General Analysis of an Empirical Research Article (Doctoral Assignment)

Kerwin A. Livingstone

DOUTORAMENTO EM CIÊNCIAS DA LINGUAGEM

Especialização em Didática de Línguas

February 20, 2015

“A General Analysis of an Empirical Research Article”

Introduction

Doing research is very important to the longevity of the researcher. Even more significant is

the presentation of research work through writing. Writing research, as tedious as it may be,

is considered to be one of the hallmarks of academic life. Irvin (2010, p. 3) espouses that

“Your success with academic writing depends upon how well you understand what you are

doing as you write, and them how you approach the writing task”. This statement is apt

because for writing to be effective, it must be done properly, and in such a way that it will

have the desired effect on the readers.

Stemming from Irvin‟s (2010) position on academic writing, another central issue revolves

around the realisation of the writing task, and the steps needed to present information as

precisely and as concisely as possible. The presentation of research work through writing,

whether theoretical or empirical, follows certain guidelines (Hyland 2000, 2010; Libra, 2001;

Pinto, 2009; Murray, 2012). In other words, writing a research paper involves its division into

various sections (and subsections where possible). Each of these sections is vital to the

credibility of the paper as a whole.

Taking into consideration the afore-mentioned, the objective of this assignment, as the title

suggests, is to do a general analysis of an empirical research article, paying specific

attention to the use of „boosters‟ and „hedges‟ and other metadiscourse items. The article for

analysis, written by Rayas Tanaka (2014), is entitled “Knowledge of Adjective Reference by

Monolingual Spanish- and English-Speaking Children”. It is written in English Language.

Below, a summary is given of the article under study, followed by a discussion of each of the

sections of the research paper. The penultimate section of this analysis looks at the use of

boosters, hedges and other metadicourse items found in Rayas Tanaka‟s (2014). Finally,

concluding remarks are made about the analysis of Rayas Tanaka‟s (2014) article.




Summary of the Chosen Research Article

The chosen article, written by Rayas Tanaka (2014), is within the context of language

learning and teaching, specifically in the acquisition of adjectives. The basis of this author‟s

experimental study has its origins in research conducted by Waxman, Senghas and

Benveniste (1997), and Waxman and Gausti (2009). According to these authors, there are

cross-linguistic differences in the way that Spanish, French, English and Italian monolingual

children interpret adjectives. As noted by Rayas Tanaka (2014, p. 1), “Their results show that

only Spanish and Italian speaking children categorised a novel adjective as an object in the

same way for the categorisation of a noun”.

In Rayas Tanaka‟s (2014) paper, the sample consists of three year old and four year old

children who speak either Spanish or English as their native language. In other words, they

are English-speaking monolinguals and Spanish-speaking monolinguals. An experiment was

carried out, through the use of tasks in four linguistic contexts, to find out how well these

children were able to refer to adjectives as properties of objects, and not directly to the

objects themselves. The role of syntax and morphology, through the use of morphological

and syntactic cues in the production of these adjectives, was also explored. Through the use

of the ANOVA test, the results highlight that both English- and Spanish-speaking

monolingual children do understand that adjectives refer to properties of objects.

Structure of the Empirical Article

The empirical article by Rayas Tanaka (2014), written in English Language, has all of the

required parts of an article of this nature. These are the title, abstract, introduction, literature

review, aims and objectives, hypotheses, research questions, methodology, results,

discussion, conclusion, references and appendix.

Each of these sections is discussed, in relation to its structure.

Title

The article by Rayas Tanaka (2014) has a title consisting of 11 words. It is easy to read,

straight-forward, and it is in keeping with suggestions about not having titles that are too long

(Libra 2001; Pinto, 2009; Murray, 2012).




Abstract

The abstract is written as one paragraph, and sets the tone for the remainder of the article

(Libra, 2001; Pinto, 2009; Murray, 2012). The abstract of Rayas Tanaka‟s (2014) paper gives

a summary of what to expect in it. It begins by outline the base study from which the research

is derived. It goes on to highlight what the study is about – the acquisition of the reference of

adjectives in children - ending with the results obtained.

Introduction

The introduction is divided into only two paragraphs. The reader is introduced to the area of

study - the acquisition of the reference of adjectives. It describes the specific topic of the

article, and reference is made to the works of a few authors, relating them to the focus of the

study. This is endorsed by Libra (2001), Pinto (2009), and Murray (2012).

Literature Review

The literature review, sometimes also called „background‟ or „overview‟ is a vital aspect of

the research paper (Libra, 2001; Pinto, 2009; Irvin, 2010; Murray, 2012). Even though this

specific section is not called the “Literature Review” in Rayas Tanaka‟s (2014) paper, it is

implied. This section is divided into three sub-sections: „The Acquisition of Adjectives‟,

„Crosslinguistic Studies‟, and „Critique and Rationale‟. The information given is very precise

and concise, and it allows the reader to follow the discussions in the subsequent sections of

the article. Relevant literature and previous studies are cited to complement the discussion on

the acquisition of adjective reference in children.

Aims/Objectives/Research Questions/Hypotheses of the Research Article

In doing empirical research, the aims and objectives, as well as the research questions and

hypotheses, establish the direction in which the study will go (Libra, 2001; Murray, 2012). It

must be noted that this study by Rayas Tanaka (2014) shows depth of research. The

objectives and aims of the study, as well as the hypotheses, are clearly spelt out (Rayas

Tanaka 2014, p. 6-7). In relation to the hypotheses, these are two specific sets: one set was

directed towards the expected results of the experiment (p. 6-7), while the other set was

specifically related to the design of the experiment itself (p. 8).

The study also makes us of research questions. Unfortunately, the only reference to research

questions before an outline of the methodology used is where Rayas Tanaka (2014, p. 6) says,




“Another part of the research question […]”. Such a statement begs the question, “If the

author says “Another part of the research question”, then where is the rest of it? Where are

the other research questions?” While reading through Rayas Tanaka‟s (2014) research article,

the research questions were found in the conclusion of the paper (p. 14). Based on how

research information is to be presented (Creswell, 2009; Thomas, 2011; Yin, 2011), it would

have been better to record all of the research questions in one place, so that the reader could

fully understand what exactly is being questioned.

Methodology (Data Collection and Experiment Execution)

Methodology is an approach that is employed to empirically resolve the complete set of

choices available to the researcher. It is not merely a question of selecting methods, but it

rather engages the researcher fully from unconscious worldview to enactment of that

worldview via the inquiry process (Guba & Lincoln, 2005; Creswell, 2009; Thomas, 2011;

Yin, 2011). It seeks to answer the question, “How?” In other words, the best way to answer

the research questions or hypotheses of any study is by means of a methodological strategy.

The methodology section of the article under study, by Rayas Tanaka (2014), has the

necessary parts which are the participants, the research instrument or „stimuli‟, as it is called

in this paper, and the procedure (p. 7-8). Since this is an experimental study, it also made use

of a scoring criteria (p. 8) for the tasks that the three year and four year old children had to

do. This section also includes a specific hypothesis of the design referring to the experimental

design, the four linguistic contexts.

(A) In terms of the participants, Rayas Tanaka (2014) has used a good sample size. This

author points out that there were “29 English-monolingual speaking children and 25

monolingual Spanish-speaking, children whose ages were 3 and 4 years” (p. 7). A footnote

on the same page indicates that “One English-speaking child and 4 Spanish-speaking children

were excluded from the statistical analyses due to their misunderstanding of the task” (p. 7).

When all of these numbers are added together, the actual sample, therefore, would have been

30 English monolingual-speaking children and 29 Spanish monolingual-speaking children,

bringing the total sample size to 59.

In relation to the above figures many things seem to be odd. There seems to be some

discrepancies, and the following questions arise:




1. Why is the total number for both English and Spanish-speaking monolinguals not the

same? Shouldn‟t it be 30/30 for each set of monolinguals?

2. With regard to the ages of the children, how many English-speaking children were

3yrs and 4yrs old? How many Spanish-speaking children were 3yrs and 4yrs old?

Since Rayas Tanaka‟s (2014) paper is dealing with four sets of samples – 3yr/4yr old

English-speaking monolinguals and 3yr/4yr old Spanish-speaking monolinguals – perhaps a

table showing this information would have been a bit more helpful to the reader.

In relation to the afore-mentioned, a table does exist with this data, however that table,

labeled as Table 1, is in the „Results‟ section of the author‟s article (Rayas Tanaka 2014, p.

11). A careful look at this table now reveals that for Spanish monolinguals, there were 9 3yr

olds and 21 4yr olds, bringing that sample to 30. For English monolinguals, there were 14 3yr

olds and 15 4yr olds, bringing that total to 29. These figures are conflicting for two reasons:

1. Rayas Tanaka (2014, p. 7) says that there are 30 English-speaking monolinguals and

29 Spanish-speaking monolinguals. How is it that the Table 1 (p. 11) shows that

there are 30 Spanish-speaking monolinguals, and 29 English-speaking monolinguals?

2. Since the sample consists of both 3yr and 4yr old children from both language

categories (Spanish/English), attempts should have been made by Rayas Tanaka

(2014) to balance the number of both 3yr and 4yr olds per language category. In other

words, there could have been 15 3yr olds and 15 4yr olds from the English

monolinguals, and 15 3yr olds and 15 4yr olds from the Spanish monolinguals, to

bring the total sample to 30, for each of the two language categories. This would have

been the better thing to do

Regarding the participants, there is no mention by Rayas Tanaka (2014) of the kind of

sampling technique used. There is also no mention of the socio-economic status of these

children, of whether or not they attended (play) school, nor of the race of the children.

Perhaps these were not important to this specific study; however, it would have been good for

the author to shed some light on these aspects, for the sake of the reader.




(B) With regard to the stimuli, and as earlier mentioned, there are four linguistics contexts in

which the children‟s recognition of adjectives as properties of objects is tested. For each of

these linguistic contexts, there are four stimuli, thus bringing the total to 16 stimuli. In other

words, each of the four samples – the 3yr/4yr old English monolinguals and the 3yr/4yr old

Spanish monolinguals – was exposed to these 16 stimuli, making use of morphological and

syntactic adjectival cues. Appropriate for the ages of these children, each of the 16 stimuli

consisted of drawings/pictures of a „model object‟, a „target object‟, and a „non-target object‟

(Rayas Tanaka 2014, p. 7, 18-22). The linguistic contexts and stimuli are well thought out,

and are appropriate for the participants of the study.

Important to mention here, concerning the stimuli, is that Rayas Tanaka (2014, p. 7), in a

footnote, highlighted the following:

“The adjectives in the syntactic contexts were kept as equal as possible for number of

morphemes and syllables within the 2 languages. The number of words in the contexts was

very similar in both languages too. The number of morphemes and syllables varied from 1 to 3

in both languages in the four contexts. Spanish always presented an additional morpheme for

gender”.

This is very important, as it favours reliability and validity of the tasks used, and the expected

results. They were, for the most part, of equal degree of difficulty.

(C) As it relates to the procedure, this was another smart idea on the part of the Rayas

Tanaka (2014, p. 7-8). Given the ages of the samples, this author used a puppet to play the

game with them. The puppet would point to the model object, call the adjective, and then ask

the children if they could identify another object from the set with the same adjective. This

activity was done with each of the 3yr/4yr old children from each of the two language groups.

Important to mention here is that playing games is endorsed by Piaget (1945) who insists that

this is pivotal to child language development and learning.

(D) With respect to the scoring criteria, this was also well set out. Once the child selected

the correct target object, a score of 1 was given. If the child selected the non-target object, a

score of 0 was given. 1 meant that the child understood the use of the adjective as referring to

the property of the object, while 0 meant that the child understood the use of the adjective as

referring to the object itself. This is a very transparent scoring criterion.




Results (Data Analysis and Interpretation)

Another very vital area of empirical studies is the results section, where data is analysed and

interpreted (Libra, 2001; Pinto, 2009; Murray, 2012). The results section is significant to the

research because it answers the research questions, as well as confirms/rejects the hypotheses.

The results help to show whether or not a phenomenon has empirical merit.

According to Rayas Tanaka (2014), the experimental design was done is such a way to

analyse three independent variables: (i) the linguistic context/stimuli, (ii) the language of the

child, and (iii) the age of the child. This author notes carefully that “the linguistic context was

treated […] as the within-subject variable and age and language were treated as between-

subject variables” (p. 8). The dependent variable referred to the children‟s response to the

stimuli: the selection of target objects or non-target objects.

One of the four linguistic contexts was used as the „baseline performance covariate‟ (Rayas

Tanaka 2014, p. 8), while the others were tested for variance, making use of the parametric

statistical test ANOVA. Through the use of ANOVA with this specific linguistic context,

used as the baseline performance covariate, the analysis revealed „two main effects‟:

linguistic context and age. There was no main effect for language (p. 9). A subsequent

analysis done on another linguistic context also revealed again that there was no main effect

for language.

Based on the above, it would not seen unfair to say that the two main independent variables

were linguistic context and age, since these seemed to be „statistically significant predictors‟.

In light of the afore-mentioned, it would also not be unfair to suggest that the ANOVA II

parametric test for independent samples was used, even though the author, in her article,

merely uses the broad term ANOVA.

The author highlights in the analysis that 4yr olds performed better in some linguistic

contexts, while some 3yr olds performed better in some linguistic contexts (p. 9). Important

to note is that another parametric test was used, the T-TEST for independent samples. This

was used to compare the means of Spanish/English 3yr olds in three linguistic contexts. The

author presents two figures and one table to evidence the results obtained (p. 9-11)




Taking into consideration this analysis and interpretation of results done by Rayas Tanaka

(2014), there are still some discrepancies:

1. When the author says that “four year olds performed better than three year olds” (p.

9), was a comparison done between the 4yrs and 3yrs of both Spanish and English?

Was it done only per language? This is not stated.

2. Similarly, the author goes on to say that “three year olds benefitted from the full

context” (p. 9). How is this known? Was a comparison done across languages,

between 3yr olds and 4yr olds to determine this, or was a language-specific

comparison done? This is not stated.

3. T-Tests were done for the 3yr olds in three linguistic contexts (p. 9). Does this imply

that T-Tests were also done for 4yr olds to arrive at such a conclusion? Were

comparisons done across languages, or were they language specific? This is also not

stated.

In relation to the above, the author gives the critical value of t – “t(19) = 2.449, p <

.05” and “t(19) = 2.333, p < .05” – stating that they are „significantly better‟. What is

the critical value of t? How does one know if 2.449 and 2.333 are higher or lower that

the proposed critical value of t? This is not stated.

Why the figure 19? Were there 20 3yr olds per language category? In order to

establish the critical value, an error margin of 1% N-1 degrees of freedom must be

considered. Table 1 (p. 11) apparently shows the total number of participants in the

study (even though that is flawed, as was earlier discussed). The total number of 3yr

olds for Spanish is 9, and for English, 14. Naturally, 9 added to 14 will result in 23.

How did the author arrive at the figure 19? That is unclear.

4. For Figure 1 (p. 9), only three linguistic contexts are evident there. Where is the

fourth one, since all four linguistic contexts were tested? Why isn‟t it reflected on the

graph? The graph also shows 3yr olds and 4yrs olds. Were all the 3yr/4yr olds

grouped together from both language categories (Spanish and English)? Why wasn‟t

this information represented individually on the same graph?




5. The author continues in her analysis, postulating that “four year olds had more correct

answers than three year olds” (p. 10), for another linguistic context tested. How is this

known? Was a comparison done per age group per language? Was it done across

languages? This is not stated.

6. Figure 2 (p. 10) shows the descriptive total means by age for one of the linguistic

contexts tested. Were all the 3yr olds and 4yr olds grouped together on this graph? Or

does this graph only reflect the 3yr/4yr olds for one specific language? This is not

stated.

7. Concerning the table labeled Table 1 (p. 11), a few things seem odd. To highlight this,

some statements earlier mentioned in this analysis of Rayas Tanaka‟s (2014) paper are

posited:

(i) Rayas Tanaka (2014, p. 7) notes that the actual sample was supposed to have

been 30 English-speaking monolinguals and 29 Spanish-speaking

monolinguals. How is it that the Table 1 (p. 11) shows that there are 30

Spanish-speaking monolinguals, and 29 English-speaking monolinguals? Why

this change, even though the numbers “appear” to be correct?

In relation the above, it is stated in the footnote of the author‟s article (p. 7),

that some students were removed from the experiment. Considering that the

author originally stated that 29 English-speaking children participated (1 was

removed) and 25 Spanish-speaking children participated (4 were removed)

actually participated in the study, the figure should be 54 (5 children were

removed). Table 1 shows that there are 30 Spanish-speaking children and 29

English-speaking children, bringing the total to 59. This is incorrect because

(a) the total number of Spanish-speaking children does not exceed their

English-speaking counterparts, and it is contradictory since the table should

only account for 54 children. Why were they all included in the tasks, if 5

were removed?

(ii) As discussed earlier in this analysis of Rayas Tanaka‟s (2014) paper, there

should have been a balance between the numbers of 3yr/4yr olds for both




language categories. A balance in number (excusing those who did not

participate) perhaps would have added to the reliability of the results. It is

unfair to say that one group performed better than the other, when the numbers

across groups were not leveled. Such a tendency can cause discrepancies in the

results.

(iii) When looking at the standard deviation (SD) and the mean (M) in Table 1 (p.

11), all of the SD are above the M except one of them: the 3yr old English-

speaking children (SD = 1.60357, M = 1.5714). Knowing that generally the

SD should never be above the M (even though some statisticians may argue

this), is this a cause for concern with the validity of this specific result?

Discussion and Conclusion

The discussion and conclusion sections are also necessary components of a research paper

(Libra, 2001; Pinto, 2009; Murray, 2012). The discussion section basically discusses the

results obtained from the data analysis, confirming or rejecting hypotheses and research

questions, restating objectives, and the like. The conclusion ends the discussion on the

research done, confirming or rejecting hypotheses and research questions, identifying

limitations and also making projections for future studies.

The „discussion‟ and „conclusion‟ sections of Rayas Tanaka‟s (2014) article restate the results

achieved, and also give a description of some of the tasks that the children had to do. A

discussion ensues about those specific 3yr/4yr old children who excelled in specific linguistic

contexts, and the reasons for such. It is also noted that some students had difficulties

attempting certain tasks, and possible reasons were provided for such a tendency. The

confirmation of the hypothesis is also repeatedly mentioned by the author, while there is a

rejection of those results that had been earlier achieved by Waxman, Senghas and Benveniste

(1997), and Waxman and Gausti (2009), whose work served as the base study for Rayas

Tanaka‟s (2014) research. Additionally, the author is careful to mention that this study should

not be taken in isolation, and that the results should not be generalised. The author concludes

the article, noting that there is much more room for future studies, in order to prove or

disprove the results achieved.




References

Citation is very important in research writing (Libra, 2001; Pinto, 2009; Murray, 2012). It not

only supports the research work, but it also gives credit to those who have already completed

similar research, or research in a similar area of study. This is also evident in Rayas Tanaka‟s

(2014) paper. A wide array of authors is referenced, and all of the authors that appear in the

text are referenced in this section. They are referenced alphabetically. The author uses APA

reference style, since this is the established reference style used by the Journal in which this

article has been published.

Appendix

When doing empirical studies, it is always advisable to include some information about the

research instrument used (Laboree, 2013). This information is usually recorded in the section

called “Appendix”.

Rayas Tanaka‟s (2014) article does present an appendix which gives the reader an

opportunity to consider the research instrument used in the study. In the author‟s study,

reference was made to the research design in the “Appendix” section of the article. That has

been corroborated.

The Use of Boosters, Hedges, and Metadiscourse Items in the Empirical

Article

One of the primary purposes of writing is to communicate a message. In other words,

communication is seen as social engagement, since it seeks to engage readers in particular

ways. In academic writing, message communication is of paramount importance, since it

“reveals the ways writers project themselves into their discourse to signal their

understandings of their material and their audience” (Hyland 2010, p. 1). Hyland (2000,

2010), a specialist in written discourse analysis, particularly in academic contexts, refers to

this as „Metadiscourse‟.

According to Hyland (2010), borrowing Thompson‟s (2001) useful terms, metadiscourse

items in writing can be divided into two broad categories: interactive and interactional.

Interactive items have the objective of assisting the readers to navigate through the written

text. These are transitions or logical connectives, frame markers, endophoric markers,




evidentials and code glosses. Interactional items have the aim of getting the readers involved

in the text. These are hedges, boosters, attitude markers, engagement markers, and self

mentions. Table 1 below, taken from Hyland (2010, p. 4-5), shows these interactive and

interactional items, their functions, and some examples of each. A more detailed list of each

of these categories can be found in Hyland (2000).

Table 1. A model of metadiscourse in academic texts

CATEGORY FUNCTION EXAMPLES

Interactive

Help to guide reader through text

Resources

Transitions

express semantic relation between

main clauses

in addition / but / thus / and

Frame markers

refer to discourse acts, sequences, or

text stages

finally / to conclude / my purpose is

Endophoric markers

refer to information in other parts of

the text

noted above / see Fig / in section 2

Evidentials

refer to source of information from

other texts

according to X / (Y, 1990) / Z states

Code glosses

help readers grasp meanings of

ideational material

namely /e.g. / such as / in other

words

Interactional Involve the reader in the argument Resources

Hedges

withhold writer‟s full commitment

to proposition

might / perhaps / possible / about

Boosters

emphasise force or writer‟s

certainty in proposition

in fact / definitely / it is clear that

Attitude markers

express writer‟s attitude to pro-

position

unfortunately / I agree /

surprisingly

Engagement markers

explicitly refer to or build

relationship with reader

consider / note that / you can see

that

Self mentions

explicit reference to author(s)

I / we / my / our

Bearing in mind the above, an analysis of Rayas Tanaka‟s (2014) article is done below, to

highlight the quantity of interactive and interactional items used through the paper. The list of

interactive and interactional metadiscourse items presented by Hyland (2000, p. 188-191) is

used as a guide to determine which ones actually appear in the article.




Rayas Tanaka‟s (2014) article, from the title to the appendix, has approximately 7,683 words.

For the purpose of this analysis of metadiscourse items, the „Reference‟ and „Appendix‟

sections of the article, equivalent to 1,534 words, are omitted. Therefore, the new word count

to be examined is 6, 149 words. Table 2 below shows the types of interactive and

interactional items in Rayas Tanaka‟s (2014) article, the specific types used, and the (total)

frequency of their occurrence.

Table 2. Types of Interactives and Interactionals and Frequency of Use

CATEGORY

INTERACTIVE Specific

Interactives Used

Frequency of Use Total Frequency

Transitions/Logical

Connectives

And

But

Therefore

So

In contrast

Since

Because

On the other hand

Also

However

Whereas

While

Even though

Though

Yet

Nevertheless

198

24

7

1

1

4

6

1

11

3

2

3

1

1

3

2

Total = 268

Frame markers First of all

Finally

Numbering (1, 2, 3,

i, ii, iii, etc)

Now

To look more

closely

1

1

9

1

1

Total = 13

Endophoric markers Figure (1, 2, etc)

Table (1, 2, etc)

Example

4

2

7




Page (1, 2, etc)

( )

5

98

Total = 116

Evidentials (date)

According to

Established

Said

Say

X suggests

X shows

X demonstrates

X found that

Studies

39

9

1

4

6

2

27

1

3

21

Total = 113

Code glosses Say

E.g.

That is

Specifically

Such as

Or

1

19

3

3

8

32

Total = 66

GRAND TOTAL = 576

INTERACTIONAL Specific

Interactionals

Used

Frequency of Use Total

Boosters Always

Clearly

Conclude

Confirm

Demonstrate

Expect

The fact that

Indeed

We know

At least

Must

Never

Precise (ly)

Show

Will

1

1

2

5

1

4

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

27

9

Total = 59

Hedges Always 1




About

Appear

Around

Could

Frequently

Generally

Implication

Imply

Interpret

Likely

May

Most

Possibility

Possible

Predict

Presumably

Propose

Rather

Relative (ly)

Should

Suggest

Suppose

Typically

Would

4

6

1

9

2

1

1

1

14

2

3

3

1

4

3

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

7

Total = 72

Attitude markers !

Even

Important

1

4

1

Total = 6

Engagement markers Consider

Note that

1

1

Total = 2

Self mentions I

We

Me

4

4

1

Total = 9

GRAND TOTAL = 148

Table 2 above shows the distribution of the kinds of interactive and interactional

metadiscourse items used in Rayas Tanaka‟s (2014) article, and their frequency of us. From

the total article corpus of 6, 149 words, the following is noted in Table 3 below:




Table 3. Distribution of Interactives and Interactionals in Rayas Tanaka‟s (2014) article

CATEGORY Total Corpus (6, 149 words)

INTERACTIVE Frequency of Use % Frequency

Transitions/Logical Connectives 268 4.35%

Frame markers 13 0.21%

Endophoric markers 116 1.88%

Evidentials 113 1.83%

Code glosses 66 1.07%

TOTAL 576 9.36%

INTERACTIONAL

Boosters 59 0.95%

Hedges 72 1.17%

Attitude markers 6 0.09%

Engagement markers 2 0.03%

Self mentions 9 0.14%

TOTAL 148 2.40%

GRAND TOTAL (INTERACTIVE &

INTERACTIONAL ITEMS)

724

11.76%

As can be seen in Table 3, 9.36% of the corpus, 576 words, is comprised of interactive

metadiscourse items, with the greatest number of these being transitions/logical connectives,

followed by endophoric markers, then by evidentials, then code glosses, and finally by frame

markers.

2.40% of the corpus, 148 words, is interactional metadiscourse items, with the highest

being hedges, followed by boosters, by self mentions, then by attitude markers, and finally by

engagement markers.

Comparing the afore-mentioned figures, it is safe to say that interactive items surpassed

interactional items by 6.96%, or 428 words. This is a considerable figure which clearly




obviates that the author‟s principal objective has been to guide the readers through the text,

indicate of the function of interactive metadiscourse items.

Adding all of those figures, it can be posited that 11.76% of the corpus, or 724 words, is

metadiscourse items. That figure is also significant, as it shows an intertwined writer-reader

relationship. These figures establish the importance of not only guiding the readers through

the text, but also involving them in it.

Concluding Remarks

The principal objective of this exercise has been to do a general analysis of Rayas Tanaka‟s

(2014) empirical article. The analysis has shed light on many issues pertinent to research

conduction and presentation. It is critical for articles of an empirical nature to have all of the

required section (and sub-sections where possible). In other words, the information is to be

presented in a logical sequence which would allow for an easy and natural reading. That

being said, Rayas Tanaka‟s (2014) article has all of these sections, and the information is

presented as clearly as possible.

Of particular importance is the methodology (data collection, analysis and interpretation) of

this author‟s article. Based on the analysis done of its methodology, it has been evidenced

that there are certain methodological aspects that should have been tightened in the paper.

Important to note is that a quick search for the author on Google produced information about

her Master‟s thesis, bearing the same name of her research article. Bearing that in mind, that

may be another reason why pertinent information seems to be missing from the research

article. In other words, no Journal article can ever fully present a thesis, given the word limit

that forces writers to drastically reduce the data they present. Information will always be

overlooked. However, while that may be the case, it is still advisable to always present the

relevant information that would help the reader to easily comprehend it.

A Google search of the Journal, in which this empirical article appears, shows that the

Journal allows a word limit of 10,000 words. That being the case, perhaps the author could

have included more information, therefore avoiding the exclusion of relevant information,

since, excluding the „Reference‟ and „Appendix‟ sections, the paper is merely 6,149 words.




Notwithstanding those areas that could have been improved, the article does have merit: it

sheds light on the acquisition of adjectives of English-speaking and Spanish-speaking

monolingual children. That is note-worthy.

This exercise of doing a general analysis of Rayas Tanaka‟s (2014) research paper has been

very fruitful and eye-opening. It has allowed for the serious contemplation of research, and

how it is to be conducted and subsequently presented. The purpose of writing about research

experiences is to transmit a message to an intended audience. Each and every component of

the research is crucial to its readability and potential impact on its readership, and should

therefore be handled with extreme care.

References

Creswell, J, W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Method

Approaches (3rd

ed.). CA: SAGE Publications.

Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping Interactions in Academic Writing. Retrieved

October 20, 2014, from ojs.ub.gu.se/ojs/index.php/njes/article/view/417/405

Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing.

Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Irvin, L. (2010). What is Academic Writing? Retrieved October 9, 2014, from

http://wac.colostate.edu/books/writingspaces1/irvin--what-is-academic-writing.pdf

Laboree, R. (2013). Appendices: Organising your Social Sciences Research Paper. Retrieved

December 7, 2014, from

http://libguides.usc.edu/content.php?pid=83009&sid=616085

Libra, J. A. (2001) How to Write a Paper. Introduction to Scientific Work Seminar, Module 6.

International Study Course Environmental and Resource Management. Germany:

Brandenburg Technical University Cottbus.

Murray, N. (2012). Writing Essays in English Language and Linguistics. Principles, Tips and

Strategies for Undergraduates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Piaget, J. (1945). La formation du symbole chez l‟enfant: imitation, jeu et rêve, image et

représentation. Neuchâtel : Delachaux et Niestlé.

http://wac.colostate.edu/books/writingspaces1/irvin--what-is-academic-writing.pdf




Pinto, M. da G. L. C. (2009). O interesse prático da Linguística Aplicada e a sua abrangência

em termos de pesquisa. In Duarte, I. M., Figueiredo, O. & Veloso, J. (Orgs.), A

linguagem ao vivo (pp. 153-188). Porto: Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do

Porto.

Rayas Tanaka, M. E. (2014). Knowledge of Adjective Reference by Monolingual Spanish-

and-English Speaking Children. Entrehojas: Revista de Estudios Hispánicos 4(1), 1-

22. Retrieved December 1, 2014, from http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/entrehojas/vol4/iss1/8.

Thomas, G. (2011). How to do your Case Study: A Guide for Students and Researchers.

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.

Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in Academic Writing: Learning to Argue with the Reader.

Applied Linguistics 22(1), 58-78. Retrieved December 8, 2014, from

http://corpuslg.org/inpla/2011/programacao/geoff.pdf

Waxman, S. & Gausti, M. (2009). Nouns, adjectives, and the acquisition of meaning: New

evidence from Italian-acquiring children. Language Learning and Development 5(1),

50-68. Retrieved December 4, 2014, from

http://groups.psych.northwestern.edu/waxman/documents/WaxmanGuasti2009LLD.p

df

Waxman, S., Senghas, A. & Benveniste, S. (1997). A cross-linguistic examination of the

noun category bias: its existence and specificity in French and English speaking

preschool-aged children. Cognitive Psychology 32, 183-218. Retrieved December 4,

2014, from

http://groups.psych.northwestern.edu/waxman/documents/WaxmanSenghasBenvenist

e1997CogPsych.pdf

Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. New York, NY: Guilford

Publications Inc.

General Analysis of an Empirical Research Article (Doctoral Assignment)

Documents

Transcript of General Analysis of an Empirical Research Article (Doctoral Assignment)