Abstract:
The present study aimed to investigate whether Reports on the results and Comments on the results moves’ recycling in the Research Article (RA) Discussion sections is affected by cultural/disciplinary variations. To this end, 600 empirical RAs in six Soft Science disciplines, including Economics, Sociology, Applied Linguistics, Linguistics, Management, and Psychology, with an equal number in each discipline and culture, published in the period from 2006 to 2018 were selected. Weissberg and Buker’s (1990) move model was used as a starting point to analyze the RAs. First, the Reports on the results and Comments on the results moves were identified in the Results sections. The Chi-Square test was then used to calculate and compare the frequency of their recycling in the Discussion sections across cultures and disciplines. The data analysis results revealed that changes in the disciplines or sociocultural settings do not result in variations in recycling the two moves under study. Given that the current study provides a relatively new framework for scrutinizing scientific discourse, it may promise certain pedagogical implications for native and non-native students in Soft Science disciplines, researchers, English for Academic Purposes (EAP) and English for Specific Purposes (ESP) instructors, and course designers.
Machine summary:
Move analysis was the focus of research in Intercultural Rhetoric (IR) studies to inspect the potential effects of cultural variations (El Malik & Nesi, 2008; Hirano, 2009; Keshavarz, Atai, & Barzegar, 2007; Sheldon, 2019; Yaghoubi & Tarlani, 2012) as well as disciplinary variations (Ge & Yang, 2005; Hyland, 2015; Samraj, 2002; Stoller & Robinson, 2013; Ozturk, 2007) in writing practices.
One research line in IR favors the view that cultural variations (Behnam & Golpour, 2014; Behnam & Nikoukhesal, 2017; El Malik & Nesi, 2008; Hirano, 2009; Sheldon, 2019; Yaghoubi &Tarlani; Yazdanpanah, Nemati, & Zand-Moghadam, 2021) and/or disciplinary variations (Ge & Yang, 2005; Malmir & Khany, 2019; Moreno, 2003; Samraj, 2002; Soltani, Kuhi, & Hadidi, 2021; Stoller & Robinson, 2013; Peacock, 2011) affect the rhetorical structures of the RAs. However, another research line in IR suggests that certain rhetorical structures are universal and cultural (Chalak & Norouzi, 2013; Hyland, 2009; Rezaee & Sayfouri, 2009; Spack 1997; Widdowson, 1979) and/or disciplinary variations (Becher, 1994; Pennycook, 2008; Widdowson, 1979; Yakhontova, 2006) do not affect such structures.
In a cross-cultural study, Atai and Falah (2005) investigated the Results and Discussion sections of Applied Linguistics RAs authored by Persian and native English researchers.
Therefore, to fill the gaps mentioned above, this study investigates whether the recycling of these two moves in the Discussion sections of six disciplines of Soft Sciences authored by Iranian and native English researchers is affected by cultural and disciplinary variations.