درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

خلاصه سازی متن در کلاس های رشته های مهندسی و تخصصی دانشگاه ها و موسسات صاحب نام و همچین در آزمون های بزرگ استخدامی و دولتی به خصوص در آی. ان. پی-اچ. بی یاموسوکرو جایگاه مهم و خاصی دارد. اما متاسفانه فرایند خلاصه سازی متن برای دانشجویا اغلب مشکل آفرین است. از میان مشکلات و نواقصی که وجود دارد، فرایند تفسیر عبارت برای دانشجویان و مدرسان دغدغه ای بسیار جدی و حقیقی است. موضوع اصلی پژوهش حاضر بررسی فرایندهای زبانشناختی است که قادرند متن را به سمت و سوی نوعی تفسیر عبارتی مطلوب رهنمون سازند. در پایان یک آزمون گرفته شده از دانشجویان، مشخص گردید که حداقل پنج متغیر از نمونه های ممکن تفسیر عبارت وجود دارد. این نتایج می تواند در جهت بهبود روش شناسی آموزش خلاصه سازی از متون به کار گرفته شود. اگرچه این موارد به هیچ روی نمی توانند کلیت روش های متفاوت بازگویی یک متن را که در عمل وجود دارد، در بر بگیرند.

This study aimed to investigate the use of interactional metadiscourse markers in 168 comments made by 28 university students of engineering via an educational forum held as part of a general English course. The students wrote their comments on six topics, with a total of 19,671 words. Their comments during educational discussions were analyzed to determine their use of five metadiscourse categories (hedges, boosters, attitude markers, engagement markers, and self-mentions), making up interactional metadiscourse in Hyland’s (2004) model. Following descriptive analysis of the use of metadiscourse categories, chi-square tests were used to investigate the possible differences in the whole sample as well as gender-based differences. The findings showed that although female EFL learners used more metadiscourse markers than males did, the differences were minor and hence gender did not significantly influence the use of interactional metadiscourse markers. However, while male and female participants used all types of interactional metadiscourse, how they used them varied. They used engagement markers and self-mentions more frequently than boosters, hedges, and attitude markers. Since metadiscourse markers play crucial roles in mediating the relationship between what writers intend to argue and their discourse communities, the results of the present study have obvious importance in increasing students’ awareness of the way they organize their writings.

Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) has stood the test of time as a model of text analysis. The present literature contains a plethora of studies that while taking the ‘clause’ as a unit of analysis have put into investigation the metafunctions in research articles of a single field of study or those of various fields in comparison. Although ‘clause complex’ is another unit of SF analysis, by far there has been only one study on research articles where it was the unit of analysis (Sellami Baklouti, 2011). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to put into analysis the ‘taxis’, ‘expansion’ and ‘projection’ deployed in Applied Linguistics research article abstracts (RAAs) by native (N) and non-native (NN) writers. To this end, 20 Applied Linguistics RAAs (10 by N English writers and 10 by NN English writers on the sub-fields of Discourse Analysis and Language Assessment) were analyzed according to Halliday & Matthiessen’s (2013) ‘clause complex’ framework. The results indicated that there is a significant difference in the use of ‘projection’ by Ns and NNs, while the distribution of ‘taxis’ and ‘expansion’ is the same. The findings also showed what types of ‘taxis’, ‘expansion’ and ‘projection’ were deployed by Ns and NNs