IMRAD USAGE IN LATVIAN LANGUAGE RESEARCH PAPERS

Authors

  • Agnese Dubova Ventspils University of Applied Sciences, Latvia
  • Baiba Egle Ventspils University of Applied Sciences, Latvia
  • Egita Proveja Ventspils University of Applied Sciences, Latvia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.12955/pss.v1.42

Keywords:

Latvian, scientific article, text macrostructure, intralingual

Abstract

Within the scientific discourse it is commonplace to write articles based on the IMRAD structure (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion). This structure is typical for the natural sciences (STEM) but scientists in other disciplines are also often required to use it. This paper looks at scientific texts in Latvian published from 2008 to 2018. The basis for this research project is a corpus of 758 scientific articles from natural sciences, engineering and technology, social sciences, humanities and arts. The aim is to show in which disciplines IMRAD is a dominant structure for texts written in Latvian and what wording authors use. It could be concluded that in the structure of Latvian scientific texts have a significant variation in the use of IMRAD and there are different wording versions used, it aligns to previous research about scientific text structure in other languages and cultures. Not all Latvian scientific texts adhere to the IMRAD structure and there are deviations based on the discipline.

Author Biographies

Agnese Dubova, Ventspils University of Applied Sciences, Latvia

Ventspils University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Translation Studies

Baiba Egle, Ventspils University of Applied Sciences, Latvia

Ventspils University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Translation Studies

Egita Proveja, Ventspils University of Applied Sciences, Latvia

Ventspils University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Translation Studies

References

Ahmed, S. (2012). Writing Freshwater Biology: Reading Scientific Discourse. The International Journal of the Humanities: Annual Review 9(10), 163–174.

Baltiņš, M. (2003). Zinātniska raksta struktūrelementi. Konferences „Zinātnes valoda” materiāli. Rīga: Valsts valodas komisija, 5–11.

Bondi, M. (2009). Polyphony in academic discourse: a cross-cultural perspective. In: E. Suomela-Salmi, & F. Dervin (Eds.), Cross-cultural and cross-linguistic Perspectives on academic discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 83–108.

Derntl, M. (2014). Basics of research paper writing and publishing. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 6(2), 105–123.

Frascati Manual (2015). Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development. Retrieved from https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/frascati-manual-2015_9789264239012-en#page60

Gläser, R. (1998). Fachtextsorten der Wissenschaftssprachen I: der wissenschaftliche Zeitschriftenaufsatz. In: L. Hoffmann, & H. Kalverkämper, & H. E. Wiegand (Eds.), Fachsprachen. Languages for Special Purposes. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Fachsprachenforschung und Terminologiewissenschaft. An International Handbook of Special-Language and Terminology Research. Vol. 1. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, 482–488.

Graefen, G., & Thielmann, W. (2007). Der wissenschaftliche Artikel. In: P. Auer, & H. Baßler (Eds.), Reden und Schreiben in der Wissenschaft. Frankfurt: Campus, 67–97.

Kim, E. (2014). An analysis of move patterns in abstracts of social sciences research articles. Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society, 45(2), 283–309.

Koester, A. (2010). Building small specialised corpora. In: A. O’Keeffe, & M. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. New York: Routledge, 66–79.

Pipere, A., & Dambrova, M., & Mārtinsone, Kr., & Berķis, U. (2018). Zinātniskais raksts un tā veidi. In: Kr. Mārtinsone, & A. Pipere (Eds.), Zinātniskā rakstīšana un pētījumu rezultātu izplatīšana. Rīga: RSU, 78–90.

Popova, N., & Moiseenko, Y., & Beavitt, T. (2017). Conformity in modern science: An engine of societal transformation? Changing Societies & Personalities. 2017. Vol. 1. (3), 237–258.

Scherer, C. (2014). Korpuslinguistik. 2nd ed. Heidelberg: Winter.

Sollaci, L. B., & Pereira, M. G. (2004). The introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD) structure: a fifty-year survey. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 92(3), 364–367.

Swales, J. M. (1993). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: University Press.

Wu, J. (2011). Improving the writing of research papers: IMRAD and beyond. Landscape Ecology 26, 1345–1349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-011-9674-3.

Downloads

Published

2020-11-16

How to Cite

Dubova, A. ., Egle, B. ., & Proveja, E. . (2020). IMRAD USAGE IN LATVIAN LANGUAGE RESEARCH PAPERS. Proceedings of CBU in Social Sciences, 1, 33-39. https://doi.org/10.12955/pss.v1.42