语言研究期刊文章讨论区的因果模式:跨语言子学科的科学解释话语

IF 0.5 3区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
M. Rahimi, Amin Karimnia, Hamed Barjesteh
{"title":"语言研究期刊文章讨论区的因果模式:跨语言子学科的科学解释话语","authors":"M. Rahimi, Amin Karimnia, Hamed Barjesteh","doi":"10.2989/16073614.2022.2121292","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract One of the basic goals of academic research is to explain the phenomena that researchers observe through causal relations. From a discursive perspective, however, how cause-effect patterns (CEPs) are reflected in academic writing is a major question to be investigated. Meanwhile, a problem is that sub-disciplines exploring human sciences may exhibit radical variations in terms of their discursive use of cause-effect patterns. Language studies is an umbrella term that encompasses many disciplines, including literature, language teaching, translation studies and linguistics. On a surface level, because such disciplines address language, one may assume that they follow similar ways of explaining language-related phenomena. This article is based on findings obtained from a study of the cause-effect patterns in 60 discussion sections randomly selected from 12 high-impact journals in four sub-disciplines of language studies. It aims to (i) categorise the types of the cause-effect patterns into ‘cause in focus’ and ‘effect in focus’, (ii) identify the most frequently used cause-effect signals, and (iii) ascertain whether there is any significant difference between the sub-disciplines in terms of their use of cause-effect patterns. Based on Fisher’s exact test, the findings reveal that a significant difference exists between the sub-disciplines in terms of their use of cause-effect patterns, and they also suggest that language teaching papers use the highest number of cause-effect patterns and thus were remarkably explanatory in explicating the phenomena they dealt with.","PeriodicalId":54152,"journal":{"name":"Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies","volume":"41 1","pages":"248 - 263"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cause-effect patterns in the discussion sections of articles in language studies journals: The discourse of scientific explanation across language sub-disciplines\",\"authors\":\"M. Rahimi, Amin Karimnia, Hamed Barjesteh\",\"doi\":\"10.2989/16073614.2022.2121292\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract One of the basic goals of academic research is to explain the phenomena that researchers observe through causal relations. From a discursive perspective, however, how cause-effect patterns (CEPs) are reflected in academic writing is a major question to be investigated. Meanwhile, a problem is that sub-disciplines exploring human sciences may exhibit radical variations in terms of their discursive use of cause-effect patterns. Language studies is an umbrella term that encompasses many disciplines, including literature, language teaching, translation studies and linguistics. On a surface level, because such disciplines address language, one may assume that they follow similar ways of explaining language-related phenomena. This article is based on findings obtained from a study of the cause-effect patterns in 60 discussion sections randomly selected from 12 high-impact journals in four sub-disciplines of language studies. It aims to (i) categorise the types of the cause-effect patterns into ‘cause in focus’ and ‘effect in focus’, (ii) identify the most frequently used cause-effect signals, and (iii) ascertain whether there is any significant difference between the sub-disciplines in terms of their use of cause-effect patterns. Based on Fisher’s exact test, the findings reveal that a significant difference exists between the sub-disciplines in terms of their use of cause-effect patterns, and they also suggest that language teaching papers use the highest number of cause-effect patterns and thus were remarkably explanatory in explicating the phenomena they dealt with.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54152,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies\",\"volume\":\"41 1\",\"pages\":\"248 - 263\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2022.2121292\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2022.2121292","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

学术研究的基本目标之一是通过因果关系来解释研究者观察到的现象。然而,从语篇的角度来看,因果模式如何反映在学术写作中是一个需要研究的主要问题。与此同时,一个问题是,探索人文科学的子学科可能在因果模式的话语使用方面表现出根本性的变化。语言研究是一个涵盖许多学科的总称,包括文学、语言教学、翻译研究和语言学。从表面上看,因为这些学科研究的是语言,人们可能会认为它们遵循着解释语言相关现象的类似方法。本文基于对语言研究四个子学科12种高影响力期刊60个讨论部分因果模式的研究结果。它的目的是(i)将因果模式的类型分为“焦点原因”和“焦点结果”,(ii)确定最常用的因果信号,以及(iii)确定子学科之间在因果模式的使用方面是否存在显着差异。基于Fisher的精确检验,研究结果显示各子学科之间在因果模式的使用上存在显著差异,他们还表明语言教学论文使用的因果模式最多,因此在解释他们所处理的现象时具有显著的解释性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Cause-effect patterns in the discussion sections of articles in language studies journals: The discourse of scientific explanation across language sub-disciplines
Abstract One of the basic goals of academic research is to explain the phenomena that researchers observe through causal relations. From a discursive perspective, however, how cause-effect patterns (CEPs) are reflected in academic writing is a major question to be investigated. Meanwhile, a problem is that sub-disciplines exploring human sciences may exhibit radical variations in terms of their discursive use of cause-effect patterns. Language studies is an umbrella term that encompasses many disciplines, including literature, language teaching, translation studies and linguistics. On a surface level, because such disciplines address language, one may assume that they follow similar ways of explaining language-related phenomena. This article is based on findings obtained from a study of the cause-effect patterns in 60 discussion sections randomly selected from 12 high-impact journals in four sub-disciplines of language studies. It aims to (i) categorise the types of the cause-effect patterns into ‘cause in focus’ and ‘effect in focus’, (ii) identify the most frequently used cause-effect signals, and (iii) ascertain whether there is any significant difference between the sub-disciplines in terms of their use of cause-effect patterns. Based on Fisher’s exact test, the findings reveal that a significant difference exists between the sub-disciplines in terms of their use of cause-effect patterns, and they also suggest that language teaching papers use the highest number of cause-effect patterns and thus were remarkably explanatory in explicating the phenomena they dealt with.
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
0.90
自引率
16.70%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies publishes articles on a wide range of linguistic topics and acts as a forum for research into ALL the languages of southern Africa, including English and Afrikaans. Original contributions are welcomed on any of the core areas of linguistics, both theoretical (e.g. syntax, phonology, semantics) and applied (e.g. sociolinguistic topics, language teaching, language policy). Review articles, short research reports and book reviews are also welcomed. Articles in languages other than English are accompanied by an extended English summary.
×
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