Rhetorical moves with tense and voice analysis of the results and discussion chapter in master theses across sciences
There are well-established conventions within each academic discourse community that determine the structural organization of any related genre of that particular discourse community. As a specific genre in academic writing, writing a thesis is the most challenging task for postgraduate students...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Thesis |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2017
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/67385/1/FBMK%202017%2063%20IR.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | There are well-established conventions within each academic discourse community
that determine the structural organization of any related genre of that particular
discourse community. As a specific genre in academic writing, writing a thesis is the
most challenging task for postgraduate students especially the Integrated Results and
Discussion chapter. In order to gain insight into Results and Discussion as integrated
chapters of master’s theses, the present study investigated the rhetorical units of
Integrated Results and Discussion chapters of master students in the hard and soft
sciences as an undiscovered genre. Besides, the study also compared and contrasted
the rhetorical units as well as the use of tense and voice of the investigated texts. To
achieve the objectives of the study, a total of 40 master’s theses from a local public
university in Malaysia were selected as the samples of the study. Of the 40 master’s
theses, 20 theses were from the hard sciences (10 theses from Chemistry and 10
theses from Physics) and another 20 from the soft sciences (10 theses from English
Language and 10 theses from Economics). Other criteria for selection were that all
the theses had an Integrated Results and Discussion chapter and they were written
within a period of 10 years from 2002 to 2012. To conduct the study, a mixedmethod
approach was adopted. The quantitative analysis was conducted to locate the
rhetorical movements of the corpus. As such, Kanoksilapatham’s (2005) analytical
model was adapted to identify and highlight the employed rhetorical moves and steps
of the study. The different rhetorical movements used in the hard sciences and soft
sciences were compared based on the frequency of occurrence. Additionally, the
study also examined the use of tense and voice in the rhetorical moves and steps of
the corpora because according to Larsen-Freeman, Kuehn, and Haccius (1999), the
choice of English tenses and voices is one of the most difficult grammatical areas for
ESL students. To enhance the robustness of the methodology, the shift in the use of
tense and voice in the rhetorical steps were investigated qualitatively. The findings of
the study indicated that the Integrated Results and Discussion chapters focused predominantly on presenting the results of the study (Stating Results) followed by
commenting on the gained results, which constituted Move 5 or Stating Comments on
Result. These two moves together with their sub-units or steps constituted the most
frequently used rhetorical units of the investigated texts. On the other hand, Stating
Limitations and Suggesting Further Research were the least frequently used
rhetorical units. A possible reason could be that the ESL student writers would prefer
to communicate these two rhetorical units in the last chapter (Conclusion) of the
theses. Disciplinary variation was also observed between the rhetorical movements
used in the hard sciences and soft sciences. For instance, in the hard sciences, M3S2
(Referring to Previous Research) and M7S5 (Making Overt Claims or
Generalizations) were obligatory. But they were found to be optional and in the soft
sciences. On the other hand, in the soft sciences, M4S3 (Invalidating Results) was
obligatory, but in the hard sciences, it was optional. In consequence, these results
showed that the hard sciences had more tendencies towards providing subjective
presentation than the soft sciences, and the soft sciences had more tendencies towards
objective presentation than the hard sciences. Moreover, the analysis of tenses
indicated that in both hard and soft sciences, the simple present tense was the
preferred tense followed by the simple past tense. However, disciplinary variations
were observed in the tense usage in the different rhetorical units.
The most observable variations were found in Describing Aims and Purposes (with
dominant use of the simple past tense in the hard sciences and the simple present
tense in the soft sciences), Listing Procedures or Methodological Techniques (with
dominant use of the simple past tense in the hard sciences and the simple present
tense in the soft sciences), Invalidating Results (with dominant use of the simple past
tense in the hard sciences and the simple present tense in the soft sciences), and
Presenting Generalizations, Claims, Deductions, or Research Gaps (with dominant
use of the simple future tense in the hard sciences and the simple present tense in the
soft sciences). The contextual analysis revealed that the contributing factors in the
choice of tense were temporal aspects, rhetorical unit function, type of science, and
the structure of the report. Additionally, it was found that the frequency of use of the
active voice outnumbered the passive voice in the overall use of the voice aspect in
the corpus. The voice disciplinary variations were observed mostly in Structure of the
Section (dominantly presented in the passive voice in the hard sciences and the active
voice in the soft sciences), Describing Aims and Purposes (dominantly presented in
the passive voice in the hard sciences and the active voice in the soft sciences),
Listing Procedures or Methodological Techniques (dominantly presented in the
passive voice in the hard sciences and the active voice in the soft sciences) and
Referring to Previous Research (dominantly presented in the passive voice in the
hard sciences and the active voice in the soft sciences). The influencing factors which
governed the choice of voice in the corpus were the function of the step, the
associated verb and tense, and the writers’ stance in the text. To conclude, it is hoped
that the results of this study explain how Integrated Results and Discussion chapters
in different sciences are organized rhetorically, which in turn, may be useful for the
successful writing of the Integrated Results and Discussion chapters in master’s
theses. Also, a thorough understanding of the full range of possible meanings and
uses of the tenses and voices and how they can be applied to rhetorical uses in academic writing will allow the writer the greatest flexibility in the use of tense and
voice to express nuances in meanings (Taylor, 2001). |
|---|