A Genre Analysis of Persian Research Article Abstracts: Communicative Moves and Author Identity

Document Type: Research Paper

Authors

Razi University, Iran

Abstract

Most studies within the area of genre analysis, particularly those conducted in Iran, have exclusively used text analysis. While such investigations have led to important understandings of generic features of texts, it can be argued that incorporating interview data for triangulation can lead to better understanding of generic features of texts. Along this line, this paper reports the results of a qualitative study of Persian RA abstracts written by native speakers of Persian. Taking a macro and a micro structure framework, this article will look into the ‘moves’ and ‘author identity’ in such RA abstracts. Two patterns are often associated with English academic prose: Introduction-Methods-Results-Discussion and CARS (Create-a-research-space) (Lores, 2004). This, however, did not seem to be the case in most RA abstracts under study. The other feature of Persian RA abstracts to be explored is the absence of first person pronoun. One preliminary hypothesis would be to attribute this to a carry-over of positivistic traditions (Hyland, 2001), though qualitative interviews pointed to a close link between lack of reference to self and modesty as a cultural norm among the participants under study. 

Keywords


Atai, M. R., and Sadr, L. (2008). “A cross-cultural study of hedging devices in discussion section of applied linguistics research articles”, TELL, 2 (7), pp. 1-22.

Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings, London: Longman.

Canagarajah, A. S. (1996). “‘Nondiscursive’ requirements in academic publishing, material resources of periphery scholars, and the politics of knowledge production”, Written Communication, 13 (4), pp. 435-472.

Charmaz, K. (2000). “Grounded theory: objectivist and constructivist methods”, in N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed), London: Sage Publications, pp. 509-535.

Charmaz, K. (2005). “Grounded theory in the 21st century: Applications for advancing social justice studies”, in N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 507-535.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., and Morrison, K. (2000). Research Methods in Education, London and New York: Routledge/Falmer.

Connor, U. (1987). “Argumentative patterns in students essays: Cross-cultural Differences”, in U. Connor and R. Kaplan (eds.), Writing Across Languages: Analysis of L2 Texts, Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., pp. 57-71.

Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural Aspects of Second Language Writing, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Connor, U., and Mauranen, L. (1999). “Linguistic analysis of grant proposals: European union research grants”, English for Specific Purposes, 18 (1),   pp. 47-62.

Danes, F. (1974). “Functional sentence perspective and the organisation of the text”, in F. Danes (ed.), Papers in Functional Sentence Perspective, Prague: Academia, pp.106-128.

Einstein, A. (1934). Essays in Science, New York: The Philosophical Library.

Fallahi-Moghimi, M., and Mobasher, A. (2007). “Genre analysis of introduction section of English and Persian articles in mechanics”, TELL, 1(2), pp. 59-73.

 

Glaser, B. G., and Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Chicago: Aldine. 

Harwood, N. (2005). “‘I hoped to counteract the memory problem, but I made no impact whatsoever’: Discussing methods in computing science using I”, English for Specific Purposes, 24, pp. 243-267.

Holmes, R. (1997). “Genre analysis and the social sciences: An investigation of the structure of research article discussion sections in three disciplines”, English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), pp. 321-337.

Hyland, K. (1996). “Talking to the academy: Forms of hedging in science research articles”, Written Communication, 13 (2), pp. 251-281.

Hyland, K. (1997). Scientific claims and community values: Articulating an academic culture, Language and Communication, 17(1), pp.19-31.

Hyland, K. (1999). “Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles”, in C. N. Candlin and   K. Hyland (eds.), Writing: Texts, Processes, and Practices, London and New York: Longman. pp. 99-121.

Hyland, K. (2001). “Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research Articles”, English for Specific Purposes, 20 (3), pp. 207-226.

Hyland, K. (2002). “Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing”, Journal of Pragmatics, 34, pp. 1091-1112.

Hyland, K. (2004). “Graduates’ gratitude: The generic structure of dissertation Acknowledgments”, English for Specific Purposes, 23, pp. 303-324.

Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and Identity: The Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic Writing, Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Co.

Jalilifar, A. R. (2007). “Hedging as a pragmatic strategy: Variations across disciplines and cultures”, TELL, 1(3), pp. 43-69.

Kaplan, R. B. (1966). “Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education”, Language Learning, 16(1), pp.1-20.

Kaplan, R. B. (1987). “Cultural thought patterns revisited”, in U. Connor and R. Kaplan (eds.), Writing across Languages: Analysis of L2 Texts, Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., pp. 9-20.

Keshavarz, M. H., and Atai, M. R. (2007). “A contrastive study of generic organization of research article organizations written by Iranian and non-Iranian writers in applied linguistics”, TELL, 1(2), pp.13-33.

Kuo, C. H., (1999). “The use of personal pronouns: Role relationships in scientific journal articles”, English for Specific Purposes, 19 (2), pp.121-138.

Lave, J., and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lores, R. (2004). “On RA abstracts: from rhetorical structure to thematic Organisation”, English for Specific Purposes, 23, pp. 280-302.

Martin, P. M. (2003). “A genre analysis of English and Spanish research paper abstracts in experimental social sciences”, English for Specific Purposes, 22 (1), pp. 25-43.

Melander, B., Swales, J. M., and Fredrickson, K. M. (1997). “Journal abstracts from three academic fields in the United States and Sweden: National or disciplinary proclivities”, in A. Duszac (ed.), Culture and Styles of Academic Discourse, Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, pp. 251-272.

Mitchell, C. (1984). “Case studies”, in R. Ellen (ed.), Ethnographic Research: A Guide to General Conduct, London: Academic Press, pp. 237-241.

Pho, P. D. (2008). “Research article abstracts in applied linguistics and educational

        technology: A study of linguistic realizations of rhetorical structure and authorial stance”, Discourse Studies, 10, pp. 231-250.

Samraj, B. (2002). “Introductions in research articles: variations across Disciplines”, English for Specific Purposes, 21(1), pp. 1-17.

Samraj, B. (2005). “An exploration of a genre set: Research article abstracts and introductions in two disciplines”, English for Specific Purposes, 24, pp. 141-156.

Santos, V. B. M. P. dos. (2002). “Genre analysis of business letters of negotiation”, English for Specific Purposes, 21(2), pp. 167-199.

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tang, R., and John, J. S. (1999). “The ‘I’ in identity: exploring writer identity in student academic writing through the first person pronoun”, English for Specific Purposes, 13, pp. S23-S39.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Yang, R., and Allison, D. (2004). “Research articles in applied linguistics”, English for Specific Purposes, 23, pp. 264-279.