1887
image of Move combinations in the conclusion section of applied linguistics research articles
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Genre analyses of research articles (RAs) have identified types of communicative purposes or moves achieved in different sections. However, very few studies have explored why moves are sequenced in specific manners. This study examines how writers relate moves to be coherent in the conclusion section of fifty applied linguistics RAs. The analysis shows that the writers achieved different types of moves in a relational manner for specific rhetorical intentions. The majority presented a summary of the study or previous research trends as background information to guide readers to acknowledge the significance of the study or the findings they later indicated. Some writers drew implications from findings of their studies they presented earlier to demonstrate the usefulness of the findings. Others provided recommendations for future studies based on the limitations of their studies that they indicated earlier to draw readers’ attention away from the limitations as potential weaknesses.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.22070.kaw
2024-01-09
2024-12-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abdollahzadeh, Esmaeel
    2011 “Poring over the Findings: Interpersonal Authorial Engagement in Applied Linguistics Papers.” Journal of Pragmatics (): –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.019
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.019 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bublitz, Wolfram
    1999 “Introduction: Views of Coherence.” InCoherence in Spoken and Written Discourse: How to Create It and How to Describe It, ed. byWolfram Bublitz, Uta Lenk, and Eija Ventola, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.63.03bub
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.63.03bub [Google Scholar]
  3. Candlin, Christopher, Guenter Plum, Sue Spinks, and National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research
    1998Researching Academic Literacies. Sydney: Macquarie University.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Deng, Liming, and Jing Liu
    2023 “Move–Bundle Connection in Conclusion Sections of Research Articles across Disciplines.” Applied Linguistics (): –. 10.1093/applin/amac040
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amac040 [Google Scholar]
  5. Gruber, Helmut, and Peter Muntigl
    2005 “Generic and Rhetorical Structures of Texts: Two Sides of the Same Coin?” Folia Linguistica (): –. 10.1515/flin.2005.39.1‑2.75
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2005.39.1-2.75 [Google Scholar]
  6. Gruber, Helmut
    2006 “Rhetorical Structure Theory and Quality Assessment of Students’ Texts.” Information Design Journal (): –. 10.1075/idj.14.2.04gru
    https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.14.2.04gru [Google Scholar]
  7. Hyland, Ken
    2003 “Genre-Based Pedagogies: A Social Response to Process.” Journal of Second Language Writing (): –. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(02)00124‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00124-8 [Google Scholar]
  8. Kawase, Tomoyuki
    2019 “Coherence Relations in Research Article Discussions: How Are Sentences Organised to Realise Genre Moves?” English Text Construction (): –. 10.1075/etc.00028.kaw
    https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.00028.kaw [Google Scholar]
  9. 2022 “How Do Applied Linguistics Researchers Structure Coherence Relations in the Process of Establishing a Niche for Their Research?” Text & Talk (): –. 10.1515/text‑2019‑0302
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2019-0302 [Google Scholar]
  10. Kong, Kenneth C.
    1998 “Are Simple Business Request Letters Really Simple? A Comparison of Chinese and English Business Request Letters.” Text (): –. 10.1515/text.1.1998.18.1.103
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1998.18.1.103 [Google Scholar]
  11. Lautamatti, Lisa
    1990 “Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse.” InCoherence in Writing: Research and Pedagogical Perspectives, ed. byUlla Connor, and Ann M. Johns, –. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Lewin, Beverly, Jonathan Fine, and Lynne Young
    2001Expository Discourse. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Lillis, Theresa, and Mary Jane Curry
    2015 “The Politics of English, Language and Uptake: The Case of International Academic Journal Article Reviews.” AILA Review (): –. 10.1075/aila.28.06lil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.28.06lil [Google Scholar]
  14. Lim, Jason Miin-Hwa
    2012 “How Do Writers Establish Research Niches? A Genre-Based Investigation into Management Researchers’ Rhetorical Steps and Linguistic Mechanisms.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes (): –. 10.1016/j.jeap.2012.05.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  15. Lin, Ling, and Stephen Evans
    2012 “Structural Patterns in Empirical Research Articles: A Cross-Disciplinary Study.” English for Specific Purposes (): –. 10.1016/j.esp.2011.10.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.10.002 [Google Scholar]
  16. Loi, Chek-Kim, Jason Miin-Hwa Lim, and Sue Wharton
    2016 “Expressing an Evaluative Stance in English and Malay Research Article Conclusions: International Publications versus Local Publications.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes: –. 10.1016/j.jeap.2015.08.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.08.004 [Google Scholar]
  17. Mann, William C., and Maite Taboada
    2023The RST Site: Relation Definitions. https://www.sfu.ca/rst/01intro/definitions.html
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Mann, William C., and Sandra A. Thompson
    1988 “Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization.” Text (): –. 10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243 [Google Scholar]
  19. Mann, William C., Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen, and Sandra A. Thompson
    1992 “Rhetorical Structure Theory and Text Analysis.” InDiscourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text, ed. byWilliam C. Mann, and Sandra A. Thompson, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.16.04man
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.16.04man [Google Scholar]
  20. McCagg, Peter
    1990 “Toward Understanding Coherence: A Response Proposition Taxonomy.” InCoherence in Writing: Research and Pedagogical Perspectives, ed. byUlla Connor, and Ann M. Johns, –. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Moreno, Ana I.
    2022 “An Intercultural Approach to ‘Bad News’ Reporting as an Embedded Part-Genre.” Ibérica: –. 10.17398/2340‑2784.44.101
    https://doi.org/10.17398/2340-2784.44.101 [Google Scholar]
  22. Nwogu, Kevin N.
    1997 “The Medical Research Paper: Structure and Functions.” English for Specific Purposes (): –. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(97)85388‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)85388-4 [Google Scholar]
  23. O’Brien, Teresa
    1995 “Rhetorical Structure Analysis and the Case of the Inaccurate, Incoherent Source-Hopper.” Applied Linguistics (): –. 10.1093/applin/16.4.442
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.4.442 [Google Scholar]
  24. O’Donnell, Mike
    2002RST Tool – An RST Markup Tool. Retrieved fromwww.wagsoft.com/RSTTool/
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Östman, Jan-Ola
    1999 “Coherence through Understanding through Discourse Patterns: Focus on News Reports.” InCoherence in Spoken and Written Discourse: How to Create It and How to Describe It, ed. byWolfram Bublitz, Uta Lenk, and Eija Ventola, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.63.08ost
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.63.08ost [Google Scholar]
  26. Peacock, Matthew
    2002 “Communicative Moves in the Discussion Section of Research Articles.” System (): –. 10.1016/S0346‑251X(02)00050‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00050-7 [Google Scholar]
  27. Posteguillo, Santiago
    1999 “The Schematic Structure of Computer Science Research Articles.” English for Specific Purposes (): –. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(98)00001‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(98)00001-5 [Google Scholar]
  28. Redeker, Gisela, and Helmut Gruber
    2014 “Introduction: The Pragmatics of Discourse Coherence.” InThe Pragmatics of Discourse Coherence, ed. byHelmut Gruber, and Gisela Redeker, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.254.01red
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.254.01red [Google Scholar]
  29. Redeker, Gisela
    2000 “Coherence and Structure in Text and Discourse.” InAbduction, Belief, and Context in Dialogue: Studies in Computational Pragmatics, ed. byHarry Bunt, and William Black, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/nlp.1.06red
    https://doi.org/10.1075/nlp.1.06red [Google Scholar]
  30. Skoufaki, Sophia
    2020 “Rhetorical Structure Theory and Coherence Break Identification.” Text & Talk (): –. 10.1515/text‑2019‑2050
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2019-2050 [Google Scholar]
  31. Swales, John. M.
    1990Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Swales, John. M., and Christine B. Feak
    2012Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Tasks and Skills, 3rd edn. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 10.3998/mpub.2173936
    https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.2173936 [Google Scholar]
  33. Taboada, Maite, and Julia Lavid
    2003 “Rhetorical and Thematic Patterns in Scheduling Dialogues: A Generic Characterization.” Functions of Language (): –. 10.1075/fol.10.2.02tab
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.10.2.02tab [Google Scholar]
  34. Yang, Ruiying, and Desmond Allison
    2003 “Research Articles in Applied Linguistics: Moving from Results to Conclusions.” English for Specific Purposes (): –. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(02)00026‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00026-1 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.22070.kaw
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.22070.kaw
Loading

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