臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

在學術英語的研究中，許多研究者已經一再強調領域文化對學術文類(academic genres) 的文本語言形式有關鍵性的影響。在各種學術文類中，另一方面，期刊中的研究方法(the method section)已經被認為是最能呈現文本語言形式以及領域文化之間關係的文類之一。然而，相關的研究卻為數甚少，在這些現有的研究中，大部分都僅侷限於研究單一文本語言形式與單一領域文化面向之間的關係，沒有研究曾試圖探討不同的領域文化面向如何影響一系列語言形式的使用並進而產生學科特有的文本風格。此外，文本分析似乎是這些研究唯一的研究方法，然而，僅根據作者主觀的分析，推論的結果可能會失之偏頗，或是導致錯誤的解讀。
因此，本論文主要的目的在於探討在植物學、結構工程、以及消費者行為這三種學科的期刊研究方法之間，是否在一系列文本語言形式的使用會有差異？而這一系列的語言形式是否會影響這三個學科研究方法的寫作風格？以及，不同的領域文化是否會影響研究方法的寫作風格或是反映在語言形式的使用上？為了能夠獲得更詳實的分析並正確解釋分析的結果，有別於之前的研究，本論文的研究方法包含二階段，首先，根據Swales (2004)針對二種不同研究方法寫作風格所提出的一系列文本語言形式的使用進行文本分析，之後再以文本分析的結果為基礎，分別深度訪談這三種學科的教授。
結果顯示，Swales (2004) 所提的各種文本語言形式的使用在這三個學科的期刊研究方法中的確有其差異性存在，並因此形成不同的文本風格。而且，各種文本語言形式與風格之間的關係似乎比Swales (2004)當初預測的複雜。此外，不同的領域文化面向的確會反應在期刊研究方法的寫作風格上。舉例而言，實驗方法的複雜性可能會影響副標題的使用；不同的研究對象因為屬性的差異也可能會影響作者變換句子主詞的頻率；而實驗設計的原創性則可能影響作者是否時常解釋為何選擇某些研究步驟。除此之外，本研究結果亦發現，
研究方法的寫作與文化之間關係是多變的。同一個領域文化因素可能造成不同文本特徵的使用。就另一方面而言，不同的領域文化因素也可能造成作者使用相同的文本特徵。

In the field of English for Academic Purposes (EAP), it has been highlighted that various aspects of disciplinary cultures are crucial factors influencing the rhetorical characteristics of different academic genres. On the other hand, the research article (RA) method section has also been assumed to be one of the genres where the disciplinary culture seems to be reflected the most obviously. However, till present, very few studies have ever focused on the influences of disciplinary cultures on the textual features of RA method section. Moreover, these existing studies have only focused on the relationship between one specific textual feature and one single aspect of disciplinary cultures. None of them have attempted to reveal how various aspects of disciplinary cultures influence the use of a set of textual features associated with the writing style of method texts in different disciplines. In addition, the conclusions of these studies seem to only depend on the textual analysis which might lead to subjective and inappropriate analysis and interpretation.
Therefore, the goal of this thesis is to reveal how a set of textual features in RA method section are used in three different disciplines, including (1) Botany, (2) Structural Engineering,and (3) consumer behavior, to see whether the use of these features indeed are different among these three fields and thus leading to distinctive writing styles of method texts, as well as to see what and how aspects of disciplinary cultures are reflected on the use of these features. A set of features associated with two distinctive writing styles of method texts (i.e. clipped and elaborated style) proposed by Swales (2004) were examined in this study. Moreover, after the textual analysis, in-depth text-based interviews with expert informants from each of the subfields were conducted to ensure the appropriateness of the interpretation of the results and to obtain deeper insights of the various culture issues.
The results show that scientists in each of the three fields investigated indeed tend to use the textual features differently, leading to the exhibition of different style preferences. Moreover, it is also found that the relationship between the use of these features and the writing styles might be more complex than what Swales (2004) originally assumed. Moreover, the results also show that various aspects of disciplinary cultures indeed both influence and are reflected in the uses of the features examined. For example, the degree of complexity in the research design might influence the number of subheading used, different characteristics of the research targets might affect the frequency of switching sentence subjects, and the degree of originality might influence the
frequency of justification of the methodological choices. Additionally, it is also found that the relationship between the style of RA method section and the disciplinary culture tend to be dynamic and fluid. One factor of the disciplinary cultures might result in the uses of different features. On the other hand, similar uses of one specific feature might be the products of different disciplinary cultural factors.

Chinese Abstract...........................................i
English Abstract.........................................iii
Acknowledgement............................................v
Table of Content........................................viii
List of Tables............................................ix
Introduction ..............................................1
Background and Motivation ..............................1
Review of PreviousLiterature............................5
EAP Studies in General................................5
Studies of Research Articles .........................6
Disciplinary Cultures and Research Articles in
General..............................................12
Disciplinary Cultures and Different Sections of
Research Articles....................................15
Previous Studies of the RA Method Section............17
Gapsin Previous Studies................................26
Purposes of the Present Study..........................27
Methodology ..............................................30
Textual Analysis.......................................30
Data collection......................................30
Data Analysis........................................33
Text-Based Interviews .................................48
Result and Discussion ....................................50
Overview...............................................50
Named Subsections......................................53
Citation Practices ....................................57
Citations in General................................57
Citations as Shorthand..............................59
Self-Citations......................................64
Integral Citations..................................69
Acronyms as Shorthand.................................76
Justification.........................................81
Definitions...........................................91
Examples..............................................96
Tables and Figures...................................100
A Wide Range of Linking Phrases at the Beginning of
Sentences............................................107
Switching Sentence Subjects..........................111
Clustering Verb......................................117
Volitional Verbs.....................................120
Manipulative Details.................................123
Preferred Writing Styles of the RA Method Section
across the Three Corpora.............................128
Conclusion...............................................132
References...............................................143
Appendix.................................................153

REFERENCE
Anthony, L. (1999). Writing research article
introductionsin software engineering: How accurate is
the standard model? IEEE Transactions of Professional
Communication, 42, 38-46.
Bazerman, C. (1981). What written knowledge does.
Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 2, 361-387.
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: the genre
and activity of the experimental article in science.
Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Becher, T. (1981). Toward a defiition of disciplinsry
cultures. Studies in Higher Education, 6, 109-122.
Becher, T. & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and
territories: intellectual enquiry and the culture of
disciplines. Philadelphia, PA : Open University Press
Berkenkotter, C. & Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in
disciplinary communities: Cognition, culture, power.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in
professional settings. London: Longman.
Bhatia, V.K. (2004). Worlds of written discourse: A genre
based view. New York: Continuum.
Bloor, M. (1999). Variations in the method sections of
research articles across disciplines: the case of fast
and slow text. In P. Thompson (Ed.), Issues in EAP
Writing Research and Instruction (pp. 84-105). UK:
Centre of Applied Studies,The University of Reading.
Bruce, I. (2008). Cognitive genre structure in Methods
sections of research articles: A corpus study. English
for Academic Purposes, 7, 38-54.
Chang, Y. Y. (2004). Citation and career roles: Six stories
from two fields. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation,
Department of Linguistics, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor.
Chang, Y. Y. & Swales, J. M. (1999). Informal elements in
English academic writing: Treats of opportunities for
advanced non-native speakers? In Candlin. C. N. &.
Hyland. K (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and
practices (pp. 145-167). London: Longman.
Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural
aspects of second language writing. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Crookes, G. (1986). Towards a validated analysis of
scientific text structure. Applied Linguistics, 7, 57
-70.
Dudley-Evans, T. (1999). The dissertation: A case of
neglect. In P. Thompson, (Ed.), Issues in EAP writing
research and instruction (pp. 28-36). Reading: Centre
for Applied language Study, University of Reading.
Dueñas, P. M. (2007). “I/we focus on …”: A cross-
cultural analysis of self-mention in Business
Management research articles. English for Academic
Purposes, 6, 143-162.
Fergison, G. (2001). If you pop over there: a corpus-based
study of conditionals in medical discourse. English for
Specific Purposes, 20, 61-82.
Flowerdew, J. & Dudley-Evans. T. (2002). Genre analysis of
editorial letters to international journal
contributors.Applied Linguistics, 23, 463-489.
Friend, R., (2001). Effects of strategy instruction on
summary writing of college students. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 26, 3-24.
Gilbert, G. & Mulkey, M. (1980). Contexts of scientific
discourse: Social accounting in experimental papers.
Sociology of the Sciences, 4, 269-264.
Gilbert, G. & Mulkey, M. (1984). Opening Pandora’s box: a
sociological analysis of scientific discourses. London:
Ablex.
Gledhill, C. (2000). The discourse function of collocation
in research article introductions. English for Specific
Purposes, 7, 115-135.
Halleck, G.B. & Connor, U. M. (2006). Rhetorical moves in
TESOL conference proposals. English for Academic
Purposes, 5, 70-86.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional
grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Hemais, B. (2001). The discourse of research and practice
in Marketing journals. English for Specific Purposes,
20, 39-59.
Hewings, A. & Hewings, M. (2006). Anticipatory “it” in
Academic Writing: An Indicator of Disciplinary
Difference and Developing Disciplinary Knowledge. In Hewings, M. (Ed.), Academic writing in context:
Implications and applications (pp. 199-214). London:
Continuum.
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.
Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in
science research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17, 433-
454.
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hyland, K. (1999). Academic attribution: Citation and the
construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied
Linguistics, 20, 341-367.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social
interactions in academic writing. London: Pearson.
Hyland, K. (2001). Bringing in the reader: Addressee
features in academic articles. Written Communication,
18, 549-574.
Hyland, K. (2002a). Specificity revisited: how far should
we go now? English for Specific Purposes, 21, 385-395.
Hyland, K. (2002b). Directives: Argument and engagement in
academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23, 215-239.
Hyland, K. (2003). Self-citation and self-reference:
Credibility and promotion in academic publication.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science
and Technology, 54, 251-259.
Hyland, K. (2004). Graduates'' gratitude: The generic
structure of dissertation acknowledgements. English for
Specific Purposes, 23, 303-324.
Hyland, K. (2006). English for academic purposes: an
advanced resource book. New York: Routledge.
Hyland, K. (2007). Applying a gloss: Exemplifying and
reformulating in academic discourse. Applied
Linguistics, 28, 266-285.
Hyland, K. & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2002 ). EAP: issues and
direction. English for Academic Purposes, 1, 1-12.
Knorr, K. D. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay
on the constructivist and conntextual nature of
sciences. New York: Pergamon Press
Kuo, C.H. (1999). The use of personal pronouns: role
relationship in scientific journal articles. English
for Specific Purposes, 18, 121-138.
Kwan, B.S.C. (2006). The schematic structure of literature
reviews in doctoral theses of applied linguistics.
English for Specific Purposes, 25, 30-55.
Lau, H. H. (2003a). Description of details in the method
section of academic journal articles. Proceedings of
Cross-Strait Conference on English Education, Taipei,
455-468.
Lau, H. H. (2003b). Sequence markers in the Methods section
of scademic journal articles. Proceedings of 1st
Connference on the Teaching of Applied Foreign
Language, Taipei, 97-107.
Lau, H. H. (2003c). Citational References in Methodology
Sections of Papers on Applied Linguistics and Life
Science. Proceedings of 2003 International Conference
and Workshop on TEFEL and Linguistics, Taipei, 217-223.
Lau, H. H. (2005). Structural elements of Materials and
Methods in academic journal articles. Studies in
English Language and Literature, 5, 87-97.
Li, Y. (2006). A doctoral student of physics writing for
publication: A sociopolitically-oriented case study.
English for Specific Purposes, 25, 456-478.
Lim, J. M. H., (2006). Method sections of management
research articles: A pedagogically motivated
qualitative study. English for Specific Purposes, 25,
282-309.
Loudermilk, B. (2007). Occluded academic genres: An
analysis of the MBA thought essay, English for Academic
Purposes, 6, 109-205.
Malcolm, L. (1987). What rules govern tense usage in
scientific articles?. English for Specific Purposes, 6,
31-43.
Martinez, I. A. (2001). Impersonality in the research
article as revealed by analysis of the transitivity
structure. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 227-247.
Martinez, I. A. (2003). Aspect of theme in the method and
discussion section of Biology journal articles in
English. English for Academic Purposes, 2, 103-123.
Miller, T. (1998). Visual persuasion: A comparison of
visuals on academic texts and the popular press.
English for Specific Purposes, 17, 29-46.
Moore, T. (2002). Knowledge and agency: A study of
‘metaphenomenal discourse’ in textbooks from three
disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 347-366.
Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in
scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10, 1-35.
Myers, G. (1990). Writing Biology: Texts in the social
construction of scientific knowledge. Wisconsin: The
University of Wisconsin Press.
Myers, G. (1996). Strategic vagueness in academic writing.
In Ventola. E. & Mauranen A. (Eds.), Academic writing:
Intercultural and textual issues (pp. 3-18). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Nwogu, K. N. (1997). The medical research paper: Structure
and functions. English for Specific Purposes, 16, 119-
138.
Ozturk, I. (2007). The textual organisation of research
article introductions in applied linguistics:
Variability within a single discipline. English for
Specific Purposes, 26, 25-38.
Parry, S. (1998). Dicsiplinary discpurse in doctroal
theses. Higher Education, 36, 273-299.
Paxton, M. (2007). Tensions between textbook pedagogy and
the literacy practices of the disciplinary community: A
study of writing in first year economics. English for
Academic Purposes, 6, 109-125.
Posteguillo, S. (1999). The semantic structure of computer
science research articles. English for Specific
Purposes, 18, 139-160.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1992). A text-type and move analysis
study of verb tense and modality distribution in
medical English abstracts. English for Specific
Purposes, 11, 93-113.
Samraj, B. (2002a). Introductions in research articles:
Variations across disciplines. English for Specific
Purposes, 21, 1-17.
Samraj, B. (2002b). Disciplinary variation in abstracts:
The case of Wildlife Behaviour and Conservation
Biology. In Flowerdew, J. (Ed.), Academic Discourse
(pp. 196-216). London: Longman.
Samraj, B. (2006). Genre analysis of an occluded genre: The
case of the personal statement. Paper presented in the
Conference in Honor of John Swales. English Language
Institute, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
Michigan, June 22-23.
Santos, M. B. D (1996). The Textual Organization of
Research Paper Abstracts in Applied Linguistics. Text,
16, 481-499.
Swales, J. M., (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic
and research settings. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Swales, J. M., (1996). Occluded genres in the academy: the
case of the submission letter. In. Ventola. E and
Mauranen. A. (Eds.), Academic Writing: intercultural
and textual issues (pp. 45-58). Amsterdam
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Exploration and
applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M., Ahmad, U. K., Chang, Y. Y., Chavez, D.,
Dressen, D. F. & Seymour, R. (1998). Consider this: The
role of imperatives in scholarly writing. Applied
Linguistics, 19, 97-121.
Swales, J. M. & Feak, C.B. (1994). Academic writing for
graduate students. Ann Arbor: The University of
Michigan Press.
Swales, J. M. & Feak, C.B. (2004). Academic writing for
graduate students. (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor: The University
of Michigan Press.
Swales, J. M. & Najjar, H. (1987). The writing of research
article introductions. Written Communication, 4, 175-
191.
Thomas, S. & Hawes, T. P. (1994). Reporting verbs in
medical journals. English for Specific Purposes, 13,
129-148.
Ventola, E. & Mauranen, A. (1996). Academic Writing:
intercultural and textual issues. Amsterdam
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Vold, E. T. (2006). The choice and use of epistemic
modality markers in Linguistics and Medical Research
Articles. In Hyland, K. & Bondi, M. (Eds.) Academic
discourse across disciplines. (pp. 225-253). New York:
Peter Lang.
Weissberg, R. & Buker, S. (1990). Writing up research:
Experimental research report writing for students of
English. Prentice-Hall.
West, G.. K. (1980). That -nominal constructions in
traditional rhetorical divisions of scientific research
papers. TESOL Quarterly, 4, 483-488.
Williams, I. A. (1999). Results sections of medical
research articles: Analysis of rhetorical categories
for pedagogical purposes. English for Specific Purpose,
18, 347-366.
Yang, R. & Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in applied
linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions.
English for Specific Purposes, 22, 365-385.