Title

Legitimizing New Findings via Evaluative Comparison: an Exploratory Study

DOI

10.6706/TIESPJ.2015.7.2.3

Authors

Fei-Wen Cheng

Key Words

Discussion of results ; rhetorical structures ; evaluative comparison ; English for academic purposes

PublicationName

Taiwan International ESP Journal

Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication

7卷2期(2015 / 12 / 01)

Page #

43 - 70

Content Language

英文

English Abstract

This study aims to show how writers contextualize their findings in order to demonstrate the legitimacy of new research within an academic discipline. While huge efforts have been devoted to the identification of the Moves and Steps in Research Article (RA) Discussion sections, how writers justify the value of new research through evaluative comparisons with prior studies, in order to transform empirical results into knowledge claims, has been less studied. The present study conducted a rhetorical analysis of this critical act, evaluative comparison, drawing on a genre-based description of Moves and Steps. Based on an analysis of 12 applied linguistics research articles, this study reveals that six rhetorical Steps are typically deployed to legitimize new research through evaluative comparison, and illustrates their possible variations in schematic patterns. The findings not only contribute to our understanding of the knowledge construction process through argumentation, but also have important pedagogical implications for the writing practices of novice English researchers.

Topic Category 人文學 > 語言學
社會科學 > 教育學
Reference
  1. Basturkmen, H. (2009). Commenting on results in published research articles and masters dissertations in Language Teaching. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8, 241-251.
    連結:
  2. Basturkmen, H. (2012). A genre-based investigation of discussion sections of research articles in Dentistry and disciplinary variation. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 31, 188-201.
    連結:
  3. Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/ culture/power. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    連結:
  4. Bitchener, J., & Basturkmen, H. (2006). Perceptions of the difficulties of postgraduate L2 thesis students writing the discussion section. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 4-18.
    連結:
  5. Bitchener, J. (2010). Writing an Applied Linguistics thesis or dissertation: A guide to presenting empirical research. UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
    連結:
  6. 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 Purposes, 16(4), 321-337.
    連結:
  7. Hopkins, A., & Dudley-Evans, T. (1988). A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes, 7, 113-12.
    連結:
  8. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourse: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.
    連結:
  9. Hyland, K. (2004). Patterns of engagement: Dialogic features and L2 undergraduate writing. In L. J. Ravelli and R. A. Ellis (Eds.), Analysing academic writing: Contextuazlied frameworks (pp.5-23). New York: Continuum.
    連結:
  10. Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005). Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 24(3), 269-292.
    連結:
  11. Kaufer, D. S. & Geisler, C. (1989). Novelty in academic writing. Written Communication, 6(3), 286-311.
    連結:
  12. Kwan, B. S. C., Chan, H., & Lam, C. (2012). Evaluating prior scholarship in literature reviews of Research Articles: A comparative study of practices in two research paradigms. English for Specific Purposes, 31(3), 188-201.
    連結:
  13. Lim, J. M. H. (2010). Commenting on research results in applied linguistics and education: A comparative genre-based investigation. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(4), 280-294.
    連結:
  14. Lim, J. M. H. (2012). How do writers establish research niches? A genre-based investigation into management researchers' rhetorical steps and linguistic mechanisms. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11, 229-245.
    連結:
  15. Lin, L., & Evans, S. (2012). Structural patterns in empirical research articles: A crossdisciplinary study. English for Specific Purposes, 31, 150-160.
    連結:
  16. Milagros del Saz Rubio, M. (2011). A pragmatic approach to the macro-structure and metadiscoursal features of research article introductions in the field of Agricultural Sciences. English for Specific Purposes, 30(4), 258-271.
    連結:
  17. Nwogu, K. N. (1997). The medical research paper: structure and functions. English for Specific Purposes, 16(2), 119-138.
    連結:
  18. Paltridge, B. & Starfield, S. (2007). Thesis and dissertation writing in a second language: A handbook for supervisors. NY: Routledge.
    連結:
  19. Peacock, M. (2002). Communicative moves in the discussion section of research articles. System, 30, 479-497.
    連結:
  20. Posteguillo, S. (1999). The schematic structure of computer science research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 139-160.
    連結:
  21. Swales, J. M. & Feak, C. B. (2012). Academic writing for graduate students. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
    連結:
  22. Thompson, D. K. (1993). Arguing for experimental “facts” in science. Written Communication, 10(1), 106-128.
    連結:
  23. Yang, R., & Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes, 22(4), 365-385.
    連結:
  24. Giannoni, D. S. (2005). Negative evaluation in academic discourse. A comparison of English and Italian research articles. Linguistica e Filologia, 20, 71-99.
  25. Hyland, K. (2002). Activity and evaluation: Reporting practices in academic writing. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp.115-130). London: Pearson Education.
  26. Lewin, B. A., Fine, J., & Young, L. (2001). Expository discourse: A genre-based approach to social science research texts. London: Continuum.