The rhetorical organization of research article discussion sections: An investigation into genre evolution in applied linguistics

Abstract

The present study aimed to investigate the evolution of the rhetorical structure of research article discussions in three prestigious journals covering the two chronological periods of 1980-1989 (group A) and 2005-2010 (group B). It also studied changes in the application of the two most frequently used verb tenses − the simple present tense and the simple past tense − over the two time periods. Overall, 115 published articles were selected from the aforementioned journals. Move analysis was accomplished through application of Dudley-Evans' (1994) model on the datasets. Findings indicated that despite the overall consistency in utilizing the nine-move organization, there emerged rather considerable differences in the frequency of (Un) expected outcome and Explanation moves. A reduction in the frequency of (Un) expected outcome in group B indicated that present-day writers announce results with more caution to win the acquiescence of reviewers and readers. On the other hand, a rise in explanations revealed a growing concern for including more arguments in order to follow the analytical nature of the discussion section. The results also demonstrated a shift from the simple present tense toward the simple past tense, which marks a shift from generalization to specificity. Keywords: research article, move, discussion section, genre evolution

A Move Analysis of Research Discussion Section in English Articles Published in Thai and International Journals

“…Thus, their proposed model comprised eight moves as indicated in Table 3. Furthermore, by comparing the local and international applied linguistics journals, Jalilifar et al (2012) found the tendency of low frequency of local RA discussion's Move 5 (reference to previous research), indicating that local writers did not relate their work to previous research.…”

“…Finally, Jalilifar et al (2012) investigated one discipline, applied linguistics, with a comparison between local (Iranian) and international journals. They applied the Dudley-Evans model and agreed with Peacock's previous assertion that it needed modification.…”

“…As discussion section is where the author largely relies on opinion expression, the style of writing that allows authors to express their opinion freely would be more required and thus, the single-level scheme can better provide the approach to the convention of RA discussion structure due to the cyclic nature of move in writing freely. This justification led to the adaptation and development of two previous single-level schemes proposed by Jalilifar et al (2012) and Amnuai and Wannaruk (2013) so as to answer the research questions as follows.…”

“…Twenty RA discussions from Thai and international journals were collected as data for this move analysis. The analytical framework was adapted and developed based on Jalilifar et al (2012) and Amnuai and Wannaruk (2013). Findings reveal that the presence of moves in RA discussions in Thai and international journals are not different.…”

Macrostructural Analysis of STEM Students’ Research Introductions in the Secondary Education Context: Implications for Pedagogy, Curriculum, and Teacher Professional Development

“…The 2004 framework, more encompassing, is an improved version of the 1900 model successfully addressing most of the constraints pointed out by the scholars against the old one (Ozturk, 2007). Hence, several works have adopted this framework in analyzing research introduction across different fields (see Farnia & Barati, 2017;Isik Tas, 2008;Jalilifar, 2010;Lintao & Erfe, 2012;Minaei & Sabet, 2017;Sheldon, 2011).…”