SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 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
Oktay YAĞIZ
Pages
899–915
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., YAĞIZ, O. (2020). A Contrastive Rhetorical Analysis of Anglophone and Turkish Authors’ RA Introductions in ELT. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 2, 899–915. https://ajindex.com/articles/99160

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (6)

  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 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. 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
  2. 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 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-
  3. Dudley.pdf 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 Frey, L.R., Botan, C.H. and Kreps, G.L. (2000). Investigating Communication: An Introduction to Research Methods. Allyn and Bacon: Boston. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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 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
  6. 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 Liu, L. (2005).