A critical analysis of the use of passives and relative clauses in Fresh water Ecology research articles

  1. María Díaz-Redondo 1
  1. 1 Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia
    info

    Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia

    Madrid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02msb5n36

Journal:
LFE: Revista de lenguas para fines específicos

ISSN: 1133-1127

Year of publication: 2021

Volume: 27

Issue: 1

Pages: 140-156

Type: Article

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

More publications in: LFE: Revista de lenguas para fines específicos

Abstract

Within the framework of comparative studies, this paper discusses the use of passives and relative clauses in Freshwater Ecology research articles. In a corpus of 20 articles, a critical analysis was undertaken in order to highlight existing differences between native and non- native English -speaking authors, male and female researchers, time periods and journal categories. Results revealed non- native English research writers made more use of both passives and relative structures. However, only gender differences were found in the use of relative clauses, with female researchers emp loying more relatives than their male counterparts. Temporal differences are consistent with previous research that noted a shift towards a less formal discourse in scientific writing. F rom a didactic point of view, the findings of this study are expected to broaden the knowledge of existing variations in scientific writing so that EAP scholars may develop practical writing strategies at the undergraduate or postgraduate level in universities worl dwide.

Bibliographic References

  • Abadikhah, S. (2012). The effect of mechanical and meaningful production of output on learning English relative clauses. System, 40(1), 129–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2012.01.001
  • Alvin, L. P. (2014). The passive voice in scientific writing. The current norm in science journals. Journal of Science Communication, 13(1), A03. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.13010203
  • Basturkmen, H. (2010). Developing courses in English for specific purposes. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN: 978-0-230-22798-9
  • Bonyadi, A., Gholami, J., & Nasiri, S. (2012). A Contrastive Study of Hedging in Environmental Sciences Research Articles. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(6), 1186–1193. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.3.6.1186-1193
  • Dodds, W. (2002). Freshwater ecology: concepts and environmental applications. London: Elsevier. ISBN: 0-12-219135-8
  • Fuertes-Olivera, P. A., & Pérez Cabello de Alba, B. (2012). El papel de los diccionarios pedagógicos especializados en la enseñanza/aprendizaje del ESP. Epos : Revista de Filología, (28), 277. https://doi.org/10.5944/epos.28.2012.12276
  • Gledhill, C. (2000). The discourse function of collocation in research article introductions. English for Specific Purposes, 19(2), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(98)00015-5
  • Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1997). On the writing of science and the science of writing: Hedging in science text and elsewhere. Research in Text Theory, 151-167. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110807332
  • Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2017). Is academic writing becoming more informal? English for Specific Purposes, 45, 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2016.09.001
  • Kanoksilapatham, B. (2015). Distinguishing textual features characterizing structural variation in research articles across three engineering sub-discipline corpora. English for Specific Purposes, 37(1), 74–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2014.06.008
  • Kemp, D. (1998). The environment dictionary. London: Routledge. ISBN: 0-415-12753
  • Livnat, Z. (2010). Impersonality and Grammatical Metaphors in Scientific Discourse. The Rhetorical Perspective. Lidil. Revue de linguistique et de didactique des langues, (41), 103-119. https://doi.org/10.4000/lidil.3015
  • Millar, N., Budgell, B. & Fuller, K. (2013). Use the active voice whenever possible: The impact of style guidelines in medical journals. Applied Linguistics, 34(4), 393-414. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams059
  • Mozaheb, M. A. (2015). Comparative Genre-Based Study of Research Articles' Method and Results Sections Authored by Iranian and English Native Speakers. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 08(06), 139-152. https://doi.org/10.4013/cld.2014.123.07
  • Pérez-Llantada, C., Plo, R., & Ferguson, G. R. (2011). “You don’t say what you know, only what you can”: The perceptions and practices of senior Spanish academics regarding research dissemination in English. English for Specific Purposes, 30, 18–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2010.05.001
  • Saeeaw, S., & Tangkiengsirisin, S. (2014). Rhetorical Variation across Research Article Abstracts in Environmental Science and Applied Linguistics. English Language Teaching, 7(8), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n8p81
  • Seoane, E. (2013). On the conventionalisation and loss of pragmatic function of the passive in Late Modern English scientific discourse. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 14(1), 70–99. https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.14.1.03seo
  • Sheldon, E. (2009). From one I to another: Discursive construction of self-representation in English and Castilian Spanish research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 28(4), 251–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2009.05.001
  • Swales, J.M. (1990) Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 0-521-328691
  • 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), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00032-X
  • Tse, P., & Hyland, K. (2010). Claiming a territory: Relative clauses in journal descriptions. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(7), 1880–1889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.025
Data source: Dialnet