Correo Electrónico
DNINFOA - SIA
Bibliotecas
Convocatorias
Identidad U.N.
Publicado
Culture-specific Writing Styles in Postgraduate Students’ Research Proposals
Estilos de escritura culturalmente específicos en las propuestas de investigación de estudiantes de posgrado
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15446/fyf.v38n1.111314Palabras clave:
writing style, metadiscourse, research proposals, academic discourse, cultural context (en)estilo de escritura, metadiscurso, propuestas de investigación, discurso académico, contexto cultural (es)
Descargas
Academic communication occurs in a multicultural world with different culture-specific academic writing standards, intellectual styles and discourse expectations. Yet despite these differences, globalization of scholarship has considerably levelled out the standards on academic writing. The study aims to explore the impact of intellectual styles on choosing metadiscourse resources by non-native English writers from different cultural backgrounds in the context of globalized higher education. The participants were 116 engineering students who were taking a postgraduate course. To investigate hedges and boosters in students’ research proposals, the methods of quantitative and contextual analysis were adopted. Research proposals by Asian and East European postgraduate students were taken for the cross-cultural study based on Galtung’s and Hind’s theories of writing styles. Findings revealed that research proposals by Slavic students exposed to Teutonic writer-responsible culture featured a larger number of hedges. Asian-authored writing that is considered to be influenced by Nipponic reader-responsible culture and often regarded as indirect featured far more boosters than Slavic-authored texts considered to be precise and clear.
La comunicación académica se produce en un mundo multicultural con diferentes estándares culturales de escritura académica y estilos intelectuales. A pesar de estas diferencias, la globalización de la ciencia ha creado estándares de escritura académica. El estudio analiza el impacto de los estilos intelectuales en la elección de marcadores metadiscursivos por parte de escritores pertenecientes a diferentes culturas. Los participantes fueron 116 estudiantes de ingeniería de posgrado. Para investigar los obstáculos y los refuerzos en sus propuestas de investigación, se utilizaron los métodos de análisis cuantitativo y contextual. Las propuestas de investigación se analizaron con base en las teorías de estilos de escritura de Galtung y Hind. El estudio reveló que las propuestas de investigación de estudiantes eslavos expuestos al estilo teutónico presentaban un mayor número de obstáculos. Los textos de escritores asiáticos que están influenciados por la cultura nipona responsable del lector y considerados como indirectos, presentaban más refuerzos.
Referencias
Al-Khasawneh, F. M. (2017). A genre analysis of research article abstracts written by native and non-native speakers of English. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 4(1), 1-13.
Alonso-Almeida, F. (2014). Evidential and epistemic devices in English and Spanish medical, computing and legal scientific abstracts: A contrastive study. In Bondi, M., & Lorés Sanz, R. (Eds.), Abstracts in Academic Discourse: Variation and Change (pp. 21-42). Peter Lang.
Azar, A. S., Praemela, H., Farook, I. M., & Romli, N. H. (2022). A comparative analysis of stance features in research article introductions: Malaysian and English authors. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 22(2), 261-287. https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2022-2202-14
Beauvais, P. (1989). A speech-act theory of metadiscourse. Written Communication, 6(1), 11-30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088389006001002
Belyakova, M. (2017). English-Asian cross-linguistic comparison of research article abstracts in geoscience. Estudios de Lingüística Universidad de Alicante, 31, 27-45. https://doi.org/10.14198/ELUA2017.31.02
Bloor, D. (1991). Knowledge and Social Imagery. University of Chicago Press.
Bogdanović, V., & Mirović, I. (2018). Young researchers writing in ESL and the use of metadiscourse: Learning the ropes. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18, 813-830.
Boginskaya, O. (2022a). A diachronic analysis of hedging in non-native authors’ research article abstracts. Cultura, Lenguaje y Representacion, 27, 7-22. https://doi.org/10.6035/clr.6221
Boginskaya, O. (2022b). Cross-disciplinary variation in metadiscourse: A corpus-based analysis of Russian-authored research article abstracts. Training, Language and Culture, 6(3), 55-66. https://doi.org/10.22363/2521-442X-2022-6-3-55-66
Boginskaya, O. (2022c). Functional categories of hedges: A diachronic study of Russian research article abstracts. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 26(3), 645-667. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-30017
Boginskaya, O. (2023a). Russian lexical and syntactic hedges in dissertation reviews. Russian Language Studies, 21(1), 18-32. https://doi.org/10.22363/2618-8163-2023-21-1-18-32
Boginskaya, O. (2023b). Interactional metadiscourse markers in English research article abstracts written by non-native authors: A corpus-based contrastive study. Íkala Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 28(1), 139-154. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ikala.v28n1a08
Bondi, M. (2014). Changing voices: Authorial voice in abstracts. Bondi, M., & Lorés Sanz, R. (Eds.), Abstracts in Academic Discourse: Variation and Change (pp. 243-270). Peter Lang. https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0351-0701-2
Cmejrkova, S. (1996). Academic writing in East European and English. In Ventola, E., & Mauranen, A. (Eds.), Academic writing. Intercultural and textual issues (pp. 137-152). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.41.11cme
Čmejrková, S. (2007). The (re)presentation of the author in Czech and Slovak scientific texts. Jezik in slovstvo, 52(3-4), 21-31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4312/jis.52.3-4.95-105
Connor, U. (2000). Variations in rhetorical moves in grant proposals of US humanists and scientists. Text, 20, 1-28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.2000.20.1.1
Connor, U., & Mauranen, A. (1999). Linguistic analysis of grant proposals: European Union research grants. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 47-62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00026-4
Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1990). Meta-discourse in popular and professional science discourse. In Nash, W. (Ed.), The Writing Scholar Studies in Academic Discourse (pp. 118-136). Sage.
Dang, N. C. T. (2023). The use of metadiscourse markers in applied linguistics research proposals written by Vietnamese MA students. HCMCOUJS-Social Sciences, 13(2), 111-124. https://doi.org/10.46223/HCMCOUJS.soci.en.13.2.2688.2023
Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2013). Authorial presence in academic discourse: Functions of author-reference pronouns. Linguistica Pragensia, 23(1), 9-30.
Duszak, A. (1994). Academic discourse and intellectual styles. Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 291-313. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90003-5
Fazel, I., & Shi, L. (2015). Citation behaviors of graduate students in grant proposal writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20(1), 203-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.10.002
Feng, H. (2006). A corpus-based study of research grant proposal abstracts. Perspectives: Working Papers in English and Communication, 17(1). http://www.cityu.edu.hk/en/research/spring2006feng.pdf
Feng, H., & Shi, L. (2004). Genre Analysis of Research Grant Proposals. LSP & Professional Communication, 4(1), 8-30.
Flowerdew, L. (2016). A genre-inspired and lexico-grammatical approach for helping postgraduate students craft research grant proposals. English for Specific Purposes, 42, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2015.10.001
Galtung, J. (1981). Structure, culture, and intellectual style: An essay comparing Saxonic, Teutonic, Gallic and Nipponic approaches. Social Science Information, 20(6), 817-856. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901848102000601
Gessesse, C. M. (2016). An investigation into the macro rhetorical structures of the EFL research abstracts of graduates of 2013: The case of Bahir Dar University in Ethiopia. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 6(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.29333/ojcmt/2534
Gu, J. Z. (2008). Rhetorical clash between Chinese and Westerners. Intercultural Communication Studies, 17(4), 44–51.
Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In Connor, U., & Kaplan, R. (Eds.), Writing across Languages: Analysis of L2 Texts (pp. 141-152). Addison-Wesley.
Hinkel, E. (1997). Indirectness in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 27(3), 360–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00040-9
Hryniuk, K. (2018). Expert-like use of hedges and boosters in research articles written by Polish and English native-speaker writers. Research in Language, 16(3), 263-280. https://doi.org/10.2478/rela-2018-0013
Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English-and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(11), 2795-2809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007
Hyland, K. (1998). Exploring Corporate Rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEO's Letter. Journal of Business Communication, 35(2), 224-244. https://doi.org/10.1177/002194369803500203
Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2005b). 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. (2004). Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156–177. http://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156
Hyland, K., & Zou, H. (2021). «I believe the findings are fascinating»: Stance in three-minute these’. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 50, 100973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.100973
Işık-Taş, E. E. (2018). Authorial identity in Turkish language and English language research articles in Sociology: The role of publication context in academic writers’ discourse choices. English for Specific Purposes, 49, 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.10.003
Ji, X. (2015). Comparison of abstracts written by native speakers and second language learners. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 5, 470-474. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2015.55041
Kaplan, R. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural communication. Language Learning, 16, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1966.tb00804.x
Khajavy, G. H., & Asadpour, S. F. (2012). A comparative analysis of interactive metadiscourse features in discussion section of research articles written in English and Persian. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(2), 147-159. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v4i2.1767
Khoutyz, I. (2015). Engagement in written academic discourse: A cross-cultural study of Russian and English research articles. International Journal of Russian Studies, 4(2), 135-160.
Kim, L. C., & Lim, J. (2013). Metadiscourse in English and Chinese research article introductions. Discourse studies, 15(2), 129-146. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612471476
Kozubíková Šandová, J. (2021). Interpersonality in research article abstracts: A diachronic case study. Discourse and Interaction, 14(1), 77-99. https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2021-1-77
Kustyasari, D., Basthomi, Y., & Anugerahwati, M. (2021). Interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers in research articles of Asian expert writers. Journal of English Education Society, 6, 90-95. https://doi.org/10.21070/jees.v6i1.1082
Lee, J. J., & Casal, E. (2014). Metadiscourse in results and discussion chapters: A cross-linguistic analysis of English and Spanish thesis writers in engineering. System, 46, 39-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.07.009
Lee, J. J., & Deakin, L. (2016). Interactions in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing: Interactional metadiscourse in successful and less-successful argumentative essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 33, 21-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.06.004
Li, Z., & Xu, J. (2020). Reflexive metadiscourse in Chinese and English sociology research article introductions and discussions. Journal of Pragmatics, 159(2), 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.02.003
Lu, X. (2000). The influence of classical Chinese rhetoric on contemporary Chinese political communication and social relations. In Heisey, D. R. (Ed.), Chinese Perspective in Rhetoric and Communication (pp. 3–23). Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Maamuujav, U., Olson, C. B., & Chung, H. (2021). Syntactic and lexical features of adolescent L2 students’ academic writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 53, 100822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100822
Matzler, P. (2021). Mentoring and Co-Writing for Research Publication Purposes: Interaction and Text Development in Doctoral Supervision. Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003152637
Mikolaychik, M. (2019). Lexical hedging in English abstracts of Asian economics research articles: A corpus-based study. Science Journal of Volgograd State University. Linguistics, 19(5), 38-47. https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu2.2020.5.4
Nuzha, I. Smirnova, N., & Shchemeliova, I. (2020). Research Proposal in English: Corpus-Based Genre Analysis. Tomsk State University Journal of Philology, 68, 58-84. https://doi.org/10.17223/19986645/68/4
Nuttal, C. (2021). Profiling lexical frame use in NSF grant proposal abstracts. Applied Corpus Linguistics, 1(3), 100009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acorp.2021.100009
Park, Y. S., & Kim, B. S. (2008). Asian and European American cultural values and communication styles among Asian American and European American college students. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14(1), 47-56. https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.14.1.47
Pascual, Mariana., & Unger, L. (2010). Appraisal in the Research Genres: An Analysis of Grant Proposals by Argentinean Researchers. Revista Signos, 43(73), 261-280. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342010000200004
Perales-Escudero, M., & Swales, J. (2011). Tracing convergence and divergence in pairs of Spanish and English research article abstracts: The case of Ibérica. Ibérica, 2(1), 49-70.
Pisanski Peterlin, A. (2005). Text-organising metatext in research articles: An English-Slovene contrastive analysis. English for Specific Purposes, 24(3), 307-319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2004.11.001
Pyankova, T. (1994). A practical guide for the translation of Asian scientific and technical literature into English. Letopis.
Qi, X., & Liu, L. (2007). Differences between Reader/Writer responsible languages reflected in EFL learners' Writing. Intercultural Communication Studies, 16(3), 148-159.
Stotesbury, H. (2003). Evaluation in research article abstracts in the narrative and hard sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 327-341. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00049-3
Tardy, C. M. (2003). A genre system view of the funding of academic research. Written Communication, 20(1), 7-36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088303253569
Tseng, M.-Y. (2011). The genre of research grant proposals: Towards a cognitive–pragmatic analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2254-2268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.02.015
Van Bonn, S., & Swales, J. (2007). English and French journal abstracts in the language sciences: Three exploratory studies. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(2), 93-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2007.04.001
Vande Kopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82-93. https://doi.org/10.58680/ccc198511781
Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20(1), 83-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00029-0
Walková, M. (2018). Author’s self-representation in research articles by Anglophone and Slovak linguists. Discourse and Interaction, 11(1), 86-105. https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2018-1-86
Yakhontova, T. (1997). The signs of a new time: Academic writing in ESP curricula of Ukrainian universities. In Duszak, A. (Ed.), Culture and Styles of Academic Discourse (pp. 323-341). Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110821048.103
Yin, B. (2016). An exploratory genre analysis of three graduate degree research proposals in applied linguistics. Functional linguistics, 3(7), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40554-016-0032-2
Cómo citar
APA
ACM
ACS
ABNT
Chicago
Harvard
IEEE
MLA
Turabian
Vancouver
Descargar cita
Licencia
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0.
Forma y Función está suscrita al convenio Open Journal System, lo que significa que tiene el carácter de acceso abierto. Se provee acceso libre e inmediato a su contenido, bajo el principio de que hacer disponible gratuitamente los resultados de investigación contribuye a la divulgación global del conocimiento, así como al intercambio académico que propicia vínculos entre las comunidades científicas. Los usuarios pueden buscar, leer, copiar, descargar y compartir la totalidad de los textos publicados. Se autoriza su uso, siempre y cuando se conceda el crédito a los autores de los textos y a Forma y Función como fuente original de la publicación. No se permite el uso comercial de copia o distribución de contenidos, así como tampoco la adaptación, derivación o transformación alguna de estos sin la autorización previa de los autores y del editor de Forma y Función.
Los contenidos de la revista son publicados en acceso abierto bajo la Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional. Para mayor información sobre los términos de la licencia, se puede consultar: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode.
En consonancia con la política de acceso abierto, Forma y Función no aplica cargos por el procesamiento de los textos enviados, ni por su publicación.
