A Cross Disciplinary Study of Circumstantial Elements in the Discussion Section of Research Articles

Abstract

Though circumstantial meanings have been explored in some sections of the research article (RA), they have received scanty attention in the discussion section of the RA. This study explores the structural and semantic categories of circumstantial elements in the discussion sections of RAs in six subjects namely English, History, Geography, Psychology, Mechanical Engineering and Chemistry across three broad disciplinary areas. Sixty (60) discussion sections of RAs in six (6) subjects were electronically retrieved and studied, using Halliday and Matthiessen’s (2014) SFL as the theoretical framework. Findings showed that disciplines used prepositional phrases and adverbs as constituents of circumstantial elements, with prepositional phrases being predominant. Considering the 22 semantic categories identified in SFL, Location-Place, Matter, Time, Quality and Comitative were the most frequently used circumstances. However, there were variations in how the disciplines used them. Circumstantials were matched with Nwogu’s (1997) moves in RAs to affirm that circumstantials are essential in arguing for the acceptance of research findings. Place circumstances were extensively used in promoting further research with slight variations noticed. The disciplines used Concession, Comitative and Additive circumstantials to contrast present and previous research. Reason and concession clauses were also frequently found in the move of interpreting specific research outcomes. From the study, it is evident that generic and disciplinary norms influence RA writers’ deployment of circumstantial elements. It implies further research is needed if these generic and disciplinary preferences are to be clearly delineated for the purposes of socializing apprentice writers.