Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Interactive Markers in Medical Research Articles Written by Iranian and Native Authors of ISI and Non-ISI Medical Journals: A Contrastive Metadiscourse Analysis of Method Section


Affiliations
1 Sheikh-e-Bahaee University, Isfahan, Iran, Islamic Republic of
 

The present study is concerned with the issue of whether there were any significant differences between the two groups- Iranian writers of ISI and non- ISI medical journals- in terms of the number and types of interactive markers. To this end, a corpus of 90 'method sections' of ISI and non- ISI English medical research articles written by Iranian and non- Iranian writers published between 2005 and 2010 were selected. Then, Hyland's (2005) taxonomy of metadiscourse markers was used as the model of analysis. After performing detailed quantitative and qualitative analyses of interactive markers, Chi- Square tests were run. Although the different groups of writers were found to have employed all sub-types of interactive markers, they were different by the use of them. The findings revealed significant differences between the ISI and non-ISI groups in binary comparisons (p=0.05). The differences may be attributed to the writers' mother tongue, culture and also to their lack or limited awareness of the rhetorical conventions of English medical academic research writing.

Keywords

Metadiscourse Analysis, Interactive Marker, Method Section, Medical Research Article, Iranian, ISI Journal.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Abdi, R. (2009). Projecting cultural identity through metadiscourse marking: A comparison of Persian and English research articles. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning 52.212, 1-15.
  • Crismore, A., & Abdollehzadeh, E. (2010). A review of recent metadiscourse studies: The Iranian context. Nordic Journal of English Studies 9.2, 195-219.
  • Dudley-Evans, T. (1998).Introduction. In I. Fortanet-Gamez; et al(eds.), Genre Studies in English for Academic Purposes. Castello de la Plana. Universitat Jaume I.
  • Hinds, J. (1987). Readers vs. Writers' responsibility: A new typology. In U. M. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (eds.), Writing across Languages: Analysis of L2 Text Reading. Mass: Addison-Wesley, 141-152.
  • Hyland, K. (1998). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text 18.3, 349-382.
  • Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Harlow: Pearson Education.
  • Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
  • Hyland, K. (2006). English for academic purposes: An advanced resource book. London: Routledge.
  • Hyland, K. (2007). Applying a gloss: Exemplifying and reformulating in academic discourse. Applied Linguistics 28. 2, 266-285.
  • Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies 9.2, 125-143.
  • Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics 25.2, 156-177.
  • Hyon, S. (1996). Genre in three traditions: Implications for ESL. TESOL Quarterly 30. 4, 693-722.
  • Livnat, Z. (2012). Dialogue, science, and academic writing. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  • Montgomery, S.L. (1996). The scientific voice. New York: The Guilford Press.
  • Mauranen, A. (1993a). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economic texts. English for Specific Purposes 12, 3-22.
  • Mauranen, A. (1993b). Cultural differences in academic rhetoric. Frankfurt Am Main: Peter Lang.
  • Paltridge, B. & Starfield, S. (2007). Thesis and dissertation writing in a second language: A handbook for supervisors. London: Routledge.
  • Prelli, L. (1989). A rhetoric of science: Inventing scientific discourse. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
  • Rahman, M. (2004). Aiding by the reader: The use of metadiscourse devices in scientific discourse. Nottingham Linguistic Circular 18, 29-48.
  • Shokouhi. (2009). Metadiscourse functions in English and Persian sociology articles: A study in contrastive rhetoric. Poznan Studies in contemporary Linguistics 45.4, 535-554.
  • Spack, R. (1997). The rhetorical construction of multilingual students. TESOL Quarterly 31.4, 765-74.
  • Swales, J. M. (1981). Aspects of article introductions. Birmingham, UK: Aston University.
  • Swales, J.M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Swales, J.M. (2010). From context to text: Investigating structures, functions, and forms in today's research article. http://www.lattice.cnrs.fr/(accessed 12/6/2012).
  • Valero-Garces, C. (1996).Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Spanish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes 15.4, 279-294.
  • Vande Kopple, W.J. (2002). Metadiscourse, discourse, and issues in composition and rhetoric. In E. Barton & G. Stygall (eds.), Discourse studies in composition. Gresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 91-114.
  • Vazquez, I., Giner, D. (2009).Writing with conviction: The use of boosters in modeling persuasion in academic discourses. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 22, 219-237.

Abstract Views: 189

PDF Views: 53




  • Interactive Markers in Medical Research Articles Written by Iranian and Native Authors of ISI and Non-ISI Medical Journals: A Contrastive Metadiscourse Analysis of Method Section

Abstract Views: 189  |  PDF Views: 53

Authors

Fariba Ghadyani
Sheikh-e-Bahaee University, Isfahan, Iran, Islamic Republic of
Mohammad Hassan Tahririan
Sheikh-e-Bahaee University, Isfahan, Iran, Islamic Republic of

Abstract


The present study is concerned with the issue of whether there were any significant differences between the two groups- Iranian writers of ISI and non- ISI medical journals- in terms of the number and types of interactive markers. To this end, a corpus of 90 'method sections' of ISI and non- ISI English medical research articles written by Iranian and non- Iranian writers published between 2005 and 2010 were selected. Then, Hyland's (2005) taxonomy of metadiscourse markers was used as the model of analysis. After performing detailed quantitative and qualitative analyses of interactive markers, Chi- Square tests were run. Although the different groups of writers were found to have employed all sub-types of interactive markers, they were different by the use of them. The findings revealed significant differences between the ISI and non-ISI groups in binary comparisons (p=0.05). The differences may be attributed to the writers' mother tongue, culture and also to their lack or limited awareness of the rhetorical conventions of English medical academic research writing.

Keywords


Metadiscourse Analysis, Interactive Marker, Method Section, Medical Research Article, Iranian, ISI Journal.

References