Writers' communicative resources for comparing present and past research findings: A pedagogically motivated inquiry into scientists' rhetorical practices

IF 3.1 1区 文学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Bingwu Guo , Jason Miin-Hwa Lim
{"title":"Writers' communicative resources for comparing present and past research findings: A pedagogically motivated inquiry into scientists' rhetorical practices","authors":"Bingwu Guo ,&nbsp;Jason Miin-Hwa Lim","doi":"10.1016/j.jeap.2024.101366","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Despite the pivotal role of ‘comparing present and past research findings' (CPPRF) in both softer and harder sciences, scant attention has been directed to how linguistic resources are used in such comparisons in certain applied sciences, particularly Material Science (MS) and Agricultural Science (AS). Based on a genre analysis and interviews with specialist informants, we examined the prevalence of CPPRF, the circumstances involved, and the salient linguistic resources employed by expert writers in the two disciplines. It was found that CPPRF is markedly more prevalent in the ‘Results and Discussion’ sections of the research articles in AS than those in MS. Agricultural scientists use more author prominent citations, especially after alignment verbs, to accentuate the roles of previous researchers while making new knowledge claims. Experts in both fields, however, employ ‘copula-complex preposition’ and ‘copula-adjective-preposition’ structures expressing commonality to explicitly support previous research findings. In cases of divergences, writers draw on comparative adjectives to tacitly avoid direct conflicts with previous researchers' findings in the process of knowledge creation. It is recommended that specific word combinations be highlighted in relation to writers' attempts to generate knowledge via comparisons of present and previous research outcomes, thus implicitly signalling additional contributions of their studies.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1475158524000341","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite the pivotal role of ‘comparing present and past research findings' (CPPRF) in both softer and harder sciences, scant attention has been directed to how linguistic resources are used in such comparisons in certain applied sciences, particularly Material Science (MS) and Agricultural Science (AS). Based on a genre analysis and interviews with specialist informants, we examined the prevalence of CPPRF, the circumstances involved, and the salient linguistic resources employed by expert writers in the two disciplines. It was found that CPPRF is markedly more prevalent in the ‘Results and Discussion’ sections of the research articles in AS than those in MS. Agricultural scientists use more author prominent citations, especially after alignment verbs, to accentuate the roles of previous researchers while making new knowledge claims. Experts in both fields, however, employ ‘copula-complex preposition’ and ‘copula-adjective-preposition’ structures expressing commonality to explicitly support previous research findings. In cases of divergences, writers draw on comparative adjectives to tacitly avoid direct conflicts with previous researchers' findings in the process of knowledge creation. It is recommended that specific word combinations be highlighted in relation to writers' attempts to generate knowledge via comparisons of present and previous research outcomes, thus implicitly signalling additional contributions of their studies.

作家比较现在和过去研究成果的交际资源:从教学角度探究科学家的修辞实践
尽管 "比较现在和过去的研究成果"(CPPRF)在软科学和硬科学中都起着举足轻重的作用,但在某些应用科学,特别是材料科学(MS)和农业科学(AS)中,人们却很少关注在这种比较中如何使用语言资源。基于体裁分析和对专家信息提供者的访谈,我们研究了 CPPRF 的普遍性、所涉及的情况以及这两个学科的专家写作者所使用的突出语言资源。研究发现,在《科学》研究文章的 "结果与讨论 "部分,CPPRF 的使用率明显高于《科学》研究文章。农业科学家更多使用突出作者的引文,尤其是在对齐动词之后,以强调前人的作用,同时提出新的知识主张。然而,这两个领域的专家都使用 "副词-复合介词 "和 "副词-形容词-介词 "结构来表达共性,以明确支持以前的研究成果。在出现分歧的情况下,作者会使用比较形容词,以默契地避免在知识创造过程中与前人的研究成果发生直接冲突。我们建议,在作者试图通过比较当前和以往的研究成果来创造知识时,应强调特定的词语组合,从而隐含地表明其研究的额外贡献。
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
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
13.30%
发文量
81
审稿时长
57 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of English for Academic Purposes provides a forum for the dissemination of information and views which enables practitioners of and researchers in EAP to keep current with developments in their field and to contribute to its continued updating. JEAP publishes articles, book reviews, conference reports, and academic exchanges in the linguistic, sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic description of English as it occurs in the contexts of academic study and scholarly exchange itself.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信