The rhetorical organization of research article discussion sections: An investigation into genre evolution in applied linguistics
Article Sidebar
Published
Nov 17, 2015
Main Article Content
Abstract
The present study aimed to investigate the evolution of the rhetorical structure of research article discussions in three prestigious journals covering the two chronological periods of 1980-1989 (group A) and 2005-2010 (group B). It also studied changes in the application of the two most frequently used verb tenses − the simple present tense and the simple past tense − over the two time periods. Overall, 115 published articles were selected from the aforementioned journals. Move analysis was accomplished through application of Dudley-Evans' (1994) model on the datasets. Findings indicated that despite the overall consistency in utilizing the nine-move organization, there emerged rather considerable differences in the frequency of (Un) expected outcome and Explanation moves. A reduction in the frequency of (Un) expected outcome in group B indicated that present-day writers announce results with more caution to win the acquiescence of reviewers and readers. On the other hand, a rise in explanations revealed a growing concern for including more arguments in order to follow the analytical nature of the discussion section. The results also demonstrated a shift from the simple present tense toward the simple past tense, which marks a shift from generalization to specificity.
Keywords: research article, move, discussion section, genre evolution
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Article Details
Issue
Section
Articles
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (SeeThe Effect of Open Access).
References
Atkinson, D. (1996). The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675-1975: A sociohistorical discourse analysis. Language in Society, 25(3), 333-371.
Atkinson, D. (1992). The evolution of medical research writing from 1735 to 1985: The case of the Edinburgh medical journal. Applied Linguistics, 13(4), 337-374.
Ayers, G. (2008). The evolutionary nature of genre: An investigation of the short texts accompanying research articles in the scientific journal Nature. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 22–41
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Berkenkotter, C. (2008). Genre evolution? The case for a diachronic perspective. In V. K.
Bhatia, Berkenkotter, C. (2009). A case for historical "wide-angle" genre analysis: A personal retrospective. IBERICA, 18, 9-22.
Crookes, G. (1986). Towards the validated analysis of scientific text structure. Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 57-70.
Crossley, S. (2007). A chronotopic approach to genre analysis: An exploratory study. English for Specific Purposes, (26), 4-24.
Dudley-Evans, T. (1994). Genre analysis: An approach to text analysis for ESP. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 219-228). London: Routledge.
Gross, A. J., Harmon, J. E., & Reidy, M. (2002). Communicative science: The scientific article from the 17th century to the present. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gunawardena, C. N. (1989). The present perfect in the rhetorical divisions of biology and biochemistry journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 6, 265-273.
Hammersley, M. (2011). Methodology: Who needs it? London: Sage Publications.
Holmes, R. (1997). Genre analysis and the social sciences: An investigation of the structure of research article discussion section in three disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 321-337.
Hopkins, A., & Dudley-Evans, T. (1988). A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes, 7, 113-121.
Jalilifar, A. R., Hayati, A. M., & Namdari, N. (2012). A comparative study of research article discussion sections of local and international applied linguistic journals. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 9(1), 1-29.
Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005). Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 269-292.
Li, L. J. & Ge, G. C. (2009). Genre analysis: Structural and linguistic evolution of the English-medium medical research article (1985–2004). English for Specific Purposes, 28, 93-104.liLlilil1
Magnet, A. (2001). Diachronic analysis of the visuals in the research paper: A group-based study of the strategies and semiotics of visual representation in nutrition biochemistry. LSP and Professional Communication, 1(1), 55-77.
Malcolm, L. (1987). What rules govern tense usage in scientific articles? English for Specific Purposes, 6 (1), 31-43.
Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as a social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151-167.
Min, H. T. (2008). Reviewer stances and writer perceptions in EFL peer review training. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 285-305.
Nwogu, K. N. (1997). The medical research paper: Structure and functions. English for Specific Purposes, 16(2), 119–138.
Ozturk, I. (2007). The textual organization of research article introductions in applied linguistics: Variability within a single discipline. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 25-38.
Parkinson, J. (2011). The Discussion section as argument: The language used to prove knowledge claims. English for Specific Purposes, 30, 164-175.
Peacock, M. (2002). Communicative moves in the discussion section of research articles. System, 30, 479-497.
Posteguillo, s. (1999). The schematic structure of computer science research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 139-160.
Ruiying, Y., & Allison, D. (2003). Research article in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 264-279.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1999a). From “Mr. Guthrie is profoundly mistaken ...” to “Our data do not seem to confirm the results of a previous study on ...”: A diachronic study of polemicity in academic writing (1810-1995). IBERICA, 1, 5-28.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1999b). Referential behavior in scientific writing: A diachronic study (1810±1995). English for Specific Purposes, 18(3), 279-305.
Salager-Meyer, F. (2000). Rhetorical evolution of oppositional discourse in French academic writing: Oppositional discourse in academic writing. Herms, Journal of Linguistics, 25, 23-48.
Simpson, P. (2001). ‘Reason’ and ‘tickle’ as pragmatic constructs in the discourse of advertising. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 589–607.
Swales, J., M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Atkinson, D. (1992). The evolution of medical research writing from 1735 to 1985: The case of the Edinburgh medical journal. Applied Linguistics, 13(4), 337-374.
Ayers, G. (2008). The evolutionary nature of genre: An investigation of the short texts accompanying research articles in the scientific journal Nature. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 22–41
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Berkenkotter, C. (2008). Genre evolution? The case for a diachronic perspective. In V. K.
Bhatia, Berkenkotter, C. (2009). A case for historical "wide-angle" genre analysis: A personal retrospective. IBERICA, 18, 9-22.
Crookes, G. (1986). Towards the validated analysis of scientific text structure. Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 57-70.
Crossley, S. (2007). A chronotopic approach to genre analysis: An exploratory study. English for Specific Purposes, (26), 4-24.
Dudley-Evans, T. (1994). Genre analysis: An approach to text analysis for ESP. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 219-228). London: Routledge.
Gross, A. J., Harmon, J. E., & Reidy, M. (2002). Communicative science: The scientific article from the 17th century to the present. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gunawardena, C. N. (1989). The present perfect in the rhetorical divisions of biology and biochemistry journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 6, 265-273.
Hammersley, M. (2011). Methodology: Who needs it? London: Sage Publications.
Holmes, R. (1997). Genre analysis and the social sciences: An investigation of the structure of research article discussion section in three disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 321-337.
Hopkins, A., & Dudley-Evans, T. (1988). A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes, 7, 113-121.
Jalilifar, A. R., Hayati, A. M., & Namdari, N. (2012). A comparative study of research article discussion sections of local and international applied linguistic journals. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 9(1), 1-29.
Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005). Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 269-292.
Li, L. J. & Ge, G. C. (2009). Genre analysis: Structural and linguistic evolution of the English-medium medical research article (1985–2004). English for Specific Purposes, 28, 93-104.liLlilil1
Magnet, A. (2001). Diachronic analysis of the visuals in the research paper: A group-based study of the strategies and semiotics of visual representation in nutrition biochemistry. LSP and Professional Communication, 1(1), 55-77.
Malcolm, L. (1987). What rules govern tense usage in scientific articles? English for Specific Purposes, 6 (1), 31-43.
Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as a social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151-167.
Min, H. T. (2008). Reviewer stances and writer perceptions in EFL peer review training. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 285-305.
Nwogu, K. N. (1997). The medical research paper: Structure and functions. English for Specific Purposes, 16(2), 119–138.
Ozturk, I. (2007). The textual organization of research article introductions in applied linguistics: Variability within a single discipline. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 25-38.
Parkinson, J. (2011). The Discussion section as argument: The language used to prove knowledge claims. English for Specific Purposes, 30, 164-175.
Peacock, M. (2002). Communicative moves in the discussion section of research articles. System, 30, 479-497.
Posteguillo, s. (1999). The schematic structure of computer science research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 139-160.
Ruiying, Y., & Allison, D. (2003). Research article in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 264-279.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1999a). From “Mr. Guthrie is profoundly mistaken ...” to “Our data do not seem to confirm the results of a previous study on ...”: A diachronic study of polemicity in academic writing (1810-1995). IBERICA, 1, 5-28.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1999b). Referential behavior in scientific writing: A diachronic study (1810±1995). English for Specific Purposes, 18(3), 279-305.
Salager-Meyer, F. (2000). Rhetorical evolution of oppositional discourse in French academic writing: Oppositional discourse in academic writing. Herms, Journal of Linguistics, 25, 23-48.
Simpson, P. (2001). ‘Reason’ and ‘tickle’ as pragmatic constructs in the discourse of advertising. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 589–607.
Swales, J., M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.