This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by MacDONALD, S. P. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

A Method for Analyzing Sentence-Level Differences in Disciplinary Knowledge Making

University of California, San Diego

This article proposes a method for examining how disciplinary differences in knowledge making are created or reflected at the sentence level. The method focuses on the grammatical subjects of sentences as key indicators of disciplinary knowledge making. Grammatical subjects of all sentences in sample academic journal articles were classified by a system identifying (a) the kind of abstraction or particularism involved and (b) the ways in which the researcher may or may not have foregrounded research methods and warrants. Findings from the sample articles in subfields of psychology, history, and literature indicated that psychology articles were more likely to foreground research methods and warrants and least likely to be particularistic. History articles tended to be intermediate. Literature articles were most likely to be particularistic and least likely to focus on research methods and warrants.

Written Communication, Vol. 9, No. 4, 533-569 (1992)
DOI: 10.1177/0741088392009004004


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				Phuong Dzung Pho Research article abstracts in applied linguistics and educational technology: a study of linguistic realizations of rhetorical structure and authorial stance Discourse Studies, April 1, 2008; 10(2): 231 - 250. [Abstract] [PDF]

				N. Harwood (In)appropriate Personal Pronoun Use in Political Science: A Qualitative Study and a Proposed Heuristic for Future Research Written Communication, October 1, 2006; 23(4): 424 - 450. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. E. Warren Literary Scholars Processing Poetry and Constructing Arguments Written Communication, April 1, 2006; 23(2): 202 - 226. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. P. MacDonald The Language of Journalism in Treatments of Hormone Replacement News Written Communication, July 1, 2005; 22(3): 275 - 297. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. Wilder "The Rhetoric of Literary Criticism" Revisited: Mistaken Critics, Complex Contexts, and Social Justice Written Communication, January 1, 2005; 22(1): 76 - 119. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. Wilder "Get Comfortable With Uncertainty": A Study of the Conventional Values of Literary Analysis in an Undergraduate Literature Course Written Communication, January 1, 2002; 19(1): 175 - 221. [Abstract] [PDF]

				W. J. VANDE KOPPLE Some Characteristics and Functions of Grammatical Subjects in Scientific Discourse Written Communication, October 1, 1994; 11(4): 534 - 564. [Abstract]

				C. BERKENKOTTER and T. N. HUCKIN Rethinking Genre from a Sociocognitive Perspective Written Communication, October 1, 1993; 10(4): 475 - 509. [Abstract]