Genre Analysis Of Discussion Section In Research Articles Of Applied Linguistics

In light of the genre theory of Sydney School, great achievements have beenmade in the genre analysis of varied discourse (Martin,1992a,1992b,1995,1996,2001; Martin&Rose,2008; Hood,2011b), yet the research into the Discussionsection of RAs is not much, which is thus selected as the research object of this thesis.Within the theoretical framework of Martin’s genre model (Martin,1992a), thepresent study aims to explore the generic features of Discussion, based on the analysisof30samples from IMRD-formatted RAs published in the well-recognized journal ofApplied Linguistics (2007-2012).The study takes a qualitative research method, and it unfolds along twodimensions of “social context”–the context of culture and the context of situation. Atthe macro-level, the research firstly summarizes the schematic structures ofDiscussion section, and then investigates the underlying cultural factors. At themicro-level, the research focus is transferred to the context of situation, where thechoices of register variables (i.e. field, mode, and tenor) can reveal the particular typesof language resources that are used to realize Discussion section.Correspondingly, the major findings of this study are twofold.For one thing, the macro-analysis demonstrates the structural regularity ofDiscussion. Generally, five types of schematic structures are summarized forDiscussion section, with the first category as a single genre and the rest asmacro-genres:(1) Discussion as one single explanation genre;(2) Discussion withmultiple explanation or report genres placed in parataxis;(3) Discussion with multipleexplanation or report genres placed in hypotaxis;(4) Discussion as a report, but withembedded explanations in its Description stages;(5) Discussion of mixed patterns.Whichever the textual pattern Discussion takes, its elemental genres are explanationgenre and report genre, the former in particular.For another, the micro-analysis illustrates specific language resources that areutilized to realize the three register variables in Discussion.(1) Field, as realized bytransitivity system, defines the activity sequences and participant taxonomies–relational, material and verbal processes are found to be most common process typesin Discussion to identify results and to interpret causal relations within;(2) Tenor, asrealized by modality and projection strategies, manifests power and solidarity–bythe wide use of such language resources of modality and projection, Discussion showsno power over any participants, but solidarity among them;(3) Mode, as realized byideational metaphors and resources of dialogism, moves towards the “reflection” and“dialogue” ends–the use of ideational metaphor shows its abstraction, and that ofprojection and modality helps construct an interactive and dialogic environmentamong participants, though no immediate face-to-face communication is available.This study is an original attempt in both its research object and its researchmethodology. It extends the application of Sydney School genre theory in academic field, and its research method and analytic framework could be a good reference forany future genre analysis within Martin’s genre model. Also, pedagogically, in theteaching of academic writing, the findings of this study could facilitate eitherprofessional or lay readers to write Discussion in a more recognized way.