{"title":"语言研究期刊文章讨论区的因果模式:跨语言子学科的科学解释话语","authors":"M. Rahimi, Amin Karimnia, Hamed Barjesteh","doi":"10.2989/16073614.2022.2121292","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract One of the basic goals of academic research is to explain the phenomena that researchers observe through causal relations. From a discursive perspective, however, how cause-effect patterns (CEPs) are reflected in academic writing is a major question to be investigated. Meanwhile, a problem is that sub-disciplines exploring human sciences may exhibit radical variations in terms of their discursive use of cause-effect patterns. Language studies is an umbrella term that encompasses many disciplines, including literature, language teaching, translation studies and linguistics. On a surface level, because such disciplines address language, one may assume that they follow similar ways of explaining language-related phenomena. This article is based on findings obtained from a study of the cause-effect patterns in 60 discussion sections randomly selected from 12 high-impact journals in four sub-disciplines of language studies. It aims to (i) categorise the types of the cause-effect patterns into ‘cause in focus’ and ‘effect in focus’, (ii) identify the most frequently used cause-effect signals, and (iii) ascertain whether there is any significant difference between the sub-disciplines in terms of their use of cause-effect patterns. Based on Fisher’s exact test, the findings reveal that a significant difference exists between the sub-disciplines in terms of their use of cause-effect patterns, and they also suggest that language teaching papers use the highest number of cause-effect patterns and thus were remarkably explanatory in explicating the phenomena they dealt with.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cause-effect patterns in the discussion sections of articles in language studies journals: The discourse of scientific explanation across language sub-disciplines\",\"authors\":\"M. Rahimi, Amin Karimnia, Hamed Barjesteh\",\"doi\":\"10.2989/16073614.2022.2121292\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract One of the basic goals of academic research is to explain the phenomena that researchers observe through causal relations. From a discursive perspective, however, how cause-effect patterns (CEPs) are reflected in academic writing is a major question to be investigated. Meanwhile, a problem is that sub-disciplines exploring human sciences may exhibit radical variations in terms of their discursive use of cause-effect patterns. Language studies is an umbrella term that encompasses many disciplines, including literature, language teaching, translation studies and linguistics. On a surface level, because such disciplines address language, one may assume that they follow similar ways of explaining language-related phenomena. This article is based on findings obtained from a study of the cause-effect patterns in 60 discussion sections randomly selected from 12 high-impact journals in four sub-disciplines of language studies. It aims to (i) categorise the types of the cause-effect patterns into ‘cause in focus’ and ‘effect in focus’, (ii) identify the most frequently used cause-effect signals, and (iii) ascertain whether there is any significant difference between the sub-disciplines in terms of their use of cause-effect patterns. Based on Fisher’s exact test, the findings reveal that a significant difference exists between the sub-disciplines in terms of their use of cause-effect patterns, and they also suggest that language teaching papers use the highest number of cause-effect patterns and thus were remarkably explanatory in explicating the phenomena they dealt with.\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2022.2121292\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2022.2121292","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Cause-effect patterns in the discussion sections of articles in language studies journals: The discourse of scientific explanation across language sub-disciplines
Abstract One of the basic goals of academic research is to explain the phenomena that researchers observe through causal relations. From a discursive perspective, however, how cause-effect patterns (CEPs) are reflected in academic writing is a major question to be investigated. Meanwhile, a problem is that sub-disciplines exploring human sciences may exhibit radical variations in terms of their discursive use of cause-effect patterns. Language studies is an umbrella term that encompasses many disciplines, including literature, language teaching, translation studies and linguistics. On a surface level, because such disciplines address language, one may assume that they follow similar ways of explaining language-related phenomena. This article is based on findings obtained from a study of the cause-effect patterns in 60 discussion sections randomly selected from 12 high-impact journals in four sub-disciplines of language studies. It aims to (i) categorise the types of the cause-effect patterns into ‘cause in focus’ and ‘effect in focus’, (ii) identify the most frequently used cause-effect signals, and (iii) ascertain whether there is any significant difference between the sub-disciplines in terms of their use of cause-effect patterns. Based on Fisher’s exact test, the findings reveal that a significant difference exists between the sub-disciplines in terms of their use of cause-effect patterns, and they also suggest that language teaching papers use the highest number of cause-effect patterns and thus were remarkably explanatory in explicating the phenomena they dealt with.