[Home ] [Archive]   [ فارسی ]  
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
:: Volume 19, Issue 2 (9-2016) ::
IJAL 2016, 19(2): 33-60 Back to browse issues page
A Comparison of Thematic Choices and Thematic Progression Patterns in the Research Articles of Well-established and Emerging Disciplines
Esmat Babaii , Mahmood Reza Atai , Leila Shoja
Kharazmi University, Tehran
Abstract:   (831 Views)
Several studies have employed the theme-rheme construct to examine the generic profile of research articles (RAs). However, they have mostly focused on the subject matter and nature of disciplines, and other disciplinary characteristics as contextual factors which can impact the genre realization have not been considered in the discourse analysis research. This work, therefore, investigates thematic choices and thematic progression patterns in the RA in relation to the status of disciplines as well-established or emerging fields. To this end, a corpus of 240 RAs of mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, horticulture, and environmental science were analyzed using Halliday’s (1994) framework of thematicity and McCabe’s (1999) model of thematic progression (TP). The results showed significant differences in the distributions of unmarked and marked themes as well as the patterns of thematic progression between the well-established and emerging disciplines. Based on the findings of this study, we suggest further consideration of the status of disciplines in discourse studies which can serve disciplinary research and contribute to the body of research on science. 
Keywords: Thematicity, Thematic progression (TP), Research article (RA), Well-established disciplines, Emerging disciplines
Full-Text [PDF 536 kb]   (341 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special
Received: 2016/01/30 | Accepted: 2016/08/12 | Published: 2016/09/21
1. Ammon, U. (2001). Editor's preface. In U. Ammon (Ed.), The dominance of English as a language of science (pp. v-x). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. [DOI:10.1515/9783110869484.v]
2. Aktas, R. N., & Cortes, V. (2008). Shell nouns as cohesive devices in published and ESL student writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 3-14. [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.002]
3. Avison, D. A. (1997). The Search for the 'Discipline' of Information Systems. In G. McKenzie, J. Powell & R. Usher (Eds.), Understanding Social Research: Perspectives on Methodology and Practice (pp 83-95). London: Palmer Press.
4. Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. London: Longman.
5. Bhatia, V. K. (2004). Worlds of written discourse: A genre-based view. London: Continuum.
6. Biglan, A. (1973). The Characteristics of Subject Matters in Different Academic Areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 195-203. [DOI:10.1037/h0034701]
7. Brandt, D. (1986). Text and context: How writers come to mean. In B. Couture (Ed.), Functional approaches to writing, research perspectives (pp. 93-107). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
8. Burgess, S. (2002). Packed houses and intimate gatherings: Audience and rhetorical structure. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 196-215). London: Longman/Pearson Education.
9. Canagarajah, A. S. (2002). Critical academic writing and multilingual students. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. [DOI:10.3998/mpub.8903]
10. Cargill, M., & O'Connor, P. (2009). Writing scientific research articles. West Sussex: Wiley- Blackwell.
11. Connor, U. (1984). A study of cohesion and coherence in English as a second language student's writing. Papers in Linguistics, 17, 301-316. [DOI:10.1080/08351818409389208]
12. Curry, M. J., & Lillis, Th. (2010). Academic research networks: Accessing resources for English-medium publishing. English for Specific Purposes,29, 281-295. [DOI:10.1016/j.esp.2010.06.002]
13. Duszak, A. (1997). Culture and styles of academic discourse. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. [DOI:10.1515/9783110821048]
14. Eggins, S. (2004). An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Continuum.
15. Eiler, M. (1986). Thematic distribution as a heuristic for written discourse function. In B. Couture (Ed.), Functional Approaches to Writing, Research Perspectives (pp. 49-68). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.
16. Ferenz, O. (2005). EFL writers' social networks: Impact on advanced academic literacy development. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 339-351. [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2005.07.002]
17. Flowerdew, J. (2001). Attitudes of journal editors to nonnative speaker contributions. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 121-150. [DOI:10.2307/3587862]
18. Francis, G. (1989). Thematic Selection and Distribution in Written Discourse. Word, 40(1-2), 201-222. [DOI:10.1080/00437956.1989.11435804]
19. Fries, P. H. (1994). On Theme, Rheme and Discourse Goals. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis (pp. 229-249).London and New York: Routledge.
20. Fries, P. H. (1995). A personal view of theme. InM. Ghadessy (Ed.), Thematic development in English texts (pp. 1-19). London: Pinter.
21. Fries, P. H., & Francis, G. (1992). Exploring Theme: Problems for Research. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics, 6, 45-59.
22. Geisler, C. (1994). Academic literacy and the nature of expertise: Reading, writing and knowing in academic philosophy. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
23. Gonzalez, W. J. (2013). From the sciences that Philosophy has "neglected" to the new challenges. In H. Andersen, D. Dieks, W. J. Gonzalez, T. Uebel, & G. Wheeler (Eds.), New challenges to philosophy of science (pp. 1-7). Dordrecht: Springer. [DOI:10.1007/978-94-007-5845-2_1]
24. Greaves, S. (2008). Strategic Security as a New Academic Discipline. Journal of Strategic security, 1(1), 7-19. [DOI:10.5038/1944-0472.1.1.2]
25. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985/1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
26. Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). On the language of physical science. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 54-68). London: The Falmer Press.
27. Halliday, M. A. K., &Matthiessen, Ch. M. I. M. (2004). AnIntroduction to Functional Grammar. London: Hodder Arnold.
28. Hawes, Th., & Thomas, S. (1997). Problems of thematisation in student writing.RELC Journal, 28(2), 35-55. [DOI:10.1177/003368829702800203]
29. Hawes, T. (2015). Thematic progression in the writing of students and professionals. Ampersand, 2, 93-100. [DOI:10.1016/j.amper.2015.06.002]
30. Hinkel, E. (2001). Matters of cohesion in L2 academic texts. Applied Language Learning, 12, 111 132.
31. Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for specific purposes, 20(3), 207-226. [DOI:10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00012-0]
32. Khany, R., &MansooriNejad, A. (2010). The interaction between rhetorical structure and thematisation in academic research articles. IJAL, 13(1), 47-72.
33. Lachowicz, D. (1981). On the use of the passive voice for objectivity, author responsibility and hedging in EST. Science of Science, 2(6), 105-115.
34. Lei, L. (2012). Linking adverbials in academic writing on applied linguistics by Chinese doctoral students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11, 267-275. [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2012.05.003]
35. Lillis, Th., & Curry, M. J. (2006). Professional academic writing by multilingual scholars: Interactions with literacy brokers in the production of English-medium texts. Written Communication, 23(1), 3-35. [DOI:10.1177/0741088305283754]
36. Lovejoy, K. B. (1991). Cohesion and information strategies in academic writing: Analysis of passages in three disciplines. Linguistics and Education, 3, 315-43. [DOI:10.1016/0898-5898(91)90013-9]
37. Martinez, I. A. (2003). Aspects of theme in the method and discussion sections of biology journal articles in English. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 103-123. [DOI:10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00003-1]
38. McCabe, A. (1999). Theme and Thematic Patterns in Spanish and English History Text (PhD Dissertation). Aston: Aston University.
39. Mellos, V. D. (2011). Coherence in English as a second language undergraduate writing: a theme-rheme analysis (Unpublished Master's Thesis). San Diego State University.
40. Nesi, H., &Basturkmen, H. (2006). Lexical bundles and discourse signaling in academic lectures. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 11, 147-168. [DOI:10.1075/ijcl.11.3.04nes]
41. North, S. (2005). Disciplinary Variation in the Use of Theme in Undergraduate Essays. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 431-452. [DOI:10.1093/applin/ami023]
42. 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]
43. Peters, S. (2011). Asserting or deflecting expertise? Exploring the rhetorical practices of master's theses in the philosophy of education. English for Specific Purposes, 30, 176-185. [DOI:10.1016/j.esp.2011.02.005]
44. Plum, G. (1988). Textual and contextual conditioning in spoken English: a genre-based approach (Unpublished PhD Dissertation). Department of Linguistics, University of Sydney.
45. Polo, F. J., & Varela, M. C. (2009). English for research purposes at the University of Santiago de Compostela: A survey. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8, 152-164. [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2009.05.003]
46. Strohmayer, U. (2014). Historical Geographical Traditions. In J. Morrissey, D. Nally, U. Strohmayer, &Y. Whelan (Eds.), Key Concepts in Historical Geography (pp. 269-279). London: Sage. [DOI:10.4135/9781473920538.n23]
47. Tardy, Ch. M. (2005). "It's like a story": Rhetorical knowledge development in advanced academic literacy. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 325-338. [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2005.07.005]
48. Thompson, G. (2004). IntroducingFunctional Grammar. London: Arnold.
49. Thornbury, S. (1999). How to Teach Grammar. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
50. Trench, B., & Bucchi, M. (2010). Science communication, an emerging discipline. JCom, 9(3).
51. Uzuner, S. (2008). Multilingual scholars' participation in core/global academic communities: A literature review. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(4), 250-263. [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2008.10.007]
52. VandeKopple, W. J. (1991). Themes, thematic progressions, and some implications for understanding discourse. Written Communication, 8(3), 311-347. [DOI:10.1177/0741088391008003002]
53. Webster, G. D. (2012). Quantitative Trends in establishing a psychology of science: A review of the metasciences. In G. J. Feist& M. E. Gorman, (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of science (pp. 487-506). Springer.
54. Whittaker, R. (1995). Theme, processes and the realization of meanings in academic articles. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.), Thematic development in English texts (pp. 105-128). London: Pinter.
Send email to the article author

Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:

Write the security code in the box >

XML     Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Babaii E, Atai M R, Shoja L. A Comparison of Thematic Choices and Thematic Progression Patterns in the Research Articles of Well-established and Emerging Disciplines. IJAL. 2016; 19 (2) :33-60
URL: http://ijal.khu.ac.ir/article-1-2727-en.html

Volume 19, Issue 2 (9-2016) Back to browse issues page
Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.15 seconds with 31 queries by YEKTAWEB 3705