial Press.

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 Purposes16(4), 321-337.

Hood, S. (2010). Appraising research: Evaluation in academic writing. London: Palgrave.

Hood, S., & Forey, G. (2005). Introducing a conference paper: Getting interpersonal with your audience. Journal of English for Academic Purposes4(4), 291-306.

Humphrey, S. (1996). Exploring literacy in school geography. Erskineville: NSW/Metropolitan East Disadvantaged Schools.

Humphrey, S. (2013). And the word became text: A 4 x 4 toolkit for scaffolding writing in secondary English. English in Australia48(1), 46.

Humphrey, S. L., & Economou, D. (2015). Peeling the onion: A textual model of critical analysis. Journal of English for Academic Purposes17, 37-50.

Hunston, S. (1989). Evaluation in experimental research articles. Unpublished doctoral disseration, University of Birmingham.

Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (2000). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics30(4), 437-455.

Hyland, K. (1999). Academic attribution: Citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied Linguistics20(3), 341-367.

Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.

Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics34(8), 1091-1112.

Hyland, K. (2006). English for academic purposes: An advanced resource book. London: Routledge.

Hyland, K. (2008). Genre and academic writing in the disciplines. Language Teaching, 41(4), 543-562.

Iedema, R., White, P., & Feez, S. (1994). Media literacy (write it right literacy in industry research project, stage 2). Sydney: Disadvantaged Schools Program, New South Wales Department of School Education, Metropolitan Eastern region.

Jiang, K. F. (2017). Stance and voice in academic writing: The “noun + that” construction and disciplinary variation. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(1),85-106.

Jiang, K. F., & Hyland, K. (2015). The fact that: Stance nouns in disciplinary writing. Discourse Studies, 17(5), 529-550.

Jogthong, C. (2001). Research article Introductions in Thai: Genre analysis of academic writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University.

Lähdesmäki, S. (2009). Intertextual analysis of Finnish EFL textbooks: Genre embedding as recontextualization. In C. Bazerman, A. Bonini, & D. Figueiredo (Eds.), Genre in a changing world (pp. 375-399). Colorado: Parlor Press.

Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education23(2), 157-172.

Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Liu, D., & Jiang, P. (2009). Using a corpus-based lexicogrammatical approach to grammar instruction in EFL and ESL contexts. Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 61-78.

Love, A. (1993). Lexicogrammatical features of geology textbooks: Process and product revisited. English for Specific Purposes, 12(3), 197-218.

Love, A. M. (2002). Introductory concepts and cutting edge theories: Can the genre of the textbook accommodate both? In J. Flowerdew (ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 76-92). New York: Longman.

Martin, J. R. (1985). Process and text: Two aspects of human semiosis. In J. D. Benson & W. S. Greaves (Eds.), Systemic perspectives on discourse (pp. 275-294). Nor-wood, NJ: Ablex.

Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Martin, J. R. (1998) Mentoring semogenesis: Genre-based literacy pedagogy. In F.     Christie (Ed.), Pedagogy and the shaping of consciousness: Linguistic and social processes (pp. 123-155). London: Cassell.

Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2003) Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London: Continuum.

Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox.

Martin, J. R., Christie, F., & Rothery, J. (1987). Social processes in education: A reply to Sawyer and Watson (and others). In I. Reid (Ed.), The place of genre in learning: Current debates (pp. 35-45). Geelong, Australia: Deakin University Press.

Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The evaluation of language. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Mauranen, A. (2003). But here’s a flawed argument: Socialization into and through metadiscourse. Language and Computers46(1), 19-34.

Mei, W. S., & Allison, D. (2009). Evaluative expressions in analytical arguments: Aspects of appraisal in assigned English language essays. Journal of Applied Linguistics2(1), 105-127.

Melles, G., & Lockheart, J. (2012). Writing purposefully in art and design: Responding to converging and diverging new academic literacies. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education11(4), 346-362.

Ozturk, I. (2007). The textual organization of research article Introductions in applied linguistics: Variability within a single discipline. English for Specific Purposes26(1), 25-38.

Pascual, M., & Unger, L. (2010). Appraisal in the research genres: An analysis of grant proposals by Argentinean researchers. Revista Signos43(73), 20-35.

Rashidi, N., & Shahab, S. (2013). Disciplinary acculturation: A comparative study of intradiscourse cycles of English and Persian introductory textbooks of sociology and linguistics. Research in Applied Linguistics4(2), 33-50.

Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2001). Inquiry and participation in search of a world worthy of human aspiration. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 1-14). London: Sage.

Rose, D. (2007). Towards a reading based theory of teaching. 33rd International Systemic Functional Congress Proceedings 2006. Retrieved January 10, 2018,  from the World Wide Web: www.pusp.br/isfc/proceedings

Russell, N. (2010). Communicating science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Samraj, B. (2005). An exploration of a genre set: Research article Abstracts and Introductions in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes24(2), 141-156.

Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. London: Routledge.

Swales, J. M. (1981). Aspects of article Introductions. Birmingham: University of Aston.

Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58-78.

Unsworth, L. (2001). Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum. Buckingham-Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Veel, R. (1997). Learning how to mean scientifically speaking: Apprenticeship into scientific discourse in the secondary school. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school (pp. 161-195). London: Cassell.

Woodward-Kron, R. (2002). Critical analysis versus description? Examining the relationship in successful student writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes1(2), 121-143.

Woodward-Kron, R. (2005). The role of genre and embedded genres in tertiary students' writing. Prospect, 20(3), 24-41.