نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشیار گروه زبان و ادبیات انگلیسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران
2 دانشجوی دکتری آموزش زبان دانشگاه تهران (پردیس البرز). تهران. ایران
چکیده
علاقه به کاربرد نشانگرهای فراگفتمانی در مقالههای پژوهشی رشتههای گوناگون، در بین پژوهشگرانِ گفتمان و ژانر گسترش یافتهاست. در میان رشتههای علوم سخت، زمینشناسی و زیرشاخههای آن کمتر مورد توجه قرار گرفتهاست. این در حالی است که یافتههای پژوهشی اصیل دانشجویان تحصیلات تکمیلی زمینشناسی در مقالههای تخصصی، تا اندازهای به سبب دانش اندک آنها دربارة کاربرد درست نشانگرهای فراگفتمانی در مقالههای پژوهشیشان، در مجلههای تخصصی با اعتبار بالای رشته های آنها مورد پذیرش قرار نمیگیرد. در پژوهش حاضر، با استفاده از چارچوب نظری هایلند و تسه ( 2004)، بر نوع و فراوانی کاربرد نشانگرهای فراگفتمانی در شش زیرشاخة اصلی زمینشناسی (یعنی مهندسی زمینشناسی، رسوبشناسی، لرزهشناسی، سنگشناسی، دیرینشناسی و ژئوتکنیک) تمرکز شدهاست. برای پاسخ به پرسشهای پژوهش، 180 مقاله پژوهشی از73 مجلة با رتبة بالای زمینشناسی، از پیکره اصلی انتخاب شد. یافتههای بررسی دقیق واژه به واژة مقالهها نشان داد که به جز نشانگرهای درونمرجع، شش زیرشاخة اصلی زمینشناسی از جنبة آماری تفاوت معناداری در نوع و فراوانی کاربرد ویژگیهای فراگفتمانی نشان دادند. افزون بر این، نتایج نمایانگر آن بود که در سنگشناسی، مهندسی زمینشناسی و رسوبشناسی، فراوانی بیشتری در کاربرد نشانگرهای تعاملی در مقایسه با سه زیرشاخه زمینشناسی همتایشان مشاهده شد. با این وجود، این سه زیرشاخه، یعنی لرزهشناسی، دیرینشناسی و ژئوتکنیک، فراوانی بالاتری در بهکارگیری عناصر فراگفتمانی تقابلی نشان دادند. یافتههای این پژوهش، کاربردهایی برای پژوهشگران ژانر، مدرسین زبان انگلیسی تخصصی و نویسندگان تازهکار زمینشناسی دارد.
کلیدواژهها
- Abdi, R. (2002). Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies, 4(2), 139-145. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456020040020101
- Ahmadi, P., & Abdi, R. (2016). Analysis of interactive metadiscourse markers in Chemistry Engineering research articles. The 3rd International Conference on Research in Science and Technology (1-16). Karin Press. https://scholar.conference.ac/index.php/download/file/7401-Analysis of%20Interactive-metadiscourse-markers-in-chemistry-engineering-research-articles
- Atai, M. R., & Sadr, L. (2008). A cross-cultural study of hedging devices in discussion section of applied linguistics RAs. Teaching English Language and Literature Society of Iran (TELLSI), 2, 1-2. https://www.sid.ir/en/journal/ViewPaper.aspx?ID=162198
- Attarn, A. (2014). Study of metadiscourse in ESP articles: A comparison of English articles written by Iranian and English native speakers. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 5(1), 63-71. https://www.ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter/article/viewFile/87/36
- Bartholomae, D. (1986). Inventing the universality. Journal of Basic Writing, 5(1), 4-23. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43443456
- Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual inquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Oxford University Press.
- Behnam, B., & Mirzapour, F. (2012). A comparative study of intensity markers in engineering and applied linguistics. English Language Teaching, 5(7), 158-163. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n7p158
- Bunton, D. (1999). The use of higher level metatext in PhD theses. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1). 41-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906 (98)00022-2
- Cao, F., & Hu, G. (2014). Interactive metadiscourse in RAs: A comparative study of paradigmatic and disciplinary influences. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 15-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.007
- Charney, D. (2002). Evaluating professional discourse: How does it work for real readers? In E. Barton & G. Stygall, Discourse studies in composition (pp. 305-320). Hampton Press.
- Connor, U., & Kaplan, B. (1987). Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 texts. Addison.
- Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. Peter Lang.
- Crismore, A., & Abdollahzadeh, E. (2010). A review of recent metadiscourse studies: The Iranian context. NJES, 9(2), 195-219. https://njesjournal.com/articles/10.35360/njes.223/
- Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1989). Mr. Darwin and his readers: Exploring interpersonal metadiscourse as a dimension of ethos. Rhetoric Review, 8(1), 91-112. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350198909388880
- Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1990). Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse. In W. Nash (Ed.), The writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse (pp. 118-136). Sage Publications.
- Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finish university students. Written Communication, 10(1), 39-71. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0741088393010001002
- Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of pragmatics, 40(1), 95-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003
- Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in RAs: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36(10), 1807-1825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.004
- Ebadi, S., Salman, A. R., & Ebrahimi, B. (2015). A comparative study of metadiscourse markers in Persian and English academic papers. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language research, 2(4), 28-41. https://www.jallr.com/index.php/JALLR/article/view/60/pdf_57
- Estaji, M., & Vafaeimehr, R. (2015). A comparative analysis of interactional metadiscourse markers in the introduction and conclusion sections of Mechanical and Electrical engineering RAs. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 3(1), 37-56. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1127334.pdf
- Farzannia, S., & Farnia, M. (2016). Metadiscourse markers in introduction sections of Persian and English Mining engineering articles. English for Specific Purposes World, 49(17), 1-16. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301777292_Metadiscourse_Markers_in_Introduction_Sections_of_Persian_and_English_Mining_Engineering_
- 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 Studies, 5(2), 309-317. https://doi.org/10.17507/TPLS.0502.10
- Ghaemi, F., & Sabadoust, G. (2017). Interactive and interactional markers in ISI and non ISI applied linguistics journal articles written by Iranian authors: A contrastive metadiscourse analysis of method section. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 4(1), 89-108. https://jmrels.journals.ikiu.ac.ir/article_1062.html
- Gholami, J., & Ilgamit, R. (2016). Metadiscourse markers in biology RAs and journal impact factors: Non-native writers vs. native writers. Journal of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 44(4), 349-360. https://iubmb.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/bmb.20961
- Gillaerts, P., & De Velde, F. V. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 128-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.004
- Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 13(3), 239-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906%20(94)90004-3.
- Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science RAs. Applied Linguistics, 17(4), 433-454. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.4.433
- Hyland, K. (1998). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. TEXT, 18(3), 349-382. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1998.18.3.349
- Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 3-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00025-2
- Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Longman.
- Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001
- Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse. Continuum.
- Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2018). In this paper we suggest: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse. English for Specific Purposes, 51, 18-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.02.001.
- Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156
- Jiang, F. K., & Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscoursive nouns: Interaction and cohesion in abstracts moves. English for Specific Purposes, 46, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2016.11.001
- Kahkesh, M., & Alipour, M. (2017). A comparative analysis of metadiscourse markers in the result and discussion sections of literatures and engineering RAs. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 9, 71-82. https://dx.doi.org/10.22111/ijals.2018.4192
- Keshavarz, M. H., & Kheiri, Z. (2011). Metadiscourse elements in English RAs written by native English and non-native Iranian writers in applied linguistics and civil engineering. Journal of English Studies, 1(3), 3-15. https://journals.srbiau.ac.ir/article_5602_3405df545c74a5dbe3d33dbe2d5fb4ac.pdf
- Le, E. (2004). Active participation within written argumentation: Metadiscourse and editorialist’s authority. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(4), 687-714. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00032-8.
- Mur-Duenas, P. (2011). An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in RAs written in English and Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(12), 3068-3079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.002
- Musa, A. M., & Hussin, S. (2020). Interactional metadiscourse strategies in academic discourse: An analysis of research articles produced by Arab writers. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 28(1), 35-52. http://www.pertanika.upm.edu.my/pjssh/browse/regular-issue?article=JSSH-3245-2018
- Pooresfahani, A. F., Khajavy, G. H., & Vahidinia, F. (2012). A contrastive study of metadiscourse elements in RAs written by Iranian Applied Linguistics and engineering writers in English. English Linguistics Research, 1(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.5430/elr.v1n1p88
- Sahragard, R., & Yazdanpanah, S. (2017). English engagement markers: A comparison of humanities and science journal articles. Language Art, 2(1), 111-130. https://doi.org/10.22046/LA.2017.06
- Schiffrin, D. (1980). Meta-talk: Organizational and evaluative brackets in discourse. Sociological Inquiry, 50(3), 199-236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00021.x.
- Shafqat, A., Arain, F., & Dahraj, M. T. (2020). A corpus analysis of metadiscourse markers used in argumentative essays by Pakistani undergraduate students. International Journal of Psychological rehabilitation, 24(4), 341-351. https://doi.org/10.37200/IJPR/V24I4/PR201013
- Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis. Cambridge University Press.
- Trowler, P., Saunders, M., & Bamber, V. (2012). Tribes and territories in the 21st century. Routledge.
- VandeKopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1) 82-93. https://doi.org/10.2307/357609
- VandeKopple, W. (2002). Metadiscourse, discourse, and issues in composition and rhetoric. In E. Barton & G. Stygall (Eds.), Discourse studies in composition (pp. 45-76). Hampton Press.
- Zali, M. M., Mohamad, R., Setia, R., Baniamin, R., & Razlan, R. M. (2020). Interactional metadiscourse analysis of evaluative essays. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 5, 120-129. https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=ql9UxbsAAAAJ&citation_for_view=ql9UxbsAAAAJ:d1gkVwhDpl0C.
- Zarei, G. R., & Mansoori, S. (2011). A contrastive study on metadiscourse elements used in humanities vs. non humanities across Persian and English. English Language Teaching, 4(1), 42-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n1p42