Search

Acknowledging the limitations of your own research is rhetorically challenging, and especially for those aiming to publish in a second language. This paper hypothesizes that a part of the challenge may be due to cross-cultural differences in the way these potentially self-damaging statements are rhetorically managed in RA discussion and/or other closing (DC) sections. Adopting an intercultural rhetoric approach, I drew two sub-samples of Limitations from two comparable corpora of social science RA DC sections across English and Spanish. I compared the rhetorical purposes of their surrounding segments from the lens of the “bad news” genre. The results showed that most authors prepared the reader for the Limitations, although the preferred stylistic strategies for doing so varied across the two publication contexts. Authors tended to exploit a similar set of rhetorical purposes, but in different ways to persuade readers about the acceptability of their study limitations. Specifically, in English it was conventional to “sandwich” the Limitations with good news, including implications for future practice, to mitigate their possible negative effect. In contrast, in Spanish it was conventional to surround them with explications to display the authors’ expertise, while the only salient mitigating strategy was their attribution to an external factor. These different rhetorical practices may be understood by divergent cultural (writing) styles, as well as differing authors’ understandings of impression management that were uncovered through email interviews. I advocate for a critical intercultural awareness approach to training scholars in writing skills necessary for research publication purposes in different languages.

Research article Discussion and/or Closing (DC) sections represent the last opportunity to convince readers of the validity of the researchers’ own study, specifically its conceptual value and methodological soundness. However, writing these sections for publication in English-medium journals is especially challenging for authors for whom English is not a first language, especially so for Spanish social scientists. In this paper, I hypothesise that one reason for the difficulties felt by these authors is that the conventions for being self-critical, such as in stating the limitations of the study, in these sections for publication in Spanish-medium journals edited in Spain differ from those followed in comparable sections published in English-medium journals. Using move-step analysis methodology, this study compared the self-critical segments in ten pairs of comparable social science DC sections from the Exemplary Empirical Research Articles in English and Spanish (EXEMPRAES) Corpus. The study found that researchers in English were more critical about the quality, both positive and negative, of their own study. In contrast, researchers writing in Spanish were more inclined to focus on its contributions. These differences were explored further through email interviews amongst a subsample of authors. Implications for intercultural rhetoric and English for research publication purposes are discussed. "The key points of this study can be heard in a conference presentation in multimedia (video) format, which is available at [http://hdl.handle.net/10612/15054]." SI Universidad de León

Over the last few decades, researchers have increasingly published their research in English-medium scientific journals, mainly because of their greater prospects for international recognition and career promotion. Of all possible academic genres, the research article continues to be the pre-eminent genre of the academy, and the empirical research article is the most relevant for Spanish scholars. Discussion and/or other Closing (DC) sections in this subgenre in English-medium journals are especially difficult for social scientists to write when English is not their first language. This intercultural rhetoric research explores the possible negative transfer of their research promotional behaviour in Spanish when they write DC sections for publication in English. Drawing on recent strengthened move analysis methodology and employing quantitative and qualitative methods, I compared the extent to which authors writing in English and in Spanish as L1 promote their own research in DC sections. To do so, I systematically annotated ten pairs of comparable DC sections from the Exemplary Empirical Research Articles in English and Spanish Corpus for their communicative functions which, for the first time, were validated by the article authors themselves. Additionally, I used an online survey to understand their promotional behaviour better. This innovative methodology confirmed that the writers in the study were more promotional in English than in Spanish. In particular, authors in English highlighted more positive aspects of their studies and applications of their results while in Spanish they were more neutral and focused largely on statements of contribution and relevance to the zeitgeist. It was also found that the inclusion of specific rhetorical steps was affected by different levels of culture (unstated general communication norms, reviewing and socialisation processes, as well as research assessment policies). These findings demonstrate how social scientists’ promotional approaches are complex and merit further attention. Implications for the teaching of academic writing in English for publication purposes are drawn.