2012•Aisberg (University of Bergamo)Requires access

The Discussion Section of Medical Research Articles: A Cross Cultural Perspective

Stefania Maria Maci

Open publisher page 8 citations

Abstract

This chapter aims to compare the argumentative strategies employed in medical research articles written by native speakers of English with those written by Italian non-native speakers of English in order to identify any cross-cultural differences in terms of argumentative devices employed by their authors. Several differences have been identified between the textual organization of English medical research articles written by native and non-native speakers, which seem to be linked to their authors’ linguistic and cultural identity. The main differences are rhetorically realised through hedges and other argumentative strategies, such as the use of connectives. Italian authors word their texts with fewer hedges and connectives than English native-speakers and their conclusions are supported by established knowledge, as shown by their continuous references to the literature. Similarly, whenever a claim finds confirmation in the existing literature, Italian writers tend to adopt these rhetorical strategies less frequently, because the established knowledge is deemed to be sufficient to confirm their hypothesis. In so doing, Italian authors seem to adopt an ipse-dixit strategy.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This chapter aims to compare the argumentative strategies employed in medical research articles written by native speakers of English with those written by Italian non-native speakers of English in order to identify any cross-cultural differences in terms of argumentative devices employed by their authors. Several differences have been identified between the textual organization of English medical research articles written by native and non-native speakers, which seem to be linked to their authors’ linguistic and cultural identity. The main differences are rhetorically realised through hedges and other argumentative strategies, such as the use of connectives. Italian authors word their texts with fewer hedges and connectives than English native-speakers and their conclusions are supported by established knowledge, as shown by their continuous references to the literature. Similarly, whenever a claim finds confirmation in the existing literature, Italian writers tend to adopt these rhetorical strategies less frequently, because the established knowledge is deemed to be sufficient to confirm their hypothesis. In so doing, Italian authors seem to adopt an ipse-dixit strategy.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 8 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

This chapter aims to compare the argumentative strategies employed in medical research articles written by native speakers of English with those written by Italian non-native speakers of English in order to identify any cross-cultural differences in terms of argumentative devices employed by their authors. Several differences have been identified between the textual organization of English medical research articles written by native and non-native speakers, which seem to be linked to their authors’ linguistic and cultural identity. The main differences are rhetorically realised through hedges and other argumentative strategies, such as the use of connectives. Italian authors word their texts with fewer hedges and connectives than English native-speakers and their conclusions are supported by established knowledge, as shown by their continuous references to the literature. Similarly, whenever a claim finds confirmation in the existing literature, Italian writers tend to adopt these rhetorical strategies less frequently, because the established knowledge is deemed to be sufficient to confirm their hypothesis. In so doing, Italian authors seem to adopt an ipse-dixit strategy.

Key concepts: Argumentative, Linguistics, Rhetorical question, Perspective (graphical), Section (typography), Psychology, Identity (music), Sociology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The Discussion Section of Medical Research Articles: A Cross Cultural Perspective — Research Paper | ScholarLens