YOSHIE MORI
Auckland University of Technology
This study selected the discussion sections of five recent academic journal articles from the field of Applied Linguistics. The study investigated the macro-structure and move-step classifications of the sections and how authors carried out their discussions and arguments. The research also examined the application of connectors and their frequency. The main purpose of this study is to identify a common pattern in the discussion sections of this particular area of academic fields and provide an idea of what is expected for students who are learning to write up research reports in this field. The main assumption of the study was that all samples follow the moves introduced by Swales (1990). Findings show that articles had similar macro-structures and included most of the eight moves, however, the orders of those moves presented varied significantly. Also, the most frequently used connector was However followed by For example and Thus. The study suggests that the model presented by Swales (1990) is only applied to a certain extent in the recent articles. It seems that authors of journal articles have some kind of freedom in terms of how to deliver their arguments and points.
1. INTRODUCTION
There has been an increasing interest in the examination and analyses of journal articles from the genre perspective (Swales, 1990) using a move-step classification (Hyland, 2004). While many of these analyses focus on the introduction section, such as Swales’ CARS model, there has been a more recent investigation into other sections of the IMRD pattern including the discussion section. Hopkins & Dudley-Evans (1998) provide one of the early examples of a move-step classification of the discussion section. They offer the 11-move pattern which include 1) background information, 2) statement of results, 3)(un)expected outcome, 4) reference to previous research, 5) explanation of unsatisfactory result, 6) exemplification, 7) deduction, 8) hypothesis, 9) reference to previous research, 10) recommendation and 11) justification. Swales (1990) summarises McKinlay (1984), Hopkins (1985), Peng (1987) and Hopkins & Dudley-Evan (1998) and comes to a useful 8 move-step classification which includes, 1) background information, 2) statement of results, 3) (un)expected outcome, 4) reference to previous research, 5) explanation, 6) exemplification, 7) deduction and hypothesis and 8) recommendation. This has been further simplified into a three move-step classification by Swales and Feak (2004) for student writers. The process include, 1) points to consolidate the research space, 2) points to indicate the limitation of the study and 3) points to recommend a course of action and/or to identify useful areas of further research. Some genre research focuses on providing a discipline-specific classification of moves. For example, Levin, Fine and Young (2001) explore the discussion sections in the field of social science. They state that moves can be delineated in a number of ways, including; discourse units, sentences and lexis grammatical units and conclude that there is an inconsistency in terms of levels of generality and it is difficult to identify moves because there are no clear criteria. This is a genuine answer for the discussion section because it is a complex and difficult area for novice researchers to write. Other studies of this subject-specific nature include Neuroscience, Biology, Agriculture and Chemical Engineering (Levin, et al, 2001). However, there has been little attention paid to the field of Applied Linguistics. This paper aims to provide a move-step classification of discussion sections of the journal articles from the field of Applied Linguistics. This paper investigates how discussion sections in research articles from the area are constructed, how the ideas or arguments are presented and in terms of the use of language, which connectors are commonly used. This paper also aims to examine the effectiveness of this particular model introduced by Swales (1990) by analysing the sample using his model. This research is valuable because there are needs for the investigation of journal articles in the field of Applied Linguistics especially for the students who are learning to write up their research reports.
2. THE STUDY
Collection of the sample
In order to provide a genre analysis, I chose the most recent database under Applied Linguistics and searched for “ESOL”. I selected five journal articles for the sample which were randomly selected to avoid any personal preferences towards the choice of articles which could heavily influence the outcomes. All of the chosen articles were selected from the AUT e-journals database which means that all of those articles are filtered and written by academics and not by random people off the internet.
The Strategies
The analysis can be divided into following three sections; macro-structure, move-step classifications and connectors. Firstly, the macro-structure of the discussion sections of the sample was investigated. By breaking down the discussion sections, it became easier to break down further into a move-step classification which was analysed next. Secondly, the investigation looked closer to find out what is the purpose or meaning of each sentence. Thirdly, I identified any connectors used in the discussion sections of the sample and found out which connectors were most commonly used.
There are a few different models introduced by previous researchers however, they face difficulties in constructing an appropriate and effective model for the analysis. For example, Lewin and Young (2001) argue that the early model introduced by Dubois (1997) investigated journal articles by looking at the use of lexical items. This method was considered to be unreliable and ineffective. In addition, the model offered by Lewin Young (2001) contains the total moves of twenty-one and because this model contains so many moves, it is more likely to bring a number of different results which makes it difficult to identify common characteristics. On the other hand, Swales (1990) focuses on identifying the meanings of moves and the message that the authors try to output. This move-step classification is used for the examination and analysis of the discussion sections of the sample in this research.
3. RESULTS
Table 1 displays the macro-structure of the discussion sections of the sample. These results demonstrate that while the all tested five articles had similar structure, article A contained three categories; Discussion, Summary and Conclusion. Also, the author of article D named the summing up category Summary while others named Conclusion. Interestingly, some of the journal articles had subtitles inside these categories which break down into smaller scale of the macro-structure.
Table 2 represents the move-step classification of the discussion sections introduced by Swales (1990). This shows that the article E contained all of the moves while article D only contained five of them. Moves such as Background information and Unexpected outcome were less likely to be found in the discussion sections of journal articles in the field of Applied Linguistics. Furthermore, most of the articles began by stating the main findings and often the acknowledgement of Background information was ignored.
From the Table 3, it is evident that the most frequently used connector was however with ten instances and there was a moderate use of for example (7 instances) which was followed by thus and by contrast (3 instances). Unexpectedly, the use of the connector thus was more frequent than therefore. Also, multi-word connectors such as on the other hand and on the contrary were less likely seen in the discussion sections of this particular academic field. In addition, the functions of the frequently used connectors are given in Table 4.
4. DISCUSSIONThe methodology used in this study has captured that all articles contained the move of the statement of results. In addition, the majority of articles contained the moves introduced by Swales (1990) such as references to previous research, explanation, deduction and hypothesis and recommendation. However, different moves are applied in different orders in journal articles. It may be that authors wanted to carry their discussions in different ways because they had their own beliefs in terms of how to present the discussions smoothly, effectively and persuasively.
By contrast, moves such as background information and unexpected outcomes were less likely to be found in the discussion sections of the journal articles. This incident can be supported Swales (1990) who explains that it often appears when the authors wish to re-state main points, theoretical and technical information. He also suggests that this move can occur anywhere in the discussion section. It may be possible to suggest the following three reasons; 1)that authors felt it was unnecessary to repeat such information, 2) those moves were blended in to other moves or 3) most of the outcomes were not surprising amongst the researchers.
In terms of the use of connectors, there was a frequent use of however and moderate use of for example. Surprisingly, the connector thus was used more often than therefore. Perhaps, it makes the article to look more academic and formal. In addition, multi-word connectors such as on the contrary and on the other hand were less likely to be seen in the sample.
According to Swales and Feak (2004), authors often expect that readers have a good understanding of the research and may not re-state information. Some academics believe that a long discussion section creates short and weak methodology and results sections. This may explain how some authors of sample articles decided not mention the methodology and its information in details again. Furthermore, as Swales and Feak (2004) suggested, most of sample started the discussion sections with the statement of results. Perhaps this move is the most logical one to start with as the background information is less applied in the sample. Furthermore, Swales and Feak (2004) state that discussion sections often contain terms that summarises the discussions such as overall, in general and on the whole. These exact items were not found, however, I identified several terms such as in summary, in conclusion and finally and most of them were located towards the end of the discussion sections.
With only five journal articles as the sample, this study is no more than exploratory. Reinvestigation with a larger sample may bring more accurate outcomes. In addition, it seems that this study could have focused deeper on the language level. For example, further investigation could look at the use of tenses and the level of formality in the language.
REFERENCES
Hopkins, A. & T. Dudley-Evans (1988). A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press (pp. 64-71).
Lewin, B. Fine, J. & Young, L. (2001). Expository discourse: A genre-based approach to social science research texts. London, New York: Continuum. (pp. 18-21)
Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic Settings. Cambridge University Press. (pp. 171 - 174)
Swales, J.M. & Feak, C.B. (2004). Academic Writing for Graduate Students (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.(pp. 268-277)
No comments:
Post a Comment