On the significance of disciplinary variation in research articles: Perspectives from nominalization

References

• Ahmad, J. (2012). Stylistic features of scientific English: A study of scientific research articles. English Language and Literature Studies, 2(1), 47–18. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5539/ells.v2n1p47
   Google Scholar
• Alfahad, A. (2015). Aggressiveness and deference in Arabic broadcast interviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 88, 58–72
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alise, M. A. (2008). Disciplinary differences in preferred research methods: A comparison of groups in the Biglan classification scheme. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Louisiana State University, Louisiana.
   Google Scholar
• Árvay, A., & Tankó, G. (2004). A contrastive analysis of English and Hungarian theoretical research article introductions. IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 42(1), 71–100. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2004.003
   Google Scholar
• Babaii, E., & Ansary, H. (2005). On the effect of disciplinary variation on transitivity: The case of academic book reviews. Asian EFL Journal, 7(3), 113–126.
   Google Scholar
• Banks, D. (2008). The development of scientific writing: Linguistic features and historical context. Equinox.
   Google Scholar
• Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2013). Nominalizing the verb phrase in academic science writing. In S. A. Tagliamonte, B. Aarts, J. Close, G. Leech, & S. A. Wallis (Eds.), The verb phrase in English: Investigating recent language change with corpora (pp. 99–132). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and language use. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Billig, M. (2008). The language of critical discourse analysis: The case of nominalization. Discourse & Society, 19(6), 783–800. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926508095894
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bloor, T., & Bloor, M. (2004). The functional analysis of English: A Hallidayan approach. Arnold.
   Google Scholar
• Cameron, J. S. (2011). Comprehend to comprehension: Teaching nominalization to secondary ELD teachers. University of California, Davis.
   Google Scholar
• Charles, M. (2012). Proper vocabulary and juicy collocations: EAP students evaluate do-it-yourself corpus building. English for Specific Purposes, 31(2), 91–102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coffin, C., Curry, M., Goodman, S., Hewings, A., Lillis, T., & Swann, J. (2003). Teaching academic writing: A tool kit for higher education. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Comrie, B., & Thompson, S. A. (2007). Lexical nominalization. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description vol. III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (pp. 334–381). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Don, Z. M., & Izadi, A. (2011). Relational connection and separation in Iranian dissertation defenses. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(15), 3782–3792.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eamegdool, S. S., Weible, M. W., Pham, B. T., Hawkett, B. S., Grieve, S. M., & Chan-ling, T. (2014). Ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticle prelabelling of human neural precursor cells. Biomaterials, 35(21), 5549–5564
   Google Scholar
• Ezeifeka, C. R. (2014). Grammatical metaphor in SFL: A rhetorical resource for academic writing. Unizik Journal of Arts and Humanities, 12(1), 207–221.
   Google Scholar
• Fang, Z., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2008). Reading in secondary content areas: A language-based pedagogy. The University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fatonah, F. (2014). Students’ understanding of the realization of nominalization in scientific text. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 87–98. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v4i1.602
   Google Scholar
• Galve, G. I. (1998). The textual interplay of grammatical metaphor on the nominalization occurring in written medical English. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(3), 363–385. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00002-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glanzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2003). A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes. Scientometrics, 56(3), 357–367. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022378804087
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hadidi, Y., & Raghami, A. (2012). A comparative study of ideational grammatical metaphor in business and political texts. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(2), 348–365. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v4i2.1853
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. Edward Arnold.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, M. A. K. (1999). The language of early childhood. Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. Arnold.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. The Falmer Press.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. Arnold.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, M. I. M. (1999). Construing experience through meaning, a language based approach to cognition. Norfolk.
   Google Scholar
• Heyvaert, L. (2003). Nominalization as grammatical metaphor: On the need for a radically systemic and metafunctional approach. In S. Vandenberge, M. Taverniers, & J. Ravelli (Eds.), Grammatical metaphor: Views from systemic functional linguistics (pp. 65–99). Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• 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(4), 321–337. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(96)00038-5
   Google Scholar
• Holtz, M. (2009). Nominalization in scientific discourse: A corpus-based study of abstracts and research articles. In M. Mahlberg, V. González-Díaz, & C. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Corpus Linguistics Conference Liverpool, UK. Retrieved from September 20, 2016 http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/publications/cl2009/
   Google Scholar
• Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English-and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(11), 2795–2809. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. (2001). Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written Communication, 18(4), 549–574. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088301018004005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. A&C Black.
   Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. (2006). Disciplinary differences: Language variation in academic discourses. In K. Hyland & M. Bondi (Eds.), Academic discourse across disciplines (pp. 17–45). Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. (2009). Writing in the disciplines: Research evidence for specificity. Taiwan International ESP Journal, 1(1), 5–22.
   Google Scholar
• Hyland, K., & Diani, G. (Eds.). (2009). Academic evaluation: Review genres in university settings. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2007). Is there an academic vocabulary? TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 235–253
   Google Scholar
• Jalilifar, A. (2012). Academic attribution: Citation analysis in master’s theses and research articles in applied linguistics. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 23–41. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2011.00291.x
   Google Scholar
• Jalilifar, A., Alipour, M., & Parsa, S. (2014). Comparative study of nominalization in applied linguistics and biology books. Research in Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 24–43.
   Google Scholar
• Jalilifar, A., Saleh, E., & Don, A. (2017a). Exploring nominalization in the introduction and method sections of applied linguistics research articles: A qualitative approach. Romanian Journal of English Studies, 14(1), 64–80. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1515/rjes-2017-0009
   Google Scholar
• Jalilifar, A., White, P., & Malekizadeh, N. (2017b). Exploring nominalization in scientific textbooks: A cross-disciplinary study of hard and soft sciences. International Journal of English Studies, 17(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2017/2/272781
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jalilifar, A., White, P., & Mehrabi, K. (2018). Investigating action nominalization in the introduction sections of research articles: A cross-disciplinary study of hard and soft sciences. Teaching English Language. (forthcoming).
   Google Scholar
• Khoobi, M., Delshad, T. M., Vosooghi, M., Alipour, M., Hamadi, H., Alipour, E., ... & Shafiee, A. (2015). Polyethyleneimine-modified superparamagnetic Fe 3 O 4 nanoparticles: An efficient, reusable and water tolerance nanocatalyst. Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials, 375, 217–226
   Google Scholar
• Lee, J. H., Park, N. G., & Shin, Y. J. (2011). Nano-grain SnO 2 electrodes for high conversion efficiency SnO 2–DSSC. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, 95(1), 179–183
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linfoot, C. L., Richardson, P., McCall, K. L., Durrant, J. R., Morandeira, A., & Robertson, N. (2011). A nickel-complex sensitiser for dye-sensitised solar cells. Solar Energy, 85(6), 1195–1203
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lock, G. (1996). Functional English grammar: An introduction for second language teachers. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mair, C., & Leech, G. (2006). Current changes in English syntax. In B. Aarts & M. April (Eds.), The handbook of English linguistics (pp. 318–342). Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Martı́n, P. M. (2003). A genre analysis of English and Spanish research paper abstracts in experimental social sciences. English for Specific Purposes, 22(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(01)00033-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGrath, L., & Kuteeva, M. (2012). Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research articles: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practices. English for Specific Purposes, 31(3), 161–173
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moltmann, F. (2007). Events, Tropes, and Truthmaking. Philosophical Studies, 134(3), 363–403. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-005-0898-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montero, I., & Leon, O. G. (2007). A guide for naming research studies in Psychology. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 7(3), 847–862.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niu, C., Wang, Z., Lu, G., Krupka, T. M., Sun, Y., You, Y., ... & Zheng, Y. (2013). Doxorubicin loaded superparamagnetic PLGA-iron oxide multifunctional microbubbles for dual-mode US/MR imaging and therapy of metastasis in lymph nodes. Biomaterials, 34(9), 2307–2317.
   Google Scholar
• Noguchi, J. (2006). The science review article: An opportune genre in the construction of science (Vol. 17). Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Oztürk, I. (2007). The textual organization of research article introductions in applied linguistics: Variability within a single discipline. English for Specific Purposes, 26(1), 25–38. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2005.12.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pho, P. D. (2008). Research article abstracts in applied linguistics and educational technology: A study of linguistic realizations of rhetorical structure and authorial stance. Discourse Studies, 10(2), 231–250. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607087010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prasithrathsint, A. (2014). Nominalization as a marker of detachment and objectivity in Thai academic writing. Journal of Humanities, Special Issue, 20, 1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Pun, F. K., & Webster, J. (2009). Building of academic discourse in university students’ writing. ASFLA Conference: Practicing Theory: Expanding Understandings of Language, Literature and Literacy, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.
   Google Scholar
• Ramanathan, V., & Kaplan, R. B. (2000). Genres, authors, discourse communities: Theory and application for (L1 and) L2 writing instructors. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 171–191. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00021-7
   Google Scholar
• Rathert, M., & Alexiadou, A. (Eds.). (2010). The semantics of nominalizations across languages and frameworks (Vol. 22). Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Ruiying, Y., & Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in the applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes, 22(4), 365–385. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00026-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samar, R. G., & Talebzadeh, H. (2006). Professionals write like this: The case of ESP/EAP experimental research article abstracts. In First Post-Graduate Conference, University of Tehran, Iran.
   Google Scholar
• Samraj, B. (2002). Introductions in RAs: Variation across disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 21(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00023-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samraj, B. (2005). An exploration of a genre set: RA abstracts and introductions in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), 141–156. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2002.10.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheldon, E. (2011). Rhetorical differences in RA introductions written by English L1 and L2 and Castilian Spanish L1 writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10, 238–251.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skalicky, S., Berger, C. M., Bell, N. D. (2015). The functions of “just kidding” in American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 85, 18–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Starfield, S. (2004). Word power: Negotiating success in a first-year sociology essay. In L. J. Ravelli & R. A. Ellis (Eds.), Analyzing academic writing: Contextualized framework (pp. 66–83). Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English for academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tabrizi, F., & Nabifar, N. (2013). A comparative study of ideational grammatical metaphor in health and political texts of English newspapers. Journal of Academic and Applied Studies, 3(1), 32–51.
   Google Scholar
• Tarone, E., Dwyer, S., Gillette, S., & Icke, V. (1998). On the use of the passive and active voice in astrophysics journal papers: With extensions to other languages and other fields. English for Specific Purposes, 17(1), 113–132. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00032-X
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, C. (2015). Beyond sarcasm: The metalanguage and structures of mock politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 87, 127–141
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, J. (2004). Introducing functional grammar. Arnold.
   Google Scholar
• Valipouri, L., & Nassaji, H. (2013). A corpus-based study of academic vocabulary in chemistry research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12, 248–263
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vu Thi, M. (2012). Grammatical metaphor in English pharmaceutical discourse. Unpublished MA thesis. Vietnam National University: Vietnam.
   Google Scholar
• Wenyan, G. (2012). Nominalization in medical papers: A comparative study. Studies in Literature and Language, 4(1), 86–93.
   Google Scholar
• Zucchi, A. (1993). The language of propositions and events. Issues in the syntax and semantics of nominalization. Kluwer.
   Google Scholar