Rhetorical stages and linguistic resources in the 'results and discussion'sections of research articles on material science and agricultural science

Guo, Bing Wu (2020) Rhetorical stages and linguistic resources in the 'results and discussion'sections of research articles on material science and agricultural science. Doctoral thesis, Universiti Malaysia Sabah.

	Text 24 PAGES.pdf Download (895kB)
	Text FULLTEXT.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (21MB)

Abstract

Competence in writing and publishing research articles (RAs) has become increasingly important for academicians and postgraduate students who intend to achieve greater heights in institutions of higher learning. Despite the voluminous literature on research writing, the 'Results and Discussion' sections (RDSs) of research papers in certain hard sciences have not been studied in detail in previous genre-based investigations. Such research gaps are especially noticeable in (i) cross-disciplinary studies, and (ii) linguistic research involving academic disciplines such as Material Science and Agricultural Science. To assist novice researchers in these applied sciences, this study focuses on identifying the useful information elements and linguistic resources that expert writers use in the RDSs of research articles in the two disciplines, namely Material Science and Agricultural Science. It aimed to ascertain the extent to which the frequencies of rhetorical categories (moves and steps) and the percentages of texts containing each category in Material Science RDSs differ from those in Agricultural Science RDSs. This study was also intended to explore the linguistic resources which are employed to perform each of the rhetorical moves and steps in the two disciplines concerned. With respect to research methods, a total of 60 research articles were collected from six established journals in the two disciplines, each of which was represented by 30 articles obtained from three international refereed journals indexed in Web of Science. The investigation was conducted using (i) Swales' (1990, 2004) framework for analysing rhetorical moves, (ii) Urn's (2005, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2014, 2017, 2018, 2019) techniques for describing salient linguistic resources for rhetorical steps, and (iii) Bhatia's (1993) principles for eliciting information via face-toface interviews with specialist informants in the disciplines concerned. In regard to research results, the researcher has found seven rhetorical moves containing a total of 16 constituent steps in the RDSs in both disciplines. So far as frequencies are concerned, the first three moves, comprising 'setting a stage for research results', 'presenting results' and 'explaining results', constitute the obligatory moves in both disciplines, but differences in the mean frequencies of specific rhetorical steps in these three moves have also been identified across the two disciplines. 'Comparing results' has been ascertained as a quasi-obligatory move in both fields, while the mean frequencies of most rhetorical moves have been found to be lower in Material Science RDSs compared to Agricultural Science RDSs. While the last three moves (making a generalisation', 'evaluating the study', and 'making deductions from the study') constitute only optional moves in Material Science RDSs, they are quasi-obligatory in Agricultural Science RDSs. My specialist informants' inputs are largely consistent with the findings obtained on the degrees of prevalence of each constituent step in both disciplines. In terms of linguistic realisations, this study has ascertained a broad spectrum of recurrent linguistic resources which are used in the RDSs. While some commonalities in linguistic realisations have been identified across the two disciplines, important divergences have been found in the use of major linguistic categories, particularly noun phrases, verb forms and adverbials which are written to perform the specific communicative functions in only one of the disciplines. Such cross-disciplinary differences are evident in certain constituent steps, especially 'providing background information', 'reiterating research procedures', and 'describing a category or group'. Based on the findings, it is recommended that the recurrent linguistic resources identified in this investigation be flexibly used by instructors and material developers to prepare appropriate teaching materials aimed at helping novice writers and second language writers to comprehend and write the 'Results and Discussion' sections in the two applied sciences.

Item Type:	Thesis (Doctoral)
Keyword:	Research writing, Rhetorical moves, Linguistic resources, Material science, Agricultural science
Subjects:	P Language and Literature > P Philology. Linguistics > P1-1091 Philology. Linguistics > P101-410 Language. Linguistic theory. Comparative grammar
Department:	CENTRE > Centre for the Promotion of Knowledge and Language Learning
Depositing User:	DG MASNIAH AHMAD -
Date Deposited:	26 Mar 2025 09:11
Last Modified:	26 Mar 2025 09:11
URI:	https://eprints.ums.edu.my/id/eprint/43344

Actions (login required)

View Item