Driving research questions from the prevailing issues and interests and developing from them new theories, formulas, algorithms, methods, and designs, and linking them to the interests of the larger audience is a vital component of scientific research papers. The present article discusses outlining purposes or stating the nature of the present research, and listing research questions or hypotheses in the introduction of academic papers. This corpus-based genre study focuses particularly on Move 3 of the model “occupying the niche.” The results indicating disciplinary variation show that the writers of Computer Science (CS) research articles, over the years have developed an increased use of outlining purpose/stating the nature of the present research, having the characteristics of purposive, descriptive, extension of the previous work, contrast to the existing work, brevity, complexity, and a description of methodology. It also shows that listing research questions or hypothesis may have distinctively different functions in developing genres as compared to the established ones such as physics.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnthonyL. (1999). Writing research article introductions in software engineering: How accurate is a standard model?IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 42(1), pp. 38–46.
2.
BarrassR. (1978). Scientists must write: A guide to better writing for scientists, engineers and students. London: Chapman & Hall.
3.
BlicqR. S. (1986). Technically-write: Communicating in a technological era (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
4.
BoothV. (1993). Communicating in science: Writing a scientific paper and speaking at scientific meetings (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.
BowkerL., & PearsonJ. (2002). Working with specialized language. A practical guide to using corpora. London: Routledge.
6.
CooperC. (1985). Aspects of article introductions in IEEE publications. MSc dissertation, The University of Aston in Birmingham, Birmingham.
7.
CrèmeP., & LeaM. R. (2003). Writing at university (2nd ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press.
8.
GodfreyJ. W., & ParrG. (1960). The technical writer: An aid to the presentation and production of technical literature. London: Chapman & Hall Ltd.
9.
HeideggerM. (1954). The question concerning technology and other essays (pp. 3–35). LovittW. (Ed.). New York: Harper Torchbooks.
10.
HylandK. (1998). Boosting, hedging and negotiation of academic knowledge. Text, 18(3), 349–382.
11.
KuoC-H. (1999). The use of personal pronouns: Role relationships in scientific journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 121–138.
12.
LewinA.FineJ., & YoungL. (2001). Expository discourse: A genre-based approach to social science research texts. London/New York: Continuum.
13.
LindebergA-C. (1994). An exploratory study of knowledge claims in article introductions in three disciplines: Finance, management, and marketing. In MajapuroM. & NikkoT. (Eds.), Talous ja kieli 11 [Business and language 11] (pp. 647–655). Helsinki: Publications of the Helsinki School of Economics and Business AdministrationD-211.
14.
LindebergA-C. (2004). Promotion and politeness: Conflicting scholarly rhetoric in three disciplines. Published Ph.D. dissertation, Abo Akademi University Press.
15.
LovittW. (1977). Introduction. In HeideggerM. (Ed.), The question concerning technology and other essays (pp. xiii–xxxix). New York: Garland.
16.
O'ConnorM. (1991). Writing successfully in science. London: Chapman & Hall Ltd.
17.
OkamuraA. (2003). The Economic Journal of Takasaki City University of Economics, 46(1), 49–62.
18.
OrrT. (1999). Genre in the field of computer science and computer engineering. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 42(1), 32–37.
19.
PosteguilloS. (1995). Genre analysis in English for computer science. Ph.D. dissertation, Universitat De Valencia, Spain.
20.
PosteguilloS. (1999). The schematic structure of computer science research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 139–160.
21.
ReppenR., & SimpsonR. (2002). Corpus linguistics. In SchmittN. (Ed.), Applied linguistics (pp. 92–111). London: Arnold.
22.
ScottM. (1997). WordSmith manual. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23.
ShehzadW. (2006). Computer scientists approach to “establishing a research territory.”Selected Papers from the Fifteenth International Symposium on English Teaching, 1(1), 127–141. Crane Publishing Co. Ltd and ETA — ROC: Teipei.
24.
ShehzadW. (2007a). How to end an introduction in a computer science article? Corpus-based approach. In FitzpatrickE. (Ed.), Corpus linguistics beyond the word: Research from phrase to discourse (pp. 227–241). New York: Rodopi.
25.
ShehzadW. (2007b). The explicit author in the scientific discourse. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 3, 56–73.
26.
ShehzadW. (2008). Move two: Establishing a niche. IBERICA, 15, 25–50.
27.
ShehzadW. (2010). Announcement of principle findings and value addition in computer science research papers. IBERICA, 19, 97–118.
28.
SwalesJ. M. (1981). Aspects of article introductions. Aston ESP Research Report No. Language Studies Unit, University of Aston in Birmingham, UK.
29.
SwalesJ. M. (1990). Genre analysis. English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30.
SwalesJ. M., & FeakC. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
31.
SwalesJ. M., & FeakC. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
32.
SwalesJ. M., & NajjarH. (1987). The writing of research article introductions. Written Communication, 4, 175–192.
33.
ShehzadW. (2007a). How to end an introduction in a computer science article? A corpus-based approach. In FitzpatrickE. (Ed.), Corpus linguistics beyond the word: Research from phrase to discourse. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi Publications.
34.
ShehzadW. (2007b). Computer scientist's approach to “establishing a research territory. Selected papers from the Fifteenth International Symposium on English Teaching, 1(1), 127–141. Crane Publishing Co. Ltd. and ETA-ROC: Teipei.
35.
ShehzadW. (2007c). Explicit author in the scientific discourse: A corpus-based study of the author's voice. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 3, 56–73.
36.
ShehzadW. (2008). Move two: “Establishing a niche.”IBERICA, Journal of the European Association of Languages for Specific Purposes, 15, 25–50. Spain.
37.
ShehzadW. (2010a). Announcement of the principal findings and value addition in CS research paper introduction. IBERICA, Journal of European Association of English for Specific Purposes, 19. Spain
38.
ShehzadW. (2010b). Pakistan Journal of Life and Social Science Genre Approaches to Comparable Discourses with a focus on Computer Science Research Article, 8(1), 73–80.
