It is not difficult to close cycles when it is clear what the route has been, help me write my essay remember? A conclusion only arises when experience and the search for information results in self-knowledge.

The conclusion must be given the same force that is given to an introduction or a body of text.

Just as the objective of each sentence within a text is to make the reader go to the next one, the conclusion is in charge of closing in great detail all that you wanted to demonstrate so that the reader believes in you and returns for your work.

Or at least that's what we're trying to do here. Help people with the information we build from experience and research, in this case: how to make a conclusion, from simple and applicable steps, and then suggest that they convey what they learned about it with their own writings and awaken their interest to continue on the blog.

1. Introduction

The conclusion is the final section of a Research Article (hereinafter AI). That is, where one would expect the closure of the AI. The conclusions have been studied from the narrative (Propp, 1974), My Premium Essay from the theory of valuation (Appraisal)(Ferrari, 2006), and from gender analysis (Gnutzmann Oldenburg, 1991; Ciapuscio Otañi, 2002). Some of these studies have identified that the conclusions are not 100% presented in the RAs (Gnutzmann Oldenburg, 1991; Ciapuscio Otañi, 2002; Fuentes, 2012). Other authors have proposed scientific writing manuals, where they give instructions on how to write this section (Henríquez Zepeda, 2004; Valderrama, 2005, 2009; Cázares and others, 1999; Sánchez, 2011). On the other hand, and specifically, from the gender analysis, the historical discourse has been scarcely studied, except for the works of Holmes (1997) and Fuentes (2012). In this way, the objective of our research is to analyze the conclusions of the AI ​​in history in a corpusof South American journals indexed in ISI. After this introduction, the text continues with a theoretical chapter. The procedures are outlined below, followed by the results and discussion. In the last part, the main conclusions of the investigation are shown.

2. Theoretical framework

In this section we describe the main theoretical aspects of our research. For this, we delve into the issues associated with historical discourse, gender studies in historical discourse, Buy Research Papers Online a multifunctional analysis of the conclusions, and finally the elaboration of a model of Rhetorical Moves (hereinafter MR) for the conclusions in history.

2.1. Characteristics of the historical discourse

The word history has at least three meanings: a) Narration or story of a past event, b) Past event, and c) science or discipline that studies the past (Koselleck, 2010). This polysemy directly influences the way in which history is written in a scientific genre. Epistemologically, at present, and regardless of gender, most studies agree on the essentially narrative nature of the historical discourse (Ortega y Gasset, 1983; Veyne, 1984; Danto, 1989;Buy Dissertation Papers Lozano, 1994; Chartier, 1994; Ordóñez, 2008; White, 2003, 2010; Fuentes, 2012). Other studies claim the argumentative character, or the tendency to persuasion that the content of the historical discourse has (Mudrovcic, 2005). These two aspects are essential in historical discourse, inasmuch as the way of transmitting knowledge cannot avoid a narrative form, nor can it avoid the pretense of convincing the audience about the causes and consequences of a certain fact.

2.2. Gender analysis and historical discourse

Gender analysis (Swales, 1990, 2004) has proven to be an efficient instrument for the knowledge and teaching of scientific writing. These studies are based on the "Rhetorical Move " (Rethorical Move), Buy Argumentative Essay Online defined as the textual extract associated with a communicative purpose that contributes to the achievement of the global purpose of a genre (Swales, 1990, 2004). In this context, Gender Analysis studies for AIs in history are scarce. Among these, the work of Holmes (1997) and Fuentes (2012) stands out. Holmes (1997) contrastively studies the discussion section in a corpusof Political Science, Sociology and History, in English. One of the relevant results of this research is an exclusive MR of the historical discourse, namely: It establishes consequences of the events beyond the dates studied. Meanwhile, Fuentes (2012) studies all the sections of an AI corpus in history and in Spanish. In the study, it is established that the MR that predominate in the discourse in this corpusThey are: a) Narrates a fact, b) Interprets a fact, and c) uses a literal quote to refer to another author or source. Furthermore, historical discourse has been studied linguistically in another genre, namely, history manuals (Oteíza, 2006, 2009a, 2009b). These works analyze from the Functional Systemic Linguistics (Halliday, 1984) the manuals in history and specifically the treatment of the subject of Pinochet's military dictatorship.

23. Multidisciplinary approach to conclusions

Advice and restrictions have been proposed from different disciplines, not only for the conclusions section, Buy Assignment Online but for all sections of a scientific text (Henríquez Zepeda, 2004; Valderrama, 2005, 2010; Cázares et al., 1999; Sánchez, 2011 ). This literature works as manuals of scientific writing, for which it guides us towards a multidisciplinary perception of how the rhetorically should be presented.conclusions in an AI. Some restrictions that this literature presents for the conclusions are: The results should not be discussed, presented or concluded with data not documented in the research (Valderrama, 2005; Sánchez, 2011). Likewise, suggestions are presented, such as: the research achievements must be characterized, the most relevant ideas of each chapter must be exposed, there must be a return to the introduction, new research must be planned, the methodology must be evaluated and point out the strengths and weaknesses of the research (Cázares et al., 1999; Valderrama, 2005; Sánchez, 2011). In narratological terms, a conclusion or closure is where the story comes to an end (Propp, 1974). From the linguistics of gender, and specifically from the work of Swales (1990, 2004) the MR theory has been used to study the conclusions (Gnutzmann Oldenburg, 1991; Ciapuscio Otañi, 2002). This is how the most complete work since Gender Analysis with respect to the conclusions, and despite its antiquity, it continues to be the work of Gnutzmann and Oldenburg (1991). In this work, the conclusions of two linguistics journals in English and another in German are analyzed contrastively, from the gender analysis. Another work from the gender analysis analyzes all the sections of the AI ​​in history, making some mentions about the conclusions in history (Fuentes, 2012). This work, among other things, points out that there are not conclusions in all AIs. In these cases the AI ​​ends abruptly with the results, which coincides with the results presented by Gnutzmann and Oldenburg (1991), and Ciapuscio and Otañi, (2002). Also, from this same theory and with the MR for the conclusions of Gnutzmann and Oldenburg, (1991) the conclusions have been studied in a similar genre, specifically, the research report on university students (Espejo, 2006). In addition, the conclusions have been studied from Functional Systemic Linguistics, for acorpus in Spanish and in Paleontology (Ferrari, 2006). Then, and from the studies mentioned in this section, we can point out that the conclusions, like any other section of the AI, will show variations due to disciplinary, social, temporal and cultural causes.