- Email: [email protected]
Research articles in applied linguistics: structures from a functional perspective
ENGLISH FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES
English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004) 264–279
www.elsevier.com/locate/esp
Research articles in applied linguistics: structures from a functional perspective q Yang Ruiying, Desmond Allison
*
Department of English Language and Literature, FASS Block AS5, 7 Arts Link, National University of Singapore, 117570, Singapore
Abstract This paper presents the main lines of a genre analysis of the macro-structures of research articles (RAs) in applied linguistics, an area that deserves more attention both for pedagogic and research reasons. The analysis is based upon a detailed study of a corpus of 40 RAs, selected as random sets of 10 drawn from four leading journals in the mid-1990s. Half the corpus proved to consist of primary RAs of various kinds, while half comprised secondary research. Our findings for primary RAs in our corpus show how they both draw upon and vary from the conventional ÔIntroduction – Method – Results – DiscussionÕ (IMRD) framework. We describe the realizations of IMRD and other optional elements in our analyses, and examine some complexities resulting from differences in the use of section headings and in the apparent conceptualization of the function of some sections. For secondary RAs, largely neglected in previous research, we present an initial macro-structural account, i.e. Introduction – Argumentation – Conclusion, and briefly comment on the internal structuring of central Argumentation sections, which reflects differences in the overall communicative purposes of secondary RAs. Ó 2003 The American University. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction The importance of genre knowledge in helping language learners to understand and master academic, professional or educational discourse has been widely acq The article is co-authored equally. The account draws upon Yang’s (2001) doctoral research, supervised by Allison. * Corresponding author. Tel.: +65-6874-6039. E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Allison).
0889-4906/$30.00 Ó 2003 The American University. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0889-4906(03)00005-X
Y. Ruiying, D. Allison / English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004) 264–279
265
knowledged for more than a decade, regardless of the perspectives adopted (e.g. Berkenkotter & Huckin, 1995; Bhatia, 1993; Swales, 1990; Williams & Hasan, 1996). Genre is a class of communicative events, in which language plays a primary role (Swales, 1990). Genre analysis explores discourse features in the broad context of the communicative event, and attempts to provide the rationale of the discourse features in terms of authors’ publicly retrievable intentions and institutional conventions. Hyon (1996) identifies three main traditions in contemporary genre studies, which we see as complementary, rather than competing approaches: ESP genre analyses, New Rhetoric studies, and a distinctive Australian approach that draws extensively on systemic functional linguistics. Our present work is situated within the first of these traditions. This is partly because a focus on text organization remains very useful pedagogically, and partly because we are working with a relatively large number of extensive texts, a factor that tends to constrain other possibilities (Swales, 1993). Within ESP genre analyses, prior studies can be further summarized into two groups according to differences in focus. One group of studies is on the structure of research articles (RAs), dissertations or other professional writings (examples among many are Bhatia, 1993; Holmes, 1997; Nwogu, 1997; Swales, 1990), the other is on particular features of RAs, such as the use of hedging, modality and reporting verbs (examples include Hyland, 2000; Salager-Meyer, 1994). In both approaches, RAs in the field of science and engineering (e.g. Swales, 1990, and extensive references therein; also Hunston, 1993; Hyland, 1996; Myers, 1996; Nwogu, 1997; SalagerMeyer, 1994, etc.) have received most attention. RAs in the field of social sciences, especially applied linguistics, remain under-explored despite some recent studies (Brett, 1994; Holmes, 1997; Hyland, 1999, 2000; Paltridge, 2001; Thetela, 1997). This paper will focus on the description and understanding of macro-structural organization in RAs in the discipline of applied linguistics. We see this as worth reporting as it deals with fundamental, purposeful organization within the genre. A more in-depth micro-structural analysis of selected sections in primary RAs (reporting empirical research) appears in the course of Yang and Allison (in press). There is by now a well-established tradition in RA genre analysis of working from a broad ÔIntroduction–Method–Results–DiscussionÕ (IMRD) macro-structure (Swales, 1990) that has proved to be quite robust but not, of course, wholly without problems. We draw upon the IMRD framework in our analyses of primary RAs. We offer another initial framework for secondary RAs in applied linguistics (academic discussions that do not centrally report an empirical research study), and point to possibilities for further research in this area. Our study will show (not for the first time) that established categories like IMRD cannot be taken for granted, and there can be problems (often unreported, partly for reasons of space) for analysts of macro-structure to account for specific features of individual RAs because a section heading is not always explicit about the rhetorical function of a section and there are also differences in authors’ uses of even conventional headings in the RAs in our corpus. This paper will report findings about the RA macro-structures across the four journals. To illustrate the process of analysis, we will comment selectively upon parameters affecting our interpretations and category assignments, notably the section headings, the author’s explicit or
266
Y. Ruiying, D. Allison / English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004) 264–279
otherwise apparent intentions, disciplinary conventions, textual context and the targeted audience of the journals. 2. The corpus Four established journals of applied linguistics were selected for our study, namely Applied Linguistics (APP), TESOL Quarterly (TESOL), English for Specific Purposes (ESP) and English Language Teaching Journal (ELT). As applied linguistics is a diverse and contested area, we must specify that we have retained a focus on applied linguistics in relation to (English) language teaching. (We would look forward to future work on other journals in applied linguistics.) In making our selection, we considered topic coverage and targeted readers, obtained from the guidelines for contributors. We also took note of estimates of prestige and readability. In one relevant study for 1996, APP ranks the highest in terms of prestige, followed by TESOL, ESP and ELT; while APP is the most difficult in terms of readability, with TESOL and ESP in the middle, ELT is the easiest (Sharp, 1996; further details are available from the authors). The status of ELT arguably differs from the other three journals because of its greater emphasis on teaching. More generally, we have tried to keep in mind that structural differences in the data may reflect characteristics of particular journals. The 1996 and 1997 issues of each journal were chosen, these being the most recent issues at the commencement of the project. Using Brown’s (1988) stratified random sample strategy, 10 RAs from each journal were selected, yielding four samples: APP, TESOL, ESP and ELT. Thus, the total corpus for this research consists of 40 RAs (see Appendix A). Our data were randomly selected from all the items under the ‘‘Articles’’ category of the four journals, instead of being confined to any one type. We followed Brown’s (1988) conceptualization of research in applied linguistics, as comprising both primary and secondary studies. Primary research involves investigation of original data of various kinds, such as experimental articles, case studies, surveys and other forms of descriptive and qualitative research. Secondary research studies critically review trends in the research and professional literatures, and synthesize research carried out by others. Therefore, the corpus potentially consists of all types of RAs in applied linguistics. In contrast, most previous genre analyses of RAs focus on experimental articles only (e.g. Bazerman, 1988; Berkenkotter & Huckin, 1995; Hunston, 1993; Nwogu, 1997; Posteguillo, 1999). Our corpus has, therefore, the advantage of investigating the RA genre throughout the discipline of applied linguistics; however, its diversity also entails that the results of analyses might at times be idiosyncratic and lacking in uniformity. 3. Method of analysis The notion of communicative purpose is central for analyses of both RA macrostructure and microstructure. There are cases, however, where the communicative purpose of a unit of text is not self-evident (Askehave & Swales, 2001), or where it
Y. Ruiying, D. Allison / English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004) 264–279
267
has multiple functions in the context. The common practice is to analyze it according to the most salient function (Holmes, 1997). This procedure involves a certain degree of subjectivity, which we accept for the purpose. We see genre analysis as a form of textual interpretation, or event interpretation, that is strongly grounded in descriptive evidence though not wholly determined by it. An ideal methodology of genre analysis should involve text analysis and writer response data as well, but the feasibility of the latter is usually low, and does not eliminate the need for interpretation. Within its known limits, text analysis still offers a systematically informed, useful and practical approach to the investigation and understanding of genre. In order to minimize the risk of arbitrariness, we randomly selected a subset of 14 RAs from our corpus for further validation purposes. Seven of these were analyzed by a second rater, whose MA research project (supervised by the first author) is a genre analysis of RA abstracts in engineering, but who was not otherwise associated with our project. The first author gave the second rater a training of about 212 hours, after which she worked independently on the data. The resulting macro-structural analysis was consistent with the original, except for one case where the second rater analyzed the Theoretical Basis section in ESP 3 (a secondary RA with section headings that are not rhetorically explicit) as part of the Argumentation. There were some more detailed differences at the level of microstructure (outside the scope of this paper). The remaining seven RAs were re-analyzed by the first author, after an interval of about 2 years. Re-analysis at the level of macro-structure yielded no difference to the original analysis. The macro-organization of primary RAs is analyzed with reference to the widely reported Introduction–Methods–Results–Discussion (IMRD) framework (e.g. Brett, 1994; Holmes, 1997; Stanley, 1984; Swales, 1990). This framework is generally selfexplanatory. Methodologically, care was taken not to impose the IMRD framework on data, but simply to use it as a possible descriptive reference. The section headings and subheadings, the names that RA authors give to a section, offer important insight for the analysis of the macro-structure; however, there are many cases where the rhetorical functions of section headings and subheadings are not explicit on their own, and some cases where there is a tension between observed section boundaries and discernible rhetorical functions. In such cases, the macro-structure – the division of sections – is identified by using metatextual signals in the surrounding context as well as by analyzing the function of a section in the light of the overall purpose of the RAs. Analysis of the content included is also carried out as further validation of the function of a section (compare Swales, 1990, pp. 55, 58). We now present and discuss the macro-structures of the RAs in the samples from four applied linguistics journals. This requires separate consideration of articles reporting primary studies and those reporting secondary studies as these two types of RAs differ markedly in overall structure. Finally, to avoid possible confusion, a note is needed about how we distinguish the analysis categories of the different sections of RA macro-structure from the specific section headings and subheadings. The analysis category is presented with the initial letter of each word capitalized, the word ÔsectionÕ is sometimes omitted such as Method, which refers to the Method section; the actual heading is presented in quotation marks.
268
Y. Ruiying, D. Allison / English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004) 264–279
4. The macro-structure of primary RAs As a coincidental outcome of random sampling of 10 articles per journal, half of the corpus (20 of the 40 RAs) consisted of primary research (this section), and half of secondary research (next section). These numbers include one generally discursive article that reported an empirical study as an illustrative example within a single section. We took this article to be a secondary RA, but the case does evoke the possibility of more hybrid forms. There were no other problems for the initial primary/secondary categorization. Table 1 shows the frequency of section occurrences across the 20 primary RAs in the four journals: APP, TESOL, ESP, and ELT. All the RAs share three sections, Introduction, Method and Results (including sections entitled ‘‘Results and Discussion’’), and they close with one of the following sections, Discussion, Conclusion or Pedagogic Implication. [We elaborate on the closure of primary RAs in Yang and Allison (in press), where we explain our reasons for counting Results and Discussions sections as a variant form of Results.] As possible variations at the macro level, separate sections for Theoretical Basis, Literature Review, and Research Questions may occur between Introduction and Method sections, although their likelihood of occurrence differs across journals. The macro-structure of primary APP RAs shows some deviation from the standard IMRD framework, in that three of the five RAs include a separate Theoretical Basis section. The emphasis on theory as reflected in the macro-structure may be due to the journal’s interest in articles that handle problems in principled ways by reference to theories (Notes to contributors, 1997). It could also be related to the lack of widely accepted consensus on some theories or concepts in the discipline. For example, each of the three Theoretical Basis sections in this sample explicates and discusses more than one theory in relation to the relevant study. In addition, it is possible for APP primary RAs to display variations from IMRD in the closing sections. Two out of the five include a separate Pedagogic Implication section.
Table 1 Macro-structure of primary RAs (20) across journalsa Sections
APP (n ¼ 5)
TESOL (n ¼ 6)
ESP (n ¼ 6)
ELT (n ¼ 3)
Total (%) (n ¼ 20)
Introduction Theoretical Basis Literature Review Research Questions/Focus Method Results Discussion Conclusion Pedagogic Implication
5 3 1 1 5 5 3 3 2
6 – 4 2 6 6 1 6 1
6 2 – – 6 6 4 1 2
3 – – – 3 3 – 3 1
20 (100) 5 (25) 5 (25) 3 (15) 20 (100) 20 (100) 8 (40) 13 (65) 6 (30)
a Optional sections other than IMRD are presented in italics. The same code is adopted in Tables 2 and 3.
Y. Ruiying, D. Allison / English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004) 264–279
269
The macro-structure of TESOL primary RAs, in addition to the sections in common, is likely to have a separate Literature Review section (four instances out of six). The separate status of Literature Review section assumes more importance than the corresponding element in the Introduction as it appears as an independent stage with a separate heading (and is usually longer). This feature probably reflects the journal’s emphasis on drawing on relevant research in the field (Information for Contributors), and could also arise in response to the perceived requirements of a specific research topic. For example, the topic of TESOL5 is ÔCulture, Literacy, and L2 ReadingÕ. It has a lengthy review of research into cultural differences and learning styles and strategies. Another prominent feature is the fairly high occurrence of a ‘‘Results and Discussion’’ section (three instances) and the relative scarcity of Discussion sections (one instance). The consistent appearance of a Conclusion section (all six RAs), as for the omission of the term ÔIntroductionÕ, appears to be a consequence of the APA style sheet that TESOL recommends to contributors. There is only one TESOL RA with a separate Pedagogic Implication section; we found that such information tends to be included in Conclusion sections in these RAs. The APA manual specifically encourages RAs to close with a Conclusion section. The other journals from which our data were drawn do not have so precise a specification about macro-structure. ESP primary RAs are closest to the standard form of the IMRD structure, although added possibilities are a separate Theoretical Basis after the Introduction, and a Pedagogic Implication section towards the end. Four out of six ESP primary RAs end with a Discussion section, the highest in terms of occurrence in the four journal samples. We note that English for Specific Purposes has been the major journal publishing RAs on genre studies, and the RA genre of various disciplines has been the topic of many studies published in this journal. (The randomly selected set of ten ESP RAs in our study included four RAs investigating various aspects of the RA genre.) While we should not read too much into outcomes from small samples, it seems plausible that ESP authors’ awareness of the widely accepted IMRD structure could encourage them to use this structure to organize their own RAs. The three primary RAs in the ELT sample display a clear macro-structure of IMRC – Introduction, Method, Results and Conclusion – with the possibility open for a Pedagogic Implication section. (Pedagogic implications are generally important in ELTJ, but do not necessarily occur as a separate section.) Theoretical Basis and Literature Review do not occur as separate sections in the ELT sample, probably because the three articles all deal with practical issues. This may also reflect an orientation towards the targeted readers as principally language teachers rather than researchers on language. Space constraints could be another factor. In these analyses of the RA macro-structure, the original section headings and the typographical division of the RAs into sections serve as important indications of the macro-structure. However, there are no unified section headings. The IMRD framework does not entail that all the RAs have such section headings. This feature, on one hand, reflects the fact that RAs have individual organizational characteristics; on the other hand, it indicates that RA macro-structure is not always transparent and fixed. Most of these 20 primary RAs begin with the explicit conventional
270
Y. Ruiying, D. Allison / English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004) 264–279
heading ‘‘Introduction’’ except for the five TESOL RAs (due to journal policy). The other sections can exhibit any of these three types of section headings: conventional (IMRD), varied (different from the conventional, but still indicating the function of the section, such as ‘‘Experimental Design’’ to indicate a Method section in APP10), and content (such as ‘‘The Two Models’’ in APP3 which is the heading of the Theoretical Basis section). Table 2 displays some examples of the variety of section headings and subheadings. It can be seen that one section with the heading ‘‘Theoretical Background’’ (the original was in upper case) is categorized as a Literature Review section. This is because it is actually a review of previous research as is shown by the subheading. The rhetorical functions of these types of varied and content headings are less straightforward, and they could pose difficulties for novices. There are other cases where a section has a conventional heading, but the communicative purpose of the section proves to differ from that of other RA sections with the same heading. For example, ELT8 has three parallel section headings before
Table 2 Examples of unconventional RA section headings Conventional section headings
Unconventional section headings
Introduction Theoretical Basis
Context Theoretical framework: contrastive pragmatics Language theory; Discourse theory; Notion of genrea The study Previous work on compliment responses Background Previous research Theoretical Backgroundb Previous EAP surveys related to academic aural/ oral requirements Experimental design The present study Research method Settings and subjects Findings Results and Discussion (5 occurrences)
Literature Review
Method
Results
Discussion Conclusion Pedagogic Implication a b
Varied section headings
Substantive findings Concluding remarks Implications for engineering writing and engineering writing research
Indicates parallel section headings. Indicates the main section heading, which includes subheadings.
Content section headings The two models
L2 reading strategies Degree of phonologycenteredness Process-oriented categories Metatext in English and Spanish economics texts The lecturer; The lecture Cultural contexts Limitations of the study Focus on second language learners
Y. Ruiying, D. Allison / English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004) 264–279
271
the Method section. They are ‘‘Introduction’’, ‘‘Learning to write by writing to learn’’, and ‘‘Using a process approach to the writing of mainstream assignments’’. Under the section headed ‘‘Introduction’’, there are only two Moves ÔEstablishing the territoryÕ and ÔEstablishing the nicheÕ; the study itself is not introduced until the section under the third heading. In our analysis of ELT8, the texts under all three headings are grouped as the Introduction section according to the widely accepted function of this section (Bhatia, 1993; Swales, 1990). As our study did not provide for follow-up interviews with RA authors, the remarks that follow are speculative. It is possible that the author of ELT8 does not share the conventional view that an RA Introduction section should include the announcement of the study, but takes it instead to provide only initial background. An alternative is that the author does conceive of the first three sections as introductory, but uses the additional section headings to provide extra content guidance to readers. In the latter case, it might have been clearer to provide subheadings at a lower level by using a different font. Thus, in the analysis of the RA macro-structure, understanding of the function of a particular section in the context of the whole RA is ultimately important. For instance, APP6 is divided into eight sections by the authors (see Table 3). The sections entitled ‘‘Compliment Responses’’ and ‘‘Limitations of the study’’ pose problems for analysis. In APP6, compliment responses are the type of data being studied. The authors mention this briefly at the end of the Introduction section: ‘‘In this paper, we report on a study of Syrian Arabic speakers’ and American English speakers’ verbal responses to compliments.’’ As shown in Table 3, after the Introduction section, the authors deal with the theoretical basis of the study, i.e. contrastive pragmatics, which includes a definition of pragmatic knowledge and competence, and analysis of the reasons of pragmatic failure. Then they include a section entitled ‘‘Compliment Responses’’, which justifies the selection of Table 3 The section headings and subheadings of App 6 Macro structure Functional labels
Method
Section headings in the text (originals were all in upper case) 1. Introduction 2. Theoretical Framework: Contrastive Pragmatics 3. Compliment Responses 4. Previous Work on Compliment Responses 5. The Present Study
Results
6. Results and Discussion
Conclusion Pedagogic Implication
7. Limitations of the Study 8. Focus on Second Language Learners
Introduction Theoretical Basis Research Focus Literature Review
Subheadings
5.1 Method of data collection 5.2 Analysis 6.1 Compliment response types: US English data 6.2 Compliment responses: gender of US recipients
272
Y. Ruiying, D. Allison / English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004) 264–279
compliment responses as the type of data for their study and proposes a definition of it. Such information on data might alternatively and conventionally have been placed early in the Method section. If that had been done, however, the article would have lacked a clear transition between its present broadly conceived theoretical basis section and its Literature Review section on compliment responses, which could have risked leaving readers with a sense of incoherence. Therefore, it appears that the ‘‘Compliment Responses’’ section in APP6 serves as the basis for the Literature Review Section. In addition, the intention of the authors in constructing a separate section of ‘‘Compliment Responses’’ is probably to emphasize the focus and the originality of the study, as they claim that few studies have investigated compliment responses and even fewer have had data in an Arabicspeaking country. We eventually analyzed this section as Research Focus, which is an individual feature of this particular RA. Section 7 in APP6 is ‘‘Limitations of the Study’’. This element is usually found as one part of the Discussion or Conclusion sections in other RAs in our corpus. In Nwogu (1997), it is found in the Discussion section. But in the particular context of APP6, it is more appropriate to analyze this element as the Conclusion section because the preceding section is the ‘‘Results and Discussion’’, although we admit that the section is much narrower in scope than the other Conclusion sections in our corpus. Overall, and from comparison with earlier research, it seems sensible to accept that most primary RAs in medicine, sociology, political science and applied linguistics broadly reflect major aspects of the IMRD macro-structure (Brett, 1994; Holmes, 1997; Nwogu, 1997), but to add that, at least for RAs in applied linguistics, there is also a need for a fuller and more flexible account, which can further explore writer’s choices and show the scope for other fairly common sections. The three sections that can occur between Introduction and Method are comparable to the findings of Holmes (1997) on sociology and political science RAs. He reported the existence of an extensive section dealing with theoretical background, previous literature and general topical information after the Introduction section in political science and sociology RAs. This could possibly be considered as a structural feature shared by social science RAs (but not RAs in history, as Holmes observes). The occurrence of a separate Pedagogic Implication section in six instances out of 20 in the corpus, and in all four journals, represents another noteworthy feature of the discipline of applied linguistics. There is almost no report of the range of section headings in previous research except Berkenkotter and Huckin (1995). They find that there is a greater frequency of informative subheadings in their longitudinal study of journal articles ranging from 1944 to 1989, especially for announcing specific results. Our study also finds that the Results section is rather likely to have RA specific content headings in relation to the conventional IMRD framework, i.e. eight content headings for the Results section in comparison to five for Method and one each for the Introduction and Discussion sections. So far, we have focused on the discussion of the process of analysis of the macrostructure of primary RAs with illustrative examples. The analysis shows that understanding RA macro-structure is not as easy as might initially appear, because of
Y. Ruiying, D. Allison / English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004) 264–279
273
differences in the use of section headings and in RA authors’ understandings and choices of the function of particular sections.
5. The macro-structure of secondary RAs There are altogether 20 secondary RAs across the four journals, just a half of the total RAs in our corpus. ELT is slightly over-represented with seven out of 10 cases, while other journals feature four or five out of 10 cases. As shown in Table 4, they all share three sections: Introduction, Argumentation, and Conclusion. Introduction and Conclusion are readily identifiable in most secondary RAs, but we again encountered the problem of section demarcation, especially the Introduction and Argumentation section. ÔArgumentationÕ is an umbrella term to name the section usually comprising several subtitled sections that make up the overall argument. Theoretical Basis (two cases, both in ESP) and Pedagogic Implication/Application sections (two cases, both in APP) are optional sections. There is one occurrence of Pedagogic Implication and one of Pedagogic Application, and both occur before a Conclusion. (In contrast, in five out of the six primary RAs with a Pedagogic Implication section, this section was located finally, including three following a Conclusion section.) The problem that we encountered in the analysis of the Introduction in ELT8 (discussed above) also occurred in the analysis of secondary RAs. There was difficulty to decide where to draw the line for the Introductions in four (four out of 20) RAs in TESOL and ELT samples. In these cases, the section boundary indicated in the RA seems to leave the Introduction incomplete if we perceive that the main purpose of an RA Introduction is to ‘‘introduce’’ the present research that the author will report. For example, TESOL2 is a secondary RA aiming to provide solutions to an existing problem in teacher training programmes. The first paragraph begins with the statement that teachers’ roles have changed from those merely carrying out teaching methodologies in classrooms to ‘‘autonomous experts with the knowledge, experience, and intuitions to make informed decisions about what should happen in their classrooms’’ (TESOL2: 113). This portion of text functions to generalize the topic,
Table 4 Macro-structure of secondary RAs across journalsa Sections
APP (n ¼ 5)
TESOL (n ¼ 4)
ESP (n ¼ 4)
ELT (n ¼ 7)
Total (%) (n ¼ 20)
Introduction Theoretical Basis Argumentation Pedagogic Implication/Application Conclusion
5 – 5 2 5
4 – 4 – 4
4 2 4 – 4
7 – 7 – 7
20 (100) 2 (10) 20 (100) 2 (10) 20 (100)
a
The optional sections are presented in italics.
274
Y. Ruiying, D. Allison / English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004) 264–279
i.e. ÔMaking topic generalizationÕ in Swales’ (1990) CARS model. Then the second paragraph states that relevant change is needed in teacher education as a consequence of teachers’ new roles. It suggests that teacher education programmes should develop a wider disciplinary base, which implies that current programmes are based on a too narrow basis. The function of this stretch of text is to establish a niche by gap-indication. The authors of TESOL2 seem to treat these two paragraphs together as an Introduction, because the text after paragraph 2 is signaled with section headings and subheadings. However, at the end of the first two paragraphs, readers still do not know what the authors intend to do explicitly, although they may anticipate that the authors will probably propose that teacher education programmes should have a wider disciplinary base. The first four headings in TESOL2 are ‘‘The Goals of Teacher Education Programs’’; ‘‘Learning Teaching’’; ‘‘What’s Missing From This Picture?’’ (Indicating a gap); and ‘‘Why Should Adult Learners be Involved in Teacher Education?’’ It can be clearly seen that the proposed research is only given under this fourth heading, which could be a reason to include all these opening sections as the Introduction within an IMRD account. Nonetheless, it appears counterintuitive and unhelpful to take this entire extended portion of text as the Introduction section because that would break the unity of the main argument. The argument consists of a part arguing for the existence of a problem and a part offering solutions. So finally, taking into consideration the particular topic and the textual context, we decided to consider the first two paragraphs only as the Introduction, although this section does not fulfill the function of a conventional Introduction. The other three cases in our corpus pose similar problems for the analysis. Examples of this kind show that even broad initial analyses of secondary RA macro-structure can be complicated due to differences in RA authors’ conceptualization of the communicative purposes of the Introduction section and by the individual characteristics of a particular topic. We now turn to the central Argumentation section. The ‘‘Argumentation’’ section, a term we choose to cover the main body of the secondary RA text, is largely signaled by content headings. The overall purpose of the main section is to convince the readers of the author’s point of view, which can encompass views on a series of theoretical issues, a pedagogic approach, or a solution to a particular problem. In addition, in this portion of the text, there is frequent occurrence of the word ÔargueÕ or ÔargumentÕ in the metatextual discourse, which supports our naming of the section. For example: What I wish to do in this article is to develop the argument of how and why EAP has readily available a discourse of pragmatism. . . (ESP9: 255) What I have been arguing for, then, is a way of thinking about and doing EAP that avoids the pragmatic stance so often advocated, and . . . (ESP9: 266) To lend this argument strength, we might examine the origin of articles which are published in major applied linguistics journals such as. . . (APP2: 67)
Y. Ruiying, D. Allison / English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004) 264–279
275
We now comment very briefly on the internal structure of Argumentation sections. Although this appears to involve micro-structural rather than macro-structural analysis, we consider it important to present because the structure of this section appears to correspond to the three subtypes of secondary RAs classified on the basis of overall purpose. Our comments in the following section should be treated as preliminary findings only, as we do not have space to support them further. We identified three subtypes of secondary RA according to differences in their overall purposes: theory-oriented, pedagogy-oriented, and (pedagogic) applicationoriented. These might be seen as parts of a continuum from theory to application. These differences are manifested in the structure of the Argumentation section. The Argumentation section of theory-oriented secondary RAs typically follows a point-by-point pattern in which the main contentious issue is elaborated into subarguments. Further internal structuring of sub-arguments usually entails taking a position, supporting the position, and making justified claims. Pedagogy-oriented RA Argumentation displays a strong problem-solution or demand-supply pattern; application-oriented Argumentation typically follows a problem–solution–demonstration pattern. In brief, the macro-structure of secondary RAs largely comprises three main sections, with the additional possibilities of having a Theoretical basis section after the Introduction and a Pedagogic Implication/Application before the Conclusion. Complexities could occur in deciding the borderline between Introduction and Argumentation. Possible reasons are the difference in authors’ understanding of the function of the Introduction or the requirement of a particular topic. There is clearly scope here for further research, interviewing RA authors, in order to explore reasons for such choices. Finally, we have just begun to explore the possible elaborations of main Argument sections within different kinds of secondary RA.
6. Conclusion This paper has presented a relatively detailed discussion of the process of analyzing the macro-structure of 40 RAs randomly selected from four leading journals in the field of applied linguistics from the perspective of ESP genre analysis. Similarities and differences in RA structures have been reported and discussed in terms of both primary and secondary studies. Our study serves as a reminder that, even though the widely accepted IMRD framework can often capture the macro-structure of primary RAs, understanding the macro-structure of individual RAs can sometimes be difficult because different authors use section headings in different ways, and section headings are often not rhetorically transparent. We have outlined the process of analysis in our study and referred to various parameters involved in the process: section headings, metatextual clues, RA overall purpose, RA author’s specific intention and conventional knowledge of the genre. Our study also appears to be the first attempt to investigate the macro-structure of secondary RAs. It is clearly worthwhile treating these separately from the empirical
276
Y. Ruiying, D. Allison / English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004) 264–279
studies that have typically been described in terms of an IMRD model or variants thereof. We have reported findings for 20 secondary RAs, indicated the initial usefulness (and some difficulties) of working with an Introduction–Argumentation– Conclusion framework with optional transitional sections (Theoretical Basis after Introduction, Pedagogic Implication/Application after Argumentation), suggested a typology of secondary RAs in applied linguistics as a basis for further enquiry, and outlined corresponding internal structures of the central Argumentation section. It remains our conviction that more descriptive and explanatory work needs to be done on even the basic overall structures of RAs, and that text analysis still has a place in this enquiry. Finally, it can be hard to reconcile clear accounts with broad coverage, but we still think it is important to do justice to the range of genre products found within a single field, not least that of applied linguistics itself.
Appendix A. The sources of data A.1. 10 RAs out of a total of 38 in Applied Linguistics in 1996 and 1997 APP1. Skehan, P. (1996) A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. 17 (1): 38–62. APP2. Block, D. (1996) Not so fast! Some thoughts on theory culling, relativism, accepted findings, and the heart and soul of SLA. 17 (1): 63–83. APP3. Towell, R. R. Hawkins, & N. Bazergui (1996) The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. 17 (1): 84–119. APP4. Schleppegrell, M. J. (1996) Conjunction in spoken English and ESL writing. 17 (3): 271–285. APP5. Kovecses, Z & P. Szabo (1996) Idioms: A view from cognitive semantics. 17 (3): 326–355. APP6. Nelson, G. L., M. Al-Batal, & E. Echols (1996) Arabic and English compliment responses: potential for pragmatic failure. 17 (4): 411–432. APP7. Lambert, W. E. & D. Taylor (1996) Language in the lives of ethnic minorities: Cuban American families in Miami. 17 (4): 477–500. APP8. Kamwangamalu, N. M. (1997) The colonial legacy and language planning in sub-Saharan Africa: The case of Zaire. 18 (1): 69–85. APP9. McKenna, B. (1997) How engineers write: An empirical study of engineering report writing. 18 (2): 189–211. APP10. Sasaki, Y. (1997) Individual variation in Japanese sentence comprehension task: Form, functions, and strategies. 18 (4): 508–537. A.2. 10 research articles out of a total of 42 in TESOL Quarterly in 1996 and 1997 TESOL1. Ferris, D. & T. Tagg (1996) Academic oral communication needs of EAP learners: What subject-matter instructors actually require. 30 (1): 31–59. TESOL2. Cray, E. & P. Currie (1996) Linking adult learners with the education of L2 teachers. 30 (1): 113–130.
Y. Ruiying, D. Allison / English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004) 264–279
277
TESOL3. Barkhuizen, C. P. & D. Gough (1996) Language curriculum development in South Africa: What llace for English. 30 (3) 453–472. TESOL4. Phillipson, R. & T. Skutnabb-Kangas (1996) English-only worldwide or language ecology? 30 (3): 429–452. TESOL5. Parry, K. (1996) Culture, literacy, and reading. 30 (4): 665–692. TESOL6. Benesch, S. (1996) Needs analysis and curriculum development in EAP: An example of a critical approach. 30 (4): 723–738. TESOL7. Auerbach, E. R. & D. Paxton (1997) ‘‘It’s not the English thing’’: Bringing reading research into the ESL classroom. 31 (2): 237–262. TESOL8. Hinkel, E. (1997) The past tense and temporal verb meanings in a contextual frame. 31 (2): 289–314. TESOL9. Ferris, D. R. (1997) The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. 31 (2): 315–34.0 TESOL10. Murphy, J. M. (1997) Phonology courses offered by MATESOL programs in the U.S. 31 (4): 741–764. A.3. 10 RAs out of a total of 33 from English for Specific Purposes in 1996 and 1997 ESP1. Murphy, J. M. (1996) Integrating listening and reading instruction in EAP programs. 15 (2): 105–120. ESP2. Velero-Garces, G. (1996) Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Spanish English economics texts. 15 (4): 279–294. ESP3. Henry, A. (1996) Natural chunks of language: teaching speech through speech. 15 (4): 295–310. ESP4. Flowerdew, J. & L. Miller (1997) The teaching of academic listening comprehension and the question of authenticity. 16(1): 27–46. ESP5. Thetela, P. (1997) Evaluated entities and parameters of value in academic research articles. 16 (2): 101–118. ESP6. Nwogu, K. N. (1997) The medical research paper: Structure and functions. 16 (2): 119–138. ESP7. Bhatia, V. K. (1997) Genre-mixing in academic introductions. 16 (3): 181– 196. ESP8. Lewis, M. & D. Starks (1997) Revisiting examination questions in tertiary academic writing. 16(3): 197–210. ESP9. Pennycock, A. (1997) Vulgar pragmatism, critical pragmatism and EAP. 16 (4): 253–270. ESP10. Holmes, R. (1997) Genre analysis, and social sciences: An investigation of the structure of research articles Discussion sections in three disciplines. 16 (4): 321– 338. A.4. 10 research articles out of a total of 61 in ELT Journal in 1996 and 1997 ELT1. Matsumoto, K. (1996) Helping L2 learners reflect on classroom learning. 50 (2): 43–149.
278
Y. Ruiying, D. Allison / English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004) 264–279
ELT2. Ellis, G. (1996) How culturally appropriate is the communicative approach. 50 (3): 213–218. ELT3. Lindstromberg, S. (1996) Prepositions: meaning and method. 50 (3): 225– 236. ELT4. Eldridge, J. (1996) Code-switching in a Turkish secondary school. 50 (4): 303–311. ELT5. Cauldwell, R. & M. Hewings (1996) Intonation rules in ELT textbooks. 50 (4): 327–334. ELT6. Meier, A. J. (1997) Teaching the universals of politeness. 51(1): 21–28. ELT7. Chambers, F. (1997) Seeking consensus in coursebook evaluation. 51(1): 29–35. ELT8. Boughey, C. (1997) Learning to write by writing to learn: A group-work approach. 51(2): 126–134. ELT9. Hales, T. (1997) Exploring data-driven language awareness. 51(3): 217– 223. ELT10. Edwards, C. (1997) Selecting candidates for teacher training courses. 51(3): 251–262.
References Askehave, I., & Swales, J. M. (2001). Genre identification and communicative purpose a problem and a possible solution. Applied Linguistics, 22(2), 195–212. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: cognition, culture, power. Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates. Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. London & NY: Longman. Brett, P. (1994). A genre analysis of the Results section of sociology articles. English for Specific Purposes, 13(1), 47–59. Brown, J. D. (1988). Understanding research in second language learning: a teacher’s guide to statistics and research design. New York: Cambridge University Press. Holmes, R. (1997). Genre analysis, and the social sciences an investigation of the structure of research article discussion sections in three disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 321–337. Hunston, S. (1993). Evaluation and ideology in scientific writing. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.), Register analysis: theory and practice (pp. 57–73). London: Frances Pinter. Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17(4), 433–454. Hyland, K. (1999). Disciplinary discourses: writer stance in research articles. In C. N. Candlin, & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: texts, processes and practices (pp. 99–121). New York: Addison Wesley Longman. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: social interactions in academic writing. London and New York: Pearson Education (Longman). Hyon, S. (1996). Genre in three traditions implications for ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 30(4), 693–722. Myers, G. (1996). Strategic vagueness in academic writing. In E. Ventola, & A. Mauranen (Eds.), Academic writing: intercultural and textual issues (pp. 3–17). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Nwogu, K. N. (1997). The medical research paper structure and function. English for Specific Purposes, 16(2), 119–138. Paltridge, B. (2001). Linguistic research and EAP pedagogy. In J. Flowerdew, & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp. 55–70). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Y. Ruiying, D. Allison / English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004) 264–279
279
Posteguillo, S. (1999). The scientific structure of computer science research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 139–160. Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 149–170. Sharp, A. (1996) Readability: are ELT professionals impressed by unreadable writing? Paper presented at the English in SE Asia Conference, National Institute of Education, Singapore, 21–23 November 1996. Stanley, R. M. (1984). The recognition of macrostructure a pilot study. Reading in a Foreign Language, 2, 156–168. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swales, J.M. (1993). Genre and engagement. Revue Belge de Philologie et d’Histoire, 71, 687-698. Thetela, P. (1997). Evaluated entities and parameters of value in academic research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 16(2), 101–118. Williams, G., & Hasan, R. (1996). Introduction. In R. Hasan, & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. xi–xxi). London and New York: Longman. Yang, R. (2001). A genre analysis of research articles in applied linguistics. Unpublished PhD thesis, National University of Singapore. Yang, R. & Allison, D. (in press). Research articles in applied linguistics: moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes. doi:10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00026-1. Yang Ruiying is a Professor at the School of Foreign Languages, Xi’an Jiaotong University, China. She has taught courses in linguistics, sociolinguistics and discourse analysis and published articles on genre analysis, academic reading, and learning styles and communication strategies of Chinese learners. Her current research interests are in genre analysis and genre-based approaches to academic reading and writing. Desmond Allison is an Associate Professor at the Department of English Language and Literature, National University of Singapore. He has taught and published extensively in applied linguistics and EAP, where his areas of long-term interest include academic reading and writing, investigating and evaluating language programmes, and introducing students to applied language research.
English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004) 264–279
www.elsevier.com/locate/esp
Research articles in applied linguistics: structures from a functional perspective q Yang Ruiying, Desmond Allison
*
Department of English Language and Literature, FASS Block AS5, 7 Arts Link, National University of Singapore, 117570, Singapore
Abstract This paper presents the main lines of a genre analysis of the macro-structures of research articles (RAs) in applied linguistics, an area that deserves more attention both for pedagogic and research reasons. The analysis is based upon a detailed study of a corpus of 40 RAs, selected as random sets of 10 drawn from four leading journals in the mid-1990s. Half the corpus proved to consist of primary RAs of various kinds, while half comprised secondary research. Our findings for primary RAs in our corpus show how they both draw upon and vary from the conventional ÔIntroduction – Method – Results – DiscussionÕ (IMRD) framework. We describe the realizations of IMRD and other optional elements in our analyses, and examine some complexities resulting from differences in the use of section headings and in the apparent conceptualization of the function of some sections. For secondary RAs, largely neglected in previous research, we present an initial macro-structural account, i.e. Introduction – Argumentation – Conclusion, and briefly comment on the internal structuring of central Argumentation sections, which reflects differences in the overall communicative purposes of secondary RAs. Ó 2003 The American University. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction The importance of genre knowledge in helping language learners to understand and master academic, professional or educational discourse has been widely acq The article is co-authored equally. The account draws upon Yang’s (2001) doctoral research, supervised by Allison. * Corresponding author. Tel.: +65-6874-6039. E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Allison).
0889-4906/$30.00 Ó 2003 The American University. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0889-4906(03)00005-X
Y. Ruiying, D. Allison / English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004) 264–279
265
knowledged for more than a decade, regardless of the perspectives adopted (e.g. Berkenkotter & Huckin, 1995; Bhatia, 1993; Swales, 1990; Williams & Hasan, 1996). Genre is a class of communicative events, in which language plays a primary role (Swales, 1990). Genre analysis explores discourse features in the broad context of the communicative event, and attempts to provide the rationale of the discourse features in terms of authors’ publicly retrievable intentions and institutional conventions. Hyon (1996) identifies three main traditions in contemporary genre studies, which we see as complementary, rather than competing approaches: ESP genre analyses, New Rhetoric studies, and a distinctive Australian approach that draws extensively on systemic functional linguistics. Our present work is situated within the first of these traditions. This is partly because a focus on text organization remains very useful pedagogically, and partly because we are working with a relatively large number of extensive texts, a factor that tends to constrain other possibilities (Swales, 1993). Within ESP genre analyses, prior studies can be further summarized into two groups according to differences in focus. One group of studies is on the structure of research articles (RAs), dissertations or other professional writings (examples among many are Bhatia, 1993; Holmes, 1997; Nwogu, 1997; Swales, 1990), the other is on particular features of RAs, such as the use of hedging, modality and reporting verbs (examples include Hyland, 2000; Salager-Meyer, 1994). In both approaches, RAs in the field of science and engineering (e.g. Swales, 1990, and extensive references therein; also Hunston, 1993; Hyland, 1996; Myers, 1996; Nwogu, 1997; SalagerMeyer, 1994, etc.) have received most attention. RAs in the field of social sciences, especially applied linguistics, remain under-explored despite some recent studies (Brett, 1994; Holmes, 1997; Hyland, 1999, 2000; Paltridge, 2001; Thetela, 1997). This paper will focus on the description and understanding of macro-structural organization in RAs in the discipline of applied linguistics. We see this as worth reporting as it deals with fundamental, purposeful organization within the genre. A more in-depth micro-structural analysis of selected sections in primary RAs (reporting empirical research) appears in the course of Yang and Allison (in press). There is by now a well-established tradition in RA genre analysis of working from a broad ÔIntroduction–Method–Results–DiscussionÕ (IMRD) macro-structure (Swales, 1990) that has proved to be quite robust but not, of course, wholly without problems. We draw upon the IMRD framework in our analyses of primary RAs. We offer another initial framework for secondary RAs in applied linguistics (academic discussions that do not centrally report an empirical research study), and point to possibilities for further research in this area. Our study will show (not for the first time) that established categories like IMRD cannot be taken for granted, and there can be problems (often unreported, partly for reasons of space) for analysts of macro-structure to account for specific features of individual RAs because a section heading is not always explicit about the rhetorical function of a section and there are also differences in authors’ uses of even conventional headings in the RAs in our corpus. This paper will report findings about the RA macro-structures across the four journals. To illustrate the process of analysis, we will comment selectively upon parameters affecting our interpretations and category assignments, notably the section headings, the author’s explicit or
266
Y. Ruiying, D. Allison / English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004) 264–279
otherwise apparent intentions, disciplinary conventions, textual context and the targeted audience of the journals. 2. The corpus Four established journals of applied linguistics were selected for our study, namely Applied Linguistics (APP), TESOL Quarterly (TESOL), English for Specific Purposes (ESP) and English Language Teaching Journal (ELT). As applied linguistics is a diverse and contested area, we must specify that we have retained a focus on applied linguistics in relation to (English) language teaching. (We would look forward to future work on other journals in applied linguistics.) In making our selection, we considered topic coverage and targeted readers, obtained from the guidelines for contributors. We also took note of estimates of prestige and readability. In one relevant study for 1996, APP ranks the highest in terms of prestige, followed by TESOL, ESP and ELT; while APP is the most difficult in terms of readability, with TESOL and ESP in the middle, ELT is the easiest (Sharp, 1996; further details are available from the authors). The status of ELT arguably differs from the other three journals because of its greater emphasis on teaching. More generally, we have tried to keep in mind that structural differences in the data may reflect characteristics of particular journals. The 1996 and 1997 issues of each journal were chosen, these being the most recent issues at the commencement of the project. Using Brown’s (1988) stratified random sample strategy, 10 RAs from each journal were selected, yielding four samples: APP, TESOL, ESP and ELT. Thus, the total corpus for this research consists of 40 RAs (see Appendix A). Our data were randomly selected from all the items under the ‘‘Articles’’ category of the four journals, instead of being confined to any one type. We followed Brown’s (1988) conceptualization of research in applied linguistics, as comprising both primary and secondary studies. Primary research involves investigation of original data of various kinds, such as experimental articles, case studies, surveys and other forms of descriptive and qualitative research. Secondary research studies critically review trends in the research and professional literatures, and synthesize research carried out by others. Therefore, the corpus potentially consists of all types of RAs in applied linguistics. In contrast, most previous genre analyses of RAs focus on experimental articles only (e.g. Bazerman, 1988; Berkenkotter & Huckin, 1995; Hunston, 1993; Nwogu, 1997; Posteguillo, 1999). Our corpus has, therefore, the advantage of investigating the RA genre throughout the discipline of applied linguistics; however, its diversity also entails that the results of analyses might at times be idiosyncratic and lacking in uniformity. 3. Method of analysis The notion of communicative purpose is central for analyses of both RA macrostructure and microstructure. There are cases, however, where the communicative purpose of a unit of text is not self-evident (Askehave & Swales, 2001), or where it
Y. Ruiying, D. Allison / English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004) 264–279
267
has multiple functions in the context. The common practice is to analyze it according to the most salient function (Holmes, 1997). This procedure involves a certain degree of subjectivity, which we accept for the purpose. We see genre analysis as a form of textual interpretation, or event interpretation, that is strongly grounded in descriptive evidence though not wholly determined by it. An ideal methodology of genre analysis should involve text analysis and writer response data as well, but the feasibility of the latter is usually low, and does not eliminate the need for interpretation. Within its known limits, text analysis still offers a systematically informed, useful and practical approach to the investigation and understanding of genre. In order to minimize the risk of arbitrariness, we randomly selected a subset of 14 RAs from our corpus for further validation purposes. Seven of these were analyzed by a second rater, whose MA research project (supervised by the first author) is a genre analysis of RA abstracts in engineering, but who was not otherwise associated with our project. The first author gave the second rater a training of about 212 hours, after which she worked independently on the data. The resulting macro-structural analysis was consistent with the original, except for one case where the second rater analyzed the Theoretical Basis section in ESP 3 (a secondary RA with section headings that are not rhetorically explicit) as part of the Argumentation. There were some more detailed differences at the level of microstructure (outside the scope of this paper). The remaining seven RAs were re-analyzed by the first author, after an interval of about 2 years. Re-analysis at the level of macro-structure yielded no difference to the original analysis. The macro-organization of primary RAs is analyzed with reference to the widely reported Introduction–Methods–Results–Discussion (IMRD) framework (e.g. Brett, 1994; Holmes, 1997; Stanley, 1984; Swales, 1990). This framework is generally selfexplanatory. Methodologically, care was taken not to impose the IMRD framework on data, but simply to use it as a possible descriptive reference. The section headings and subheadings, the names that RA authors give to a section, offer important insight for the analysis of the macro-structure; however, there are many cases where the rhetorical functions of section headings and subheadings are not explicit on their own, and some cases where there is a tension between observed section boundaries and discernible rhetorical functions. In such cases, the macro-structure – the division of sections – is identified by using metatextual signals in the surrounding context as well as by analyzing the function of a section in the light of the overall purpose of the RAs. Analysis of the content included is also carried out as further validation of the function of a section (compare Swales, 1990, pp. 55, 58). We now present and discuss the macro-structures of the RAs in the samples from four applied linguistics journals. This requires separate consideration of articles reporting primary studies and those reporting secondary studies as these two types of RAs differ markedly in overall structure. Finally, to avoid possible confusion, a note is needed about how we distinguish the analysis categories of the different sections of RA macro-structure from the specific section headings and subheadings. The analysis category is presented with the initial letter of each word capitalized, the word ÔsectionÕ is sometimes omitted such as Method, which refers to the Method section; the actual heading is presented in quotation marks.
268
Y. Ruiying, D. Allison / English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004) 264–279
4. The macro-structure of primary RAs As a coincidental outcome of random sampling of 10 articles per journal, half of the corpus (20 of the 40 RAs) consisted of primary research (this section), and half of secondary research (next section). These numbers include one generally discursive article that reported an empirical study as an illustrative example within a single section. We took this article to be a secondary RA, but the case does evoke the possibility of more hybrid forms. There were no other problems for the initial primary/secondary categorization. Table 1 shows the frequency of section occurrences across the 20 primary RAs in the four journals: APP, TESOL, ESP, and ELT. All the RAs share three sections, Introduction, Method and Results (including sections entitled ‘‘Results and Discussion’’), and they close with one of the following sections, Discussion, Conclusion or Pedagogic Implication. [We elaborate on the closure of primary RAs in Yang and Allison (in press), where we explain our reasons for counting Results and Discussions sections as a variant form of Results.] As possible variations at the macro level, separate sections for Theoretical Basis, Literature Review, and Research Questions may occur between Introduction and Method sections, although their likelihood of occurrence differs across journals. The macro-structure of primary APP RAs shows some deviation from the standard IMRD framework, in that three of the five RAs include a separate Theoretical Basis section. The emphasis on theory as reflected in the macro-structure may be due to the journal’s interest in articles that handle problems in principled ways by reference to theories (Notes to contributors, 1997). It could also be related to the lack of widely accepted consensus on some theories or concepts in the discipline. For example, each of the three Theoretical Basis sections in this sample explicates and discusses more than one theory in relation to the relevant study. In addition, it is possible for APP primary RAs to display variations from IMRD in the closing sections. Two out of the five include a separate Pedagogic Implication section.
Table 1 Macro-structure of primary RAs (20) across journalsa Sections
APP (n ¼ 5)
TESOL (n ¼ 6)
ESP (n ¼ 6)
ELT (n ¼ 3)
Total (%) (n ¼ 20)
Introduction Theoretical Basis Literature Review Research Questions/Focus Method Results Discussion Conclusion Pedagogic Implication
5 3 1 1 5 5 3 3 2
6 – 4 2 6 6 1 6 1
6 2 – – 6 6 4 1 2
3 – – – 3 3 – 3 1
20 (100) 5 (25) 5 (25) 3 (15) 20 (100) 20 (100) 8 (40) 13 (65) 6 (30)
a Optional sections other than IMRD are presented in italics. The same code is adopted in Tables 2 and 3.
Y. Ruiying, D. Allison / English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004) 264–279
269
The macro-structure of TESOL primary RAs, in addition to the sections in common, is likely to have a separate Literature Review section (four instances out of six). The separate status of Literature Review section assumes more importance than the corresponding element in the Introduction as it appears as an independent stage with a separate heading (and is usually longer). This feature probably reflects the journal’s emphasis on drawing on relevant research in the field (Information for Contributors), and could also arise in response to the perceived requirements of a specific research topic. For example, the topic of TESOL5 is ÔCulture, Literacy, and L2 ReadingÕ. It has a lengthy review of research into cultural differences and learning styles and strategies. Another prominent feature is the fairly high occurrence of a ‘‘Results and Discussion’’ section (three instances) and the relative scarcity of Discussion sections (one instance). The consistent appearance of a Conclusion section (all six RAs), as for the omission of the term ÔIntroductionÕ, appears to be a consequence of the APA style sheet that TESOL recommends to contributors. There is only one TESOL RA with a separate Pedagogic Implication section; we found that such information tends to be included in Conclusion sections in these RAs. The APA manual specifically encourages RAs to close with a Conclusion section. The other journals from which our data were drawn do not have so precise a specification about macro-structure. ESP primary RAs are closest to the standard form of the IMRD structure, although added possibilities are a separate Theoretical Basis after the Introduction, and a Pedagogic Implication section towards the end. Four out of six ESP primary RAs end with a Discussion section, the highest in terms of occurrence in the four journal samples. We note that English for Specific Purposes has been the major journal publishing RAs on genre studies, and the RA genre of various disciplines has been the topic of many studies published in this journal. (The randomly selected set of ten ESP RAs in our study included four RAs investigating various aspects of the RA genre.) While we should not read too much into outcomes from small samples, it seems plausible that ESP authors’ awareness of the widely accepted IMRD structure could encourage them to use this structure to organize their own RAs. The three primary RAs in the ELT sample display a clear macro-structure of IMRC – Introduction, Method, Results and Conclusion – with the possibility open for a Pedagogic Implication section. (Pedagogic implications are generally important in ELTJ, but do not necessarily occur as a separate section.) Theoretical Basis and Literature Review do not occur as separate sections in the ELT sample, probably because the three articles all deal with practical issues. This may also reflect an orientation towards the targeted readers as principally language teachers rather than researchers on language. Space constraints could be another factor. In these analyses of the RA macro-structure, the original section headings and the typographical division of the RAs into sections serve as important indications of the macro-structure. However, there are no unified section headings. The IMRD framework does not entail that all the RAs have such section headings. This feature, on one hand, reflects the fact that RAs have individual organizational characteristics; on the other hand, it indicates that RA macro-structure is not always transparent and fixed. Most of these 20 primary RAs begin with the explicit conventional
270
Y. Ruiying, D. Allison / English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004) 264–279
heading ‘‘Introduction’’ except for the five TESOL RAs (due to journal policy). The other sections can exhibit any of these three types of section headings: conventional (IMRD), varied (different from the conventional, but still indicating the function of the section, such as ‘‘Experimental Design’’ to indicate a Method section in APP10), and content (such as ‘‘The Two Models’’ in APP3 which is the heading of the Theoretical Basis section). Table 2 displays some examples of the variety of section headings and subheadings. It can be seen that one section with the heading ‘‘Theoretical Background’’ (the original was in upper case) is categorized as a Literature Review section. This is because it is actually a review of previous research as is shown by the subheading. The rhetorical functions of these types of varied and content headings are less straightforward, and they could pose difficulties for novices. There are other cases where a section has a conventional heading, but the communicative purpose of the section proves to differ from that of other RA sections with the same heading. For example, ELT8 has three parallel section headings before
Table 2 Examples of unconventional RA section headings Conventional section headings
Unconventional section headings
Introduction Theoretical Basis
Context Theoretical framework: contrastive pragmatics Language theory; Discourse theory; Notion of genrea The study Previous work on compliment responses Background Previous research Theoretical Backgroundb Previous EAP surveys related to academic aural/ oral requirements Experimental design The present study Research method Settings and subjects Findings Results and Discussion (5 occurrences)
Literature Review
Method
Results
Discussion Conclusion Pedagogic Implication a b
Varied section headings
Substantive findings Concluding remarks Implications for engineering writing and engineering writing research
Indicates parallel section headings. Indicates the main section heading, which includes subheadings.
Content section headings The two models
L2 reading strategies Degree of phonologycenteredness Process-oriented categories Metatext in English and Spanish economics texts The lecturer; The lecture Cultural contexts Limitations of the study Focus on second language learners
Y. Ruiying, D. Allison / English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004) 264–279
271
the Method section. They are ‘‘Introduction’’, ‘‘Learning to write by writing to learn’’, and ‘‘Using a process approach to the writing of mainstream assignments’’. Under the section headed ‘‘Introduction’’, there are only two Moves ÔEstablishing the territoryÕ and ÔEstablishing the nicheÕ; the study itself is not introduced until the section under the third heading. In our analysis of ELT8, the texts under all three headings are grouped as the Introduction section according to the widely accepted function of this section (Bhatia, 1993; Swales, 1990). As our study did not provide for follow-up interviews with RA authors, the remarks that follow are speculative. It is possible that the author of ELT8 does not share the conventional view that an RA Introduction section should include the announcement of the study, but takes it instead to provide only initial background. An alternative is that the author does conceive of the first three sections as introductory, but uses the additional section headings to provide extra content guidance to readers. In the latter case, it might have been clearer to provide subheadings at a lower level by using a different font. Thus, in the analysis of the RA macro-structure, understanding of the function of a particular section in the context of the whole RA is ultimately important. For instance, APP6 is divided into eight sections by the authors (see Table 3). The sections entitled ‘‘Compliment Responses’’ and ‘‘Limitations of the study’’ pose problems for analysis. In APP6, compliment responses are the type of data being studied. The authors mention this briefly at the end of the Introduction section: ‘‘In this paper, we report on a study of Syrian Arabic speakers’ and American English speakers’ verbal responses to compliments.’’ As shown in Table 3, after the Introduction section, the authors deal with the theoretical basis of the study, i.e. contrastive pragmatics, which includes a definition of pragmatic knowledge and competence, and analysis of the reasons of pragmatic failure. Then they include a section entitled ‘‘Compliment Responses’’, which justifies the selection of Table 3 The section headings and subheadings of App 6 Macro structure Functional labels
Method
Section headings in the text (originals were all in upper case) 1. Introduction 2. Theoretical Framework: Contrastive Pragmatics 3. Compliment Responses 4. Previous Work on Compliment Responses 5. The Present Study
Results
6. Results and Discussion
Conclusion Pedagogic Implication
7. Limitations of the Study 8. Focus on Second Language Learners
Introduction Theoretical Basis Research Focus Literature Review
Subheadings
5.1 Method of data collection 5.2 Analysis 6.1 Compliment response types: US English data 6.2 Compliment responses: gender of US recipients
272
Y. Ruiying, D. Allison / English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004) 264–279
compliment responses as the type of data for their study and proposes a definition of it. Such information on data might alternatively and conventionally have been placed early in the Method section. If that had been done, however, the article would have lacked a clear transition between its present broadly conceived theoretical basis section and its Literature Review section on compliment responses, which could have risked leaving readers with a sense of incoherence. Therefore, it appears that the ‘‘Compliment Responses’’ section in APP6 serves as the basis for the Literature Review Section. In addition, the intention of the authors in constructing a separate section of ‘‘Compliment Responses’’ is probably to emphasize the focus and the originality of the study, as they claim that few studies have investigated compliment responses and even fewer have had data in an Arabicspeaking country. We eventually analyzed this section as Research Focus, which is an individual feature of this particular RA. Section 7 in APP6 is ‘‘Limitations of the Study’’. This element is usually found as one part of the Discussion or Conclusion sections in other RAs in our corpus. In Nwogu (1997), it is found in the Discussion section. But in the particular context of APP6, it is more appropriate to analyze this element as the Conclusion section because the preceding section is the ‘‘Results and Discussion’’, although we admit that the section is much narrower in scope than the other Conclusion sections in our corpus. Overall, and from comparison with earlier research, it seems sensible to accept that most primary RAs in medicine, sociology, political science and applied linguistics broadly reflect major aspects of the IMRD macro-structure (Brett, 1994; Holmes, 1997; Nwogu, 1997), but to add that, at least for RAs in applied linguistics, there is also a need for a fuller and more flexible account, which can further explore writer’s choices and show the scope for other fairly common sections. The three sections that can occur between Introduction and Method are comparable to the findings of Holmes (1997) on sociology and political science RAs. He reported the existence of an extensive section dealing with theoretical background, previous literature and general topical information after the Introduction section in political science and sociology RAs. This could possibly be considered as a structural feature shared by social science RAs (but not RAs in history, as Holmes observes). The occurrence of a separate Pedagogic Implication section in six instances out of 20 in the corpus, and in all four journals, represents another noteworthy feature of the discipline of applied linguistics. There is almost no report of the range of section headings in previous research except Berkenkotter and Huckin (1995). They find that there is a greater frequency of informative subheadings in their longitudinal study of journal articles ranging from 1944 to 1989, especially for announcing specific results. Our study also finds that the Results section is rather likely to have RA specific content headings in relation to the conventional IMRD framework, i.e. eight content headings for the Results section in comparison to five for Method and one each for the Introduction and Discussion sections. So far, we have focused on the discussion of the process of analysis of the macrostructure of primary RAs with illustrative examples. The analysis shows that understanding RA macro-structure is not as easy as might initially appear, because of
Y. Ruiying, D. Allison / English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004) 264–279
273
differences in the use of section headings and in RA authors’ understandings and choices of the function of particular sections.
5. The macro-structure of secondary RAs There are altogether 20 secondary RAs across the four journals, just a half of the total RAs in our corpus. ELT is slightly over-represented with seven out of 10 cases, while other journals feature four or five out of 10 cases. As shown in Table 4, they all share three sections: Introduction, Argumentation, and Conclusion. Introduction and Conclusion are readily identifiable in most secondary RAs, but we again encountered the problem of section demarcation, especially the Introduction and Argumentation section. ÔArgumentationÕ is an umbrella term to name the section usually comprising several subtitled sections that make up the overall argument. Theoretical Basis (two cases, both in ESP) and Pedagogic Implication/Application sections (two cases, both in APP) are optional sections. There is one occurrence of Pedagogic Implication and one of Pedagogic Application, and both occur before a Conclusion. (In contrast, in five out of the six primary RAs with a Pedagogic Implication section, this section was located finally, including three following a Conclusion section.) The problem that we encountered in the analysis of the Introduction in ELT8 (discussed above) also occurred in the analysis of secondary RAs. There was difficulty to decide where to draw the line for the Introductions in four (four out of 20) RAs in TESOL and ELT samples. In these cases, the section boundary indicated in the RA seems to leave the Introduction incomplete if we perceive that the main purpose of an RA Introduction is to ‘‘introduce’’ the present research that the author will report. For example, TESOL2 is a secondary RA aiming to provide solutions to an existing problem in teacher training programmes. The first paragraph begins with the statement that teachers’ roles have changed from those merely carrying out teaching methodologies in classrooms to ‘‘autonomous experts with the knowledge, experience, and intuitions to make informed decisions about what should happen in their classrooms’’ (TESOL2: 113). This portion of text functions to generalize the topic,
Table 4 Macro-structure of secondary RAs across journalsa Sections
APP (n ¼ 5)
TESOL (n ¼ 4)
ESP (n ¼ 4)
ELT (n ¼ 7)
Total (%) (n ¼ 20)
Introduction Theoretical Basis Argumentation Pedagogic Implication/Application Conclusion
5 – 5 2 5
4 – 4 – 4
4 2 4 – 4
7 – 7 – 7
20 (100) 2 (10) 20 (100) 2 (10) 20 (100)
a
The optional sections are presented in italics.
274
Y. Ruiying, D. Allison / English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004) 264–279
i.e. ÔMaking topic generalizationÕ in Swales’ (1990) CARS model. Then the second paragraph states that relevant change is needed in teacher education as a consequence of teachers’ new roles. It suggests that teacher education programmes should develop a wider disciplinary base, which implies that current programmes are based on a too narrow basis. The function of this stretch of text is to establish a niche by gap-indication. The authors of TESOL2 seem to treat these two paragraphs together as an Introduction, because the text after paragraph 2 is signaled with section headings and subheadings. However, at the end of the first two paragraphs, readers still do not know what the authors intend to do explicitly, although they may anticipate that the authors will probably propose that teacher education programmes should have a wider disciplinary base. The first four headings in TESOL2 are ‘‘The Goals of Teacher Education Programs’’; ‘‘Learning Teaching’’; ‘‘What’s Missing From This Picture?’’ (Indicating a gap); and ‘‘Why Should Adult Learners be Involved in Teacher Education?’’ It can be clearly seen that the proposed research is only given under this fourth heading, which could be a reason to include all these opening sections as the Introduction within an IMRD account. Nonetheless, it appears counterintuitive and unhelpful to take this entire extended portion of text as the Introduction section because that would break the unity of the main argument. The argument consists of a part arguing for the existence of a problem and a part offering solutions. So finally, taking into consideration the particular topic and the textual context, we decided to consider the first two paragraphs only as the Introduction, although this section does not fulfill the function of a conventional Introduction. The other three cases in our corpus pose similar problems for the analysis. Examples of this kind show that even broad initial analyses of secondary RA macro-structure can be complicated due to differences in RA authors’ conceptualization of the communicative purposes of the Introduction section and by the individual characteristics of a particular topic. We now turn to the central Argumentation section. The ‘‘Argumentation’’ section, a term we choose to cover the main body of the secondary RA text, is largely signaled by content headings. The overall purpose of the main section is to convince the readers of the author’s point of view, which can encompass views on a series of theoretical issues, a pedagogic approach, or a solution to a particular problem. In addition, in this portion of the text, there is frequent occurrence of the word ÔargueÕ or ÔargumentÕ in the metatextual discourse, which supports our naming of the section. For example: What I wish to do in this article is to develop the argument of how and why EAP has readily available a discourse of pragmatism. . . (ESP9: 255) What I have been arguing for, then, is a way of thinking about and doing EAP that avoids the pragmatic stance so often advocated, and . . . (ESP9: 266) To lend this argument strength, we might examine the origin of articles which are published in major applied linguistics journals such as. . . (APP2: 67)
Y. Ruiying, D. Allison / English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004) 264–279
275
We now comment very briefly on the internal structure of Argumentation sections. Although this appears to involve micro-structural rather than macro-structural analysis, we consider it important to present because the structure of this section appears to correspond to the three subtypes of secondary RAs classified on the basis of overall purpose. Our comments in the following section should be treated as preliminary findings only, as we do not have space to support them further. We identified three subtypes of secondary RA according to differences in their overall purposes: theory-oriented, pedagogy-oriented, and (pedagogic) applicationoriented. These might be seen as parts of a continuum from theory to application. These differences are manifested in the structure of the Argumentation section. The Argumentation section of theory-oriented secondary RAs typically follows a point-by-point pattern in which the main contentious issue is elaborated into subarguments. Further internal structuring of sub-arguments usually entails taking a position, supporting the position, and making justified claims. Pedagogy-oriented RA Argumentation displays a strong problem-solution or demand-supply pattern; application-oriented Argumentation typically follows a problem–solution–demonstration pattern. In brief, the macro-structure of secondary RAs largely comprises three main sections, with the additional possibilities of having a Theoretical basis section after the Introduction and a Pedagogic Implication/Application before the Conclusion. Complexities could occur in deciding the borderline between Introduction and Argumentation. Possible reasons are the difference in authors’ understanding of the function of the Introduction or the requirement of a particular topic. There is clearly scope here for further research, interviewing RA authors, in order to explore reasons for such choices. Finally, we have just begun to explore the possible elaborations of main Argument sections within different kinds of secondary RA.
6. Conclusion This paper has presented a relatively detailed discussion of the process of analyzing the macro-structure of 40 RAs randomly selected from four leading journals in the field of applied linguistics from the perspective of ESP genre analysis. Similarities and differences in RA structures have been reported and discussed in terms of both primary and secondary studies. Our study serves as a reminder that, even though the widely accepted IMRD framework can often capture the macro-structure of primary RAs, understanding the macro-structure of individual RAs can sometimes be difficult because different authors use section headings in different ways, and section headings are often not rhetorically transparent. We have outlined the process of analysis in our study and referred to various parameters involved in the process: section headings, metatextual clues, RA overall purpose, RA author’s specific intention and conventional knowledge of the genre. Our study also appears to be the first attempt to investigate the macro-structure of secondary RAs. It is clearly worthwhile treating these separately from the empirical
276
Y. Ruiying, D. Allison / English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004) 264–279
studies that have typically been described in terms of an IMRD model or variants thereof. We have reported findings for 20 secondary RAs, indicated the initial usefulness (and some difficulties) of working with an Introduction–Argumentation– Conclusion framework with optional transitional sections (Theoretical Basis after Introduction, Pedagogic Implication/Application after Argumentation), suggested a typology of secondary RAs in applied linguistics as a basis for further enquiry, and outlined corresponding internal structures of the central Argumentation section. It remains our conviction that more descriptive and explanatory work needs to be done on even the basic overall structures of RAs, and that text analysis still has a place in this enquiry. Finally, it can be hard to reconcile clear accounts with broad coverage, but we still think it is important to do justice to the range of genre products found within a single field, not least that of applied linguistics itself.
Appendix A. The sources of data A.1. 10 RAs out of a total of 38 in Applied Linguistics in 1996 and 1997 APP1. Skehan, P. (1996) A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. 17 (1): 38–62. APP2. Block, D. (1996) Not so fast! Some thoughts on theory culling, relativism, accepted findings, and the heart and soul of SLA. 17 (1): 63–83. APP3. Towell, R. R. Hawkins, & N. Bazergui (1996) The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. 17 (1): 84–119. APP4. Schleppegrell, M. J. (1996) Conjunction in spoken English and ESL writing. 17 (3): 271–285. APP5. Kovecses, Z & P. Szabo (1996) Idioms: A view from cognitive semantics. 17 (3): 326–355. APP6. Nelson, G. L., M. Al-Batal, & E. Echols (1996) Arabic and English compliment responses: potential for pragmatic failure. 17 (4): 411–432. APP7. Lambert, W. E. & D. Taylor (1996) Language in the lives of ethnic minorities: Cuban American families in Miami. 17 (4): 477–500. APP8. Kamwangamalu, N. M. (1997) The colonial legacy and language planning in sub-Saharan Africa: The case of Zaire. 18 (1): 69–85. APP9. McKenna, B. (1997) How engineers write: An empirical study of engineering report writing. 18 (2): 189–211. APP10. Sasaki, Y. (1997) Individual variation in Japanese sentence comprehension task: Form, functions, and strategies. 18 (4): 508–537. A.2. 10 research articles out of a total of 42 in TESOL Quarterly in 1996 and 1997 TESOL1. Ferris, D. & T. Tagg (1996) Academic oral communication needs of EAP learners: What subject-matter instructors actually require. 30 (1): 31–59. TESOL2. Cray, E. & P. Currie (1996) Linking adult learners with the education of L2 teachers. 30 (1): 113–130.
Y. Ruiying, D. Allison / English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004) 264–279
277
TESOL3. Barkhuizen, C. P. & D. Gough (1996) Language curriculum development in South Africa: What llace for English. 30 (3) 453–472. TESOL4. Phillipson, R. & T. Skutnabb-Kangas (1996) English-only worldwide or language ecology? 30 (3): 429–452. TESOL5. Parry, K. (1996) Culture, literacy, and reading. 30 (4): 665–692. TESOL6. Benesch, S. (1996) Needs analysis and curriculum development in EAP: An example of a critical approach. 30 (4): 723–738. TESOL7. Auerbach, E. R. & D. Paxton (1997) ‘‘It’s not the English thing’’: Bringing reading research into the ESL classroom. 31 (2): 237–262. TESOL8. Hinkel, E. (1997) The past tense and temporal verb meanings in a contextual frame. 31 (2): 289–314. TESOL9. Ferris, D. R. (1997) The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. 31 (2): 315–34.0 TESOL10. Murphy, J. M. (1997) Phonology courses offered by MATESOL programs in the U.S. 31 (4): 741–764. A.3. 10 RAs out of a total of 33 from English for Specific Purposes in 1996 and 1997 ESP1. Murphy, J. M. (1996) Integrating listening and reading instruction in EAP programs. 15 (2): 105–120. ESP2. Velero-Garces, G. (1996) Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Spanish English economics texts. 15 (4): 279–294. ESP3. Henry, A. (1996) Natural chunks of language: teaching speech through speech. 15 (4): 295–310. ESP4. Flowerdew, J. & L. Miller (1997) The teaching of academic listening comprehension and the question of authenticity. 16(1): 27–46. ESP5. Thetela, P. (1997) Evaluated entities and parameters of value in academic research articles. 16 (2): 101–118. ESP6. Nwogu, K. N. (1997) The medical research paper: Structure and functions. 16 (2): 119–138. ESP7. Bhatia, V. K. (1997) Genre-mixing in academic introductions. 16 (3): 181– 196. ESP8. Lewis, M. & D. Starks (1997) Revisiting examination questions in tertiary academic writing. 16(3): 197–210. ESP9. Pennycock, A. (1997) Vulgar pragmatism, critical pragmatism and EAP. 16 (4): 253–270. ESP10. Holmes, R. (1997) Genre analysis, and social sciences: An investigation of the structure of research articles Discussion sections in three disciplines. 16 (4): 321– 338. A.4. 10 research articles out of a total of 61 in ELT Journal in 1996 and 1997 ELT1. Matsumoto, K. (1996) Helping L2 learners reflect on classroom learning. 50 (2): 43–149.
278
Y. Ruiying, D. Allison / English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004) 264–279
ELT2. Ellis, G. (1996) How culturally appropriate is the communicative approach. 50 (3): 213–218. ELT3. Lindstromberg, S. (1996) Prepositions: meaning and method. 50 (3): 225– 236. ELT4. Eldridge, J. (1996) Code-switching in a Turkish secondary school. 50 (4): 303–311. ELT5. Cauldwell, R. & M. Hewings (1996) Intonation rules in ELT textbooks. 50 (4): 327–334. ELT6. Meier, A. J. (1997) Teaching the universals of politeness. 51(1): 21–28. ELT7. Chambers, F. (1997) Seeking consensus in coursebook evaluation. 51(1): 29–35. ELT8. Boughey, C. (1997) Learning to write by writing to learn: A group-work approach. 51(2): 126–134. ELT9. Hales, T. (1997) Exploring data-driven language awareness. 51(3): 217– 223. ELT10. Edwards, C. (1997) Selecting candidates for teacher training courses. 51(3): 251–262.
References Askehave, I., & Swales, J. M. (2001). Genre identification and communicative purpose a problem and a possible solution. Applied Linguistics, 22(2), 195–212. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: cognition, culture, power. Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates. Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. London & NY: Longman. Brett, P. (1994). A genre analysis of the Results section of sociology articles. English for Specific Purposes, 13(1), 47–59. Brown, J. D. (1988). Understanding research in second language learning: a teacher’s guide to statistics and research design. New York: Cambridge University Press. Holmes, R. (1997). Genre analysis, and the social sciences an investigation of the structure of research article discussion sections in three disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 321–337. Hunston, S. (1993). Evaluation and ideology in scientific writing. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.), Register analysis: theory and practice (pp. 57–73). London: Frances Pinter. Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17(4), 433–454. Hyland, K. (1999). Disciplinary discourses: writer stance in research articles. In C. N. Candlin, & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: texts, processes and practices (pp. 99–121). New York: Addison Wesley Longman. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: social interactions in academic writing. London and New York: Pearson Education (Longman). Hyon, S. (1996). Genre in three traditions implications for ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 30(4), 693–722. Myers, G. (1996). Strategic vagueness in academic writing. In E. Ventola, & A. Mauranen (Eds.), Academic writing: intercultural and textual issues (pp. 3–17). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Nwogu, K. N. (1997). The medical research paper structure and function. English for Specific Purposes, 16(2), 119–138. Paltridge, B. (2001). Linguistic research and EAP pedagogy. In J. Flowerdew, & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp. 55–70). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Y. Ruiying, D. Allison / English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004) 264–279
279
Posteguillo, S. (1999). The scientific structure of computer science research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 139–160. Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 149–170. Sharp, A. (1996) Readability: are ELT professionals impressed by unreadable writing? Paper presented at the English in SE Asia Conference, National Institute of Education, Singapore, 21–23 November 1996. Stanley, R. M. (1984). The recognition of macrostructure a pilot study. Reading in a Foreign Language, 2, 156–168. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swales, J.M. (1993). Genre and engagement. Revue Belge de Philologie et d’Histoire, 71, 687-698. Thetela, P. (1997). Evaluated entities and parameters of value in academic research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 16(2), 101–118. Williams, G., & Hasan, R. (1996). Introduction. In R. Hasan, & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. xi–xxi). London and New York: Longman. Yang, R. (2001). A genre analysis of research articles in applied linguistics. Unpublished PhD thesis, National University of Singapore. Yang, R. & Allison, D. (in press). Research articles in applied linguistics: moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes. doi:10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00026-1. Yang Ruiying is a Professor at the School of Foreign Languages, Xi’an Jiaotong University, China. She has taught courses in linguistics, sociolinguistics and discourse analysis and published articles on genre analysis, academic reading, and learning styles and communication strategies of Chinese learners. Her current research interests are in genre analysis and genre-based approaches to academic reading and writing. Desmond Allison is an Associate Professor at the Department of English Language and Literature, National University of Singapore. He has taught and published extensively in applied linguistics and EAP, where his areas of long-term interest include academic reading and writing, investigating and evaluating language programmes, and introducing students to applied language research.