Move-based investigation of appraisal in the introduction section of Applied Linguistics research articles: Similarities and differences between L1 and L2 English texts

J. Abdi, Karim Sadeghi, M. Mohammadi
{"title":"Move-based investigation of appraisal in the introduction section of Applied Linguistics research articles: Similarities and differences between L1 and L2 English texts","authors":"J. Abdi, Karim Sadeghi, M. Mohammadi","doi":"10.22099/JTLS.2020.35187.2745","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recent research has shown that academic writing is not ‘author-evacuated’ but, rather, carries a representation of the writers’ identity. One way through which writers project their identity in academic writing is stance-taking toward propositions advanced in the text. Appropriate stance-taking has proved to be challenging for novice writers of Research Articles (RAs), especially those writing in a foreign language. To contribute to the literature on stance-taking, the present study compared the move-based use of evaluative resources in the introduction section of L1 (written by native English speakers) and L2 (written by Iranian, non-native writers) English RAs in the discipline of Applied Linguistics. To this end, 100 English Research Article Introductions (RAIs), 50 by L1 writers and 50 by L2 writers, were investigated as the corpus of the study. Categories of analysis were taken from Appraisal framework (Martine & White, 2005) and CARS model (Swales, 2004). The results revealed that the two groups of texts were not substantially different in the overall use of appraisal resources in the whole body of RAIs. However, more detailed analyses of the specific categories of appraisal in each of the rhetorical moves demonstrated that in some cases, especially in moves 1 and 3, L1 and L2 writers made different choices when taking a stance. The findings of this study can serve as a valuable source providing a practical and comprehensive understanding of the use of evaluative resources in RAIs for EAP researchers, teachers, and other professionals involved in the teaching of academic writing.","PeriodicalId":150431,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Teaching Language Skills","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Teaching Language Skills","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22099/JTLS.2020.35187.2745","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recent research has shown that academic writing is not ‘author-evacuated’ but, rather, carries a representation of the writers’ identity. One way through which writers project their identity in academic writing is stance-taking toward propositions advanced in the text. Appropriate stance-taking has proved to be challenging for novice writers of Research Articles (RAs), especially those writing in a foreign language. To contribute to the literature on stance-taking, the present study compared the move-based use of evaluative resources in the introduction section of L1 (written by native English speakers) and L2 (written by Iranian, non-native writers) English RAs in the discipline of Applied Linguistics. To this end, 100 English Research Article Introductions (RAIs), 50 by L1 writers and 50 by L2 writers, were investigated as the corpus of the study. Categories of analysis were taken from Appraisal framework (Martine & White, 2005) and CARS model (Swales, 2004). The results revealed that the two groups of texts were not substantially different in the overall use of appraisal resources in the whole body of RAIs. However, more detailed analyses of the specific categories of appraisal in each of the rhetorical moves demonstrated that in some cases, especially in moves 1 and 3, L1 and L2 writers made different choices when taking a stance. The findings of this study can serve as a valuable source providing a practical and comprehensive understanding of the use of evaluative resources in RAIs for EAP researchers, teachers, and other professionals involved in the teaching of academic writing.
应用语言学研究论文导论部分评价的移动调查:母语和第二语言文本的异同
最近的研究表明,学术写作并不是“作者撤离”,而是承载着作者身份的一种表现。作者在学术写作中表达自己身份的一种方式是对文本中提出的命题采取立场。事实证明,对于研究论文(RAs)的新手作者来说,适当的立场是具有挑战性的,尤其是那些用外语写作的人。为了对立场采取方面的文献做出贡献,本研究比较了应用语言学学科中第一语言(由母语为英语的人撰写)和第二语言(由伊朗非母语作家撰写)英语RAs引言部分中基于动作的评价资源使用情况。为此,我们选取了100篇英语研究文章介绍(RAIs)作为研究语料库,其中50篇由母语作者撰写,50篇由第二语言作者撰写。分析类别取自评估框架(Martine & White, 2005)和CARS模型(Swales, 2004)。结果显示,两组文本在整体评价资源的使用上并没有实质性的差异。然而,对每种修辞动作中具体的评价类别进行更详细的分析表明,在某些情况下,特别是在第1步和第3步中,第一语言和第二语言作者在采取立场时做出了不同的选择。本研究的发现可以为EAP研究者、教师和其他从事学术写作教学的专业人员提供一个实用而全面的理解RAIs中评估资源使用的宝贵资源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信