Análisis de las estrategias interactivas e interaccionales en las secciones de conclusiones y discusión en tesis de máster

Número
Visitas a la página del resumen del artículo:  1094  

DOI

https://doi.org/10.25267/Pragmalinguistica.2017.i25.21

Información

Artículos
416-438
Publicado: 01-12-2017
Citations
  • Citation Indexes: 2
Captures
  • Readers: 13
Crossref
0
Scopus
0
  • Eva M. Mestre-Mestre (ES) Universitat Politècnica de València

Resumen

El estudio de la escritura académica y científica ha suscitado un gran interés en los últimos años, como demuestra el prolífico trabajo dedicado a estudiar algunas secciones de los Artículos Científicos (AC) (Dudley-Evans, 1994; Parkinson, 2011). También se ha observado las diferencias entre autores nativos ingleses (NE) y aquellos no nativos (NNE). El interés se ha extendido a otros tipos de escritura académica, como los trabajos de postgrado (Hyland 2004). Este trabajo analiza las estrategias utilizadas en las secciones de Conclusión y Discusión de las Tesis de Máster (TM) escritas por estudiantes a partir de los marcadores metadiscursivos (MMD) (Hyland, 2005) que aparecen en ellas. Se comparan trabajos escritos por estudiantes en un corpus de 30 TM escritas en inglés (15 NNE y 15 NE). Se observan diferencias significativas en el uso de los MMD. Entre las conclusiones se menciona su interés para la enseñanza de la escritura académica.

Palabras clave


Descargas

Cómo citar

Mestre-Mestre, E. M. (2017). Análisis de las estrategias interactivas e interaccionales en las secciones de conclusiones y discusión en tesis de máster. Pragmalingüística, (25), 416–438. https://doi.org/10.25267/Pragmalinguistica.2017.i25.21

Biografía del autor/a

Eva M. Mestre-Mestre, Universitat Politècnica de València

Departament de Lingüística Aplicada.

Profesor Contratado Doctor.

Citas

ADAMS SMITH, D.E. (1984). Medical discourse: aspects of author’s comment. English for Specific Purposes 3, 25–36.

BAZERMAN, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Brett, P. (1994). A genre analysis of the results section of sociology articles. English for Specific Purposes, 13, 47-59.

CARRIÓ-PASTOR, M. L. (2013). A contrastive study of the variation of sentence connectors in academic English. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(3), 192–202. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2013.04.002

CONDUIT, A., & MODESTO, D. (1990). An investigation of the generic structure of the materials/methods section of scientific reports. Australian Review ofApplied Linguistics, Series S, No. 6, 109-134.

COOPER, C. (1985). Aspects ofarticle introduction in IEEEpublications. Unpublished M.Sc. dissertation, University of Aston, UK.

CRISMORE, A. (1989). Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Flowerdew.

CRISMORE, A., Markkanen, R. and Steffensen M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication 10(1): 39-71.

CROOKES, G. (1986). Towards a validated analysis of scientific text structure. Applied Linguistics, 7, 57–70.

DEL SAZ RUBIO, M. (2011). A pragmatic approach to the macro-structure and metadiscoursal features of research article introductions in the field of Agricultural Sciences. English for Specific Purposes, 30(4), 258–271. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.03.002

DUDLEY-EVANS, T. (1986). Genre analysis: an investigation of the introduction and discussion sections of M.Sc. dissertations. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Talking about text (Discourse Analysis Monographs No. 13, English Language Research). University of Birmingham.

DUDLEY-EVANS, T., & HENDERSON, W. (1990). The organization of article introductions: Evidence of change in economics writing. In T. Dudley-Evans & W. Henderson (Eds) The language of economics: the analysis of economic discourse. London: Modern English Publications/British Council.

GABRIELATOS, C., MCENERY, T. (2005) Epistemic modality in MA dissertations. In Fuertes Olivera, P.A. (Ed) (2005). Lengua y Sociedad: Investigaciones recientes en linguistica aplicada. Linguistica y Flilogia no.61 Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid. 311-331.

HALLIDAY, M. A. K. (1993). On the language of physical science. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science (pp. 54–68). London: The Falmer Press.

HALLIDAY, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.

HARTLEY, J. (2008). Academic writing and publishing - A practical handbook. New York and London: Routledge.

HARWOOD, N. (2005). ‘We do not have a theory.The theory I present here attempts to fill this gap’: Inclusive and exclusive pronouns in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 26, 343-375.

HEWINGS, M. (1993). The end! How to conclude a dissertation. In G. M. Blue (Ed.), Language, learning and success: Studying through English. London: Modern English Publications, 105-112.

HOLMES, R. (1997). Genre analysis and the social sciences: An investigation of the structure of research article discussion sections in three disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 16, 321–337.

HOPKINS, A., & Dudley-Evans, A. (1988). A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes, 7, 113–122.

HUNSTON, S. And Thompson, G. (2000). Evaluation in Text : Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford University Press: UK.

HYLAND, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437–455. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5

HYLAND, K. (1999). Academic attribution: Citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 20(3), 341–367.

HYLAND, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Pearson.

HYLAND, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20(3), 207–226. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00012-0

HYLAND, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091-1112.

IGLESIAS-MORENO, Á. E. (2001). Native speaker–non-native speaker interaction: the use of discourse markers. Elia, 2(1996), 129–142. Retrieved from http://www.institucional.us.es/revistas/elia/2/10. angela.pdf

LUUKA, M. R. (1994). Metadiscourse in academic texts. In B. L. Gunnarsson, P. Linell, & B. Nordberg (Eds.), Text and talk in professional context (pp. 77–88). Uppsala, Sweden: ASLA.

MARTÍNEZ, I. (2001). Impersonality in the research article as revealed by analysis of contrastive structure. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 227–247.

MAURANEN, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English Economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 12, 3–22.

MELANDER, B., SWALES, J. M., & FREDRICKSON, K. M. (1997). Journal abstracts from three academic fields in the United States and Sweden: National or disciplinary proclivities?. In A. Duszak (Ed.), Intellectual styles and cross-cultural communication (pp. 251–272). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.

MESTRE-MESTRE, E. M., & CARRIÓ PASTOR, M.L. (2012). A pragmatic analysis of errors in University students’ writings in English. English for Specific Purposes World, 12(35), 1–13.

MORENO, A. (1997). Genre constraints across languages: Causal metatext in Spanish and English RAs. English for Specific Purposes, 16(3), 161–179.

MORENO, A. (1998). The explicit signalling of premise-conclusion sequences in research articles: A contrastive framework. Text, 18(4), 545–585.

PALTRIDGE, B. (2002). Thesis and dissertation writing: an examination of published advice and actual practice. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 125-143.

PEACOCK, M. (2002). Communicative moves in the discussion section of research articles. System, 30(4), 479-497.

PRIOR, P. (1998). Writing disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the academy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

ROMERO-TRILLO, J. (2002) The pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers in non-native speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 769-784.

SALAGER-MEYER, F. (1990). Discoursal flaws in medical English abstracts: A genre analysis per research and text type. Text, 10, 365–384.

SAMRAJ, B. (2000). Discursive practices in graduate-level content courses: The case of environmental science. Text, 20, 347-371.

SAMRAJ, B. (2002). Introductions in research articles: Variations across disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 1-17.

SAMRAJ, B. (2005). An exploration of a genre set: Research article abstracts and introductions in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 141–156.

SCHIFFRIN, D. 1980. Metatalk: Organisational and evaluative brackets in discourse. Sociological Inquiry 50: 199-236.

SOLER-MONREAL, C. & L. GIL-SALOM (2010). “Moves, steps and linguistic signals in RA Discussion sections”. In W. Hahn & C. Vertan, C. (eds.), Fachsprachen in der Weltweiten Kommunikation / Specialised Language in Global Communication. Series Sprache in der Gesellschaft, Band 30 / Language in the Society 30, 519-528. Bern: Peter Lang.

SOLER-MONREAL, C. (2016). A move-step analysis of the concluding chapters in computer science PhD theses, 32, 105–132.

SWALES, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

SWALES, J. (2004). Research genres: Exploration and applications. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

SWALES, J. M., & FEAK, C. B. (2000). English in today’s research world: A writing guide. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

SWALES, J. M., & NAJJAR, H. (1987). The writing of research article introductions. Written Communication, 4, 175–191.

TANG, R., & JOHN, S. (1999). The ‘I’ in identity: Exploring writer identity in student academic writing through the first person pronoun. English for Specific Purposes, 18, S23eS40.

TAYLOR, G., & CHEN, T. (1991). Linguistic. cultural and subcultural issues in 336 R. Holmes contrastive discourse analysis: Anglo-American and Chinese texts. Applied Linguistics, 3, 319-336.

THOMPSON, D. (1993). Arguing for experimental “facts” in science: a study of research article results sections in biochemistry. Written Communication, 10, 106-128.

VALERO-GARCES, C. 1996. Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Spanish-English Economics texts. English for Specific Purposes 15(4): 279-294.

Williams, I. (1999). Results sections of medical research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18(4), 347–366.

WOOD, A. (2001). International scientific English: the language of research scientists around the world. In: Flowerdew, J., Peacock, M. (Eds.), Research Perspectives on English for Academic Purposes. Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, 71–83.

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. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, 103–112.

YANG, R., & ALLISON, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 365–387.