به‌کارگیریِ راهبردهای فراگفتمان در مقالات علمی ـ پژوهشی فارسی و انگلیسی؛ مطالعة هنجارهای ژانری جامعة گفتمانی در مقاله‌های فارسی

نوع مقاله : علمی-پژوهشی

نویسنده

دانشگاه محقق اردبیلی

چکیده

این مقاله با مقایسة نحوة به‌کارگیریِ راهبردهای فراگفتمان در مقالات علمی ـ پژوهشی زبان فارسی و انگلیسی به بررسی این موضوع می­پردازد که آیا نویسندگان بومی زبان فارسی در نگارش مقالة علمی به زبان خود از نظر به‌کارگیری فراگفتمان مشابه هنجارهای جامعة گفتمانی علمی عمل می­کنند یا خیر. بررسی و مقایسة 36 مقالة علمی فارسی از گویش‌وران بومی زبان فارسی و 36 مقالة علمی انگلیسی از گویش‌وران بومی زبان انگلیسی (به­عنوان زبان معیار جامعة گفتمانی علمی) نشان داد که در مجموع هنجارهای گویش‌ورانِ فارسی از نظر به‌کارگیری فراگفتمان مانند اعضای جامعة گفتمانیِ علمی است. بااین­وجود، در برخی راهبردهای فراگفتمان تفاوت­های قابل ملاحظه­ای مشاهده شد که به ­نظر می­رسد می­تواند در نگارش مقالة علمی به زبان انگلیسی توسط گویش‌ورانِ زبان فارسی تأثیر خود را نشان دهد. 

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Metadiscourse strategies in Persian and English research articles

نویسنده [English]

  • Reza Abdi
چکیده [English]

Through analyzing the metadiscourse strategies employed in Persian and English research articles, this study makes an attempt to find out whether or not Persian native writers follow generic norms of the discourse community when writing in their own language. A comparison of 36 Persian and 36 English research articles (as the predominant language of academic discourse community) showed that, on the whole, the use of metadiscourse strategies was similar to that of the academic discourse community in research articles. Some notable differences were observed in some metadiscourse strategies that might influence the way Persian native speakers write in English

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • metadiscourse
  • discourse community
  • speech community
  • genre analysis

فایل پی دی اف را دریافت نمایید

Abdi, R. (2009). The distribution and nature of metadiscourse markers in English and Persian research articles. Unpublished PhD thesis, Isfahan: Isfahan University.
Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Philadel‎phia: John Benjamins.
Belcher, D. (2007). «Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world». Journal of Second Language Writing. 16/1. 1-22.
Bhatia, V. K. (1999). «Integrating products, processes and participants in professional writing». In C. N. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.). Writing: texts, processes and practices. London: Longman. 21-39.
Bizzell, P. (1992). Academic discourse and critical consciousness. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Bunton, D. (1999). «The use of higher level metatext in PhD theses». English for Specific Purposes. 18. S41-S56.
Conner, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetorics: a cross-cultural study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers: metadiscourse as rhetorical act. New York: Peter Lang Publishers.
                   ., & R.Farnsworth (1990). «Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse». In W. Nash (Ed.). The writing scholar: studies in academic discourse. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 118-36.
Dahl, T. (2004). «Textual metadiscourse in research articles: a marker of national culture or of academic discipline». Journal of Pragmatics. 36. 1807-1825.
Dudley-Evans, T. (1994). «Genre analysis: an approach to text analysis for ESP». In M. Coulthard (Ed.). Advances in written text analysis. Newbury: Routledge. 219-229.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing discourse: textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge.
Gee, J. P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: theory and method (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
                           . (2004). The language of science. London: Continuum.
Hewings, M. (2006). «Introduction». In M. Hewings (Ed.). Academic writing in context: Implications and applications. London: Continuum. 79-92.
Hyland, K. (2004). «Patterns of engagement: Dialogic features and L2 student writing». In L. Ravelli & R. Ellis (Eds.). Academic writing in context: Social-functional perspectives on theory and practice. London: Continuum.
                . (2005). Metadiscourse: exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). «Cultural thought pattern in intercultural communication». Journal of Language Learning. 1. 1-20.
MacDonald, S. P. (1994). Professional academic writing in the humanities and social sciences. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Mauranen, A. (1993). «Contrastive ESP rhetoric: metatext in Finnish-English economics texts». English for Specific Purposes. 12. 3-22.
Paltridge, B. (2006). Discourse analysis. London: Continuum.
Simin, S. (2004). Metadiscourse knowledge and use in Iranian EFL writing. Unpublished MA Dissertation. Isfahan: Isfahan University.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English for specific purpose in academic and research setting. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, T. J. (2000). «Language constructing language: the implications of reflexivity for linguistic theory». Language Sciences. 22. 483-499.
Thompson, G. (2001). «Interaction in academic writing: learning to argue with the reader». Applied Linguistics. 22/1. 58-78.
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). «Some explanatory discourse on metadiscourse». College Composition and Communication. 36. 82-93.
                                 . (2002). «Metadiscourse, discourse, and issues in composition and rhetoric». In F.Bar-ton & C.Stygall (Eds.), Discourse studies in composition. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. 91-113.
van Dijk, T., S.Ting Toomy, G.Smitherman, & D.Troutman (1997). «Discourse, ethnicity, culture, and racism». In Van Dijk (Ed). Discourse as social action. London: Sage Publications.
Vassileva, I. (2001). «Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing». English for Specific Purposes. 20. 83-102.