SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2026 / Volume: 24 Issue: 2

A Contrastive Rhetorical Analysis of Anglophone and Turkish Authors’ RA Introductions in ELT

İngilizceyi Birinci ve İkinci Dil Olarak Kullanan Araştırmacıların İngilizce Eğitimi Alanındaki Bilimsel Makale Giriş Bölümlerinin Karşılaştırmalı Olarak İncelenmesi

Hatice Çeşme(ATATÜRK ÜNİVERSİTESİ, KAZIM KARABEKİR EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ, YABANCI DİLLER EĞİTİMİ BÖLÜMÜ, İNGİLİZ DİLİ EĞİTİMİ ANABİLİM DALI)0000-0003-3279-7205
Oktay Yağız(ATATÜRK ÜNİVERSİTESİ, KAZIM KARABEKİR EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ, YABANCI DİLLER EĞİTİMİ BÖLÜMÜ, İNGİLİZ DİLİ EĞİTİMİ ANABİLİM DALI)0000-0001-7076-7774
Pages
—
Publication Date
2020-06-21
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results showed that both groups possessed similar rhetorical organizations with moderate discrepancies.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this study is to compare the rhetorical features of English research articles (RA) introductions using Swales’ revised (1990, 2004) Create a Research Space (CARS) model in ELT.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The 150 RAs (75 English Anglophone writers and 75 Turkish writers) were selected from national and international journals.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results showed that both groups possessed similar rhetorical organizations with moderate discrepancies.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2004 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Move analysis · Genre · Genre analysis

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to compare the rhetorical features of English research articles (RA) introductions using Swales’ revised (1990, 2004) Create a Research Space (CARS) model in ELT. The 150 RAs (75 English Anglophone writers and 75 Turkish writers) were selected from national and international journals. The articles were selected according to predetermined criteria. The rhetorical moves and steps were quantitatively analyzed. Descriptive frequency analysis, normality test and t-test were used to determine whether the groups’ corpora statistically differed. The results showed that both groups possessed similar rhetorical organizations with moderate discrepancies. No statistical differences were found. The study also highlights the importance explicit academic writing instruction to enhance awareness of the conventions of scholarly writing.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı Swales’in yenilenmiş (1990, 2004) (CARS) modelini kullanarak İngilizce yazılmış bilimsel makalelerin giriş bölümlerinin retorik özelliklerini karşılaştırmaktır. 150 bilimsel makale (75 İngilizce ana dilli ve 75 yerli olmayan İngilizce), ulusal ve uluslararası dergilerden önceden belirlenmiş kriterlere göre seçilmiştir. Retorik aşamalar ve adımlar nicel olarak analiz edilmiştir. Grupların istatistiksel olarak farklılık gösterip göstermediğini belirlemek için betimleyici frekans analizi, normallik testi ve en son t-testi kullanılmıştır. Sonuçlar, her iki grubun da orta düzeyde farklılık ile benzer retorik organizasyonlara sahip olduğunu göstermiştir. Farklılıklar arasında istatistiksel açıdan anlamlı bir fark bulunmamış olup çalışma, akademik yazım teamülleri konusundaki farkındalığın arttırılması için gizil olmayan akademik yazım öğretiminin önemini vurgulamaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Çeşme, H., Yağız, O. (2020). A Contrastive Rhetorical Analysis of Anglophone and Turkish Authors’ RA Introductions in ELT. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Volume: 24 Issue: 2. https://ajindex.com/articles/1089155

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (39)

  1. Anthony, L. (1999) Writing research articles introductions in software engineering: how accurate is a standard model? IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 42, 38-45. doi: 10.1109/47.749366
  2. Burgess, S. (1997). Discourse variation across cultures: a genre analysis study of writing on linguistics. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Centre for Applied Language Studies: The University of Reading.
  3. Cadman, K. (2002). English for academic possibilities: The research proposal as a contested site in postgraduate genre pedagogy. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 1, 85-104. doi: 10.1016/S1475-1585(02)00015-2
  4. Cheng, Y. (2004). A measure of second language writing anxiety: Scale development and preliminary validation. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 313-335. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2004.07.001
  5. Dudley-Evans, T. (2000). Genre analysis: a key to a theory of ESP? Ibérica, Revista de la Asociación Europa de Lenguas para Fines Especificos, 2, 3-11. Retrieved from http://www.aelfe.org/documents/text2- Dudley.pdf
  6. Flowerdew, L. (2003). A combined corpus and systemic-functional analysis of the problem-solution pattern in a student and professional corpus of technical writing. Tesol Quarterly, 37(3), 489-511. doi: 10.2307/3588401
  7. Frey, L.R., Botan, C.H. and Kreps, G.L. (2000) Investigating Communication: An Introduction to Research Methods. Allyn and Bacon: Boston.
  8. 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), 321–337. doi: 10.1016/S0889-4906(96)00038-5
  9. Kafes, H. (2012). Cultural traces on the rhetorical organization of research article abstracts. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 3(3), 207- 220. Retrieved from http://www.ijonte.org/FileUpload/ks63207/File/20.kafes.pdf
  10. Kafes, H. (2016). Cultural or discoursal proclivity: Rhetorical structure of English and Turkish research article abstract. Anthropologist, 21(2), 240-254. doi: 10.1080/09720073.2015.11891813
  11. Kafes, H. (2018). A Genre Analysis of English and Turkish Research Article Introductions. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 12(1), 66-79. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1177684
  12. Lim, J. M. H. (2006). Method sections of management research articles: a pedagogically motivated qualitative study. English for Specific Purposes, 25(3), 282-309. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2005.07.001
  13. Liu, L. (2005). Rhetorical education through writing instruction across cultures: A comparative analysis of select online instructional materials on argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(1), 1-18.doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2004.11.001
  14. Maswana, S., Kanamaru, T., & Tajino, A. (2015). Move analysis of research articles across five engineering fields: What they share and what they do not. Ampersand, 2, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2014.12.002
  15. Nwogu, K. N. (1997). The medical research paper: Structure and functions. English for Specific Purposes, 16(2), 119–138. doi: 10.1016/S0889-4906(97)85388-4
  16. Özturk, I. (2007). The textural organization of research article introductions in applied linguistics: Variability within a single discipline. English for Specific Purposes, 26(1), 25–38. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2005.12.003
  17. Özturk, I. (2018). Rhetorical organization of the subsections of Research article introductions in Applied Linguistics. Novitas-Royal (Research on Youth and Language). 12(1), 52-65. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1177689
  18. Pique, J. (2006). Do we need to standardize written scientific discourse? Ibe ́rica, 12, 5–8. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/28129853
  19. Posteguillo, S. (1999). The schematic structure of computer science research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 139–160. doi: 10.1016/s0889-4906(98)00001-5
  20. Ren, H., & Li, Y. (2011). A comparison study on the rhetorical moves of abstracts in published research articles and master’s foreign-language theses. English Language Teaching, 4(1), 162-166. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d146/a4c03ca2cc7d9b6bc4dd26dfe74bbf7d082d.pdf.
  21. Ruiying, Y., & Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for specific purposes, 22(4), 365-385. doi:10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00026-1
  22. Samraj, B. (2002). Introductions in research articles: Variations across disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 21(1), 1–17. doi: 10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00023-5
  23. Samraj, B. (2004). Discourse features of the student-produced academic research paper: Variations across disciplinary courses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(1), 5-22. doi: 10.1016/s1475-1585(03)00053-5
  24. Samraj, B. (2005). An exploration of a genre set: Research article abstracts and introductions in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 141-156. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2002.10.001
  25. Sheldon, E. (2011). Rhetorical differences in RA introductions written by English L1 and L2 and Castilian Spanish L1 writers. Journal of English for Specific Purposes, 10, 238-251. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2011.08.004
  26. Soler, V. (2002). Analyzing adjectives in scientific discourse: an exploratory study with educational applications for Spanish speakers at advanced university level. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 145-165. doi: 10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00034-X
  27. Soler-Monreal, C.; Carbonell-Olivares, M & Gil-Salom, L. (2011). A contrastive study of the rhetorical organization of English and Spanish PhD thesis introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 30, 4-17. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2010.04.005
  28. Suntara, V., & Usaha, S. (2013). Research Article Abstracts in Two Related Disciplines: Rhetorical Variation between Linguistics and Applied Linguistics. English Language Teaching, 6(2), 84-99. doi: 10.5539/elt.v6n2p84
  29. Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. NewYork: Cambridge University.
  30. Swales, J. M. (1990b). Genre analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  31. Swales, J. (2004). Research genres: explorations and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  32. Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
  33. Thompson, G., & Ye, Y. (1991). Evaluation in the reporting verbs used in academic papers. Applied Linguistics, 4, 365-382. doi: 10.4236/ojml.2013.32016
  34. Uysal, H. H. (2008). Tracing the culture behind writing: Rhetorical patterns and bidirectional transfer in L1 and L2 essays of Turkish writers in relation to educational context.Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(3), 183-207. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.003
  35. Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian Academic Writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 83-102. doi: 10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00029-0
  36. Williams, I. A. (1999). Results sections of medical research articles: Analysis of rhetorical categories for pedagogical purposes. English for Specific Purposes, 18(4), 347–366. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ593219
  37. Yang, R., & Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes, 22(4), 365–385. doi: 10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00026-1
  38. Yang, R., & Allison, D. (2004). Research articles in applied linguistics: Structures from a functional perspective. English for Specific Purposes, 23(3), 264–279. doi: 10.1016/S0889-4906(03)00005-X
  39. Yang, L., & Cahill, D. (2008). The rhetorical organization of Chinese and American students ‘expository essays: A contrastive rhetoric study. International Journal of English Studies,8(2), 113-132. Retrieved from https://revistas.um.es/ijes/article/view/49191