Rhetorical approaches to scientific writing : an English-Polish contrastive study

This article reports an investigation of the rhetorical framework of research papers written by Polish scholars in English and Polish. It specifically targets the structure of introductions to articles in the field of psychology. Notions of linearity and digressiveness, as well as related issues of form and content and reader-writer reciprocity are discussed. The results of the analysis indicate that discoursal organization employed by Polish authors differs from that utilized by Anglo-American scholars. It is argued that styles of academic prose are interconnected with underlying cultural values.

Metadiscourse functions in English and Persian sociology articles : a study in contrastive rhetoric

This study on contrastive rhetoric reports on metadiscourse functions in sociology articles in Persian and English. The results have revealed a higher number of metadiscourse elements in the English texts. Among the different metadiscourse elements used, text connectors are the most frequently employed in both languages. Modality markers are the second most frequent in both languages although the English writers used nearly twice the number of these markers. Overall, it is found that the frequency of textual metadiscourse markers is greater than the interpersonal markers in both language samples. It was further revealed that the Persian writers of sociology texts are less interested in explicitly orienting the readers and some of the main points in an article, especially in the concluding section, are left for the readers to infer. This, we believe, is the result of less reliance on academic writing in the educational system of the country. Instead, the Iranians are largely encouraged to employ a flowery language and rhetoric to decorate their writing in their school years which makes them less attentive of their readers.

Elaborative relational structures in the research prose of sociology : an intercultural study

This paper investigates elaborative relational structures utilised by native English speaking and native Polish speaking scholars in sociology research articles written in English. The examined texts have been produced in American, Australian and Polish academic discourse communities. The study utilised the framework of the analysis of the rhetorical structure of tests (FARS) as an analytical tool (Golebiowski 2009, 2011). The following types of elaboration relations are discussed : amplification, extension, reformulation, explanation, instantiation and addition. Elaboration is analysed with respect to its textual function, frequency of employment, hierarchical location, recursiveness, discoursal prominence and explicitness. The elaborative systems in the examined texts are shown to be complex, with pervasive presence of multi-stage recursive structures. It is suggested that elaborativeness may be a general characteristic of the style of writing sociology, which, as a relatively new discipline, requires establishing of wide grounds for the proposed claims, where writers persuade their readers not only of the specific claims of their text, but also of frameworks of thought in which the claims are placed. It is hypothesized that the similarities in the elaborativeness across texts result from the shared stylistic conventions and traditions of the disciplinary research community of sociology, while differences in the mode of employment of elaboration relations are attributed to cultural norms and conventions as well as educational systems prevailing within the discourse communities constituting the social contexts of the studied texts.
Golebiowski, Z. (2011). Scholarly criticism across discourse communities. In Salager-Meyer, Françoise and Lewin, Beverly A. (eds), Crossed words : Criticism in scholarly writing, pp. 203-224, Peter Lang International Academic Publishers, Berlin, Germany.
Golebiowski Z. (2009). The use of contrastive strategies in a sociology research paper: A cross-cultural study. In Suomela-Salmi, Eija and Dervin, Fred (eds), Cross-linguistic and cross-cultural perspectives on academic discourse, pp. 165-186, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Philadelphia.