Cover not available
Article published In:
English Text Construction
Vol. 12:2 (2019) ► pp.235–264

Coherence relations in research article discussions

How are sentences organised to realise genre moves?

| Doshisha University

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

Keywords: coherence relations, discussion section, genre analysis, move structure, research articles
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Coherence structure and genre structure
  • 3.Material and methods
    • 3.1Data selection
    • 3.2Data analysis methods
  • 4.Results and discussion
    • 4.1Types of moves that occur in the selected discussions
    • 4.2How writers of RA discussions organise sentences to achieve the discussion moves
      • 4.2.1Types of relations used in the moves
      • 4.2.2The use of Elaboration and Joint or Justify to construct descriptive or argumentative sequences
      • 4.2.3The use of Evaluation in move 4A
      • 4.2.4The use of Background in Move 1
      • 4.2.5The use of Concession in Move 3
      • 4.2.6The use of Additive in Move 5
  • 5.Limitations of the study
  • 6.Concluding remarks
  • References
Published online: 1 October 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.00028.kaw
References
Allison, Desmond, Linda Cooley, Jo Lewkowicz & David Nunan
1998 Dissertation writing in action: The development of a dissertation writing support program for ESL graduate research students. English for Specific Purposes 17 (2): 199–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Basturkmen, Helen & Janet von Randow
2014 Guiding the reader (or not) to re-create coherence: Observations on postgraduate student writing in an academic argumentative writing task. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 161: 14–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bruce, Ian
2014 Expressing criticality in the literature review in research article introductions in applied linguistics and psychology. English for Specific Purposes 361: 85–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bunton, David
1998 Linguistic and Textual Problems in Ph. D and M. Phil Theses: an analysis of genre moves and metatext. PhD dissertation, University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
2005 The structure of PhD conclusion chapters. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (3): 207–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Canagarajah, Suresh A.
2013 Critical academic writing and multilingual students. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Candlin, Christopher, Guenter Plum, Sue Spinks & National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research
1998 Researching academic literacies. Sydney: Macquarie University.Google Scholar
Chik, Sonya
2015 Rhetorical Relations in Japanese and English Corporate Enabling Texts. Proceedings of JASFL 91: 39–52.Google Scholar
Cho, Seonhee
2004 Challenges of entering discourse communities through publishing in English: Perspectives of nonnative-speaking doctoral students in the United States of America. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education 3 (1): 47–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cooley, Linda & Jo Lewkowicz
1997 Developing awareness of the rhetorical and linguistic conventions of writing a thesis in English. In Culture and styles of academic discourse, Anna Duszak (ed.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 113–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flowerdew, John
2000 Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation, and the nonnative-English-speaking Scholar. TESOL Quarterly 34 (1): 127–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Golebiowski, Zofia
2006 The distribution of discoursal salience in research papers: Relational hypotaxis and parataxis. Discourse Studies 8 (2): 259–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 Prominent messages in Education and Applied Linguistic abstracts: How do authors appeal to their prospective readers? Journal of Pragmatics 41 (4): 753–769. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gosden, Hugh
1992 Research writing and NNSs: From the editors. Journal of Second Language Writing 1 (2): 123–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grabe, William & Robert B. Kaplan
1996 Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistics perspective. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Gruber, Helmut & Peter Muntigl
2005 Generic and rhetorical structures of texts: Two sides of the same coin? Folia Linguistica 39(1–2): 75–114.Google Scholar
Hinds, John
1987 Reader versus writer responsibility. In Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text, Ulla Connor & Robert B. Kaplan (eds). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 141–152.Google Scholar
1990 Inductive, deductive, quasi-inductive: expository writing in Japanese, Korean, Chinese and Thai. In Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives, Ulla Connor & Ann M. Johns (eds). Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, 87–110.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken
2003 Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (1): 17–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004 Disciplinary discourses, Michigan classics ed.: Social interactions in academic writing. University of Michigan Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
Lee, Icy
2002 Teaching coherence to ESL students: A classroom inquiry. Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2): 135–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewin, Beverly, Jonathan Fine & Lynn Young
2001 Expository discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Mann, William C.
2003 RST relation definition. [URL] (Last accessed on 7 February 2019).
Mann, William C. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen
1991 Functions of language in two frameworks. Word 42(3): 231–249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mann, William C., Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen & Sandra A. Thompson
1992 Rhetorical structure theory and text analysis. In Discourse description: Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text, William C. Mann & Sandra A. Thompson (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 39–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mann, William C. & Sandra A. Thompson
1988 Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 8 (3): 243–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M.
2015 Rhetorical system and structure theory: The semantic system of rhetorical relations. Book manuscript.Google Scholar
McNabb, Richard
2001 Making the gesture: Graduate student submissions and the expectation of journal referees. Composition Studies 29 (1): 9–26.Google Scholar
O’Brien, Theresa
1995 Rhetorical Structure analysis and the case of the inaccurate, incoherent source-hopper. Applied Linguistics 16 (4): 442–482. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Donnell, Mike
2002 RST tool – an RST markup tool. [URL] (Last accessed on 7 February 2019).
Paltridge, Brian & Sue Starfield
2007 Thesis and dissertation writing in a second language: A handbook for supervisors. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peacock, Matthew
2002 Communicative moves in the discussion section of research articles. System 30 (4): 479–497. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Redeker, Gisela
2000 Coherence and structure in text and discourse. In Abduction, belief, and context in dialogue: Studies in computational pragmatics, Harry Bunt & William Black (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 233–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Redeker, Gisela & Helmut Gruber
2014 Introduction. In Pragmatics of discourse coherence, Helmut Gruber & Gisela Redeker (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–20.Google Scholar
Shaw, Philip
2000 Towards classifying the arguments in research genres. In Analysing professional genres, Anna Trosberg (ed.). John Benjamins, 41–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stede, Manfred
2008 RST revisited: Disentangling nuclearity. In Subordination verses Coordination in sentence and text – from a cross-linguistic perspective, Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen & Wiebke Ramm (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 33–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swales, John M.
1990 Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2004 Research genres: Explorations and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swales, John M. & Christine B. Feak
2012 Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (3rd ed). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taboada, Maite
2006 Discourse markers as signals (or not) of rhetorical relations. Journal of pragmatics 38 (4): 567–592. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taboada, Maite & Julia Lavid
2003 Rhetorical and thematic patterns in scheduling dialogues: A generic characterization. Functions of Language 10 (2): 147–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tardy, Christine M.
2005 “It’s like a story”: Rhetorical knowledge development in advanced academic literacy. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (4): 325–338. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yang, Ruiying & Desmond Allison
2003 Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes 22 (4): 365–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Abu-Ayyash, Emad A. S.
2021. Non-coherent cohesive texts. English Text Construction 14:2 ► pp. 182 ff. DOI logo
Kawase, Tomoyuki
2022. How do applied linguistics researchers structure coherence relations in the process of establishing a niche for their research?. Text & Talk 42:2 ► pp. 233 ff. DOI logo
Kawase, Tomoyuki
2024. Move combinations in the conclusion section of applied linguistics research articles. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.