A comparative investigation of metadiscourse in English and Persian architectural research articles

Ariannejad, Aida; Osam, Ülker Vancı; Yiğitoğlu, Nur

doi:10.1515/psicl-2019-0001

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some articles coalesced the results and discussion sections, others contained other sections such as applications and conclusions (Lin & Evans, 2012). Focusing on the "post-method" sections of the articles, however, enabled the researcher to offer a comprehensive view of the persuasive and argumentative language used in research articles (Ariannejad, et al, 2019;Cao & Hu, 2014). The next issue which needs to be added is that the compiled articles were all published in the leading international journals of architecture to reassure the high quality of the academic language.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Or exclusive first person plural pronouns 'we' and its objects and possessives are used to show the active involvement of the writer in the research process and emphasizing on his role as an active member of the disciplinary community (Carciu, 2009). Research has revealed discipline-specific features in the employment of self-mentions in research articles (Ariannejad, et al, 2019;Dong & Qiu, 2018;MurDuenas, 2011;Hyland, 2001). In this regard, some researchers have conducted cross-disciplinary investigation on the employment of these features in academic articles (Munoz, 2013;Salas, 2015), while others have had more in-depth investigations on the use of self-mentions and merely focus on a specific discipline (Yang, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Authorial Identity in Research Articles

Ariannejad¹

2020

NEUJE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study investigates the employment of self-mentions and their functions in English articles in the field of architecture. To this end, a compiled corpus, composing of the post-method sections of 50 articles, was analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. The results shed light on various functions used by English-language writers to express their authorial identity through explicit employment of self-mentions. The findings provide some insights into the rhetorical conventions of the academic discourse community of architects and into employment of these discursive features which are of great importance to EAP teachers and learners. Keywords: Self-mentions, academic articles, academic genre analysis

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Authorial Identity in Research Articles

Ariannejad¹

2020

NEUJE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These few studies conducted on conference abstracts are not enough to provide a comprehensive understanding of the use of metadiscourse in conference abstracts. Although other researches on hedging and boosters in recent times exist (Afreh et al, 2017;Salar & Behzad, 2016;Ariannejad et al, 2019;Zali et al, 2020), there are but a few studies that deal with the subject in conference abstracts. One can hardly find studies that deal with the use of hedges and boosters in hard sciences and soft sciences conference abstracts, hence the need for the current study.…”

Section: Earlier Studies On Metadiscourse Elements (Hedges and Booste...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Variations in Rhetorical Moves and Metadiscourse Elements in Conference Abstracts: A Genre Analysis

Obeng

Wornyo²,

Hammond³

2023

EJALS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An abstract represents the summary of a piece of writing. Genre and metadiscourse analytical studies could highlight move variations in abstracts. The study aimed to investigate variations in the academic conference abstracts of the hard and soft sciences with a focus on rhetorical structure/sequence and the use of hedges/boosters. A corpus of sixty (60) abstracts was used for the study; this comprised 30 abstracts each from the soft sciences and the hard sciences. The abstracts were selected from two conference proceedings. The framework of rhetorical moves for abstracts comprising introduction (I), purpose (P), method (M), product (Pr), and the conclusion was used for the analysis of the rhetorical sequence of the abstracts. The abstracts were further analysed for their use of boosters and hedges. From the results, 43.3% of hard sciences abstracts (HSA) and 33.3% of soft science abstracts (SSA) followed the framework used. Furthermore, purpose, method, product, and conclusion were obligatory moves whereas the introduction move was optional in the SSA. On the other hand, only method and product moves were obligatory with the rest being conventional in SSA. The most dominant move sequence for HSA was I-P-M-Pr-C (46.7%) followed by I-M-Pr-C (17%) and I-P-M-Pr (17%) whereas P-M-Pr-C (43.3%) was the most dominant sequence followed by I-P-M-Pr-C (33.3%) for the SSA. The hard sciences abstracts and the soft sciences abstracts do not show marked differences in the authors’ use of boosters and hedges. Pedagogical implications of the findings of this study are useful particularly for academic conference applicants, academic writing instruction as well as advancing genre and metadiscourse research in conference abstracts. Article visualizations:<img src="/-counters-/soc/0044/a.php" alt="Hit counter" />

show abstract

“…Overall, it was found that there are measurably noteworthy contrasts between the frequencies of Hedges, Boosters, and Attitude Markers utilized in English and Persian sub-corpora. Ariannejad et al (2019) expressed that their findings "provide deep insights into the rhetorical conventions and norms in architectural articles and offer a broader perspective towards discoursing patterns and persuasion strategies of English and Iranian academic writers in this field".…”

Section: Previous Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparisons of Interactive and Interactional Metadiscourse among Undergraduates

Zali

Mohamad

Setia

et al. 2021

AJUE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interactive and interactional metadiscourse are linguistic features used to maintain the coherence in essays. It involved a one-way interaction between the writer and reader, thus a challenge for Second Language (L2) learners to write effectively and comprehensively. A study is done on how the L2 learners produced the metadiscourse features and the usage is compared. A corpus of 200 evaluative essays by UiTM undergraduate students from computer science and business administration courses is analysed based on Hyland’s (2005) framework. The purpose is to find out the amount and types of metadiscourse used and whether students from different course groups make any differences in their choices. The analysis revealed that students in both courses produced more interactive than interactional metadiscourse. The most prominent feature is Self-mention and the least is Attitude Markers. The same prominent feature for both courses is Transition Markers. The business administration course shows the least feature in Evidentials, whereas Frame Markers in computer science. These are evidence as to the importance of metadiscourse in students’ academic writings and awareness is shown in its usage. This could lead to a proposition for a metadiscourse writing comparison between secondary schools and universities to gain fascinating outcomes. Keywords: Evaluative writings, Interactional metadiscourse, Interactive metadiscourse, L2 learners, undergraduates

show abstract

A comparative investigation of metadiscourse in English and Persian architectural research articles

Cited by 8 publications

References 31 publications

Authorial Identity in Research Articles

Authorial Identity in Research Articles

Variations in Rhetorical Moves and Metadiscourse Elements in Conference Abstracts: A Genre Analysis

Comparisons of Interactive and Interactional Metadiscourse among Undergraduates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About