Hard Sciences

The aim of the current study was to examine conjunctions in academic texts. The corpus included 200 conference abstracts, of which 100 were written by Iranian novice writers and 100 by English native speakers. Each group of texts consisted of 50 abstracts from soft sciences and 50 from hard sciences. Following Liu's (2008) taxonomy, the frequency and type of conjunctions were examined. The results revealed that non-native writers use more conjunctions in their conference abstracts. Furthermore, it was found that compared to hard sciences, more conjunctions are employed in soft sciences. Regarding the role of L1, the results showed that non-native writers in soft sciences are more likely to use conjunctions. Moreover, the findings indicated that the most frequent conjunction type used by both native and nonnative writers are adversatives and additives in soft sciences, and additives and adversatives in hard sciences, respectively. The findings of the study have implications for teaching academic writing and material development for writing courses.

The meticulous examination of discourse analysis, particularly the scrutiny of language application in academic writing, carries significant weight in the realm of Applied Linguistics. A critical aspect of this exploration revolves around the deployment of stance markers, which function as linguistic tools for articulating the personal viewpoints and assessments of writers concerning the assertions they proffer. The primary objective of this study was to juxtapose the overall and categorical distribution of stance markers in academic research articles authored by native (English) and non-native (Iranian) academic writers across the spheres of soft and hard sciences. The analytical framework of Hyland (2005b) on interactional metadiscourse was utilized to delineate the specific taxonomy of stance markers employed in the academic research articles written by two groups of authors. The results of the research revealed significant differences in the overall and categorical distribution of stance markers between the two sets of datasets, highlighting the potential impacts of disciplinary and cultural variations on their usage. The study advocates for an enriched understanding and integration of the rhetorical norms inherent in academic genres, including the deployment of stance markers, to enhance the creation of educational materials and elevate the language proficiency of students in linguistic studies.