RHETORICAL STRUCTURE OF SERBIAN AND ENGLISH CALLS FOR PAPERS: THE CASE OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Abstract
Along with international research in the diverse field of genre analysis of academic discourse, there has been a steady increase in the number of studies of Serbian academic texts and comparative studies between Serbian and other languages. However, in the variety of researched academic genres, calls for papers (CFPs) have received comparatively little attention. In this study, the author compares the schematic structure of a sample of 16 Serbian and 16 English calls for papers of international conferences in humanities and social sciences in order to analyze differences in the production of rhetorical moves according to Swales’ (1990) CARS model and Yang’s (2013; 2015) models of rhetorical moves in CFPs. The results of qualitative and quantitative analyses show that Serbian CFPs in humanities and social sciences do contain a set of rhetorical moves which differs from the English calls in the ordering of the opening steps, the contents of the info-promotional Move 3 and the concluding moves, as English calls offered more follow-up websites and Serbian authors opted for a cordial greeting. The author concludes that the results reveal different practices in the two languages that may be culturally determined.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Bhatia, Vijay K. 2000. “Genres in conflict.” In Analysing professional genres, edited by A. Trosborg, 147–162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Blagojević, Savka. 2009. “Expressing Attitudes in Academic Research Articles Written by English and Serbian Authors.” Facta Universitatis. Series: Linguistics and Literature 7 (1): 63–73.
Blagojević, Savka. 2010 “Upotreba eksplicitnih jezičkih sredstava u cilju postizanja persuazivnosti u akademskom diskursu.” Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta u Istočnom Sarajevu 12 (1): 151–164.
Blagojević, Savka. 2012a. O engleskom i srpskom akademskom diskursu, Niš: Filozofski fakultet.
Blagojević, Savka. 2012b. “Some concepts differently treated in the multicultural discourse community (with the special reference to English and Serbian academic writing).” Teme, 36 (4): 1931–1943.
Blagojević. Savka. 2017. “Metadiscourse in Academic Prose: A Contrastive Study of Academic Articles Written in English by English and Norwegian Native Speakers.” Studies About Languages 5: 60–67.
Čmejrková, Světla. 1996. “Academic Writing in Czech and English.” In Academic Writing: Introduction and Textual Issues, edited by E. Ventola & A. Mauranen, 137–145. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Duszak, Anna. 1994. “Academic discourse and intellectual styles.” Journal of Pragmatics 21: 291–313.
Haggan, Madeline. 2004. “Research paper titles in literature, linguistics and science: Dimensions of attraction.” Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2): 293-317.
Holmes, Richard. 1997. “Genre analysis and the social sciences: An investigation of the structure of research article discussion sections in three disciplines.” English for Specific Purposes 16 (4): 321–337.
Kaplan, Robert B. 1966. “Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education.” Language Learning 76: l–20.
Lores, Rosa. 2004. “On RA abstracts: From rhetorical structure to thematic organization.” English for Specific Purposes 23 (3): 280-302.
Mauranen, Anna. 1993. Contrastive Rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English Economic Texts. English for Specific Purposes, 12(1) (1993): 3–22.
Mohammadi, Mohammad Javad, Bamshad Hekmatshoar Tabari, & Bizhan Hekmatshoar Tabari. 2013. “The Rhetorical Structure & Discursive Features of Call for Papers as a Genre.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature 2 (4): 541–554.
Novaković, Aleksandar and Nina Sudimac. 2017. “Diskursne funkcije zamenica ja i mi u akademskim člancima srbista i anglista.” Nasleđe 14 (38): 81–94.
Purves, Alan C. 1988. “Writing Across Languages and Cultures.” In Issues in Contrastive Rhetoric. Written Communication Manual 2, edited by Alan C. Purves, 75–304. Newsbury Park: Sage.
Samraj, Betty. 2002. “Introductions in research articles: Variations across disciplines.” English for Specific Purposes 21 (1): 1–17.
Samraj, Betty. 2005. “An exploration of genre set: Research article abstracts and introductions in two disciplines.” English for Specific Purposes 24 (2): 141–156.
Tošović, Branko. 2002. Funkcionalni stilovi. Beograd: Beogradska knjiga.
Swales, John. 1981. Aspects of Article Introductions. Language Studies Unit: Aston University.
Swales, John. 1990. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, John. 2004. Research genres: Exploration and applications. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Vassileva, Irena. 1998. “Who am I/who are we in academic writing? A contrastive analysis of authorial presence in English, German, French, Russian and Bulgarian.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 8 (2): 163–190.
Vassileva, Irena. 2000. Who is the author? A contrastive analysis of authorial presence in English, German, French, Russian and Bulgarian academic discourse. Sankt Augustin: Asgard.
Vassileva, Irena. 2007. “Some aspects of the rhetorical structure of specialized written discourse in English, Bulgarian and Russian.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 5 (2): 173–186.
Yakhontova, Tatyana. 2006. “Cultural and disciplinary variation in academic discourse: The issue of influencing factors.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5: 153–167.
Yang, Ruiying and Desmond Allison. 2003. “RAs in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions.” English for Specific Purposes 22 (4): 365–385.
Yang, Wenhsien. 2013. “Two folded messages behind CFP: A cross disciplinary study.” International Journal of Language Studies 7 (2): 83–108.
Yang, Wenhsien. 2015. ““Call for papers”: Analysis of the schematic structure and lexico-grammar of CFPs for academic conferences.” English for Specific Purposes 37: 39–51.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.22190/FULL220329005P
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
ISSN 0354-4702 (Print)
ISSN 2406-0518 (Online)