The Rhetorical Structure & Discursive Features of Call for Papers as a Genre

Mohammad Javad Mohammadi, Bamshad Hekmatshoar Tabari, Bizhan Hekmatshoar Tabari

Abstract


This paper, at the first stage, presents a genre analysis of 50 calls for papers of conferences held in Iran at both national and international levels from 2000 to 2012 (Swales, 1990). The study also targets the politeness strategies employed in such texts adopting Arundale's (2006) face model. The results obtained from the first phase of the study revealed four moves and a number of constituting steps including opening, salutation, informing (interested areas, necessary dates and formats), and complementary close and signature. Interestingly, findings of the second phase of the study, based on Arundale’s theory, demonstrated that all sentences and phrases used in this genre in Iranian academic contexts function as connection face as all were apparent as unity, interdependence, solidarity, association, congruence, and more, between the conference chair/s and other academicians as the members of a same discourse community. It can also further justified by different request strategies employed by the conference chair/s.


Keywords


Call for paper; genre; generic structure; politeness; face

Full Text:

PDF

References


Arundale, R.B. (1999). An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics. 9 (1), 119-154.

Arundale, R.B. (2006) Face as relational and interactional: A communication framework for research in face, facework, and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research, 2, 193-216.

Baratta, A. M. (2009). Revealing stance through passive voice. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1406 – 1421.

Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (2003). Face and politeness: new (insights) for old (concepts). Journal of Pragmatics, 35 (10-11), 1453-1469.

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

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals of language use: Politeness phenomena. In E. Goody (Eds.), Questions and politeness (pp. 56-324). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.

Bunton, D. (2002). Generic moves in Ph.D. thesis introductions. In J. Flowerdew (Eds.), Academic Discourse (pp. 57-75), UK: Pearson Education..

Burrough-Boenisch, J. (2003). Examining present tense conventions in scientific writing in the light of reader reactions to three Dutch-authored discussions. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 5-24.

Clifford, J. & Marcus, G. E. (1986). Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of ethnography. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Dudley-Evans, T. & Henderson, W. (1990). The Language of Economics: The Analysis of Economics Discourse. ELT Documents. Modern English Publications and The British Council.

Flowerdew, J. (2003). Signalling nouns in discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 329-346.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Anchor.

Haggan, M. (2004). Research paper titles in literature, linguistics and science: Dimensions of attraction. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(2), 293-317.

Halleck, G. B. & Connor, U. M. (2006). Rhetorical moves in TESOL conference proposals. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 70-86.

Holmes, R. (1995). Genre analysis and the social sciences: An investigation of the introductions, background sections and discussion sections of research articles in history, political science and sociology. Unpublished MA dissertation, University of Surrey, UK.

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., & Dudley-Evans, T. (1988). A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes, 7, 113-121.

Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. London: Pearson.

Lores, R. (2004). On RA abstracts: From rhetorical structures to thematic organization. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 280-302.

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

Nicolaisen, J. (2002). Structure-based interpretation of scholarly book reviews: A new research technique. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science, 123-135.

Nwoye, O. G. (1992). Linguistic politeness and sociocultural variations of the notion of face. Journal of Pragmatics, 18, 309–328.

Rowley-Jolivet, E. (2002). Visual discourse in scientific conference papers: A genre-based study. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 19-40.

Posteguillo, S. (1999). The schematic structure of Computer Science research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 139-160.

Soler V. (2002), Analyzing adjectives in scientific discourse: an exploratory study with educational applications for Spanish speakers at advanced university level, English for Specific Purposes, 21, 145-165.

Samraj, B. (2005). An exploration of genre set: Research article abstracts and introductions in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 141-156.

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

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Thompson, G. & Ye, Y. (1991). Evaluation in the Reporting Verbs Used in Academic papers. Applied Linguistics, 12, 365-382.

Thompson, P. (2001). A pedagogically motivated corpus-based examination of PhD theses: Macrostructure, citation practices and uses of modal verbs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Reading.

Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20(1), 83–102.

Werkhofer, K. T. (1992). Traditional and modern views: The social constitution and the power of politeness. In R. J. Watts, S. Ide, & K. Ehlich, (Eds.), Politeness in language: studies in its history, theory and practice (pp. 155–197). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Williams, I. A. (1999). Result sections of medical research articles: Analysis of rhetorical categories for pedagogical purposes. English for Specific Purposes, 18 (4), 347-366.

Yang, R., & Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 365–385.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.2n.4p.1

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Bookmark and Share


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2012-2023 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD. 

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.