Ebrahimi, Zahra

A Comparative Analysis of Grammatical Metaphor in Discussion Sections of Research Articles in Hard and Soft Disciplines

Using grammatical metaphor can enhance the quality of both written and spoken language by substituting one grammatical class or structure with another. Previous studies have explored its use across languages, disciplines, and academic writings, especially in research articles—an important component of postgraduate education. Despite numerous articles highlighting its importance, no study has explored its use specifically in discussion sections of research papers, which are crucial for expressing the researcher's opinions and perspectives. Applying grammatical metaphor in research article discussions is helpful in building coherence and reinforcing arguments. The present study compared the forms, functions, frequencies, and distributions of grammatical metaphors in the discussion sections of research articles from hard fields (i.e., astrophysics, physics, and medicine) and soft fields (i.e., psychology, social sciences, and linguistics). The stratal model, which divides grammatical metaphor into three main subcategories (i.e., ideational, interpersonal, and textual metaphor), was used for the above-mentioned purposes. Results showed that the experiential metaphor was the most preva‎lent type of metaphor before the textual metaphor. There were significant differences in the use of experiential and textual metaphors across disciplines. Experiential metaphors, such as shift to noun, were more preva‎lent in soft disciplines, while hard disciplines tended to use shift to quality more. Some types of textual metaphor (i.e., text referencing, internal conjunction, and total use of textual metaphor) were more frequent in soft disciplines. Grammatical metaphor can provide valuable instructional insights for teachers, materials developers and students by making them aware of how to write more academically and how to develop their arguments more persuasively.