two views on text structure: using rhetorical structure theory and register & genre theory to...
Post on 21-Dec-2015
220 views
TRANSCRIPT
Two views on text structure: Using Rhetorical Structure Theory and
Register & Genre Theory to improve students’ academic writing
Helmut Gruber
Birgit Huemer
Dept. of Linguistics
University of Vienna
e-mail: [email protected]
Database of the study:
Macro-level: Text corpus: 19 student term papers (77.233 words) written in four academic disciplines, associated with four departments (social history, business studies, business psychology) at two Austrian universities and 7 seven papers of Linguistics students in Vienna. All in all 26 papers.
Research questions:Functional moves, communicative acts and their lexicogrammatical realisations:
– types of moves, communicative acts and lexicogrammatical realisations– Differences between existing terminology for social science research
texts in English and Austrian students‘ term papers written in German
Linguistic realisation of RST relations on the micro- and meso-textual levels:– how many linguistic markers/ relation– types of linguistic markers/ types of relations
Correlations between generic stages and rhetorical relations in Austrian students’ term papers:
– Agreement and non-agreement between these two text structures– Possibility to improve text quality by changing these texts so that both
structures correspond more closely
Generic structure
Text-structure:
Austrian students’ term papers have a text structure unfolding sequentially as follows:
- Introducory part- Theoretical part- (Empirical part) – not always realized- Concluding part
Introductory PartMove Communicative acts
Relating study to exisiting research •Providing background information•Reporting what is known about phenomena under study•Reviewing current state of research
Claiming relevance of study •Asserting relevance of field of which study is a part •Arguing relevance of present study
Establish the gap present study is meant to fill
•Pointing out deficiencies in the present state of knowledge•Pointing out the positive contribution of the previous research
Previewing author’s accomplishments •Stating purpose or goal of present study •Presenting research questions or hypotheses•Summarizing theories or accomplishments
Outlining author’s approach •Presenting structure of study•Narrowing parameters of field•Discussing sources
Theoretical partMove Communicative acts
Presenting theories •Describing, discussing, comparing, criticizing, commenting (on) theories•Explaining why theories are of relevance for the study•Relating theories to research question or hypoheses•Announcing steps that are neccessary to apply theories•Reporting terminlogy conventions•Explaining terminology
Reporting conclusions drawn by previous authors
•Describing, discussing, comparing, criticizing, commenting (on) conclusions•Relating conclusions drawn by others to research question or hypoheses
Empirical partMove Communicative acts
Presenting author’s accomplishments. •Describing data, methodes and/or field•Announcing accomplishements•Presenting accomplishements
Evaluating findings. •Presenting accomplishements/findings•Relating findings to research questions and hypotheses•Interpreting findings•Offering interpretation•Comparing findings with past research•Reporting findings of past research•Raising or warding of counterclaims
Presenting effects of findings •Recommending further research•Reviewing methodes•Speculating about future events•Justifying recommendations•Pomising to carry out recommendations
Concluding partMove Communicative acts
Recapitulate •Summarizing accomplishments•Drawing conclusions•Relating accomplishements to research questions and hypotheses•Comparing accomplishements with past research
Raising or warding off counterclaims
Announce further research •Recommending further research•Justifying recommendations•Pomising to carry out recommendations•Referring to further studies•Speculating about future events
Orientation and Coda
Two functional moves occur independently of text-segments: orientation and coda
- orientation has the function of announcing what will be discussed in the following section
- coda summarizes and concludes the previous section
Claiming relevance of the study (5 – 16)
establishing the gap present research is
meant to fill (1) 18 - 37
relate study to existing
research 39 - 76 establishing the gap
(2) 78 - 85
Previewing author’s accomplis
hments 87
- 100
Introduction: original structure
87-100
5-10 Nonvolitional-result
Nonvolitional-result
14-1610-14
Nonvolitional-result2-3 18-27
2-4 29-37
2-9
Elaboration1-9
Background 1-10
6-9
Concession
78-856-8
Nonvolitional-result
7-8
62-63 65-76
Elaboration39-61
Nonvolitional-result
Example: Introductory partMove Communicative acts
Claiming relevance of study •Asserting relevance of field of which study is a part
Establish the gap present study is meant to fill
•Pointing out deficiencies in the present state of knowledge
Relating study to exisiting research •Reporting what is known about phenomena under study
Establish the gap present study is meant to fill
•Pointing out deficiencies in the present state of knowledge
Previewing author’s new accomplishments + Outlining author’s approach
•Stating purpose of present study + Presenting structure of study
Moves
• Relating study to exisiting research: In most of the term papers this move is realized only through one communicative act.
• Claiming relevance of study: Usually realized through the communicative act „ Asserting relevance of field of which study is a part”.
• Establish the gap present study is meant to fill: If this move is realized, it often follows the move „Claiming relevance of study“.
• Previewing author’s new accomplishments: This move is often realized together with „Outlining author’s approach“, as in this text example.
• Outlining author’s approach: Usually realized through the communicative act „ Presenting structure of study “.
Lexicogramatical realizations
Reporting what is known about phenomena
under study Key realizations• Studies showed, that … (Studien haben aufgezeigt, dass...)• It could be shown, that…, (Es konnte gezeigt werden, ...)
Time-orientation: past present
Person: written in third person, sometimes de-personalized (es, man)
Processes: relational, material
Modality: propositions (declarative), modalization of usuality, modality middle-high
Theme: phenomenon under study or previous studies
Logical structure: projection, parataxis
Rhetorical structures
Table 1: n of linguistic markers/ relation
n of linguistic markers
absolute frequency
relative frequency
1 54 29,35%
2 96 52,17%
3 32 17,39%
4 2 1,09%
total 184 100,00%
Table 2: “Argumentative/ explanatory” relations vs. “descriptive” relations
Argumentative/ explanatory Descriptive
Concession (28) circumstance (1)
Interpretation (12) Background (16)
non volitional result (12) conjunction (2)
condition (2) content preparation (2)
contrast (6) Elaboration (94)
justify (8) evaluation (6)
non volitional cause (5) list (6)
purpose (1) restatement (1)
solutionhood (1) sequence (5)
volitional result (2) summary (1)
Total: 67 Total: 134
Linguistic markers which signal RST relations:
• Content tie• Content specification• Explicit expression of relation
(Lexicalisation)• Conjunction• Stereotypical
metacommunicative expression
• Metacommunication (indicating N-S border)
• Specifying presuming reference
• Generic presuming reference• Absolute or partial recurrence• Linear thematic progression• “dove-tailed” thematic
progression (topic sentences)• Modality• Discourse particles• Syntactic construction• Grammatical metaphor• Layout
Primary relation markers:
Conjunctions:– concession – contrast – non-volitional result– sequence– list
Primary relation markers:
Stereotyped metacommunicative expressions:
– restatement – interpretation – content preparation – purpose
Primary relation markers:
Explicit realisation of relation (lexicalisation):– evaluation
Metacommunicative sequence + “content tie”:
– background
Primary relation markers:
Content specification:
• Subclassifications
• Whole – Part relations– elaboration
Secondary relation markers:
• Cohesive devices:– generic presuming and – specific presuming reference– partial and – total recurrence– metacommunicative sequences which
indicate the N-S border
Table 3: Structural and functional markers/ relations
Structural markers function markers coherence relation
Conjunctions and grammatical metaphors which indicate conjunctions (resultative verbs etc.)
“argumentative” relations, “enumerative” relations
stereotypical metacommunicative expressions which express coherence relation
restatement, content preparation, interpretation
Lexical expressions of a relation (adjectives, verbs, stereotypical expressions)
evaluation, interpretation
metacommunicative expressions which indicate the border between spans of a relationpresuming reference which indicates/ reinforces cohesion between spans of a relation(headings)(decimal numbering system of headings)
“content ties” background
metacommunicative expressions which indicate the border between spans of a relationpresuming reference which indicates/ reinforces cohesion between spans of a relation(headings) (decimal numbering system of headings)Layout (bulleted lists)
Taxonomies: “is a” and “has a” relationships; dove tailed thematic progression
elaboration
Linguistic realisations of RST Relations in sample text
level 1:Background: Meta-communication, content tie, position of text span (at the end of the introduction):„[S]: introduction, lines 5-85[N] Ziel dieser Studie [metacommunication, textual position; SM] war es, ein Instrument zur Erfassung der gesundheitsbezogenen Lebensqualität [content tie, presuming reference, PM] zu entwickeln, bei dem sowohl die Bedürfnisse der PatientInnen als auch der ÄrztInnen berücksichtigt werden sollten.“„[S]: introduction, lines 5-85„It was the aim of this study [metacommunication, textual position; SM] to develop an instrument for measuring the health-related quality of life [content tie, presuming reference, PM]…“
Linguistic realisations of RST Relations in sample text
level 2:elaboration: Recurrence, content specification:„[N]Die Erfassung von Lebensqualität nimmt in der Medizin eine wichtige Rolle ein, […]. [S] Dass Lebensqualität [anaphoric tie, SM] von der subjektiven Wahrnehmung eines Individuums bestimmt wird, erschwert jedoch die Messbarkeit dieses Phänomens [content specification, PM]…“„[N] Measuring the quality of life has an important role in medicine, … [S] That the quality of life [anaphoric tie, SM] is influenced by individual perception, makes it difficult to measure this phenomenon [content specification, PM]….”
Linguistic realisations of RST Relations in sample text
level 3:non-volitional result: conjunction„Wenn ÄrztInnen Lebensqualität oder Lebensqualitätsdefizite adäquat erfassen wollen [hyper-new; summarizes previous paragraph(s)], erscheint es daher [PM] als unumgänglich, dass sie sich, außer mit klassischen medizinischen Messkriterien, auch individuell mit den PatientInnen und deren Problemen auseinandersetzen, ihnen zuhören und deren subjektive Schilderungen und Eindrücke einbeziehen und diesen eine besondere Bedeutung beimessen.“„If doctors want to record quality of life or deficits in quality of life adequately[hyper-new; summarizes previous paragraph(s)], it seems therefore [PM] inevitable that they…
Linguistic realisations of RST Relations in sample text
level 3:concession: conjunction„Dass es in der Kommunikation zwischen ÄrztInnen und PatientInnen [linear thematic progression] jedoch [conjunction; PM] immer wieder zu Problemen kommt, wurde bereits in verschiedenen linguistischen Studien aufgezeigt.“„That problems in doctor- patient communication [linear thematic progression] occur still [conjunction; PM] again and again was already shown in various linguistic studies.”
Introduction: original structure
87-100
5-10 Nonvolitional-result
Nonvolitional-result
14-1610-14
Nonvolitional-result2-3 18-27
2-4 29-37
2-9
Elaboration1-9
Background 1-10
6-9
Concession
78-856-8
Nonvolitional-result
7-8
62-63 65-76
Elaboration39-61
Nonvolitional-result
Claiming relevance of the study (5 – 16)
establishing the gap present research is
meant to fill (1) 18 - 37
relate study to existing
research 39 - 76 establishing
the gap (2) 78 - 85
Previewing author’s accomplish
ments 87 - 100
Introduction: original structure
87-100
5-10 Nonvolitional-result
Nonvolitional-result
14-1610-14
Nonvolitional-result2-3 18-27
2-4 29-37
2-9
Elaboration1-9
Background 1-10
6-9
Concession
78-856-8
Nonvolitional-result
7-8
62-63 65-76
Elaboration39-61
Nonvolitional-result
Claiming relevance of the study (5 – 16)
establishing the gap present research is
meant to fill (1) 18 - 37
relate study to existing
research 39 - 76 establishing the gap (2) 78 - 85
Previewing author’s accomplishments 87 - 100
Introduction: original structure
87-100
5-10 Nonvolitional-result
Nonvolitional-result
14-1610-14
Nonvolitional-result2-3 18-27
2-4 29-37
2-9
Elaboration1-9
Background 1-10
6-9
Concession
78-856-8
Nonvolitional-result
7-8
62-63 65-76
Elaboration39-61
Nonvolitional-result
Claiming relevance of the study (5 – 16)
establishing the gap present research is meant to fill 18 - 37; 39-40; 78 – 85(3 nuclear elements)
relate study to existing research
41 bis 76 (1 central nucleus)
Previewing author’s accomplis
hments 87
- 100
Introduction: 1st modification
87-100
5-10
29-37, 39-402-4
Nonvolitional-result
18-272-3
Nonvolitional-result
14-1610-14
Nonvolitional-result 78-85
62-63 65-76
Elaboration8-9
7-9
Justify6-9
Concession2-9
Elaboration
1-9
Background
41-61
Nonvolitional-result
Claiming relevance of the study5 bis 16
establishing the
gap … 1 (18-27)
relate study to existing research39 bis 76 (1 central nucleus)
Previewing author’s accomplishments87 bis 100
Introduction: 2nd modification
1-12
87-1001-11
Background
5-10 2-11
Elaboration
10-11
29-37 78-85
Concession2-5
Nonvolitional-result
4-5
25-2718-25
Nonvolitional-result2-3
Nonvolitional-result
14-1610-14
Nonvolitional-result
6-9
Nonvolitional-result
6-7
62-6339-61
Nonvolitional-result 8-9
Elaboration
74-7665-74
Nonvolitional-result
establishing the
gap … 2 (29-37;78-85)
Claiming relevance of the study5 bis 16
relate study to existing research 39 bis 76 (1 zentraler Nukleus)
Previewing author’s accomplishments87 bis 100
Introduction: 3rd modification
establishing the gap … (18-37;78-85) „APK“
1-12
87-100
Background
5-10 2-11
Elaboration
8-10
29-378-9
Condition
25-2718-25
Nonvolitional-result
78-85
Concession
2-7
Nonvolitional-result
14-1610-14
Nonvolitional-result
4-7
Elaboration
62-6339-61
Nonvolitional-result
6-7
Elaboration
74-7665-74
Nonvolitional-result
1-11
The end