A multi-dimensional analysis of conclusions in research articles: Variation across disciplines

Abstract

Research article sections, particularly the introductions, have received considerable scholarly attention over the years. However, linguistic strategies in the conclusion sections of research articles (RAs) remain under-researched. In light of this, we aspired to add to such scholarship by examining linguistic variation in RA conclusions across six disciplines. A multi-dimensional analysis of conclusions was conducted by using Biber’s (1988) dimensions. Analytical results indicate that the conclusion writers in natural sciences and social sciences exhibit significant differences along D1 (Involved and Informational Discourse), D2 (Narrative and Non-Narrative), and D4 (Overt Expression of Persuasion). The findings suggest that conclusions from all six disciplines tend to use possibility modals (e.g., can) and prediction modals (e.g., will) to evaluate studies and to refer to future research directions. Additionally, conclusions in education and sociology tend to contain more interaction and persuasion elements than those in natural sciences, indicating a more human-centered research approach to soft sciences. On the other hand, conclusions in natural sciences are more information-condensed and procedure-oriented than those in social sciences. This study adds to the growing knowledge of RA sections and contributes to the study and teaching of EAP and ESP.