Abstract

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.

Journal
Written Communication
Published
1992-10-01
DOI
10.1177/0741088392009004004
Open Access
Closed
Topics

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (9)

  1. Written Communication
  2. Written Communication
  3. Rhetoric Review
  4. Written Communication
  5. Written Communication
Show all 9 →
  1. Written Communication
  2. Written Communication
  3. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
  4. Written Communication

Cites in this index (6)

  1. Written Communication
  2. College English
  3. Written Communication
  4. Written Communication
  5. College Composition and Communication
Show all 6 →
  1. Research in the Teaching of English
Also cites 8 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.2307/1130397
  2. 10.2307/2862449
  3. 10.1111/j.1475-6757.1986.tb00896.x
  4. 10.2307/462897
  5. 10.1016/0898-5898(91)90013-9
  6. 10.2307/377930
  7. 10.1111/j.1475-6757.1988.tb00943.x
  8. 10.1215/00382876-87-4-743
    South Atlantic Quarterly  
CrossRef global citation count: 37 View in citation network →