Linguistic Features to Compile a Successful Scientific Discourse: Have Tunisian Novice Researchers Ever Seen Such Features during their Educational Career
International Journal of Language and Linguistics
Volume 3, Issue 1, January 2015, Pages: 8-15
Received: Sep. 10, 2014;
Accepted: Oct. 14, 2014;
Published: Jan. 27, 2015
Views 3692 Downloads 222
Chokri Smaoui, RU: Discourse Analysis, Faculty of Letters and Humanities of Sfax, Sfax, Tunisia
Elhoucine Essefi, National Engineering School of Sfax, Road of Soukra, km 4 Zipcode3038, Sfax, Tunisia
This work predicted the difficulties of Tunisian novice researchers with scientific writing by studying, in terms of Functional Linguistics, two linguistic features used in the scientific discourse: syntactic structures and hedging. This work shows the deficiency of the official programs in terms of the required skills to compile a successful scientific discourse. Results showed that Tunisian novice researchers have never seen such features during their acquisition of English. Thus, they may face the hard challenge of packaging the high content of information in such an expository discourse to reach the informative and rhetorical purpose of their scientific products.
Linguistic Features to Compile a Successful Scientific Discourse: Have Tunisian Novice Researchers Ever Seen Such Features during their Educational Career, International Journal of Language and Linguistics.
Vol. 3, No. 1,
2015, pp. 8-15.
Bazerman, C. (2001). Nuclear information: one rhetorical moment in the construction of the information age. Written Communication, 18,259–295.
Conrad, S. (2002). Corpus linguistic approaches for discourse analysis. Discourse and dialogue, 22, 75-94, New York Cambridge University Press.
Cowen, R. (2008). The Teacher’s Grammar of English: A Course Book and Reference Guide. Cambridge University Press.
Gray, B. (2013). More than discipline: uncovering multi-dimensional patterns of variation in academic research articles. Corpora, 8(2), 153-181.
Finegan, E. (1999). Language: Its structure and use (3rd ed.). New York: Harcourt.
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hyland, K. (1999). Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles. In C. N. Candlin, & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 99–121). London: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2001). Bringing in the reader. Written Communication, 18(4), 549–574.
Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091–1112.
Hyland, K. (1996).Writing without conviction? Hedging in scientific research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17(4), 433–453.
Halliday, M., Kirkwood, M A., Matthiessen, C M., 2013. Halliday's introduction to functional grammar. Routledge.
Hewings, M., & Hewings, A. (2002). A comparative study of anticipatory_it_ in student and published writing. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 367–383.
Koutsantoni, D. (2006). Rhetorical strategies in engineering research articles and research theses: Advanced academic literacy and relation of power, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 19-36.
Lim, J. M. H. (2011). ‘Paving the way for research findings’: Writers’ rhetorical choices in education and applied linguistics. Discourse Studies, 13(6), 725-749.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S. & Leech, G. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Harlow: Longman.
Rowley-Jolivet. E., Carter-Thomas. S. (2005). Genre awareness and rhetorical appropriacy: Manipulation of information structure by NS and NNS scientists in the international conference setting. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 41–64.
Stockwell, R.P., and Martin, J. W. (1965). The grammatical structure of English and Spanish. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.