Interactive and Interactional Markers in ISI and Non-ISI Applied Linguistic Journal Articles Written by Iranian Authors: A Contrastive Meta-Discourse Analysis of Method Section

Authors

1 Assistant Professor of TESL/TEFL, ELT Department, Islamic Azad University- Karaj Branch

2 PhD Candidate, ELT Department, Islamic Azad University- Karaj Branch

Abstract

Meta-discourse as a self-reflective linguistic tool has received considerable attention in recent years. Besides, it plays a leading role in exploring variations in the way authors pen a manuscript. The present study aims at investigating variations in the use of both interactive and interactional meta-discourse markers among ISI and non-ISI articles written by Iranian authors in the field of Applied Linguistics. The corpora in the present study comprised a total of 8 Research Articles (RAs) in ISI and non-ISI journals published in 2016 and 2017. We described the distribution of interactive and interactional markers in Method sections using Hyland’s (2005) model as a framework. The results of the quantitative analysis disclosed that genre expectations of journals had a determining role in the writers’ choice of some meta-discourse markers. Owing to this fact, similarities were found in the use and distribution of meta-discourse markers across ISI and non-ISI data. In addition, a significant difference was found between the types of interactive meta-discourse markers as used in ISI and non-ISI journals. Moreover, the findings revealed similarities in employing the type of interactional meta-discourse markers in our corpora. Our study may promise some pedagogical implications for material development and English for Specific Purposes (ESP).

Keywords


Article Title [Persian]

تجزیه و تحلیل فراگفتمان در مقالات ISI و غیر ISI توسط نویسندگان ایرانی در رشته ی زبان انگلیسی و تحلیل بخش روش مقاله ها

Authors [Persian]

  • فرید قائمی 1
  • گیتی صبادوست 2
1 استادیار گروه TESL / TEFL دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد کرج
2 دانشجوی دکتری دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد کرج
Abstract [Persian]

متا گفتمان به عنوان یک ابزار زبانی خود بازتابی در سال های اخیر توجه مححققان را به خود جلب کرده است و این امر به خاطر نقش پیشرویی است که این ابزار در تغییر درقلم نویسندگان دریافت کرده است. مطالعه حاضر با هدف بررسی تغییرات در استفاده از هر دو نشانگر فرا گفتمان تعاملی بین مقالاتISI و مقالات غیر ISI توسط نویسندگان ایرانی در زمینه زبان شناسی کاربردی نوشته شده است. مجموعه مقالات مورد بررسی در این تحقیق در مجموع 8 مقاله از مجلات ISI و8 مقاله از مجلات غیر ISI که در سال 2016 و 2017 منتشر شد می باشد. ما در توزیع نشانگرها از مدل (2005) هایلند به عنوان یک چارچوب توصیفی استفاده کردیم. نتایج حاصل از تجزیه و تحلیل کمی فاش کرد که کنوانسیون سبک نقش تعیین کننده ای در انتخاب نشانگرهای فراگفتمان توسط نویسندگان این مقالات دارد و این امر موجب شباهت در قلم نویسندگان مقالات ISI و مقالات غیر ISI شده است. علاوه بر این، تفاوت معنی داری بین نوع نشانگر فرا گفتمان تعاملی در ژورنالهای ISI و غیرISI پیدا شد. به لحاظ آموزشی این تحقیق در تعیین اهداف خاص به منظور برنامه ریزی مناسب برای آموزش صریح و روشن در نوشتن مقالات تحقیقی نقش موثری را ایفا می کند.

Keywords [Persian]

  • تجزیه و تحلیل متا گفتمان
  • نشانگر تعاملی
  • بخش روش
  • زبان شناسی کاربردی
  • مقالات پژوهشی
  • مجلات ISI
  • مجلات غیر ISI
  • انگلیسی برای اهداف ویژه
Abdi, R. (2002). Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies4(2), 139-145.

Atai, M. R., & Falah, S. (2005). A contrastive genre analysis of result and discussion sections of applied linguistic research articles written by native and non-native English speakers with respect to evaluated entities and ascribed values. 41-56. Retrieved from http://paaljapan.org/resources/proceeding/PAAL10/pdfs/atai.pdf

Aryadoust, V. (2016). Gender and academic major bias in peer assessment of oral presentations. Language Assessment Quarterly13(1), 1-24.

Ahmadi, A., & Sadeghi, E. (2016). Assessing English Language Learners’ Oral Performance: A Comparison of Monologue, Interview, and Group Oral Test. Language Assessment Quarterly13(4), 341-358.

Bhatia, V.K. (1999). Integrating products, processes, purposes and participants in professional writing. Writing: Texts, Processes and Practices, London: Routledge.

Bhatia, V. (2004). Worlds of written discourse: A genre-based view. London: Continuum International.

Biber, D., Connor, U., & Upton, T. A.  (2007). Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing, Co.

Candlin, C. N., Bhatia, V. K., & Jensen, C. H. (2002). Developing legal writing materials for English second language learners: Problems and perspectives. English for Specific Purposes, 21(4), 299-320.

Estaji, M., & Vafaeimehr, R. (2015). A comparative analysis of interactional metadiscourse markers in the Introduction and Conclusion sections of mechanical and electrical engineering research papers. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research3(1), 37-56.

Farzannia, S., & Farnia M. (2016). Metadiscourse markers in introduction sections of Persian and English mining engineering articles. English for Specific Purposes World, 17(49), 1-16.

Fu, X. (2012). The use of interactional metadiscourse in job postings. Discourse Studies14(4), 399-417.

Ghadyani, F., & Tahririan, M. H. (2015). Interactive markers in medical research articles written by Iranian and native authors of ISI and non-ISI medical journals: a contrastive metadiscourse analysis of method section. Theory and Practice in Language Studies5(2), 309.

Gholami, J., & Ilghami, R. (2016). Metadiscourse markers in biological research articles and journal impact factor: Non‐native writers vs. native writers. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education44(4), 349-360.

Gholami, J., & Zeinolabedini, M. (2017). Peer-to-peer prescriptions in medical sciences: Iranian field specialists' attitudes toward convenience editing. English for Specific Purposes45, 86-97.

Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Hopkins, A., & Dudley- Evans, T. (1988). A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes, 7(2), 113-122.

Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied linguistics17(4), 433-454.

Hyland, K. (2006). Disciplinary differences: language variation in academic discourse. In K. Hyland, & M. Bondi (Eds.), Academic discourse across disciplines. Germany: Peter Lang.

Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.

Hyland, K. & Tse, P. (2004a). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156–177.

Hyland, K. L. (2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies.

Hyland, K. (2015). Metadiscourse. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Research Gate. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1002/9781118611463/wbielsi00

Hyland, K. (2016). Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice. Journal of Second Language Writing31, 58-69.

Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2017). Is academic writing becoming more informal? English for Specific Purposes45, 40-51.

Jiang, F. K., & Hyland, K. (2016). Nouns and academic interactions: A neglected feature of metadiscourse. Applied Linguistics, doi:10.1093/applin/amw023. 201..

Kawase, T. (2015). Metadiscourse in the introductions of PhD theses and research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes20, 114-124.

Kuhi, D., & Mojood, M. (2014). Metadiscourse in newspaper genre: A cross-linguistic study of English and Persian editorials. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences98, 1046-1055.

Vande Kopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82–93.

Marefat, F., & Hassanzadeh, M. (2016). Applying form-focused approaches to L2 vocabulary instruction through video podcasts. Language Learning & Technology20(3), 107-127.

Nwogu, K. N. (1997). The medical research paper: Structure and functions. English for specific purposes, 16(2), 119-138.

Ozdemir, N. O., & Longo, B. (2014). Metadiscourse use in thesis abstracts: A cross-cultural study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences141, 59-63. doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.011

Rezaeizadeh, Z., Baharlooei, R., & Simin, S. (2015). Gender-Based study of interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers in conclusion sections of English master theses. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences6(1), 195-208.

Rezaee, A. A. & Sayfouri, N. (2009). Iranian ISI and non-ISI medical research articles in English: A comparative ESP/EAP move analysis. J. English Lang. Journal of English Language Teaching, 1(212), 135–160.

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

Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zare, J., & Tavakoli, M. (2016). The use of personal meta-discourse over monologic and dialogic modes of academic speech. Discourse Processes, 54(2), 1-13.