THE SCHEMATIC STRUCTURE OF ENGLISH AND INDONESIAN RESEARCH ARTICLE INTRODUCTIONS
(1) IKIP Mataram
(2) Semarang State University
Abstract
The article reports an investigation on the differences between the schematic structure of English and Indonesian research article introduction. By selecting thirty research articles from each group and analysing them using the CARS model (1990, 2004), this study has unravelled several differences. At the macro level, the English articles respectively have a higher percentage of reviewing items of previous research, indicating gap, and summarising methods. While their Indonesian counterparts tend to have a greater deal with making topic generalisations, presenting positive justifications, and stating the value of the present research. In addition, while the Indonesian articles have more unidentified schematic elements and lack outlining the structure of paper, the English ones demonstrate a higher degree of move reiteration. At the micro level, the English articles are characterised by the use personal deixes as self-mention, and more variation of linguistic clues in claiming centrality. On the other hand, their Indonesian counterparts are depicted by the absence of self-mention, the use of code mixing, and a major tendency in using amplifiers and evaluative adjectives in claiming centrality. These differences might be partially influenced by the writers’ culture, knowledge, editorial policy, social environment, and in certain cases, the technical problems.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
American Psychological Association. 2010. Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th Ed.). Washington, D.C.: Author.
Biber, D. 2006. University Language: A Corpus-based Study of Spoken and Written Registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Connor, U. 2002. New Directions in Contrastive Rhetoric. TESOL Quarterly, 36/4: 493-510. Retrieved October 20, 2011. https://crossculturalrhetoricsdwrl. pbworks.com/f/connor-new.pdf
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: 321-377. Retrieved October 17, 2011 from http://newresearch.wikispaces.com/file/view/ESP+discussion.pdf
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. 2001. Humble Servants of the Discipline? Self-mention in Research Articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20: 207-226. Retrieved June 9, 2012 from http://www2.caes.hku.hk/kenhyland/files/2010/12/self.ESP_.pdf
Journal Citation Reports® (JCR) Social Science Edition. 2010. Retrieved January 17, 2012 from http://www. ucm.es/BUCM/edu/doc17644.pdf
Kanoksilapatham, B. 2011. Civil Engineering Research Article Introductions: Textual Structure and Linguistic Characterisation. The Asian ESP Journal, 7/2: 55-84. Retrieved October 17, 2011 from http://www.asian-esp-journal.com/Vol7-2-Kanoksilapatham.pdf
Martin, P. M. M. 2003. A Genre Analysis of English and Spanish Research Paper Abstracts in Experimental Social Sciences. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 25-43. Retrieved October 17 2011 from ftp://124.42.15.59/ck/2011-02/165/099/ 412/767/A Genre Analysis of English and Spanish Research Paper Abstracts in Experimental Social Sciences.pdf
Samraj, B. 2002. Introductions in Research Articles: Variations across Disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 21: 1-17. Retrieved October 17, 2011 from http://informatik.unibas.ch/lehre/fs10/cs304/_Downloads/samraj_on_introductions.pdf
Shehzad, W. 2005.Corpus-Based Genre Analysis: Computer Science Research Article Introductions. Unpublished Dissertation.National University of Modern Languages, Islamabad.
Swales, J. M. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. 2004. Research Genres: Explorations and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. 2009. Worlds of Genre-Metaphors of Genre in Bazerman, C., Bonini, A. & Figueiredo, D. (eds.) Genre in a Changing World. Colorado: The WAC Clearinghouse, pp. 3-16.
Swales, J. M., &Feak, C. B. 1994. Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Tasks and Skills. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Yakhontova, T. V. 2003. English Academic Writing for Students and Researchers.Lviv: PAIS
Zhang, Y. & Hu, J. 2010. A Genre-based Study of Medical Research Article Introductions: A Contrastive Analysis between Chinese and English. The Asian ESP Journal, 4/1: 72-96. Retrieved October 17, 2011 from http://www.asian-esp-journal.com/May_2010_Ebook.pdf
APPENDIX
Source of English Research Articles
Borrero, N. E. & Yeh, C. J. 2010.Ecological English Language Learning Among Ethnic Minority Youth.Educational Researcher.39/8: 571-581. (E3)
Castro, A. J. 2010. Themes in the Research on Preservice Teacher’s Views of Cultural Diversity: Implication for Researching Millennial Preservice Teachers. Educational Researcher.39/3: 198-210. (E1)
Chen, Y. & Baker, P. 2010. Lexical Bundles in L1 and L2 Academic Writing. Language Learning and Technology. 14/2: 30-49. (E14)
De Smedt, B., et al. 2010. Frequency, Efficiency, and Flexibility of Indirect Addition in Two Learning Environments. Learning and Instruction. 20: 205-215. (E7)
Elola, I. & Oskoz, A. 2010. Collaborative Writing: Fostering Foreign Language and Writing Conventions Development. Language Learning and Technology. 14/3: 51-71. (E15)
Falk, J. H. & Storksdieck, M. 2010. Science Learning in Leisure Setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.47/2: 194-212. (E10)
Lee, H., et al. 2010. How Do Technology-Enhanced Inquiry Science Units Impact Classroom Learning? Journal of Research in Science Teaching.47/1: 71-90. (E9)
Robinson, J. P. 2010. The Effects of Test Translation on Young English Learners’ Mathematics Performance. Educational Researcher.39/8: 582-590. (E4)
Tolmie, A. K., et al. 2010. Social Effects of Collaborative Learning in Primary School. Learning and Instruction. 20: 177-191. (E6)
Van Aalst, J. 2010. Using Google Scholar to Estimate the Impact of Journal Articles in Education.Educational Researcher.39/5: 387-400. (E2)
Vinter, A. & Chartel, E. 2010.Effects of Different Types of Learning on Handwriting Movements in Young Children. Learning and Instruction. 20: 476-486. (E8)
Wilson, C. D., et al. 2010. The Relative Effect and Equity of Inquiry-Based and Commonplace Science Teaching on Students’ Knowledge, Reasoning, and Argumentation.Journal of Research in Science Teaching.47/3: 276/301. (E11)
Winke, P., et al. 2010. The Effects of Captioning Videos Used for Foreign Language Listening Activities. Language Learning and Technology. 14/1: 65-86. (E13)
Yang, Y. & Tsai, C. 2010. Conceptions and Approaches to Learning through Online Peer Assessment. Learning and Instruction. 20: 72-83. (E5)
Zahari, Z., et al. 2010. Connecting High School Physics Experiences, Outcome Expectations, Physics Identity, and Physics Career Choice: A Gender Study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.47/8: 978/1003. (E12)
Source of Indonesian Research Articles
Adi, N. 2010. Evaluasi Hasil Belajar Mahasiswa. Jurnal Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. 16/3: 321-327. (I12)
Jufri, A. W & Sulistyo, D. 2010. Efektivitas Pembelajaran Sains Berbasis Inkuiri dengan Strategi Kooperatif dalam Meningkatkan Keterampilan Berpikir Siswa SMP.Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran. 17/2: 159-165. (I8)
Leonard& Supardi, U. S. 2010. Pengaruh Konsep Diri, Sikap Siswa pada Matema-tika, dan Kecemasan Siswa terhadap Hasil Belajar Matematika. Cakrawala Pendidikan. XXIX/3: 341-352.(I5)
Muharram., et al. 2010. Pengembangan Model Pembelajaran IPA SD Berbasis Bahan di Lingkungan Sekitar Melalui Pendekatan Starter Eskperimen. Jurnal Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. 16/3: 311-320. (I11)
Mustaji. 2010. Pengembangan Model Pembelajaran Berbasis Masalah dengan Pola Belajar Kolaborasi. Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran. 17/2: 187-200. (I9)
Nilakusmawati, D. P. E. 2010. Kajian Penge-tahuan Guru Mengenai Internet Sebagai Salah Satu Sumber Referensi Dalam Penyusunan Karya Tulis Ilmiah. Cakra-wala Pendidikan. XXIX/2: 147-160. (I2)
Novrida, L. 2010. Pengaruh Strategi Pembelajaran dan Bentuk Tes Formatif terhadap Hasil Belajar Matematika dengan Mengontrol Inteligensi Siswa. Jurnal Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. 16/3: 300-310. (I10)
Roesminingsih, E. 2010.Mutu Guru Dalam Perspektif Manajemen Strategik di Sekolah Dasar.Jurnal Pendidikan Dasar. 2/1: 9-16. (I13)
Said, M. 2010.Ketidaklaziman Kolokasi Pembelajar BIPA dan Implikasinya Terhadap Pembelajaran Bahasa. Cakrawala Pendidikan. XXIX/2: 204-213.I(3)
Suhardi & Suyata, P. 2010. Analisis Kontrastif Bahasa Lio-Indonesia dan Pengimplementasiannya dalam Model Pembelajaran Bahasa Kedua. Cakrawala Pendidikan. XXIX/2: 227-238. (I4)
Sulistina, O., et al. 2010.Penggunaan Metode Pembelajaran Inkuiri Terbuka dan Inkuiri Terbimbing dalam Meningkatkan Hasil Belajar Kimia Siswa SMA Laboratorium Malang Kelas X. Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran. 17/1: 82-88. (I7)
Suparji. 2010. Kualitas Butir Soal Buatan Guru-Guru SMP Mata Pelajaran Matematika dan IPA di Kabupaten Sumenep. Jurnal Pendidikan Dasar. 2/1: 48-52. (I14)
Supriyadi. 2010. Model Belajar Learning Community untuk Meningkatkan Keterampilan Menulis Ilmiah Mahasiswa. Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran. 17/1: 11-22. (I6)
Wachidah, S. 2010. Wacana Interaktif Kelas antara Guru dan Siswa Kelas, 1, 2, 3 Sekolah Dasar dalam Proses Pembelajaran Tematik. Jurnal Pendidikan Dasar. 2/1: 53-63. (I15)
Wahab, R. 2010. Model Bimbingan Perkembangan untuk Meningkatkan Kecakapan Sosial-Pribadi Anak Ber-bakat Akademik.Cakrawala Pendidikan. XXIX: 127-146. (I1)
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License