在研究文章中重述研究结果讨论部分:语言线索和词汇束的语料库分析

IF 0.6 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Yasir Bdaiwi Jasim
{"title":"在研究文章中重述研究结果讨论部分:语言线索和词汇束的语料库分析","authors":"Yasir Bdaiwi Jasim","doi":"10.17576/gema-2023-2301-12","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The discussion section is considered one of the most crucial sections of a research article (RA). It is challenging and problematic for both novice and native writers due to its argumentative nature. This section serves various functions such as restating results, interpreting the results, comparing them with the literature, and presenting claims and contributions. However, the focus of this paper is on a particular move function which is Restating Research Findings. Although this communicative move has been found to be obligatory or conventional in recent studies that investigated different disciplines, the present paper is only concerned with medical science discipline. Every communicative move serves a certain function that may be initiated by formulaic expressions, known as ‘lexical bundles’ (LBs) which are realised by the use of certain linguistic devices. This study explores these linguistic devices and the lexical bundles associated with move Restating Research Findings in the discussion section of medical research articles (MRAs). The analysed corpus is 50 discussions of research articles published in high impact journals. The findings showed that this move appeared in all the selected discussions. The move of Restating Research Findings was realised by the employment of reporting verbs (e.g., find, show) and first person plural pronouns (we, our). Also, the move was initiated by a number of 3-word and 4-word LBs such as Our study shows that and Our results revealed that . These findings could guide research writers in the field of medicine to produce a clearly presented discussion section.","PeriodicalId":12509,"journal":{"name":"GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Restating Research Findings in Research Articles Discussion Section: A Corpus Analysis of Linguistic Cues and Lexical Bundles\",\"authors\":\"Yasir Bdaiwi Jasim\",\"doi\":\"10.17576/gema-2023-2301-12\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The discussion section is considered one of the most crucial sections of a research article (RA). It is challenging and problematic for both novice and native writers due to its argumentative nature. This section serves various functions such as restating results, interpreting the results, comparing them with the literature, and presenting claims and contributions. However, the focus of this paper is on a particular move function which is Restating Research Findings. Although this communicative move has been found to be obligatory or conventional in recent studies that investigated different disciplines, the present paper is only concerned with medical science discipline. Every communicative move serves a certain function that may be initiated by formulaic expressions, known as ‘lexical bundles’ (LBs) which are realised by the use of certain linguistic devices. This study explores these linguistic devices and the lexical bundles associated with move Restating Research Findings in the discussion section of medical research articles (MRAs). The analysed corpus is 50 discussions of research articles published in high impact journals. The findings showed that this move appeared in all the selected discussions. The move of Restating Research Findings was realised by the employment of reporting verbs (e.g., find, show) and first person plural pronouns (we, our). Also, the move was initiated by a number of 3-word and 4-word LBs such as Our study shows that and Our results revealed that . These findings could guide research writers in the field of medicine to produce a clearly presented discussion section.\",\"PeriodicalId\":12509,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2023-2301-12\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2023-2301-12","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"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

讨论部分被认为是研究文章(RA)中最关键的部分之一。由于其争论性,这对新手和母语作家来说都是具有挑战性和问题的。这一部分具有多种功能,如重述结果、解释结果、将结果与文献进行比较、提出主张和贡献。然而,本文的重点是一个特殊的移动函数,即重述研究成果。虽然在最近的不同学科的研究中发现这种交流行为是强制性的或传统的,但本文仅涉及医学学科。每个交际动作都有一定的功能,这些功能可能是由公式化的表达发起的,这些表达被称为“词汇束”(lexical bundles, LBs),通过使用特定的语言手段来实现。本研究探讨了医学研究论文讨论部分与重述研究成果相关的语言手段和词汇束。分析的语料库是发表在高影响力期刊上的研究文章的50篇讨论。调查结果表明,这一举动出现在所有选定的讨论中。重述研究结果的举措是通过使用转述动词(例如,find, show)和第一人称复数代词(we, our)来实现的。此外,这一举措是由一些3字和4字的LBs发起的,如我们的研究表明,我们的结果表明。这些发现可以指导医学领域的研究作者制作一个清晰呈现的讨论部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Restating Research Findings in Research Articles Discussion Section: A Corpus Analysis of Linguistic Cues and Lexical Bundles
The discussion section is considered one of the most crucial sections of a research article (RA). It is challenging and problematic for both novice and native writers due to its argumentative nature. This section serves various functions such as restating results, interpreting the results, comparing them with the literature, and presenting claims and contributions. However, the focus of this paper is on a particular move function which is Restating Research Findings. Although this communicative move has been found to be obligatory or conventional in recent studies that investigated different disciplines, the present paper is only concerned with medical science discipline. Every communicative move serves a certain function that may be initiated by formulaic expressions, known as ‘lexical bundles’ (LBs) which are realised by the use of certain linguistic devices. This study explores these linguistic devices and the lexical bundles associated with move Restating Research Findings in the discussion section of medical research articles (MRAs). The analysed corpus is 50 discussions of research articles published in high impact journals. The findings showed that this move appeared in all the selected discussions. The move of Restating Research Findings was realised by the employment of reporting verbs (e.g., find, show) and first person plural pronouns (we, our). Also, the move was initiated by a number of 3-word and 4-word LBs such as Our study shows that and Our results revealed that . These findings could guide research writers in the field of medicine to produce a clearly presented discussion section.
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
GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies
GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS-
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
25.00%
发文量
44
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: The editorial welcomes submissions that provide insights into current and key issues dealing with language studies. The journal provides a venue for language researchers and practitioners to discuss, pursue and promote knowledge in emerging and developing areas in language studies. There must be critical discussion of issues and new and significant contribution to the related field. Articles can be from any of the following areas: LINGUISTICS LITERARY STUDIES LANGUAGE STUDIES TRANSLATION & INTERPRETING STUDIES.
×
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