How to End an Introduction in a Computer Science Article? A Corpus-based Approach

Shehzad, Wasima

doi:10.1163/9789401203845_014

Cited by 5 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, it is important to note that the promotional steps in both journals are low compared to the findings in the studies using global writers' work [14,22,24,25,33]. The percentages for the promotional moves are below 80%.…”

Section: Results On Journal-wise Populationmentioning

confidence: 63%

“…The finding for Move 3 also confirmed that journal selection influences the way rhetorical structure is realized in the research articles. Table 2 summarizes that both journals do have a similar structure to the general computer science research article structure found in the studies using global writers' work [14,15,22,24,33]. However, the obligatory and optional status of the moves and steps differed for Pertanika Journal.…”

Section: Results On Journal-wise Populationmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…Similarly, the strategy of establishing the research niche has also been fulfilled by all writers in this study. However, the strategy of indicating a gap has been underutilized by only 73% of the writers as compared to 95% accomplishment in the study by Shehzad [24] and 91.7% in a similar study by Anthony [33]. The strategy of Move 2 Step 1A which is "Indicating a gap" is underutilized.…”

Section: Results On Non-native Writersmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…In this analysis, the findings of the study that is focused on non-native writers are compared to the findings in the study by Shehzad [24] who analyzed the strategies in Swales model among the global writers. Table 3 shows that 94% of the article introduction sections in the study utilized Move 1 at an obligatory level, which is close to the 95% occurrences in the study by Shehzad [24]. Similarly, the strategy of establishing the research niche has also been fulfilled by all writers in this study.…”

Section: Results On Non-native Writersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The next step is Step 6 that states the value of the present research. This step is also reported as obligatory in the computer science research article introductions [16,24]. In this step, the writers promote their Computer Architecture in Industrial, Biomechanical and Biomedical Engineering studies and highlight the value of their research.…”

Section: Rhetorical Models For Research Articlesmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Interpreting Analysis on Rhetorical Strategies Modeling in Computer Science Research Articles

Suryani¹,

Abdullah²,

Desa³

2019

Computer Architecture in Industrial, Biomechanical and Biomedical Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Description on rhetorical strategies modeling proposed by experts in the field of language provides clues on strategies used in research writing. However, the interpretation and analysis on the utilization of the rhetorical strategies models are limited to comparing the strategies used in articles grouped according to research disciplines such as biomedical, linguistics, and arts. In view of the constraint, this chapter focuses on the interpretations of rhetorical strategies modeling by analyzing the computer science research articles in a few categories. The first interpretation of analysis is on the articles with high and low citation index, followed by analysis on the articles grouped according to journal wise population and lastly analysis on articles written by non-native writers. The interpretation of the analysis suggested that the strategies proposed in the models are used differently by the writers of articles with high and low citations, writers of different journals, and non-native writers. The descriptions provided in this chapter account on the important strategies utilized by highly cited writers, specific journals, and non-native writers.

show abstract

Section: Results On Journal-wise Populationmentioning

confidence: 63%

Section: Results On Journal-wise Populationmentioning

confidence: 75%

Section: Results On Non-native Writersmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Results On Non-native Writersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Rhetorical Models For Research Articlesmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Interpreting Analysis on Rhetorical Strategies Modeling in Computer Science Research Articles

Suryani¹,

Abdullah²,

Desa³

2019

Computer Architecture in Industrial, Biomechanical and Biomedical Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Announcing one's work in PhD theses in computer science: A comparison of Move 3 in literature reviews written in English L1, English L2 and Spanish L1

Soler-Monreal

2015

English for Specific Purposes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper I explore cross-linguistic rhetorical variation in the Literature Review chapters of 30 doctoral theses of computer science written by English L1 (EngL1), Spanish L1 (SpaL1) and English L2 (EngL2) writers. Using Kwan's (2006) genreanalytical framework (Move 1: Establishing one part of the territory of one's own research; Move 2: Creating a niche; Move 3: Occupying the research niche), I particularly examine how writers present their research in Move 3 (M3). The results show the functional importance of M3 strategies in the computer science PhD thesis LRs. The texts in English present a higher number of occurrences and a wider range of M3 strategies than the SpaL1 texts. However, the SpaL1 texts are more homogeneous in terms of rhetorical distribution. Variation is also found in the linguistic mechanisms the writers of the three groups use to make themselves visible and promote their work. National writing styles, discipline conventions and language barriers to effective interpersonal communication seem to interact with these writers. EAP courses and specific genre-based writing instruction could help emerging writers to successfully manage M3 strategies.

show abstract

The politics of English, language and uptake

Lillis

Curry

2015

AILA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drawing on 95 text histories from a longitudinal project on writing for publication in 4 national contexts, this article analyses the language ideologies enacted in referees’ and editors’ comments on articles submitted for publication in English-medium ‘international’ journals. It considers how orientations to ‘English’, ‘language’ and ‘language work’ are enacted in practices of reviewer uptake and the consequences of such practices for knowledge production, evaluation and circulation. In exploring evaluation practices, the article problematizes three foundational categories in applied linguistics: (1) The treating of English as a single stable semiotic resource over which the ‘native’ speaker is attributed a privileged evaluative position; (2) The overriding transparency approach to language and communication; (3) The focus onproductionas distinct fromuptake.

show abstract

How to End an Introduction in a Computer Science Article? A Corpus-based Approach

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Interpreting Analysis on Rhetorical Strategies Modeling in Computer Science Research Articles

Interpreting Analysis on Rhetorical Strategies Modeling in Computer Science Research Articles

Announcing one's work in PhD theses in computer science: A comparison of Move 3 in literature reviews written in English L1, English L2 and Spanish L1

The politics of English, language and uptake

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About