the use of critical speech acts in psychology and chemistry research papers

Clicks: 110
ID: 238894
2004
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Popular

Ranked #31 of 68 articles by views in American Journal of Clinical Pathology

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Creating a research space has become increasingly important in today's competitive academic world, where the pressure to publish requires writers to justify publication of their research article (RA) in order present their new claims to the other members of the academic community. This mainly implies the indication of a knowledge gap and/or the criticism of any weak point in the previously published work by other researchers or the academic community itself. This "academic conflict" (AC) is expressed via a critical speech act whose rhetorical expression ranges from blunt criticism to the use of subtle hedging devices, aimed at an individual or the community in general. In this study we discuss the development of a taxonomy to describe the rhetorical choices writers use when making the critical speech act, and the application of this taxonomy to 50 RAs from two distinct disciplines: Psychology, representing the social disciplines, and Chemistry, the natural disciplines. The application of this taxonomy, which categorises AC according to directness, writer mediation, and the target of the criticism, has yielded the following results: AC was manifested far more frequently in Psychology than in Chemistry, not only in total number of AC units, but also in the research articles themselves: it appears to be an essential rhetorical strategy for writers in the field of Psychology, but not so in Chemistry. The two disciplines showed a surprising degree of similarity with respect to writer mediation, directness and personalization overall; however, when these variables are combined, significant differences emerge: researchers in Psychology favour unmediated, direct and personal criticism, whereas those in Chemistry favour impersonal criticism.
Reference Key
fagan2004ibricathe Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;Anna Fagan;Pedro Martín Martín
Journal American Journal of Clinical Pathology
Year 2004
DOI
DOI not found
URL
http://www.aelfe.org/documents/08-RA-8-Fagan-Martin.pdf
Keywords
linguistics

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.