|تعداد مشاهده مقاله||9,889,855|
|تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله||6,484,079|
Using Critical Discourse Analysis to Explore Authentic Research Article: A Focus on Practical Argumentation Theory
|Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies|
|دوره 15، شماره 2، آذر 2023، صفحه 19-32 اصل مقاله (172 K)|
|نوع مقاله: Research Paper|
|شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22111/ijals.2023.46256.2364|
|English Language and Literature Department, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Ilam University, Ilam, Iran|
|As a dominant genre of academic writing, research papers can be considered as the locus of reproduction concerning asymmetrical power relations and dominance. Through a purposive sampling consisting of the analysis and evaluation of an argument, the purpose of this study was to divulge the power and ideology latent in the discussion section of the research articles to raise second language learners’ awareness of the epistemological foundations and methodological goals and values of the ideologies behind the texts as social structures. By using a practical reasoning framework as an evaluative tool to analyze a text presented in the discussion part of arguments published in research articles, the analysis revealed that the scientific viewpoints exhibit themselves as the premises of these arguments. These world views maintain the dominance of the papers on global academic and social discourses. Understanding the ideological purpose of the article genre is crucial for promoting democratic and equitable education. This assertion highlights the importance of recognizing this function.|
|research papers؛ argumentation؛ practical argumentation؛ ideology|
Basturkmenos, H. (2009). Commenting on results in published research articles and masters dissertations in Language Teaching. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8, 241–251.
Bitchener, J. (2010). Writing an Applied Linguistics thesis or dissertation: A guide to presenting empirical research. Palgrave Macmillan.
Blommaert, J., & Bulcaen, C. (2000). Critical discourse analysis. Annual review of Anthropology, 29(1), 447-466.
Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge University Press.
Bondi, M., & Hyland, K. (2006). Introduction. In K. Hyland, & M. Bondi (Eds.), Academic discourse across disciplines (pp. 7–17). Peter Lang.
Cariani, F., & Rips, L. J. (2017). Conditionals, context, and the suppression effect. Cognitive Science, 41(3), 540-589.
Cheng, F. W., & Unsworth, L. (2016). Stance-taking as negotiating academic conflict in applied linguistics research article discussion sections. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 24, 43-57.
Dubois, B. L. (1997). The biomedical discussion section in context. Ablex Publishing.
Dudley-Evans, T. (2001). Team-teaching in EAP: Changes and adaptations in the Birmingham approach. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock, Research perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp. 225-238). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524766.018
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis. Longman.
Fairclough, D. L. (2010). Design and analysis of quality of life studies in clinical trials. CRC Press.
Fairclough, I., & Fairclough, N. (2011). Practical reasoning in political discourse: The UK government’s response to the economic crisis in the 2008 Pre-Budget Report. Discourse & Society, 22(3), 243-268.
Fairclough, I., & Fairclough, N. (2012). Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced students. Routledge.
Fairclough, N., & Fairclough, I. (2018). A procedural approach to ethical critique in CDA. Critical Discourse Studies, 15(2), 169-185.
Hopkins, A., & Dudley-Evans, T. (1988). A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes, 7, 113–122.
Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 437-455.
Johns, A., & Swales, J. M. (2002). Literacy and disciplinary practices: Opening and closing perspectives. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1(1), 13–28.
Khadivar, A., Samaie, M., & Ahmadian, M. (2020). Ideology in positivist research articles on issues of teaching English as a foreign language. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 9(2), 283-301.
Khajeh, Z., & Khanmohammad, H. (2011). Transmission of ideology through translation: A critical discourse analysis of Chomsky’s “media control” and its Persian translations. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 1(1), 24-42.
KhosraviNik, Majid. (2010). Actor descriptions, action attributions, and argumentation: Towards a Systematization of CDA analytical categories in the representation of social groups, Critical Discourse Studies, 7(1), 55-72.
Kincheloe, J. L. (2008). Critical pedagogy primer (Vol. 1). Peter Lang.
Knapp, P., & Watkins, M. (2005). Genre, text, grammar: Technologies for teaching and assessing writing. UNSW Press.
Lewin, B. A., Fine, J., & Young, L. (2001). Expository discourse: A genre-based approach to social science research texts. Continuum.
Macken-Horarik, M. (2002). Something to shoot for. In A. M. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom (pp. 1-17). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Malmir A., & Taji, N. (2021). The interplay of action, context, and linguistic vs. non-linguistic resources in L2 pragmatic performance: The case of requests and refusals. Language Related Research (LRR), 12(3), 215–253.
Meyer, M. (2001). Between theory, method, and politics: Positioning of the approaches to CDA Michael Meyer. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, 113, 14-31.
Nasution, S. S., Sukmawati, N. N., Lubis, A. A., Hastomo, T., & Sesriyani, L. (2020). Using critical discourse analysis to explore an authentic teaching material: A focus on language and power. Studies in English Language and Education, 7(2), 527-543.
Parkinson, J. (2011). The Discussion section as argument: The language used to prove knowledge claims. English for Specific Purposes, 30(3), 164-175.
Peng, J. F. (1987). An investigation of rhetorical and organisational features of the discussion sections of Chemical Engineers’ papers [Master’s thesis, University of Birmingham].
Rahimi, E., & Sharififar, M. (2015). Critical discourse analysis and its implication in English language teaching: A case study of political text. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(3), 504.
Shakoury, K., & Makarova, V. (2021). Critical discourse analysis of micro and macro structures in talks by two Iranian presidents at the United Nations general assembly: A socio-cognitive perspective. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 13(1), 109-130.
Searle, John. (2010). Making the social world: The structure of human civilization. Oxford University Press.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (Vol. 1). University of Michigan Press.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2012). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (3rd ed.). University of Michigan Press.
Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58-78.
Thorner, N., Kikuchi, K. (2019). The process of demotivation in language learning: An integrative account. In Lamb, M., Csizér, K., Henry, A., Ryan, S. (Eds.) (2019), The Palgrave handbook of motivation for language learning. Palgrave Macmillan.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. Sage.
Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge University Press.
Van Eemeren, F. H., van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2015). From analysis to presentation: A pragma-dialectical approach to writing argumentative texts (pp. 713-729). Springer International Publishing.
Vidal, M., & Baratgin, J. (2017). A psychological study of unconnected conditionals. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 29(6), 769-781.
Von Fraunhofer, J. A. (2010). Research writing in dentistry. Wiley-Blackwell.
Waghid, Y. (2006). University education and deliberation: In defence of practical reasoning. Higher Education, 51, 315-328.
Walton, D. (2008). Informal logic: A pragmatic approach. Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D. (2013). Methods of argumentation. Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D. (2013). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.
Wodak, R. (2001). What CDA is About: A summary of its history, important concepts and its developments. In Wodak, R. & Meyer, C. (Eds.). Methods of critical discourse analysis. Sage Publications.
Yang, R., & Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 365–385.
Zhao, Y. (2017). What works may hurt: Side effects in education. Journal of Educational Change, 18(1), 1-19.
Zhou, H., & Liu, Y. (2021). If it had been conducted with a larger database…: A comparison of If-constructions in Chinese L2 learners’ theses and published research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 64, 37-48.
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 48
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 1