Move combinations in the conclusion section of applied linguistics research articles
Genre analyses of research articles (RAs) have identified types of communicative purposes or moves achieved in different sections. However, very few studies have explored why moves are sequenced in specific manners. This study examines how writers relate moves to be coherent in the conclusion section of fifty applied linguistics RAs. The analysis shows that the writers achieved different types of moves in a relational manner for specific rhetorical intentions. The majority presented a summary of the study or previous research trends as background information to guide readers to acknowledge the significance of the study or the findings they later indicated. Some writers drew implications from findings of their studies they presented earlier to demonstrate the usefulness of the findings. Others provided recommendations for future studies based on the limitations of their studies that they indicated earlier to draw readers’ attention away from the limitations as potential weaknesses.
Publication history
1.Introduction
Genre analyses of the rhetorical structure of research articles (RAs) have been extensively conducted. Many studies have sought to identify communicative purposes or moves and their constitutive actions or steps in the different sections. However, studies examining move structure of RAs have often neglected why moves are sequenced in specific manners. Despite this, previous studies investigating other genres have reported cases where moves are achieved in a relational manner. Taboada and Lavid’s (2003)Taboada, Maite, and Julia Lavid 2003 “Rhetorical and Thematic Patterns in Scheduling Dialogues: A Generic Characterization.” Functions of Language 10 (2): 147–178. Taboada, Maite, and Julia Lavid 2003 “Rhetorical and Thematic Patterns in Scheduling Dialogues: A Generic Characterization.” Functions of Language 10 (2): 147–178. analysis of scheduling dialogues revealed that many speakers used background/foreground relations when they proposed a plan to the hearer, whereas they used a “cause and effect” type of relation when hearers rejected a proposal. Kong (1998)Kong, Kenneth C. 1998 “Are Simple Business Request Letters Really Simple? A Comparison of Chinese and English Business Request Letters.” Text 18 (1): 103–141. Kong, Kenneth C. 1998 “Are Simple Business Request Letters Really Simple? A Comparison of Chinese and English Business Request Letters.” Text 18 (1): 103–141. examined relational structure between moves in business letters by Chinese and English-speaking writers. He found that Chinese-speaking writers tended to present a request move after a premise move indicating the legitimacy of the request as background information, while English-speaking writers tended to present a request move followed by a move more explicitly justifying the request. Gruber and Muntigl’s (2005)Gruber, Helmut, and Peter Muntigl 2005 “Generic and Rhetorical Structures of Texts: Two Sides of the Same Coin?” Folia Linguistica 39 (1–2): 75–114. Gruber, Helmut, and Peter Muntigl 2005 “Generic and Rhetorical Structures of Texts: Two Sides of the Same Coin?” Folia Linguistica 39 (1–2): 75–114. analysis of students’ essays showed that the four moves of the essays – Orientation, Consequential Explanation, Factorial Explanation, Discussion and Summary – can be realised in a relational manner. For example, textual parts that realise Consequential and Factorial Explanations, and Discussion were shown to be related in the way that the former provides background information to the latter. Although very few, there are also studies that investigated relational structure of moves in RAs. Lim’s (2012)Lim, Jason Miin-Hwa 2012 “How Do Writers Establish Research Niches? A Genre-Based Investigation into Management Researchers’ Rhetorical Steps and Linguistic Mechanisms.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (3): 229–245. Lim, Jason Miin-Hwa 2012 “How Do Writers Establish Research Niches? A Genre-Based Investigation into Management Researchers’ Rhetorical Steps and Linguistic Mechanisms.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (3): 229–245. analysis of the introduction section of management science RAs demonstrated that writers often used concession relation between a move describing contexts of the research problem and a move providing justification of the research. By contrast, Kawase’s (2022) 2022 “How Do Applied Linguistics Researchers Structure Coherence Relations in the Process of Establishing a Niche for Their Research?” Text & Talk 42 (2): 233–254. 2022 “How Do Applied Linguistics Researchers Structure Coherence Relations in the Process of Establishing a Niche for Their Research?” Text & Talk 42 (2): 233–254. analysis of applied linguistics RA introductions revealed that when writers sought to justify their studies by indicating how they were to extend previous studies, they had a greater tendency to do this after describing contexts of the research as background information, instead of using a concession relation.
The purpose of the present research is to extend this line of research by analysing the conclusion section of fifty applied linguistics RAs. The analysis identifies conclusion moves based on Yang and Allison’s (2003)Yang, Ruiying, and Desmond Allison 2003 “Research Articles in Applied Linguistics: Moving from Results to Conclusions.” English for Specific Purposes 22 (4): 365–385. Yang, Ruiying, and Desmond Allison 2003 “Research Articles in Applied Linguistics: Moving from Results to Conclusions.” English for Specific Purposes 22 (4): 365–385. taxonomy and examines how these moves are relationally structured based on Rhetorical Structure Theory or RST (Mann and Thompson 1988Mann, William C., and Sandra A. Thompson 1988 “Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization.” Text 8 (3): 243–281. Mann, William C., and Sandra A. Thompson 1988 “Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization.” Text 8 (3): 243–281. ; Mann, Matthiessen and Thompson 1992Mann, William C., Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen, and Sandra A. Thompson 1992 “Rhetorical Structure Theory and Text Analysis.” In Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text, ed. by William C. Mann, and Sandra A. Thompson, 39–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Mann, William C., Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen, and Sandra A. Thompson 1992 “Rhetorical Structure Theory and Text Analysis.” In Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text, ed. by William C. Mann, and Sandra A. Thompson, 39–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ). The findings are expected to provide useful insights for those involved in the education of English for Research Publication Purposes (ERPP).
2.Literature review
2.1Genre structure and coherence structure
This study explores how authors of applied linguistics RAs relate sentences or clauses that realise genre moves to be coherent in the conclusion section. Genre structure and coherence structure are thus the focus of the analysis. According to Swales (1990Swales, John. M. 1990 Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Swales, John. M. 1990 Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press., 58), “[a] genre comprises a class of communicative events, the members of which share some set of communicative purposes”. Likewise, for Hyland (2003Hyland, Ken 2003 “Genre-Based Pedagogies: A Social Response to Process.” Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (1): 17–29. Hyland, Ken 2003 “Genre-Based Pedagogies: A Social Response to Process.” Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (1): 17–29. , 22), a genre consists of “rhetorical actions that writers draw on to respond to perceived repeated situations; they are choices which represent effective ways of getting things done in familiar contexts”. By structuring a text to achieve these communicative moves of a given genre, writers could appeal to their membership in given communities and its readership. As such, the structure of a text determined by genre moves sought in the (parts of the) texts is referred to as genre structure. In contrast, according to Redeker and Gruber (2014Redeker, Gisela, and Helmut Gruber 2014 “Introduction: The Pragmatics of Discourse Coherence.” In The Pragmatics of Discourse Coherence, ed. by Helmut Gruber, and Gisela Redeker, 1–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Redeker, Gisela, and Helmut Gruber 2014 “Introduction: The Pragmatics of Discourse Coherence.” In The Pragmatics of Discourse Coherence, ed. by Helmut Gruber, and Gisela Redeker, 1–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. , 8), although “genres address the role the discourse fulfils within the social activity”, coherence concerns “cognitive states”. As has been pointed out, coherence is not “a product of (formally represented) cohesion” (Bublitz 1999Bublitz, Wolfram 1999 “Introduction: Views of Coherence.” In Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse: How to Create It and How to Describe It, ed. by Wolfram Bublitz, Uta Lenk, and Eija Ventola, 1–7. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bublitz, Wolfram 1999 “Introduction: Views of Coherence.” In Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse: How to Create It and How to Describe It, ed. by Wolfram Bublitz, Uta Lenk, and Eija Ventola, 1–7. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. , 1), which refers to “textual tightness as manifested by structural means” (Östman 1999Östman, Jan-Ola 1999 “Coherence through Understanding through Discourse Patterns: Focus on News Reports.” In Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse: How to Create It and How to Describe It, ed. by Wolfram Bublitz, Uta Lenk, and Eija Ventola, 77–100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Östman, Jan-Ola 1999 “Coherence through Understanding through Discourse Patterns: Focus on News Reports.” In Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse: How to Create It and How to Describe It, ed. by Wolfram Bublitz, Uta Lenk, and Eija Ventola, 77–100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. , 77). Coherence, instead, is “an aspect of comprehension that is established in the mind of the reader as a result of perception of relatedness among a text’s propositions” (McCagg 1990McCagg, Peter 1990 “Toward Understanding Coherence: A Response Proposition Taxonomy.” In Coherence in Writing: Research and Pedagogical Perspectives, ed. by Ulla Connor, and Ann M. Johns, 111–127. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.McCagg, Peter 1990 “Toward Understanding Coherence: A Response Proposition Taxonomy.” In Coherence in Writing: Research and Pedagogical Perspectives, ed. by Ulla Connor, and Ann M. Johns, 111–127. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages., 113). In addition to propositional coherence, the functional aspect of coherence is often considered, which concerns the overall purpose or goal of a text and how its parts contribute to achieving that goal. Lautamatti (1990Lautamatti, Lisa 1990 “Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse.” In Coherence in Writing: Research and Pedagogical Perspectives, ed. by Ulla Connor, and Ann M. Johns, 29–40. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.Lautamatti, Lisa 1990 “Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse.” In Coherence in Writing: Research and Pedagogical Perspectives, ed. by Ulla Connor, and Ann M. Johns, 29–40. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages., 31) provides the following sequence as an example.
The sequence above is coherent although it is evidently lacking surface cohesion. This is because it can be perceived to constitute a “meaningful chain of communicative acts” (Lautamatti 1990Lautamatti, Lisa 1990 “Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse.” In Coherence in Writing: Research and Pedagogical Perspectives, ed. by Ulla Connor, and Ann M. Johns, 29–40. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.Lautamatti, Lisa 1990 “Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse.” In Coherence in Writing: Research and Pedagogical Perspectives, ed. by Ulla Connor, and Ann M. Johns, 29–40. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages., 31). Coherence is thus a relational concept as well as “semantic-functional phenomenon” (Östman 1999Östman, Jan-Ola 1999 “Coherence through Understanding through Discourse Patterns: Focus on News Reports.” In Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse: How to Create It and How to Describe It, ed. by Wolfram Bublitz, Uta Lenk, and Eija Ventola, 77–100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Östman, Jan-Ola 1999 “Coherence through Understanding through Discourse Patterns: Focus on News Reports.” In Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse: How to Create It and How to Describe It, ed. by Wolfram Bublitz, Uta Lenk, and Eija Ventola, 77–100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. , 77). For this, as Redeker (2000Redeker, Gisela 2000 “Coherence and Structure in Text and Discourse.” In Abduction, Belief, and Context in Dialogue: Studies in Computational Pragmatics, ed. by Harry Bunt, and William Black, 233–263. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Redeker, Gisela 2000 “Coherence and Structure in Text and Discourse.” In Abduction, Belief, and Context in Dialogue: Studies in Computational Pragmatics, ed. by Harry Bunt, and William Black, 233–263. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. , 236) notes, a “widely accepted current paradigm for the description of textual coherence is a group of approaches that describe text organisation in terms of coherence relations”.
Text structure can thus be determined by genre moves, whereas parts of the text are also structured to be coherent. In other words, a text can be said to constitute genre and coherence structures at the same time, as Gruber and Muntigl (2005Gruber, Helmut, and Peter Muntigl 2005 “Generic and Rhetorical Structures of Texts: Two Sides of the Same Coin?” Folia Linguistica 39 (1–2): 75–114. Gruber, Helmut, and Peter Muntigl 2005 “Generic and Rhetorical Structures of Texts: Two Sides of the Same Coin?” Folia Linguistica 39 (1–2): 75–114. , 75) described these text structures as “two sides of the same coin” (see Section 1 for studies corroborating this point).
2.2Why (separate) conclusions?
The focus of the present analysis is also on the conclusion section of RAs. Swales (1990)Swales, John. M. 1990 Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Swales, John. M. 1990 Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. claimed that RAs constitute the IMRD (Introduction-Methods-Results-Discussion) structure based on the assumption that conclusion section is equivalent to or a part of the discussion section. Swales and Feak (2012Swales, John. M., and Christine B. Feak 2012 Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Tasks and Skills, 3rd edn. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Swales, John. M., and Christine B. Feak 2012 Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Tasks and Skills, 3rd edn. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. , 365) indeed noted that “we will not distinguish these two terms [discussion and conclusion] since the difference is largely conventional”. This notion of the IMRD structure has been adopted by a number of researchers examining the rhetorical structure of RAs. Nwogu (1997)Nwogu, Kevin N. 1997 “The Medical Research Paper: Structure and Functions.” English for Specific Purposes 16 (2): 119–138. Nwogu, Kevin N. 1997 “The Medical Research Paper: Structure and Functions.” English for Specific Purposes 16 (2): 119–138. for example examined the overall structure of medical RAs and identified the sentences that realise the final move (i.e., stating research conclusion) of the discussion section as the conclusion. Posteguillo (1999)Posteguillo, Santiago 1999 “The Schematic Structure of Computer Science Research Articles.” English for Specific Purposes 18 (2): 139–160. Posteguillo, Santiago 1999 “The Schematic Structure of Computer Science Research Articles.” English for Specific Purposes 18 (2): 139–160. presented analyses of computer science RA conclusions based on Swales’ (1990)Swales, John. M. 1990 Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Swales, John. M. 1990 Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. move taxonomy of RA discussions and reported that sentences that realise the move of recommendations for further studies is the conclusion irrespective of whether it is presented in the discussion or the conclusion section.
More recent studies, however, have reported cases of separate conclusions. Yang and Allison’s (2003)Yang, Ruiying, and Desmond Allison 2003 “Research Articles in Applied Linguistics: Moving from Results to Conclusions.” English for Specific Purposes 22 (4): 365–385. Yang, Ruiying, and Desmond Allison 2003 “Research Articles in Applied Linguistics: Moving from Results to Conclusions.” English for Specific Purposes 22 (4): 365–385. analysis of applied linguistics RAs demonstrated that the majority contained separate conclusions following the discussion section or the results and discussion section. Based on the cross-disciplinary investigations of the macrostructure of RAs, Lin and Evans (2012)Lin, Ling, and Stephen Evans 2012 “Structural Patterns in Empirical Research Articles: A Cross-Disciplinary Study.” English for Specific Purposes 31 (3): 150–160. Lin, Ling, and Stephen Evans 2012 “Structural Patterns in Empirical Research Articles: A Cross-Disciplinary Study.” English for Specific Purposes 31 (3): 150–160. revealed that the most frequently used pattern contained a separate conclusion presented after the results and discussion section. In the similar vein, Deng and Liu (2023)Deng, Liming, and Jing Liu 2023 “Move–Bundle Connection in Conclusion Sections of Research Articles across Disciplines.” Applied Linguistics 44 (3): 527–554. Deng, Liming, and Jing Liu 2023 “Move–Bundle Connection in Conclusion Sections of Research Articles across Disciplines.” Applied Linguistics 44 (3): 527–554. investigated move structure of the conclusions of both soft and hard science RAs and concluded that “the IMRD model is not a standard option for RAs … and that independent conclusion section should be given more prominence” (ibid., 550). We should note here that presenting a separate conclusion section is often indicated as a generic feature of the RAs in the author guidelines page of the journal websites. Taking applied linguistics journals for example, such guidelines can be found in the websites of the journals including English for Specific Purposes, Journal of Pragmatics, Journal of Second Language Writing, and System. The present analysis of separate conclusions is thus expected to provide useful findings for those involved in the writing education of ERPP.
3.Methods
3.1How to analyse coherence relations between conclusion moves
The present study sought to identify moves in the selected RA conclusions based on Yang and Allison’s (2003)Yang, Ruiying, and Desmond Allison 2003 “Research Articles in Applied Linguistics: Moving from Results to Conclusions.” English for Specific Purposes 22 (4): 365–385. Yang, Ruiying, and Desmond Allison 2003 “Research Articles in Applied Linguistics: Moving from Results to Conclusions.” English for Specific Purposes 22 (4): 365–385. model, adopting the notion that a move/step can be realised by clause or sentence (in the present analysis a clause or a sentence that realises a move is referred to as a unit). Unlike Yang and Allison’s model, all of the writers were found to present the summary of the study and/or the contextual information of the study. Based on this finding, the final framework to identify moves was formulated as shown in Table 1.
| Moves | Steps | |
|---|---|---|
| Move 1 | Opening / Background | Step 1. Summary of the study or findings Step 2. Background information (context of the study) |
| Move 2 | Evaluating the study | Step 1. Indicating significance / advantage Step 2. Indicating limitations Step 3. Evaluating methodology |
| Move 3 | Deductions from the research | Step 1. Recommending further research Step 2. Drawing pedagogical implications |
After identifying moves in the data set, the analysis examined how units that realise moves are related to each other based on Rhetorical Structure Theory or RST (Mann and Thompson 1988; Mann, Matthiessen and Thompson 1992Mann, William C., Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen, and Sandra A. Thompson 1992 “Rhetorical Structure Theory and Text Analysis.” In Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text, ed. by William C. Mann, and Sandra A. Thompson, 39–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Mann, William C., Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen, and Sandra A. Thompson 1992 “Rhetorical Structure Theory and Text Analysis.” In Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text, ed. by William C. Mann, and Sandra A. Thompson, 39–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ). RST is designed to “account for the presence or absence of non sequiturs” (Mann, Matthiessen and Thompson 1992Mann, William C., Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen, and Sandra A. Thompson 1992 “Rhetorical Structure Theory and Text Analysis.” In Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text, ed. by William C. Mann, and Sandra A. Thompson, 39–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Mann, William C., Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen, and Sandra A. Thompson 1992 “Rhetorical Structure Theory and Text Analysis.” In Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text, ed. by William C. Mann, and Sandra A. Thompson, 39–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. , 41) and has been used to examine coherence-related features of various genres, including academic essays (e.g., O’Brien 1995O’Brien, Teresa 1995 “Rhetorical Structure Analysis and the Case of the Inaccurate, Incoherent Source-Hopper.” Applied Linguistics 16 (4): 442–482. O’Brien, Teresa 1995 “Rhetorical Structure Analysis and the Case of the Inaccurate, Incoherent Source-Hopper.” Applied Linguistics 16 (4): 442–482. ; Candlin et al. 1998Candlin, Christopher, Guenter Plum, Sue Spinks, and National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research 1998 Researching Academic Literacies. Sydney: Macquarie University.Candlin, Christopher, Guenter Plum, Sue Spinks, and National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research 1998 Researching Academic Literacies. Sydney: Macquarie University.; Gruber and Muntigl 2005Gruber, Helmut, and Peter Muntigl 2005 “Generic and Rhetorical Structures of Texts: Two Sides of the Same Coin?” Folia Linguistica 39 (1–2): 75–114. Gruber, Helmut, and Peter Muntigl 2005 “Generic and Rhetorical Structures of Texts: Two Sides of the Same Coin?” Folia Linguistica 39 (1–2): 75–114. ; Gruber 2006Gruber, Helmut 2006 “Rhetorical Structure Theory and Quality Assessment of Students’ Texts.” Information Design Journal 14 (2): 114–129. Gruber, Helmut 2006 “Rhetorical Structure Theory and Quality Assessment of Students’ Texts.” Information Design Journal 14 (2): 114–129. ; Skoufaki 2020Skoufaki, Sophia 2020 “Rhetorical Structure Theory and Coherence Break Identification.” Text & Talk 40 (1): 99–124. Skoufaki, Sophia 2020 “Rhetorical Structure Theory and Coherence Break Identification.” Text & Talk 40 (1): 99–124. ) and published RAs (e.g., Kawase 2019Kawase, Tomoyuki 2019 “Coherence Relations in Research Article Discussions: How Are Sentences Organised to Realise Genre Moves?” English Text Construction 12 (2): 235–264. Kawase, Tomoyuki 2019 “Coherence Relations in Research Article Discussions: How Are Sentences Organised to Realise Genre Moves?” English Text Construction 12 (2): 235–264. , 2022 2022 “How Do Applied Linguistics Researchers Structure Coherence Relations in the Process of Establishing a Niche for Their Research?” Text & Talk 42 (2): 233–254. 2022 “How Do Applied Linguistics Researchers Structure Coherence Relations in the Process of Establishing a Niche for Their Research?” Text & Talk 42 (2): 233–254. ). In RST, coherence relations are viewed as the types of intentions achievable in expository or argumentative prose in English. Different sets of relations have been identified to construct the relation taxonomy (e.g., Mann and Thompson 1988Mann, William C., and Sandra A. Thompson 1988 “Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization.” Text 8 (3): 243–281. Mann, William C., and Sandra A. Thompson 1988 “Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization.” Text 8 (3): 243–281. ; Mann, Matthiessen and Thompson 1992Mann, William C., Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen, and Sandra A. Thompson 1992 “Rhetorical Structure Theory and Text Analysis.” In Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text, ed. by William C. Mann, and Sandra A. Thompson, 39–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Mann, William C., Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen, and Sandra A. Thompson 1992 “Rhetorical Structure Theory and Text Analysis.” In Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text, ed. by William C. Mann, and Sandra A. Thompson, 39–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ; Candlin et al. 1998Candlin, Christopher, Guenter Plum, Sue Spinks, and National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research 1998 Researching Academic Literacies. Sydney: Macquarie University.Candlin, Christopher, Guenter Plum, Sue Spinks, and National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research 1998 Researching Academic Literacies. Sydney: Macquarie University.; Mann and Taboada 2023Mann, William C., and Maite Taboada 2023 The RST Site: Relation Definitions. https://www.sfu.ca/rst/01intro/definitions.htmlMann, William C., and Maite Taboada 2023 The RST Site: Relation Definitions. https://www.sfu.ca/rst/01intro/definitions.html). In RST analysis, identification of relations is based on a taxonomy that defines relations in terms of (1) constraints on nucleus or satellite or both and (2) intended effect upon readers (writer’s intention). For example, O’Brien (1995) used Mann and Thompson’s (1988)Mann, William C., and Sandra A. Thompson 1988 “Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization.” Text 8 (3): 243–281. Mann, William C., and Sandra A. Thompson 1988 “Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization.” Text 8 (3): 243–281. relation set to illustrate the relation between the following sentences: “She bought flowers for him. This was a bit odd” (O’Brien 1995O’Brien, Teresa 1995 “Rhetorical Structure Analysis and the Case of the Inaccurate, Incoherent Source-Hopper.” Applied Linguistics 16 (4): 442–482. O’Brien, Teresa 1995 “Rhetorical Structure Analysis and the Case of the Inaccurate, Incoherent Source-Hopper.” Applied Linguistics 16 (4): 442–482. , 446). While it seems clear that the first sentence constitutes a nucleus and the second does a satellite, they are identified as constituting an RST relation called Evaluation. According to the definition, the constraint for this relation is “S[atellite] relates N[ucleus] to degree of W[riter]’s positive regard toward N[ucleus]”, and the intended effect is “R[eader] recognizes that S assesses N and recognizes the value it assigns” (Mann and Thompson 1988Mann, William C., and Sandra A. Thompson 1988 “Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization.” Text 8 (3): 243–281. Mann, William C., and Sandra A. Thompson 1988 “Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization.” Text 8 (3): 243–281. ). Indeed, the second sentence can be seen to assess the fact noted in the first sentence, suggesting that she does not normally buy flowers for him. As such, readers would recognise that her doing so might have some special meaning or value.
RST also defines structural features of coherence relations. It assumes that coherence relations are hierarchically structured in which “elementary parts are composed into larger parts, which in turn are composed into yet larger parts up to the scale of the whole text” (Mann, Matthiessen and Thompson 1992Mann, William C., Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen, and Sandra A. Thompson 1992 “Rhetorical Structure Theory and Text Analysis.” In Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text, ed. by William C. Mann, and Sandra A. Thompson, 39–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Mann, William C., Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen, and Sandra A. Thompson 1992 “Rhetorical Structure Theory and Text Analysis.” In Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text, ed. by William C. Mann, and Sandra A. Thompson, 39–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. , 42). Moreover, these relations constitute specific structural patterns, which are called schemas and graphically represented in RST analysis as in Figure 1.
A nuclear-satellite schema is made up of two types of propositions which differ in terms of the saliency of the message; a proposition which is “more essential to writer’s purpose” (Mann and Thompson 1988Mann, William C., and Sandra A. Thompson 1988 “Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization.” Text 8 (3): 243–281. Mann, William C., and Sandra A. Thompson 1988 “Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization.” Text 8 (3): 243–281. , 271) is identified as a nucleus, while the other part, a satellite, is “more peripheral” (Mann, Matthiessen and Thompson 1992Mann, William C., Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen, and Sandra A. Thompson 1992 “Rhetorical Structure Theory and Text Analysis.” In Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text, ed. by William C. Mann, and Sandra A. Thompson, 39–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Mann, William C., Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen, and Sandra A. Thompson 1992 “Rhetorical Structure Theory and Text Analysis.” In Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text, ed. by William C. Mann, and Sandra A. Thompson, 39–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. , 44). A nucleus is represented by a vertical line and a satellite is represented by an arc in the diagram representing relational structure in RST analysis. The other three options are classified as multi-nuclear schemas in which equally salient ideas are either juxtaposed, contrasted, or presented in a sequential manner. These multi-nuclear relations are represented by two or more diagonal lines.
The present analysis examined how units that realise moves are coherently related in the conclusion sections of the selected RAs. The analysis adopted the relation taxonomy of Mann and Taboada’s (2023)Mann, William C., and Maite Taboada 2023 The RST Site: Relation Definitions. https://www.sfu.ca/rst/01intro/definitions.htmlMann, William C., and Maite Taboada 2023 The RST Site: Relation Definitions. https://www.sfu.ca/rst/01intro/definitions.html (see Appendix for the definitions of the relations referred to in this study). The “RST tool” (O’Donnell 2002O’Donnell, Mike 2002 RST Tool – An RST Markup Tool. Retrieved from http://www.wagsoft.com/RSTTool/O’Donnell, Mike 2002 RST Tool – An RST Markup Tool. Retrieved from http://www.wagsoft.com/RSTTool/) was used to graphically represent analyses of relational structure.
3.2Data selection
For the present research, conclusions of fifty applied linguistics RAs (T1–T50) were selected as the data. Since the purpose of the present study is to analyse separate conclusions (i.e., not D of IMRD structure), they were selected only from RAs with a section that has the section heading Conclusions – or the equivalent (e.g., Conclusion; Concluding remarks) – as well as is presented after the Discussion (or the Results and Discussion) section. Since the actual content of the RAs could significantly influence the rhetorical orientations in different sections (e.g., Peacock 2002Peacock, Matthew 2002 “Communicative Moves in the Discussion Section of Research Articles.” System 30 (4): 479–497. Peacock, Matthew 2002 “Communicative Moves in the Discussion Section of Research Articles.” System 30 (4): 479–497. ), the selected conclusions are only from RAs that are not theoretical in nature but present empirical analyses to ensure comparability of the texts. Also, to this end, they were selected only from RAs conducting a text or discourse analysis.
4.Results
4.1Overall results
The relations and the move combinations used most by the writers are shown in Table 2.
| The most used relations | No. of authors using the relation (/50) |
The most used move combinations | No. of authors using the combination (/50) |
|---|---|---|---|
| BG | 50 (100%) | Move 1 BG Move 2–1 | 35 (70%) |
| CC | 15 (30%) | Move 2–1 BG Move 3 | 25 (50%) |
| L | 6 (12%) | Move 2–2 BG Move 3–1 | 14 (28%) |
Note. The following abbreviations are used to refer to the relations in the above table: BG = Background, CC = Concession, L = List.
The analysis shows that Background was the most frequently employed relation, as it was used in the three most commonly used move combinations. The second most utilised relation Concession was observed between various moves, but was most prevalent in relating Move 1 to Move 2–1. Additionally, the majority of the writers using List did so between Move 2–1 and Move 3–1. These move combinations involving Background, Concession, or List will be exemplified in the subsequent sections as potential features of separate conclusions of applied linguistics RAs.
4.2Move combinations that utilise Background
4.2.1Move 1 Background Move 2–1
The analysis shows that 35 writers indicated significant aspects of the study (Move 2–1) after presenting the summary of the study (Move 1–1) and/or indicating previous research trends (Move 1–2) as a background. This feature can be seen in Figure 2 that represents relational structure of the moves in paragraph 1 of the conclusion of T35. The writer of T35 introduces a summary of the study in unit 1 to achieve Move 1–1, followed by presenting key findings (Move 2–1) in units 2–6. Based on the summary as a background, the reader could see that the writer evaluates the key findings based on previous hypotheses concerning how task complexity affects the cognitive load of L2 writers and their performance. In other words, without the information realising Move 1 in unit 1, the significance of the findings described in later units might remain unclear. Thus, unit 1 and units 2–6 are related to constitute Background. Its constraints include “R[eader] won’t comprehend N[ucleus] sufficiently before reading text of S[atellite]” (Mann and Taboada 2023Mann, William C., and Maite Taboada 2023 The RST Site: Relation Definitions. https://www.sfu.ca/rst/01intro/definitions.htmlMann, William C., and Maite Taboada 2023 The RST Site: Relation Definitions. https://www.sfu.ca/rst/01intro/definitions.html); its intended effect is “R[eader]’s ability to comprehend N[ucleus] increases” (ibid.). It could thus be said that by presenting a summary of the study as contextual information in advance, the writer was able to better facilitate readers to acknowledge the significance of the key findings as the nuclear messages in the paragraph.
Note. In this and the following figures, numbers refer to the number of units that appear in a paragraph (a unit that realises a move can be a sentence or a clause) and M is an abbreviation for Move.
4.2.2Move 2–1 Background Move 3
The analysis shows that 15 writers used Background to draw research-related implications (Move 3–1) after presenting key findings (Move 2–1). An example of this feature can be seen in units 2–8 of paragraph 3 in the conclusion of T1, whose relational structure is represented in Figure 3. The writer presents a key finding of the quantitative analysis in unit 2 and key findings of qualitative analysis in units 3–7. Based on these findings, readers could understand the significance of the implications drawn in unit 8. In particular, readers could understand why future research ought to adopt both quantitative and qualitative approaches as indicated in unit 8 based on the earlier units. In these units both approaches were shown to be necessary to arrive at findings such as that interpersonal themes constructed by advanced L2 learners and L1 professionals were similar both quantitatively and qualitatively. Thus, units 2–7 and unit 8 are related to constitute Background. Its constraints include “R[eader] won’t comprehend N[ucleus] sufficiently before reading text of S[atellite]” (Mann and Taboada 2023Mann, William C., and Maite Taboada 2023 The RST Site: Relation Definitions. https://www.sfu.ca/rst/01intro/definitions.htmlMann, William C., and Maite Taboada 2023 The RST Site: Relation Definitions. https://www.sfu.ca/rst/01intro/definitions.html).
Similarly, ten writers utilised Background to draw pedagogical implications (Move 3–2) from the key findings (Move 2–1) as the background. This feature is evident in Figure 4, which represents relational structure of the moves in paragraph 3 of the conclusion of T44.
The writer presents key findings of their study (Move 2–1) in units 1–3, followed by drawing pedagogical implications (Move 3–2) in units 4–6. Through this organisation, readers are able to understand why learners of Chinese-to-English translations could benefit from “raising register awareness” and “culture filtering” (unit 4) because of units 1 and 3, where the findings about the cultural difference in the use of metadiscourse and its effect are reported. Furthermore, it is because the writer refers to the potential applicability of the findings to business contexts in unit 2 that readers could understand the significance of the implications drawn in unit 6 concerning teaching English for Business Purposes. Therefore, units 1–3 and units 4–6 are identified as constituting Background, whose intended effect is “R[eader]’s ability to comprehend N[ucleus] increases” (Mann and Taboada 2023Mann, William C., and Maite Taboada 2023 The RST Site: Relation Definitions. https://www.sfu.ca/rst/01intro/definitions.htmlMann, William C., and Maite Taboada 2023 The RST Site: Relation Definitions. https://www.sfu.ca/rst/01intro/definitions.html).
4.2.3Move 2–2 Background Move 3–1
The analysis shows that 14 writers used Background to draw research implications (Move 3–1) through indicating limitations of the study (Move 2–2) as the beneficial points to be considered for further research. This can be seen in units 2–6 of paragraph 2 of the conclusion of T26, whose relational structure is represented in Figure 5.
In units 2–6, the writer outlines limitations of the study (Move 2–2) followed by recommendations for future studies on how to overcome the limitations (Move 3–1). As shown, the information presented in unit 2 is crucial for readers to understand why the writer suggests that future studies should investigate a “wider range of sectors” or “different company sizes” (unit 3). Likewise, without the limitation statements presented in units 4–5, it would remain unclear why interview surveys are recommended in unit 6. Therefore, these units can be seen as constituting Background, whose constraints include “R[eader] won’t comprehend N[ucleus] sufficiently before reading text of S[atellite]” (Mann and Taboada 2023Mann, William C., and Maite Taboada 2023 The RST Site: Relation Definitions. https://www.sfu.ca/rst/01intro/definitions.htmlMann, William C., and Maite Taboada 2023 The RST Site: Relation Definitions. https://www.sfu.ca/rst/01intro/definitions.html). By drawing implications as the main part of the message based on the limitations of their studies as background information, the writer could draw readers’ attention more to the implications.
4.3Move combinations that utilise Concession or List
The analysis shows that although Concession occurred between various moves, it was most commonly used between Move 1 and Move 2–1. In particular, four writers used this combination to describe the significant aspects of the study (Move 2–1) after presenting a summary of the study (Move 1–1) or referring to previous research trends (Move 1–2). This can be seen in Figure 6, which represents the relational structure of the moves in the first paragraph of the conclusion of T18.
The writers of T18 accomplish Move 1–2 in units 1–5 by summarising trends in previous research on language bundles. Specifically, previous studies have focussed on either inter-disciplinary similarities or variations in the use of bundles, but not on the intradisciplinary variations. In unit 6, the writers achieve Move 2–1 by referring to a novel finding that both similarities and variations in the use of bundles occur even among writers within the same discipline. In this way, the writers seem to use Concession, with the designated effect being that “R[eader]’s positive regard for the situation presented in N[ucleus] is increased” (Mann and Taboada 2023Mann, William C., and Maite Taboada 2023 The RST Site: Relation Definitions. https://www.sfu.ca/rst/01intro/definitions.htmlMann, William C., and Maite Taboada 2023 The RST Site: Relation Definitions. https://www.sfu.ca/rst/01intro/definitions.html). Indeed, by stating previous trends in units 1–5 as the conceding part, the writers seem to succeed in highlighting the novelty of their findings in comparison to prior scholarships.
Four out of the six writers who utilised List in move combinations were found to do so between Move 2–1 and Move 3–1. This feature can be seen in Figure 7, which represents relational structure of the moves in the final paragraph of the conclusion of T27.
It can be observed that research-related implications (Move 3–1) presented in unit 1 is not based on the content provided in unit 2 indicating the importance of the study (Move 2–1). Readers can also see that these moves are intended for distinct purposes, although both moves are concerned with methodological aspects of the study. In unit 1, implications concerning data selection is directed towards readers conducting similar studies in the future, whereas in unit 2, novelty of the analytical approach adopted by the study is indicated to highlight its significance. These units can thus be identified as constituting List whose intended effect is that “R[eader] recognizes the comparability of linked items” (Mann and Taboada 2023Mann, William C., and Maite Taboada 2023 The RST Site: Relation Definitions. https://www.sfu.ca/rst/01intro/definitions.htmlMann, William C., and Maite Taboada 2023 The RST Site: Relation Definitions. https://www.sfu.ca/rst/01intro/definitions.html).
5.Discussion
The analysis revealed that although six writers used List to present moves in a list-like manner, all of the fifty writers related different types of moves for more specific rhetorical intentions. This finding could thus question previous claims that conclusion moves normally constitute “a linear structure” (Yang and Allison 2003Yang, Ruiying, and Desmond Allison 2003 “Research Articles in Applied Linguistics: Moving from Results to Conclusions.” English for Specific Purposes 22 (4): 365–385. Yang, Ruiying, and Desmond Allison 2003 “Research Articles in Applied Linguistics: Moving from Results to Conclusions.” English for Specific Purposes 22 (4): 365–385. , 379) or that conclusion moves do not occur “in a composite manner” (Loi, Lim and Wharton 2016Loi, Chek-Kim, Jason Miin-Hwa Lim, and Sue Wharton 2016 “Expressing an Evaluative Stance in English and Malay Research Article Conclusions: International Publications versus Local Publications.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 21: 1–16. Loi, Chek-Kim, Jason Miin-Hwa Lim, and Sue Wharton 2016 “Expressing an Evaluative Stance in English and Malay Research Article Conclusions: International Publications versus Local Publications.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 211: 1–16. , 6). The analysis also showed a significant use of Background in the RA conclusions. Most writers used this relation to combine Move 1 (presenting summary of the study or context of the research) and Move 2–1 (indicating significance of the study or key findings) or to relate Move 2–1 and Move 3 (drawing research-related or pedagogical implications). In addition, there were also writers who used Concession to relate Move 1 and Move 2–1. To understand why writers employed these move combinations, considering features of the RA genre seems to be crucial. As Deng and Liu (2023Deng, Liming, and Jing Liu 2023 “Move–Bundle Connection in Conclusion Sections of Research Articles across Disciplines.” Applied Linguistics 44 (3): 527–554. Deng, Liming, and Jing Liu 2023 “Move–Bundle Connection in Conclusion Sections of Research Articles across Disciplines.” Applied Linguistics 44 (3): 527–554. , 528) indicated, previous studies have demonstrated that “conclusions are constructed to present the contribution, new directions for future research, and implications of the research findings”. However, studies including Yang and Allison (2003Yang, Ruiying, and Desmond Allison 2003 “Research Articles in Applied Linguistics: Moving from Results to Conclusions.” English for Specific Purposes 22 (4): 365–385. Yang, Ruiying, and Desmond Allison 2003 “Research Articles in Applied Linguistics: Moving from Results to Conclusions.” English for Specific Purposes 22 (4): 365–385. , 379) pointed out that among these purposes, “the Conclusion concentrates more on highlighting overall results and evaluating the study”. Abdollahzadeh (2011Abdollahzadeh, Esmaeel 2011 “Poring over the Findings: Interpersonal Authorial Engagement in Applied Linguistics Papers.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (1): 288–297. Abdollahzadeh, Esmaeel 2011 “Poring over the Findings: Interpersonal Authorial Engagement in Applied Linguistics Papers.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (1): 288–297. , 292) further noted that writers of RA conclusions are required to “seek agreement for new claims. … from expert readers” and “dissuade them from turning to alternative interpretations”. For this, most of the writers whose works were analysed in the present study might have used Background or Concession to present Move 1 as background information to guide readers to acknowledge the significance of the study/key findings (Move 2–1). Such a promotional effect might have also occurred in the cases where writers used Background to draw implications (Move 3–1 or 3–2) based on the key findings of the study (Move 2–1). According to Lewin, Fine and Young (2001Lewin, Beverly, Jonathan Fine, and Lynne Young 2001 Expository Discourse. London: Continuum.Lewin, Beverly, Jonathan Fine, and Lynne Young 2001 Expository Discourse. London: Continuum., 85), drawing implications from the study in RA conclusion itself could function to “express confidence that the research is ‘correct’ and has immediate applications”. In other words, by using this type of move combination to facilitate readers to understand the significance of the implications, the writers could also promote the importance of the findings of their studies. This effect could have become more significant for the writers who drew pedagogical implications based on the findings because of “the importance of establishing pedagogic relevance in (some) applied linguistics writing” (Yang and Allison 2003Yang, Ruiying, and Desmond Allison 2003 “Research Articles in Applied Linguistics: Moving from Results to Conclusions.” English for Specific Purposes 22 (4): 365–385. Yang, Ruiying, and Desmond Allison 2003 “Research Articles in Applied Linguistics: Moving from Results to Conclusions.” English for Specific Purposes 22 (4): 365–385. , 380) as a disciplinary feature.
The analysis also revealed that a group of writers (N = 14/50) used Background to draw research implications (Move 3–1) immediately after indicating limitations of their studies (Move 2–2). Although move combinations discussed earlier seem to have been intended to promote the research, this move-combination appears to have had a slightly different motivation. As shown in Section 4.2.3, the writers used this combination to draw readers’ attention to the implications as the main part of the message. The use of this rhetorical strategy in RA conclusions has also been reported by researchers such as Moreno (2022Moreno, Ana I. 2022 “An Intercultural Approach to ‘Bad News’ Reporting as an Embedded Part-Genre.” Ibérica 44: 101–126. Moreno, Ana I. 2022 “An Intercultural Approach to ‘Bad News’ Reporting as an Embedded Part-Genre.” Ibérica 441: 101–126. , 101), who demonstrated cases in which writers of RA conclusions “sandwich[ed] the Limitations with ‘good news’, including implications for future practice, to mitigate their possible negative effect”. We should note that such additional rhetorical efforts would not normally be required for writers indicating limitations of the study. This is because according to Swales and Feak (2012Swales, John. M., and Christine B. Feak 2012 Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Tasks and Skills, 3rd edn. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Swales, John. M., and Christine B. Feak 2012 Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Tasks and Skills, 3rd edn. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. , 373), the limitation move of RA conclusions functions to express “academic modesty” by showing “what cannot be concluded from the study” (ibid., 372). Despite this, as previous studies on writer–reviewer interactions in academic publications have revealed, some reviewers clearly prefer writers to highlight the weaknesses of their studies even when they already presented the limitation statements. This feature of the RA genre is evident in actual remarks from reviewers, as reported by Lillis and Curry (2015Lillis, Theresa, and Mary Jane Curry 2015 “The Politics of English, Language and Uptake: The Case of International Academic Journal Article Reviews.” AILA Review 28 (1): 127–150. Lillis, Theresa, and Mary Jane Curry 2015 “The Politics of English, Language and Uptake: The Case of International Academic Journal Article Reviews.” AILA Review 28 (1): 127–150. , 143–144), such as “I applaud the authors for their careful consideration of limitations to their design and the use of corrected significance levels”. Thus, by foregrounding the implications as the main part of the message based on the limitations as background information, writers might have sought to prevent readers like the reviewers mentioned above from focussing on the limitations as the weaknesses of their studies.
6.Conclusions
This study aimed to investigate how moves are related to be coherent in the conclusions of applied linguistics research articles. Considering the size and the scope of the research, any conclusions drawn from this preliminary study need further exploration. Given also that this study relates to a single academic discipline, the findings may not necessarily apply to other disciplines. Furthermore, since the textual analyses were not conducted by multiple raters, the accuracy of the findings may be subject to challenge. Notwithstanding these limitations, the following implications could be drawn from the present findings.
The findings of the present study suggest that writers of applied linguistics RAs relate conclusion moves for specific intentions rather than in a list-like manner. In particular, they can indicate the significance of the study after presenting a summary of the study or previous research trends as background information to guide readers to accept the significance of the study. They can draw implications from the findings of their studies by presenting the latter as a background, whereas, in so doing, they could also appeal the usefulness of the findings. They can present research implications drawn from the limitations indicated earlier to ward off criticisms against them. These move combinations identified in this study may be useful for researchers and teachers of English for Research Publication Purposes (ERPP).
Previous studies of RA conclusions have identified the types of moves and how different moves could co-occur, whereas it has hardly been explored whether or for what rhetorical ends moves are related in specific manners: a crucial element that writers need to be aware of when constructing a coherent text. The present study was designed to fill this gap; it is hoped that the findings of this study provide valuable insights into the rhetorical structure of conclusions in applied linguistics research articles and may assist early-career researchers in publishing their work in English-language journals.
References
Appendix.Relation set used for the analysis of the relational structure
| Nuclear-Satellite relations | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Relation | Constraints on N or S | Constraints on N+S | Intention of W | |
| Background | R won’t comprehend N sufficiently before reading text of S | S increases the ability of R to comprehend an element in N | R’s ability to comprehend N increases | |
| Circumstance | on S: S is not unrealized | S sets a framework in the subject matter within which R is intended to interpret N | R recognizes that S provides the framework for interpreting N | |
| Concession | W has positive regard for N / W is not claiming that S does not hold; | W acknowledges a potential or apparent incompatibility between N and S; recognizing the compatibility between N and S increases R’s positive regard for N | R’s positive regard for the situation presented in N is increased | |
| Elaboration | None | S presents additional detail about the situation or some element of subject matter which is presented in N or inferentially accessible in N in one or more of the ways listed below. In the list, if N presents the first member of any pair, then S includes the second: set :: member abstraction :: instance whole :: part process :: step object :: attribute generalization :: specific |
R recognizes S as providing additional detail for N. R identifies the element of subject matter for which detail is provided. |
|
| Evidence | R might not believe N to a degree satisfactory to W / R believes S or will find it credible | R’s comprehending S increases R’s belief of N | R’s belief in N is increased | |
| Multinuclear relations | ||||
| Relation | Constraints on each pair of N | Intention of W | ||
| List | None | R recognizes the comparability of linked items | ||
| Contrast | No more than two nuclei; the situations in these two nuclei are (a) comprehended as the same in many respects (b) comprehended as differing in a few respects and (c) compared with respect to one or more of these differences | R recognizes the comparability and the difference(s) yielded by the comparison is being made | ||
Note. W = Writer, R = Reader, S = Satellite, N = Nucleus