研究文章讨论部分的凝聚力:跨学科调查

IF 3.2 1区 文学 Q1 LINGUISTICS
{"title":"研究文章讨论部分的凝聚力:跨学科调查","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.esp.2024.08.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Despite its prominence and functionality in academic writing, cohesion is under-researched in academic genres, including research articles (RAs). Moreover, there is little cross-disciplinary research on cohesion in academic discourse. Thus, this study aimed to investigate cohesion in the discussion section of RAs at sentence, paragraph and text levels, across three disciplines (i.e., applied linguistics, chemistry, and economics). To this end, 24 indices of local, global, and text cohesion were analyzed in a corpus of 300 discussion sections (100 from each discipline). MANOVAs identified significant cross-disciplinary variations in local, global, and text cohesion. Specifically, indices of local cohesion were generally higher in applied linguistics discussions, but measures of global, and text cohesion were mostly higher in chemistry and economics texts, respectively. Random forest modeling revealed that negative connectives were the most powerful classifiers of applied linguistics discussions, whereas adjacent sentence overlap noun synonyms and positive connectives were the best predictors of chemistry and economics discussions, respectively. These results are discussed with a view to offering theoretical and pedagogical implications for English-for-specific-purposes researchers and practitioners.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47809,"journal":{"name":"English for Specific Purposes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0889490624000413/pdfft?md5=e8797ff05476b73331d2a26726b72b5e&pid=1-s2.0-S0889490624000413-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cohesion in the discussion section of research articles: A cross-disciplinary investigation\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.esp.2024.08.004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Despite its prominence and functionality in academic writing, cohesion is under-researched in academic genres, including research articles (RAs). Moreover, there is little cross-disciplinary research on cohesion in academic discourse. Thus, this study aimed to investigate cohesion in the discussion section of RAs at sentence, paragraph and text levels, across three disciplines (i.e., applied linguistics, chemistry, and economics). To this end, 24 indices of local, global, and text cohesion were analyzed in a corpus of 300 discussion sections (100 from each discipline). MANOVAs identified significant cross-disciplinary variations in local, global, and text cohesion. Specifically, indices of local cohesion were generally higher in applied linguistics discussions, but measures of global, and text cohesion were mostly higher in chemistry and economics texts, respectively. Random forest modeling revealed that negative connectives were the most powerful classifiers of applied linguistics discussions, whereas adjacent sentence overlap noun synonyms and positive connectives were the best predictors of chemistry and economics discussions, respectively. These results are discussed with a view to offering theoretical and pedagogical implications for English-for-specific-purposes researchers and practitioners.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47809,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"English for Specific Purposes\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0889490624000413/pdfft?md5=e8797ff05476b73331d2a26726b72b5e&pid=1-s2.0-S0889490624000413-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"English for Specific Purposes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0889490624000413\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"English for Specific Purposes","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0889490624000413","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管内聚力在学术写作中具有突出的地位和功能,但对包括研究文章(RA)在内的学术体裁的研究却不足。此外,关于学术话语中内聚力的跨学科研究也很少。因此,本研究旨在调查三个学科(即应用语言学、化学和经济学)研究报告讨论部分在句子、段落和文本层面的内聚力。为此,我们在 300 个讨论部分(每个学科 100 个)的语料库中分析了 24 个局部、整体和文本内聚力指数。通过 MANOVA 发现了局部、全局和文本内聚力的显著跨学科差异。具体来说,应用语言学讨论中的局部内聚力指数普遍较高,但化学和经济学文本中的整体内聚力和文本内聚力大多较高。随机森林模型显示,负连接词是应用语言学讨论最有力的分类器,而相邻句子重叠名词同义词和正连接词则分别是化学和经济学讨论的最佳预测器。本文讨论了这些结果,以期为特定目的英语研究人员和从业人员提供理论和教学启示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Cohesion in the discussion section of research articles: A cross-disciplinary investigation

Despite its prominence and functionality in academic writing, cohesion is under-researched in academic genres, including research articles (RAs). Moreover, there is little cross-disciplinary research on cohesion in academic discourse. Thus, this study aimed to investigate cohesion in the discussion section of RAs at sentence, paragraph and text levels, across three disciplines (i.e., applied linguistics, chemistry, and economics). To this end, 24 indices of local, global, and text cohesion were analyzed in a corpus of 300 discussion sections (100 from each discipline). MANOVAs identified significant cross-disciplinary variations in local, global, and text cohesion. Specifically, indices of local cohesion were generally higher in applied linguistics discussions, but measures of global, and text cohesion were mostly higher in chemistry and economics texts, respectively. Random forest modeling revealed that negative connectives were the most powerful classifiers of applied linguistics discussions, whereas adjacent sentence overlap noun synonyms and positive connectives were the best predictors of chemistry and economics discussions, respectively. These results are discussed with a view to offering theoretical and pedagogical implications for English-for-specific-purposes researchers and practitioners.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
8.00%
发文量
41
审稿时长
62 days
期刊介绍: English For Specific Purposes is an international peer-reviewed journal that welcomes submissions from across the world. Authors are encouraged to submit articles and research/discussion notes on topics relevant to the teaching and learning of discourse for specific communities: academic, occupational, or otherwise specialized. Topics such as the following may be treated from the perspective of English for specific purposes: second language acquisition in specialized contexts, needs assessment, curriculum development and evaluation, materials preparation, discourse analysis, descriptions of specialized varieties of English.
×
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