Search

Negation in Research Articles Conclusions: Rhetorical Functions and Move Analysis

Author(s)

Guobing Liu1, Yali Cui2,*

Affiliation(s)

1Faculty of International Studies, Henan Normal University, Xinxiang, China 2Faculty of International Studies, Xinxiang Institute of Engineering, Xinxiang, China *Corresponding Author.

Abstract

Extensive studies have been conducted in various sections of research articles, including the abstract, introduction, discussion, and other segments. Remarkably, the conclusion, a component of this academic genre, has received relatively scant attention in genre analysis. Conclusions, serving as the concluding segment, play a crucial role in recalling the previously addressed issues, highlighting key research findings, acknowledging limitations, and suggesting implications for further research. In light of this, authors employ an array of interactive resources to engage with their readership effectively. As an essential part of interactive resources, negation is used to be neglected in discourse analysis. Hence, this study aims to explore the relation between negation and moves in research conclusions. Furthermore, this study seeks to examine how negation contributes to rhetorical persuasion with a focus on its functions and distribution across disciplines. This study shows the rhetorical functions of negation and describes the distribution of negation across disciplines and moves. The findings not only indicate that authors from distinct disciplines exhibit varying preferences in the utilization of negation in their research article conclusions, but also provide some pedagogical implications.

Keywords

Negation; Research Articles; Conclusions; Move Analysis; Rhetorical Functions

References

[1] Parkinson Jean. Representing own and other voices in social science research articles[J]. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 2013, 18(2), 199-228. [2] Samraj Betty. An exploration of a genre set: Research article abstracts and introductions in two disciplines[J]. English for Specific Purpose, 2005, 24(2), 141-156. [3] J. M. Swales. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings[M]. Cambridge university press, 1990. [4] J. M. Swales. Research genres: Explorations and applications[M]. Cambridge University Press, 2004. [5] Hopkins Andy and Tony Dudley-Evans. A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations[J]. English for Specific Purposes, 1988, 7(2), 113-121. [6] Ruiying Yang and Desmond Allison. Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving fromresults to conclusions[J]. English for Specific Purposes, 2003, 22, 365-385. [7] J. Bitchener. Writing an applied linguistics thesis or thesis: A guide to presenting empirical research[M]. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2010. [8] Amnuai Wirada and Anchalee Wannaruk. A move-based analysis of the conclusion sections of research articles published in international and Thai journals[J]. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 2013, (2), 53-63. [9] Kashiha Hadi. Recurrent Formulas and Moves in Writing Research Article Conclusions Among Native and Nonnative Writers[J]. 3L, Language, Linguistics, Literature, 2015, 21(1), 47-59. [10] Zheng Xinmin and Feilong Jing. A Genre and Metadiscourse Analysis of the Correspondence Effects Between Introduction and Conclusion in Empirical Articles: Focusing on Chinese Foreign Language Journals[J]. Foreign languages and their teaching, 2017, 295(04), 42-51+147-148. [11] Wang Hua and Zhiqing Hu. A Cross-disciplinary Investigation of Lexical Bundles in the Moves of Research Article Conclusions[J]. Foreign Language Education, 2020, 20(00), 91-104. [12] Li Liang, Margaret Franken and Shaoqun Wu. Bundle-driven move analysis: Sentence initial lexical bundles in PhD abstracts[J]. English for specific purposes, 2020, 60, 85-97. [13] Lu Xiaofei, Jungwan Yoon and Olesya Kisselev. Matching phrase-frames to rhetorical moves in social science research article introductions[J]. English for specific purposes, 2021, 61, 63-83. [14] Liu Luda, Feng Kevin Jiang, and Zhongquan Du. Figure legends of scientific research articles: Rhetorical moves and phrase frames[J]. English for specific purposes, 2023, 70, 86-100. [15] D. Biber, S. Johansson, G. N. Leech, et al. Grammar of spoken and written English[M]. John Benjamins, 1999. [16] Tottie Gunnel. Lexical diffusion in syntactic change: Frequency as a determinant of linguistic conservatism in the development of negation in English[J]. Historical English syntax, 1991, 439-467. [17] Tottie Gunnel. Any as an indefinite determiner in non-assertive clauses: Evidence from Present-day and Early Modern English[J]. Studies in early modern English, 1994, 413-27. [18] Martínez Ignacio Miguel Palacios. Notes on the use and meaning of negation in contemporary written English[J]. Atlantis, 1995, 17(1/2), 207-227. [19] Martínez Ignacio Miguel Palacios. Multiple negation in modern English: A preliminary corpus-based study[J]. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 2003, 104(4), 447-498. [20] Martínez Ignacio Miguel Palacios. “It ain’t nothing to do with my school”: Variation and pragmatic uses of ain’t in the language of British English teenagers[J]. English Studies, 2010a, 91, 548-66. [21] Martínez Ignacio Miguel Palacios. The expression of negation in British teenagers’ language: A preliminary study[J]. Journal of English Linguistics, 2010b, 39(1), 4-35. [22] Romasanta Raquel. Negation as a predictor of clausal complement choice in World Englishes[J]. English Language & Linguistics, 2022, 26(2), 307-329. [23] Labov William. Negative attraction and negative concord in English grammar[J]. Language, 1972, 48: 773-818. [24] Gil Kook-Hee, Heather Marsden, and Melinda Whong. The meaning of negation in the second language classroom: evidence from ‘any’[J]. Language Teaching Research, 2017, 23(2), 218-236. [25] Sun Shuyi Amelia and Peter Crosthwaite. “The findings might not be generalizable”: Investigating negation in the limitations sections of PhD theses across disciplines[J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 2022, 59, Article 101155. [26] Li Xuelan, Feng Kevin Jiang and Jing Ma. A cross-sectional analysis of negation used in thesis writing by L1 and L2 PhD students[J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2023, 64, Article 101264. [27] Jiang Feng Kevin and Ken Hyland. “The datasets do not agree”: Negation in research abstracts[J]. English for Specific Purposes, 2022, 68, 60-72. [28] Becher Tony. Disciplinary discourse[J]. Studies in Higher Education, 1987, 12(3), 261-274. [29] Becher Tony. The significance of disciplinary differences[J]. Studies in Higher Education, 1994, 19(2), 151-161. [30] J. Sinclair, M. Airlie, R. Scrimgeour, et al. (2017). Collins cobuild English grammar (4th ed.)[M]. Collins Cobuild, 2017. [31] M.A.K. Halliday. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning[M]. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press & Arnold, 2001. [32] Holmes Richard. Genre Analysis, and the Social Sciences: an Investigation of the Structure of Research Article Discussion Sections in Three Disciplines[J]. English for Specific Purposes, 1997, 16(4), 321-337. [33] Hyland Ken. As can be seen: Lexical bundle and disciplinary variation[J]. English for Specific Purposes, 2008, 27(1), 4-21. [34] K. Hyland. Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing[M].Continuum International Publishing Group, 2005. [35] Hyland Ken and Polly Tse. Metadiscourse in academic writing: a reappraisal[J]. Applied Linguistics, 2004, 25(2), 156-177. [36] Holmes Janet. Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks[J]. Applied Linguistics, 1988, 9(1), 21-44. [37] Holmes Janet. Modifying illocutionary force[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 1984, 8(3), 345-365. [38] Millán Enrique Lafuente. Epistemic and Approximative Meaning Revisited: The use of hedges boosters and approximators when writing research in different disciplines[J]. English as an additional language in research publication and communication, 2008, 61, 65. [39] Hyland Ken and Feng Jiang. Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance[J]. Written Communication, 2016, 33(3), 251-274. [40] Conrad Susan, and Douglas Biber. The Frequency and Use of Lexical Bundles in Conversation and Academic Prose[J]. Lexicographica, 2005, 20, 56-71. [41] Hyland Ken. Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse[J]. Discourse Studies, 2005, 7(2), 173-192. [42] Hyland Ken. Genre, discipline and identity[J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2015, (19), 32-43. [43] T. Becher and Trowler, P. Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines[M]. McGraw-Hill Education (UK), 2001.