期刊「研究方法」的寫作風格： 一個跨學科的比較

Abstract

In the field of English for Academic Purposes (EAP), it has been highlighted that various aspects of disciplinary cultures are crucial factors influencing the rhetorical characteristics of different academic genres. On the other hand, the research article (RA) method section has also been assumed to be one of the genres where the disciplinary culture seems to be reflected the most obviously. However, till present, very few studies have ever focused on the influences of disciplinary cultures on the textual features of RA method section. Moreover, these existing studies have only focused on the relationship between one specific textual feature and one single aspect of disciplinary cultures. None of them have attempted to reveal how various aspects of disciplinary cultures influence the use of a set of textual features associated with the writing style of method texts in different disciplines. In addition, the conclusions of these studies seem to only depend on the textual analysis which might lead to subjective and inappropriate analysis and interpretation. Therefore, the goal of this thesis is to reveal how a set of textual features in RA method section are used in three different disciplines, including (1) Botany, (2) Structural Engineering,and (3) consumer behavior, to see whether the use of these features indeed are different among these three fields and thus leading to distinctive writing styles of method texts, as well as to see what and how aspects of disciplinary cultures are reflected on the use of these features. A set of features associated with two distinctive writing styles of method texts (i.e. clipped and elaborated style) proposed by Swales (2004) were examined in this study. Moreover, after the textual analysis, in-depth text-based interviews with expert informants from each of the subfields were conducted to ensure the appropriateness of the interpretation of the results and to obtain deeper insights of the various culture issues. The results show that scientists in each of the three fields investigated indeed tend to use the textual features differently, leading to the exhibition of different style preferences. Moreover, it is also found that the relationship between the use of these features and the writing styles might be more complex than what Swales (2004) originally assumed. Moreover, the results also show that various aspects of disciplinary cultures indeed both influence and are reflected in the uses of the features examined. For example, the degree of complexity in the research design might influence the number of subheading used, different characteristics of the research targets might affect the frequency of switching sentence subjects, and the degree of originality might influence the frequency of justification of the methodological choices. Additionally, it is also found that the relationship between the style of RA method section and the disciplinary culture tend to be dynamic and fluid. One factor of the disciplinary cultures might result in the uses of different features. On the other hand, similar uses of one specific feature might be the products of different disciplinary cultural factors.