چکیده:
The implicit rhetorical features of academic writing which has
so far eluded a comprehensive systematic characterization
have made teaching it a challenging task for a large group of
practitioners in academic setting. One such feature of
academic writing susceptible to cultural mentalities is
metadiscourse marking, which is supposed to be one of the
important rhetorical aspects in the writing process. Therefore,
through analyzing interactive and interactional metadiscourse
strategies use, this study makes an attempt to find out the
normal metadiscursive distribution in the various cognitivegeneric
structures within the socio-genreic structure of
research articles (RAs). For the purpose of this study, a small
corpus of 54 research articles from social and natural sciences
was selected for a close manual qualitative analysis. It
appeared that, though globally similar in many ways, different
IMRD sections (i.e. Introduction, Method, Results and
Discussion) of RAs which follow different cognitive genre types
(i.e. conviction, description, argumentation, etc.) use
interactive and interactional strategies differently. The
findings are analyzed and implications are drawn for the
teachers and learners of writing research articles in English
for Academic Purposes (EAP) classes. It is argued that without
such characterizations the writers from different nationalities
might generalize the norms of their own culture, which are in
most cases inconsistent with the conventions of English
language.
خلاصه ماشینی:
"Thus, for a genre-specific characterization of academic writing, it is quite helpful to investigate different sections of research articles to find out how certain metadiscursive strategies associate with certain cognitive genres.
In view of the above, on the whole, finding out about the currently practiced norms of employing metadiscourse in different sections of RAs across sciences can provide insight into the rhetorical structure and, hence, can be used in academic writing classes.
Therefore, this study sets out to analyze RAs to discover how authors take advantage of metadiscourse strategies to help them reach their audience in the canonical sections of RAs across sciences, and then compares and contrasts the use of different strategies in an attempt to provide a pedagogically useful picture of RAs’ internal structure.
Table 4: Distribution of metadiscourse in different sections of research articles (رجوع شودا به تصویر صفحه) In contrast to the Method section, in the Introduction, writers challenge the present situation and make an endeavor to convince the community as to the necessity of their studies, hence requiring more metadiscursive intrusion.
Therefore, based on this findings, it can be concluded that due to the differences in cognitive-generic structure of different sections and also the nature of NS and SS branches of science, authors of RAs build metadiscourse strategies into their diction quite differently essentially in an attempt to fulfill the conventionally-expected rhetorical function."