Volume 12, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1874-8767
  • E-ISSN: 1874-8775
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Constructing a coherent text and achieving genre-specific communicative purposes are crucial aspects of academic writing. However, to date, it remains unclear how coherence and genre are related to each other conceptually. This paper seeks to extend previous research on the influence of genre on coherence relations by examining how writers of applied linguistics research articles (RAs) organise sentences in the discussion section to achieve communicative purposes of the RA discussion genre. The analyses suggest that the writers of the selected discussions might have related sentences to each other differently depending on the purposes they sought to achieve. Possible reasons for relational features are considered in light of the nature of the RA discussion genre and/or the applied linguistics discipline.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Allison, Desmond, Linda Cooley, Jo Lewkowicz & David Nunan
    1998 Dissertation writing in action: The development of a dissertation writing support program for ESL graduate research students. English for Specific Purposes17 (2): 199–217. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(97)00011‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00011-2 [Google Scholar]
  2. Basturkmen, Helen & Janet von Randow
    2014 Guiding the reader (or not) to re-create coherence: Observations on postgraduate student writing in an academic argumentative writing task. Journal of English for Academic Purposes16: 14–22. 10.1016/j.jeap.2014.07.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2014.07.005 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bruce, Ian
    2014 Expressing criticality in the literature review in research article introductions in applied linguistics and psychology. English for Specific Purposes36: 85–96. 10.1016/j.esp.2014.06.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2014.06.004 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bunton, David
    1998 Linguistic and Textual Problems in Ph. D and M. Phil Theses: an analysis of genre moves and metatext. PhD dissertation, University of Hong Kong.
  5. 2005 The structure of PhD conclusion chapters. Journal of English for Academic Purposes4 (3): 207–224. 10.1016/j.jeap.2005.03.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2005.03.004 [Google Scholar]
  6. Canagarajah, Suresh A.
    2013Critical academic writing and multilingual students. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Candlin, Christopher, Guenter Plum, Sue Spinks & National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research
    1998Researching academic literacies. Sydney: Macquarie University.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Chik, Sonya
    2015 Rhetorical Relations in Japanese and English Corporate Enabling Texts. Proceedings of JASFL9: 39–52.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Cho, Seonhee
    2004 Challenges of entering discourse communities through publishing in English: Perspectives of nonnative-speaking doctoral students in the United States of America. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education3 (1): 47–72. 10.1207/s15327701jlie0301_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327701jlie0301_3 [Google Scholar]
  10. Cooley, Linda & Jo Lewkowicz
    1997 Developing awareness of the rhetorical and linguistic conventions of writing a thesis in English. InCulture and styles of academic discourse, Anna Duszak (ed.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 113–130. 10.1515/9783110821048.113
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110821048.113 [Google Scholar]
  11. Flowerdew, John
    2000 Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation, and the nonnative-English-speaking Scholar. TESOL Quarterly34 (1): 127–150. 10.2307/3588099
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3588099 [Google Scholar]
  12. Golebiowski, Zofia
    2006 The distribution of discoursal salience in research papers: Relational hypotaxis and parataxis. Discourse Studies8 (2): 259–278. 10.1177/1461445606061796
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445606061796 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2009 Prominent messages in Education and Applied Linguistic abstracts: How do authors appeal to their prospective readers?Journal of Pragmatics41 (4): 753–769. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.009 [Google Scholar]
  14. Gosden, Hugh
    1992 Research writing and NNSs: From the editors. Journal of Second Language Writing1 (2): 123–139. 10.1016/1060‑3743(92)90012‑E
    https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(92)90012-E [Google Scholar]
  15. Grabe, William & Robert B. Kaplan
    1996Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistics perspective. Harlow: Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Gruber, Helmut & Peter Muntigl
    2005 Generic and rhetorical structures of texts: Two sides of the same coin?Folia Linguistica39(1–2): 75–114.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hinds, John
    1987 Reader versus writer responsibility. InWriting across languages: Analysis of L2 text, Ulla Connor & Robert B. Kaplan (eds). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 141–152.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 1990 Inductive, deductive, quasi-inductive: expository writing in Japanese, Korean, Chinese and Thai. InCoherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives, Ulla Connor & Ann M. Johns (eds). Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, 87–110.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hyland, Ken
    2003 Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing12 (1): 17–29. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(02)00124‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00124-8 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2004Disciplinary discourses, Michigan classics ed.: Social interactions in academic writing. University of Michigan Press. 10.3998/mpub.6719
    https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.6719 [Google Scholar]
  21. 2018Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Lee, Icy
    2002 Teaching coherence to ESL students: A classroom inquiry. Journal of Second Language Writing11 (2): 135–159. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(02)00065‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00065-6 [Google Scholar]
  23. Lewin, Beverly, Jonathan Fine & Lynn Young
    2001Expository discourse. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Mann, William C.
    2003 RST relation definition. www-bcf.usc.edu/~billmann/rst-previewatusc/reldefs.htm#Evaluationlink (Last accessed on7 February 2019).
  25. Mann, William C. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen
    1991 Functions of language in two frameworks. Word42(3): 231–249. 10.1080/00437956.1991.11435839
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1991.11435839 [Google Scholar]
  26. Mann, William C., Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen & Sandra A. Thompson
    1992 Rhetorical structure theory and text analysis. InDiscourse description: Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text, William C. Mann & Sandra A. Thompson (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 39–78. 10.1075/pbns.16.04man
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.16.04man [Google Scholar]
  27. Mann, William C. & Sandra A. Thompson
    1988 Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text8 (3): 243–281. 10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243 [Google Scholar]
  28. Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M.
    2015Rhetorical system and structure theory: The semantic system of rhetorical relations. Book manuscript.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. McNabb, Richard
    2001 Making the gesture: Graduate student submissions and the expectation of journal referees. Composition Studies29 (1): 9–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. O’Brien, Theresa
    1995 Rhetorical Structure analysis and the case of the inaccurate, incoherent source-hopper. Applied Linguistics16 (4): 442–482. 10.1093/applin/16.4.442
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.4.442 [Google Scholar]
  31. O’Donnell, Mike
    2002 RST tool – an RST markup tool. www.wagsoft.com/RSTTool/ (Last accessed on7 February 2019).
  32. Paltridge, Brian & Sue Starfield
    2007Thesis and dissertation writing in a second language: A handbook for supervisors. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203960813
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203960813 [Google Scholar]
  33. Peacock, Matthew
    2002 Communicative moves in the discussion section of research articles. System30 (4): 479–497. 10.1016/S0346‑251X(02)00050‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00050-7 [Google Scholar]
  34. Redeker, Gisela
    2000 Coherence and structure in text and discourse. InAbduction, belief, and context in dialogue: Studies in computational pragmatics, Harry Bunt & William Black (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 233–263. 10.1075/nlp.1.06red
    https://doi.org/10.1075/nlp.1.06red [Google Scholar]
  35. Redeker, Gisela & Helmut Gruber
    2014 Introduction. InPragmatics of discourse coherence, Helmut Gruber & Gisela Redeker (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Shaw, Philip
    2000 Towards classifying the arguments in research genres. InAnalysing professional genres, Anna Trosberg (ed.). John Benjamins, 41–56. 10.1075/pbns.74.06sha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.74.06sha [Google Scholar]
  37. Stede, Manfred
    2008 RST revisited: Disentangling nuclearity. InSubordination verses Coordination in sentence and text – from a cross-linguistic perspective, Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen & Wiebke Ramm (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 33–58. 10.1075/slcs.98.03ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.98.03ste [Google Scholar]
  38. Swales, John M.
    1990Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 2004Research genres: Explorations and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524827
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524827 [Google Scholar]
  40. Swales, John M. & Christine B. Feak
    2012Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (3rd ed). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 10.3998/mpub.2173936
    https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.2173936 [Google Scholar]
  41. Taboada, Maite
    2006 Discourse markers as signals (or not) of rhetorical relations. Journal of pragmatics38 (4): 567–592. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.010 [Google Scholar]
  42. Taboada, Maite & Julia Lavid
    2003 Rhetorical and thematic patterns in scheduling dialogues: A generic characterization. Functions of Language10 (2): 147–178. 10.1075/fol.10.2.02tab
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.10.2.02tab [Google Scholar]
  43. Tardy, Christine M.
    2005 “It’s like a story”: Rhetorical knowledge development in advanced academic literacy. Journal of English for Academic Purposes4 (4): 325–338. 10.1016/j.jeap.2005.07.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2005.07.005 [Google Scholar]
  44. Yang, Ruiying & Desmond Allison
    2003 Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes22 (4): 365–385. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(02)00026‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00026-1 [Google Scholar]
  45. T1. Altenberg, Bengt & Sylviane Granger 2001 The grammatical and lexical patterning of MAKE in Native and Non-native student writing. Applied Linguistics22 (2): 173–195. 10.1093/applin/22.2.173
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.2.173 [Google Scholar]
  46. T2. Bunton, David 2005 The structure of PhD conclusion chapters. Journal of English for Academic Purposes4: 207–224. 10.1016/j.jeap.2005.03.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2005.03.004 [Google Scholar]
  47. T3. Hinkel, Eli 1997 Indirectness in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics27 (3): 361–386. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(96)00040‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00040-9 [Google Scholar]
  48. T4. Mauranen, Anna 1993 Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes12 (1): 3–22. 10.1016/0889‑4906(93)90024‑I
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(93)90024-I [Google Scholar]
  49. T5. McNabb, Richard 2001 Making the gesture: Graduate student submissions and the expectation of journal referees. Composition Studies29 (1): 9–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. T6. Paltridge, Brian 2002 Thesis and dissertation writing: An examination of published advice and actual practice. English for Specific Purposes21 (2): 125–143. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(00)00025‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00025-9 [Google Scholar]
  51. T7. Samraj, Betty 2005 An exploration of a genre set: Research article abstracts and introductions in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes24 (2): 141–156. 10.1016/j.esp.2002.10.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2002.10.001 [Google Scholar]
  52. T8. Starfield, Sue & Louise J. Ravelli 2006 “The writing this thesis was a process that I could not explore with the positivistic detachment of the classical sociologist”: Self and structure in New Humanities research theses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes5 (3): 222–243. 10.1016/j.jeap.2006.07.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.07.004 [Google Scholar]
  53. T9. Thompson, Greg 2001 Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics22 (1): 58–78. 10.1093/applin/22.1.58
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.58 [Google Scholar]
  54. T10. Yang, Hui-Chun & Lia Plakans 2012 Second language writers’ strategy use and performance on an integrated reading-listening-writing task. TESOL Quarterly46 (1): 80–103. 10.1002/tesq.6
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.6 [Google Scholar]
  55. T11. Van Bonn, Sarah & John M. Swales 2007 English and French journal abstracts in the language sciences: Three exploratory studies. Journal of English for Academic Purposes6 (2): 93–108. 10.1016/j.jeap.2007.04.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2007.04.001 [Google Scholar]
  56. T12. Bruce, Ian 2009 Results section in sociology and chemistry articles: A genre analysis. English for Specific Purposes28 (2): 105–124. 10.1016/j.esp.2008.12.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2008.12.005 [Google Scholar]
  57. T13. Holmes, Richard 1997 Genre analysis, and the social sciences: An investigation of the structure of research article discussion sections in three disciplines. English for Specific Purposes16 (4): 321–337. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(96)00038‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(96)00038-5 [Google Scholar]
  58. T14. Martínez, Iliana A. 2006 Native and non-native writers’ use of first person pronouns in the different sections of biology research articles in English. Journal of Second Language Writing14 (3): 174–190. 10.1016/j.jslw.2005.06.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.06.001 [Google Scholar]
  59. T15. Nwogu, Kevin N. 1997 The medical research paper: Structure and functions. English for Specific Purposes16 (2): 119–138. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(97)85388‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)85388-4 [Google Scholar]
  60. T16. Posteguillo, Santiago 1999 The schematic structure of computer science research articles. English for Specific purposes18 (2): 139–160. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(98)00001‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(98)00001-5 [Google Scholar]
  61. T17. Tardy, Christine M. 2005 “It’s like a story”: Rhetorical knowledge development in advanced academic literacy. Journal of English for Academic Purposes4 (4): 325–338. 10.1016/j.jeap.2005.07.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2005.07.005 [Google Scholar]
  62. T18. Valero-Garcés, Carmen 1996 Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Spanish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes15 (4): 279–294. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(96)00013‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(96)00013-0 [Google Scholar]
  63. T19. Chang, Ching-Fen & Chih-Hua Kuo 2011 A corpus-based approach to online materials development for writing research articles. English for Specific Purposes30 (3): 222–234. 10.1016/j.esp.2011.04.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.04.001 [Google Scholar]
  64. T20. Taboada, Maite 2006 Discourse markers as signals (or not) of rhetorical relations. Journal of Pragmatics38 (4): 567–592. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.010 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error