El Inglés para Fines Académicos: aportaciones en la investigación y enseñanza del discurso científico

Pedro Martín Martín

Spain

Universidad de La Laguna

Submitted: 2010-10-11

|

Accepted: 2010-10-11

|
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4995/rlyla.2010.756
Funding Data

Downloads

Keywords:

English for Academic Purposes, Genre Analysis, Contrastive Rhetoric

Supporting agencies:

This research was not funded

Abstract:

English for Academic Purposes (EAP) is one of the fastest-expanding sub-branches of Applied Linguistics. In this fi eld of knowledge, research carried out in the areas of Genre Analysis and Contrastive Rhetoric has had particular relevance due to their valuable contribution to pedagogical material design. This paper surveys the evolution of EAP from its origins and its contribution to the analysis of scientifi c discourse. Within the Genre Analysis paradigm, this paper also explores the concepts of "discourse community" and "genre", and the importance that these concepts have today in academic discourse research. Moreover, this paper gives an account of the role of rhetoric studies, and particularly Contrastive Rhetoric, in the development of written compositions and the analyses of written discourse in academic contexts.
Show more Show less

References:

Adnan, Z. (2008). “Discourse structure of Indonesian research article introductions in selected hard sciences”, en Burgess, S. y P. Martín-Martín (eds.) English as an Additional Language in Research Publication and Communication. Berna: Peter Lang, 39-63.

Alcaraz-Varó (2000). El Inglés Profesional y Académico. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.

Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison, Wi: University of Wisconsin Press.

Becher, T. (1989). Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines. Milton Keynes: SRHE and Open University Press.

Benesch, S. (2001). Critical English for Academic Purposes: Theory, Politics and Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Berkenkotter, C. y Huckin, T. (1995). Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication: Cognition/Culture/Power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.

Bhatia, V. K. (2002). “A generic view of academic discourse”, en Flowerdew, J. (ed.) Academic Discourse. Harlow: Longman, 21-39.

Bizzell, P. (1992). Academic Discourse and Critical Consciousness. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Braine, G. (2001). “Twenty years of needs analysis: Reflections on a personal journey”, en Flowerdew, J. & M. Peacock (eds.) Research Perspectives on English for Academic Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 195-207.

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

Bunton, D. (2002) “Generic moves in Ph. D. thesis introductions”, en Flowerdew, J. (ed.) Academic Discourse. Harlow: Longman, 57-75.

Burgess, S. (2002). “Packed houses and intimate gatherings: audience and rhetorical structure”, en Flowerdew, J. (ed.) Academic Discourse. Harlow: Longman, 196-215.

Canagarajah, S. (2001). “Addressing issues of power and difference in ESL academic writing”, en Flowerdew, J. & M. Peacock (eds.) Research Perspectives on English for Academic Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 117-131.

Canagarajah, S. (2002). “Multilingual writers and the academic community: Towards a critical relationship”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 1, 29-44.

Clyne, M. (1987). “Cultural differences in the organization of academic texts”. Journal of Pragmatics. 11, 211-247.

Clyne, M. (1991). “The sociocultural dimension: The dilemma of the German-speaking scholar”, en Schröder, H. (ed.): Subject-oriented Texts. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 49-68.

Cmejrková, S. (1996). “Academic writing in Czech and English”, en Ventola, E. & A. Mauranen (eds.) Academic Writing: Intercultural and Textual Issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 137-153.

Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural Aspects of Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crookes, G. (1986). “Towards a validated analysis of scientific text structure”. Applied Linguistics 7, 57-69.

Dudley-Evans, T. y St John, M. J. (1998). Developments in English for Specific Purposes. A Multidisciplinary Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Duszak, A. (1994). “Academic discourse and intellectual styles”. Journal of Pragmatics 21, 291- 313.

Duszak, A. (1997). “Cross-cultural academic communication: A discourse-community view”, en Duszak, A. (ed.) Culture and Styles in Academic Discourse. Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin, 11-40.

Eggins, S. (1994). An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Pinter Publishers Ltd.

Englander, K. (en prensa). “The globalized world of scientific publishing: An analytical proposal that situates a multilingual scholar”, en López-Bonilla, G. & K. Englander (eds.) Discourse and Identities in Contexts of Educational Change. New York: Peter Lang.

Fakhri, A. (2004). Rhetorical properties of Arabic research article introductions. Journal of Pragmatics 36, 1119-1138.

Flowerdew, J. y Peacock, M. (2001). “Issues in EAP: A preliminary perspective”, en Flowerdew, J. & M. Peacock (eds.) Research Perspectives on English for Academic Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 8-24.

Freedman, A. y Medway, P. (1994). “Locating genre studies: Antecedents and prospects”, en Freedman, A. & P. Medway (eds.) Genre and the New Rhetoric. London: Taylor and Francis, 1-15.

Giannoni, D. (2002). “Worlds of gratitude: A contrastive study of acknowledgement texts in English and Italian research articles”. Applied Linguistics 23, 1-31.

Giannoni, D. (2008). “Medical writing at the periphery: the case of Italian journal editorials”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7-2, 97-107.

Gnutzmann, C. y Oldenburg, H. (1991). “Contrastive text linguistics in LSP-research: Theoretical considerations and some preliminary findings”, en Schröder, H. (ed.) Subject-oriented Texts. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 103-137.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.

Hinds, J. (1990). “Inductive, deductive, quasi-inductive: Expository writing in Japanese, Korean, Chinese, and Thai”, en Connor, U. & M. Johns (eds.) Coherence in Writing: Research and Pedagogical Perspectives. Alexandria, Virginia: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc., 87-109.

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. y Dudley-Evans, T. (1988). “A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations”. English for Specific Purposes 7, 113-122.

Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary Discourse. Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Harlow: Pearson Education.

Hyland, K. (2001). “Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles”. English for Specific Purposes 20, 207-226.

Hyland, K. (2002). “Genre: Language, context, and literacy”. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 22, 113-135.

Hyland, K. y Hamp-Lyons, L. (2002). “EAP: Issues and directions”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 1, 1-12.

Hyon, S. (1996). “Genre in three traditions: Implications for ESL”. TESOL Quarterly 30: 693-720.

Kaplan, R. B. (1966). “Cultural thought patterns in intercultural communication”. Language Learning 16, 1-20.

Lorés, R. (2009). “(Non-) Critical voices in the reviewing of history discourse: a cross-cultural study of evaluation, en Hyland, K. & G. Diani (eds.) Review Genres. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave-Macmillan, 123-138.

Martin, J. (1985). Factual Writing: Exploring and Challenging Social Reality. Geelong, Vic.: Deakin University Press.

Martín-Martín, P. (2003). “A genre analysis of English and Spanish research paper abstracts in experimental social sciences”. English for Specific Purposes 22-1, 25-43.

Martín-Martín, P. (2005). The Rhetoric of the Abstract in English and Spanish Scientific Discourse. European University Studies 21, Linguistics. Bern: Peter Lang AG.

Melander, B. (1998) “Culture or genre? Issues in the interpretation of cross-cultural differences in scientific papers” en Fortanet, I., Posteguillo, S., Palmer, J. C. & J. F. Coll (eds.) Genre Studies in English for Academic Purposes. Vol. 9 Filología. Universitat Jaume I: Collecció Summa, 211-226.

Miller, C. R. (1984). “Genre as a social action”. Quarterly Journal of Speech 70: 151-167. (1994). Reprinted en Freedman, A. & P. Medway (eds.) Genre and the New Rhetoric. London: Taylor and Francis, 67-78.

Moreno, A. I. (1997). “Genre constraints across languages: causal metatext in Spanish and English RAs”. English for Specific Purposes 16, 161-179.

Moreno, A. I. (1998). “The explicit signalling of premise-conclusion sequences in research articles: a contrastive framework”. Text 18-4, 545-585.

Moreno, A. I. (2004). “Retrospective labelling in premise-conclusion metatext: an English-Spanish contrastive study of research articles on business and economics”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3, 321-339.

Moreno, A. I. (2008). “The importance of comparing comparable corpora in cross-cultural studies”. En U. Connor, E. Nagelhout, & W. Rozycki (eds.). Contrastive rhetoric: Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 25-41.

Moreno, A. I. (en prensa). “Researching into English for research publication purposes from an applied intercultural perspective”, en M. F. Ruiz-Garrido, J. C. Palmer-Silveira & I. Fortanet-Gómez. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Moreno, A. I., & Suárez, L. (2009). “Critical comments and rhetorical structure: A study of academic book reviews in English and Spanish”, en Hyland, K. & G. Diani (eds.), Review Genres. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave-Macmillan, 89-95.

Mur, P. (2007). “‘I/we focus on…’: A cross-cultural analysis of self-mentions in business management research articles”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6, 143-162.

Myers, G. (1989). “The pragmatic of politeness in scientific articles”. Applied Linguistics 10, 1-35.

Ostler, S. (2002). “Contrastive Rhetoric: An expanding paradigm”, in Flowerdew, J. (ed.) Academic Discourse. Harlow: Longman, 167-181.

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.

Paltridge, B. (1997). Genre, Frames and Writing in Research Settings. Pragmatics and Beyond N S, No. 45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Paltridge, B. (2001). “Linguistic research and EAP pedagogy”, en Flowerdew, J. & M. Peacock(eds.) Research Perspectives on English for Academic Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 55-70.

Posteguillo, S. (1999). “The schematic structure of computer science research articles”. English for Specific Purposes 18, 139-160.

Salager-Meyer, F., Alcaraz-Ariza, M. y Zambrano, N. (2003). “The scimitar, the dagger and the glove: Intercultural differences in the rhetoric of criticism in Spanish, French and English medical discourse (1930-1995)”. English for Specific Purposes 22, 223-247.

Samraj, B. (2002). “Disciplinary variation in abstracts: The case of Wildlife Behaviour and Conservation Biology”, en Flowerdew, J. (ed.) Academic Discourse. Harlow: Longman, 40-56.

Santos, M. P. dos (1996). “The textual organization of research paper abstracts in applied linguistics”. Text 16, 481-499.

Swales, J. M. (1981). Aspects of Article Introductions. Birmingham, UK: The University of Aston, Language Studies Unit.

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Setting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Swales, J. M. (2001). “EAP-related linguistic research: An intellectual history”, en Flowerdew, J. & M. Peacock (eds.) Research Perspectives on English for Academic Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 42-54.

Swales, J. M. (2004). Research Genres: Explorations and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Taylor, G. y Chen, T. (1991). “Linguistic, cultural, and subcultural issues in contrastive discourse analysis: Anglo-American and Chinese scientific texts’. Applied Linguistics 12: 319-336.

Thompson, P. (2002). “Manifesting intertextuality in the Ph D thesis”. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 44, 97-114.

Valero-Garcés, C. (1996). “Contrastive ESP rhetoric: metatext in Spanish-English economics texts”. English for Specific Purposes 15, 279-294.

Vázquez y del Árbol, E. (2005). “A genre-based study of biomedical editorials and letters to the editors: a contrastive analysis”. Ibérica 10, 145-160.

Ventola, E. (1987). The Structure of Social Interaction: A Sytemic Approach to the Semiotics of Service Encounters. London: Pinter.

Ventola, E. y A. Mauranen (eds.) (1996). Academic Writing: Intercultural and Textual Issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Yakhontova, T. (2006). “Cultural and disciplinary variation in academic discourse: the issue of influencing factors”. English for Academic Purposes 5, 153-167.

Yunick, S. (1997). “Genres, registers and sociolinguistics”. World Englishes 16, 321-336.

Show more Show less