Helmut Gruber Birgit Huemer Dept. of Linguistics University of Vienna

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]

[email protected]

mailto:[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


7-8

62-63 65-76

Elaboration39-61


Example: Introductory partMove Communicative acts

Claiming relevance of study •Asserting relevance of field of which study is a part


•Pointing out deficiencies in the present state of knowledge

Relating study to exisiting research •Reporting what is known about phenomena under study


•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


Stereotyped metacommunicative expressions:

– restatement – interpretation – content preparation – purpose


Explicit realisation of relation (lexicalisation):– evaluation

Metacommunicative sequence + “content tie”:

– background


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]…“


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]….”


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…


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.”


87-100



14-1610-14


2-4 29-37

2-9

Elaboration1-9

Background 1-10

6-9

Concession

78-856-8


7-8

62-63 65-76

Elaboration39-61






research 39 - 76 establishing

the gap (2) 78 - 85

Previewing author’s accomplish

ments 87 - 100


87-100



14-1610-14


2-4 29-37

2-9

Elaboration1-9

Background 1-10

6-9

Concession

78-856-8


7-8

62-63 65-76

Elaboration39-61






research 39 - 76 establishing the gap (2) 78 - 85

Previewing author’s accomplishments 87 - 100


87-100



14-1610-14


2-4 29-37

2-9

Elaboration1-9

Background 1-10

6-9

Concession

78-856-8


7-8

62-63 65-76

Elaboration39-61



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


18-272-3


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


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


4-5

25-2718-25

Nonvolitional-result2-3


14-1610-14


6-9


6-7

62-6339-61

Nonvolitional-result 8-9

Elaboration

74-7665-74


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


78-85

Concession

2-7


14-1610-14


4-7

Elaboration

62-6339-61


6-7

Elaboration

74-7665-74


1-11

The end

Helmut Gruber Birgit Huemer Dept. of Linguistics University of Vienna

Documents

Transcript of Helmut Gruber Birgit Huemer Dept. of Linguistics University of Vienna