Negation in the Move-Step of Introduction and Discussion Sections in Applied Linguistics Research Articles
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1511.21Keywords:
negation, move-step, applied linguistics, research article introduction section, research article discussion sectionAbstract
Introduction and discussion sections in research articles (RAs) are more complicated than in academic essays. These sections’ rhetorical structures and linguistic phenomena have received considerable attention. Despite the interest, however, few studies have examined negation in the structure of RA introductions and discussions. This study, therefore, contains preliminary research on the distribution, types, and functions of negation in the move-step of the two sections in applied linguistics. Two corpora—Introduction Corpus and Discussion Corpus—were established using data concerning applied linguistics. The theoretical model of negation and move-step models of introductions and discussions were selected as the analytical frameworks. The results reveal that writers are inclined to use various negative markers in the two sections, especially in discussions. Furthermore, regarding functional uses in introductions, interactive negation helps establish a research territory by reviewing previous studies, and interactional negation creates a research niche by critically evaluating previous work and identifying gaps. In discussions, writers tend to employ interactive negation to report results and summarise research and interactional negation to comment on results and assess the research. Additionally, interactive negation is more commonly used than interactional negation to create a coherent structure in RA introductions and discussions in applied linguistics. The findings may be pedagogically significant for providing negation instruction and guiding learning in academic writing.
References
Amnuai, W. (2017). The textual organization of the discussion sections of accounting research articles. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 40(2), 389-394. Retrieved October 20, 2024, from https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/kjss/article/view/242166
Annesley, T. M. (2010). The discussion section: Your closing argument. Clinical Chemistry, 56(11), 1671-1674. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2010.155358
Ash’ari, N., Barabadi, E., & Shirvan, M. E. (2023). The rhetorical organization of discussions sections of qualitative research articles in Applied Linguistics and the use of meta-discourse markers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 66, 101310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2023.101310
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., Finegan, E., & Quirk, R. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Pearson Education Limited.
Brezina, V., Weill-Tessier, P., & McEnery, A. (2021). #LancsBox v. 6.x. [software package]. Retrieved June 15, 2024, from http://corpora.lancs.ac.uk/lancsbox/download.php
Carter, R. (2011). English grammar today with CD-ROM: An AZ of spoken and written grammar. Cambridge University Press.
Casal, J. E., Lu, X., Qiu, X., Wang, Y., & Zhang, G. (2021). Syntactic complexity across academic research article part-genres: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 52, 100996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.100996
Crookes, G. (1986). Towards a validated analysis of scientific text structure. Applied Linguistics, 7, 57–70.
Deng, L., Cheng, Y., & Gao, X. (2024). Promotional strategies in English and Chinese research article introduction and discussion/conclusion sections: A cross-cultural study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 68, 101344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2024.101344
Don, A. C. (2017). Negation as part of the Engagement framework: explorations in the territory of disclaim: deny [Master thesis]. Universita di Bologna. Retrieved May 25, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.6092/unibo%2Famsacta%2F5545
Dudley-Evans, T. (1994). Variations in the discourse patterns favoured by different disciplines and their pedagogical implications. Academic listening: Research perspectives, 146-158.
Farhang-Ju, M., Jalilifar, A., & Keshavarz, M. H. (2024). Specificity and generality of lexical bundles in the rhetorical moves of Applied Linguistics research article introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 69, 101387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2024.101387
Holmes, J., & Nesi, H. (2009). Verbal and mental processes in academic disciplines. Academic writing: At the interface of corpus and discourse, 58-72.
Hyland, K. (1998). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text & Talk, 18(3), 349-382. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1998.18.3.349
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse studies, 7(2), 173-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005). Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), 123-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2004.02.002
Jiang, F. K., & Hyland, K. (2022). “The datasets do not agree”: Negation in research abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 68, 60-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2022.06.003
Jiang, F., & Hyland, K. (2023). Changes in research abstracts: Past tense, third person, passive, and negatives. Written Communication, 40(1), 210-237. https://doi.org/10.1177/07410883221128876
Joseph, R., Lim, J. M. H., & Nor, N. A. M. (2014). Communicative moves in forestry research introductions: Implications for the design of learning materials. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 134, 53-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.224
Kanoksilapatham, B. (2012). Research article structure of research article introductions in three engineering subdisciplines. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 55(4), 294-309. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2012.2223252
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Measuring the reliability of qualitative text analysis data. Quality and Quantity, 38, 787-800. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-004-8107-7
Li, X., Jiang, F. K., & Ma, J. (2023). A cross-sectional analysis of negation used in thesis writing by L1 and L2 PhD students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 64, 101264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2023.101264
Liu, Y., & Buckingham, L. (2018). The schematic structure of discussion sections in applied linguistics and the distribution of metadiscourse markers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 34, 97-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.04.002
Lu, X., Yoon, J., & Kisselev, O. (2021). Matching phrase-frames to rhetorical moves in social science research article introductions. English for Specific Purposes, 61, 63-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2020.10.001
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. (2003). The language of evaluation (Vol. 2). Palgrave Macmillan.
Nodoushan, M. (2012). A structural move analysis of discussion sub-genre in applied linguistics from Proceedings of 6th International Conference on Languages, E-Learning and Romanian Studies.
Ozturk, I. (2007). The textual organisation of research article introductions in applied linguistics: Variability within a single discipline. English for Specific Purposes, 26(1), 25-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2005.12.003
Pagano, A. (1994). Negatives in written text. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 264-279). Routledge.
Ruiying, Y., & Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes, 22(4), 365-385. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00026-1
Samraj, B. (2002). Introductions in research articles: Variations across disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 21(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00023-5
Sinclair, J., Airlie, M., Scrimgeour, R., Todd, L., & Wigley, C. (2017). Collins cobuild English grammar (4th ed.). Collins Cobuild.
Sun, S., & Crosthwaite, P. (2022a). “Establish a niche” via negation: A corpus-based study of negation within the Move 2 sections of PhD thesis introductions. Open Linguistics, 8(1), 189-208. https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2022-0190
Sun, S. A., & Crosthwaite, P. (2022b). “The findings might not be generalizable”: Investigating negation in the limitations sections of PhD theses across disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 59, 101155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2022.101155
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. (2019). The futures of EAP genre studies: A personal viewpoint. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 38, 75-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.01.003
Tottie, G. (1991). Negation in English speech and writing: A study in variation. Academic Press.
Webber, P. (2014). Negation in linguistics papers. In L. Camiciotti, G. Del, & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Academic discourse: New insights into evaluation (pp. 181-202). Peter Lang.
Zhou, W., Li, Z., & Lu, X. (2023). Syntactic complexity features of science research article introductions: Rhetorical-functional and disciplinary variation perspectives. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 61, 101212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2022.101212
