پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 41 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 1,156 |
| تعداد مقالات | 9,939 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 18,547,346 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 12,862,229 |
بررسی تطبیقی تأثیر مخاطب بر گزینش ابزارهای گفتمانی در متون علمی تخصصی و عمومی در چارچوب نظریة ارزیابی | ||
| فصلنامه علمی - پژوهشی زبان‌شناسی اجتماعی | ||
| مقاله 4، دوره 4، شماره 4 - شماره پیاپی 16، مهر 1400، صفحه 47-58 اصل مقاله (805.86 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30473/il.2022.57615.1439 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| مودت سعیدی* 1؛ زهرا چراغی1؛ ملیحه موسوی2 | ||
| 1استادیار آموزش زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه تربیت دبیر شهید رجایی، تهران، ایران | ||
| 2استادیار آموزش زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| این پژوهش در چارچوب نظریة ارزیابی مارتین و وایت (2005) به بررسی تطبیقی تأثیر گروه مخاطب دانشگاهی و عام بر گزینش ابزارهای گفتمانی در متون علمی تخصصی و عمومی منتشرشده به زبان فارسی در مجلات پژوهشی و عمومی دربارة تغذیه میپردازد. پیکرة این پژوهش از ۸۰ مقاله شامل ۴۰ مقالة تخصصی و ۴۰ مقالة عمومی تشکیل شده است. نتایج تحلیل براساس نظریة ارزیابی مشخص کرد که نویسندگان این دو گروه مقاله برای ارتباط با مخاطبان خود بهترتیب بیشتر از ابزارهای نگرشی، مشارکتی و درجهبندی استفاده میکنند. گفتنی است از میان ابزارهای نگرشی، نویسندگان مقالات تخصصی و عمومی بیشتر از ابزارهای تداعی نگرش استفاده کردند. همچنین، نتایج چندین آزمون خی نشان میدهد تفاوتی معنادار بین مقالات تخصصی و عمومی از نظر فراوانی ابزارهای نگرشی و مشارکتی وجود دارد درحالیکه از نظر فراوانی ابزارهای درجهبندی تفاوتی معنادار میان آنها مشاهده نشد. نتایج این پژوهش میتواند در زمینههای آموزشی و با گنجاندن ابزارهای ارزیابی در مطالب درسی نگارش علمی دانشگاهی مورد استفاده قرار گیرد. همچنین، آموزش این ابزارها در ارتقاء سطح کیفی تعامل بین دانشمندان نویسنده و جامعة مخاطب آنها، خواه مخاطب پژوهشگر و خواه مخاطب عام، مؤثر است. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| نظریة ارزیابی؛ ابزارهای نگرشی؛ ابزارهای مشارکتی؛ ابزارهای درجهبندی؛ مقالات علمی تخصصی و مقالات عمومی؛ مخاطبان علمی و مخاطبان عمومی؛ زبان‌شناسی نقشگرا؛ زبان‌شناسی اجتماعی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| A Comparative Analysis of the Role of Audience on Discursive Practices in Academic Research Articles and Popular Science Articles in Light of Appraisal Theory | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Mavadat Saidi1؛ Zahra Cheraghi1؛ Malihe Mousavi2 | ||
| 1Assistant Professor of English Language Teaching, Tarbiat Dabir Shahid Rajaei University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2Assistant Professor of English Language Teaching, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| The current study aimed to investigate the use of evaluative resources in academic and popular science articles published in Iranian scholarly journals and popular media in the field of nutrition in light of Martin and White’s (2005) Appraisal theory. The corpus of the study consisted of 80 articles including 40 academic research articles and 40 popular science articles. The results of the analysis of two groups of articles in terms of Appraisal resources revealed that authors used more Attitude resources followed by Engagement resources and Graduation resources. Among Attitude markers, the authors of Persian academic research and popular science articles employed appreciation resources more frequently. Furthermore, the results of several Chi-Square tests also revealed a significant difference between Persian academic research and popular science articles considering the frequency of Attitude and Engagement resources but not Graduation resources of Appraisal Theory. The findings can be transferred to pedagogical grounds through embedding Appraisal resources in writing courses and employing them to enhance the quality and efficiency of the interaction between the writers- scientists and their intended readers- scholarly or non-scholarly. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Appraisal Theory, Attitude, Engagement, Graduation, Academic Research Articles, Popular Science Articles, Systemic-Functional Linguistics, Sociolinguistics | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Abdollahzade, E. (2011). Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43 (1), 288-297. [1]
Babaii, E. (2011). Hard science, hard talk? The study of negative comments in physics book reviews. In F. Salager-Mayer, & B.A. Lewin (Eds.). Crossed Words, Criticism in Scholarly Writing (pp: 55-77). Switzerland: Peter Lang.
Babaii, E., Atai, M. R., & Saidi, M. (2017). Are scientists objective? An investigation of appraisal resources in English popular science articles. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 5 (1), 1-19.
Ben-Ari, E. T. (1999). When scientists write books for the public: The ups and downs, ins and outs, of writing popular science books. BioScience, 49 (10), 819-824.
Birot, S. (2008). Evaluation in media reporting: a comparative analysis in BBC, CNN and Aljazeera reports. Unpublished MA Dissertation, Department of English Language and Literature, University of Liverpool, UK.
Bowler, P. J. (2009). Science for all: The popularization of science in early twentieth-century Britain. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago and London.
Corbett, J. (2006). Popularizations. In R. E. Asher, & J. M., Simpson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, (pp. 755-759). UK: Peregamon Press.
Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1990). Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse. In W. Nash (Ed.), The writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse (pp. 118-136). Newsbury Park: Sage Publications.
Fahnestock, J. (1986/ 1998). Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts. Written Communication, 3, 275-296. Reprinted in Written Communication, 15 (3), 330-350.
Fowler, R. (1996). Linguistic Criticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gallardo, S. (2005). Pragmatic support of medical recommendations in popularized texts. Journal of Pragmatics, 37 (6), 813-835.
Giannoni, D. S. (2008). Popularizing features in English journal editorials. English for Specific Purposes, 27 (2), 212-232.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Hempel, S., & Degand, L. (2008). Sequencers in different text genres: Academic writing, journalese and fiction. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 676-693.
Hyland, K. (2010). Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9 (2), 116-127.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005). Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24 (2), 123-139.
Lee, S. H. (2006). The use of interpersonal resources in argumentative/persuasive essays by East-Asian ESL and Australian tertiary students. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Sydney, Australia.
Lievrouw, L. A. (1990). Communication and the social representation of scientific knowledge. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 7 (1), 1-10.
Malecki, I. (1981). The popularization of scientific research through human needs. In A. Forti, & P. Bisogne (Eds.), Research and Human Needs, (p. 107-112), UK: Peregamon Press.
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. P. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Miller, J. D. (2004). Public understanding of, and attitudes toward scientific research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science, 13 (3), 273-294.
Nur Aktas, R., & Cortes, V. (2008). Shell nouns as cohesive devices in published and ESL student writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7 (1), 3-14.
Nwogu, K. N. (1991). Structure of science popularizations: A genre-analysis approach to the schema of popularized medical texts. English for Specific Purposes, 10 (2), 111-123.
Parkinson, J., & Adendorff, R. (2004). The use of popular science articles in teaching scientific literacy. English for Specific Purposes, 23 (4), 379-396.
Ren, F., & Zhai, J. (2014). Communication and Popularization of Science and Technology in China. London: Springer.
Riesch, H. (2014). Why did the proton cross the road? Humor and science communication, Public Understanding of Science, 24 (7), 768-775.
Russell, N. (2010). Communicating science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sapp, G. (1995). Building a popular science library collection for high school to adult learners: Issues and recommended resources. USA: Greenwood Press.
Stotesbury, H. (2003). Evaluation in research article abstracts in the narrative and hard sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2 (4), 327-341.
Takahashi, B., & Tandoc Jr. E. C. (2015). Media sources, credibility, perception of science: Learning about how people learn about science. Public Understanding of Science, 24 (1), 174-192.
Varttala, T. (1999). Remarks on the communicative function of hedging in popular science and specialist research articles of Medicine. English for Specific Purposes, 18 (2), 177-200.
White, P. P. R. (2014). Appraisal Website. Retrieved October 13, 2014 from http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/AppraisalGuide.
White, P. R. R. (1998). Telling media tales: The news story as rhetoric. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. University of Sydney, Sydney.
Zhang, G. (2015). It is suggested that ….. or it is better to….? Forms and meanings of subject it- extraposition in academic and popular writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20 (1), 1-13
[1]. metadiscourse markers | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 486 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 341 |
||