Comparative Rhetorical Analysis of  Discussion Sections in Chinese and English  Research Articles Across Disciplines

Jingfen Jin; Angkana Tongpoon Patanasorn

doi:10.66947/pasaa.v74i1.1470

Authors

Jingfen Jin -Kohn Kean University
Angkana Tongpoon Patanasorn

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.66947/pasaa.v74i1.1470

Keywords:

move analysis, Discussion section, Chinese and English research articles

Abstract

This study examines cross-disciplinary and cross-linguistic variations in rhetorical moves and patterns within the Discussion sections of Chinese and English research articles across four fields: Education, Linguistics, Physics, and Engineering. Using a corpus of 200 Discussion sections from top-tiered journals (100 each in Chinese and English), the analysis employed a combined move framework derived from existing models. The findings revealed that English articles used significantly more rhetorical moves overall compared to Chinese articles. Both languages shared common patterns, such as M1-M2-M4-M5 and M2-M4, but English articles exhibited greater complexity and diversity in move patterns, including M7-M8 sequence to conclude. Chinese articles favored simpler sequences and relied heavily on M8 (Deductions) for conclusions. Soft sciences displayed greater cyclicity and a higher frequency of moves like commenting on results (M4) and reporting results (M2), while hard sciences focused more on background information (M1). These results highlight the influence of disciplinary conventions and linguistic contexts on academic writing. The study offers pedagogical insights for teaching articles writing and emphasizes the need to consider cultural and disciplinary nuances in academic communication.

Author Biography

Jingfen Jin, -Kohn Kean University

Jingfen Jin is a Ph.D candidate in the Applied Linguistics Department of Khon Kaen University, Thailand. Her research interests include discourse analysis, English for specific purpose and corpus linguistics.

References

Ahmadi, L. (2022). Rhetorical Structure of Applied Linguistics Research Article Discussions: A Comparative Cross-Cultural Analysis. Journal of Language and Education, 8(3), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2022.12750

Amnuai, W. (2017). The textual organization of the discussion sections of accounting research articles. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjss.2017.10.007

Amnuai, W., & Wannaruk, A. (2012). Investigating Move Structure of English Applied Linguistics Research Article Discussions Published in International and Thai Journals. English Language Teaching, 6(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n2p1

Arabi, H. A. (2019). Move analysis of the discussion section in Arabic and English research articles. ESP Across Cultures, 16, 9–25.

Basturkmen, H. (2012). A genre-based investigation of discussion sections of research articles in Dentistry and disciplinary variation. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.10.004

Biber, D., Ulla, C., & Thomas, U. (2007). Discourse on the Move: Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure. John Benjamins Publishing.

Biglan, A. (1973). The Characteristics of Subject Matter in Different Academic Areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 195–203.

Chuang, W. C., & Chen, C. C. (2021). Move Structures and Cognitive Genres in the Methods Sections of Experimental Research Articles and Corpus-Based Studies in Applied Linguistics. International Journal of English Linguistics, 11(1), 10–21.

Flowerdew, J. (1999). Problems in writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of second language writing, 8(3), 243–264.

Flowerdew, J. (2001). Attitudes of journal editors to nonnative speaker contributions. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 121–150. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3587862

Gao, S., & Pramoolsook, I. (2022). Move-step Structure of The Results And Discussion Section of Electronic Engineering Research Articles Written by Chinese and Thai Researchers. Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes, 9(4), 725–739. https://doi.org/10.22190/jtesap2104725g

Greenlee, D., & Stück, J. (2004). Individualist educators in a collectivist society: insights from a cross-cultural model applied to China. Missiology, 32(4), 491–504.

Hilmi, A. Z., Toyyibah, & Afifi, N. (2021). A genre analysis on the discussion section of quantitative and qualitative research articles in ELT and linguistics. JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies), 8(2), 155–183.

Hopkins, A., & Dudley-Evans, T. (1988). A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes, 7(2), 113–121. doi_10.1016_0889-4906(88)90029-4

Jalilifar, A., Hayati, A.M., & Namdari, N. (2012). A Comparative Study of Research Article Discussion Sections of Local and International Applied Linguistic Journals. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 9(1), 1–29.

Kanoksilapatham, B. (2015). Distinguishing textual features characterizing structural variation in research articles across three engineering sub-discipline corpora. English for Specific Purposes, 37, 74–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2014.06.008

Kanoksilapatham, B. (2011). Language of civil engineering Introductions: Textual structure and linguistic characterizations. The Asian ESP Journal, 7(2), 55–84.

Kanoksilapatham, B. (2012). Structure of research article introductions in three engineering sub-disciplines. The IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 55(4), 294–309.

Kustyasari, D., Basthomi, Y., & Anugerahwati, M. (2021). Interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers in research articles of Indonesian expert writers. JEES (Journal of English Educators Society), 6(1), 90–95. https://doi.org/10.21070/jees.v6i1.1082

Li, W., & Andersen, H. C. (2017). The Complexity of Indirect Translation. Orbis Litterarum, 72(3), 181-208.

Lim, J. M. H. (2010). Commenting on research results in applied linguistics and education: A comparative genre-based investigation. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(4), 280–294. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2010.10.001

Liu, Y., & Buckingham, L. (2018). The schematic structure of discussion sections in applied linguistics and the distribution of metadiscourse markers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 34, 97 – 109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.04.002

Loi, C. K., Evans, M. S., Lim, J. M. H., & Akkakoson, S. (2016). A comparison between Malay and English research article discussions: A move analysis. Sage Open, 6(2), 2158244016652925.

Mohammad, A. S. N. (2012). A Structural Move Analysis of Discussion Sub-Genre in Applied Linguistics. Iranian Institute for Encyclopedia Research, 2, 199–212. https://works.bepress.com/nodushan/124/

Mohammad, R. H., & Iman, G. M, (2019). A Mixed Methods Genre Analysis of the Discussion Section of MMR Articles in Applied Linguistics. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(2), 242–260.

Nguyen, T. T. L., & Pramoolsook, I. (2014). Rhetorical Structure of Introduction Chapters written by Novice Vietnamese TESOL postgraduates. 3L; Language, Linguistics and Literature, The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 20(1), 61–74.

Nguyen, T. T. L., & Pramoolsook, I. (2015a). A move analysis of method chapters by Vietnamese TESOL master's students. Research Scholar: An International Refereed e-Journal of Literary Explorations, 3(1), 14–28.

Nguyen, T. T. L., & Pramoolsook, I. (2015b). Move Analysis of Results-Discussion Chapters in TESOL Master’s Theses Written by Vietnamese Students. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 21(2), 1–15.

Peacock, M. (2002). Communicative moves in the discussion section of research articles. System, 30(4), 479–497. doi_10.1016_s0346-251x (02)00050-7

Safnil, A. (2013). A Genre-Based Analysis on Discussion Section of Research Articles in Indonesian Written by Indonesian speakers. International Journal of Linguistics ISSN, 5(4), 50–70.

Soodmand A, H., Doosti, M., & Movassagh, H. (2018). A comparative study of generic structure of applied linguistics and chemistry research articles: The case of discussions. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 28–56.

Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Ulya, S. (2022). Rhetorical moves variations of research article discussion sections published in reputable journals. Premise: Journal of English Education and Applied Linguistics, 11(3), 632–645. https://doi.org/10.24127/pj.v11i3.5615

Yang, R. Y., & Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes, 22(4), 365–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-4906(02)00026-1

Yassaman, H. M., & Elham, Y. (2019). A Genre-analysis of the Discussion Section of Iranian and English ELT Theses: A Comparative Study. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 9 (12), 1611–1623. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0912.19

Zahra, S. D., Helen, T., & Ain, N. A. (2017). Rhetorical Structure of Integrated Results and Discussion Chapter in Master’s Dissertation Across Disciplines. Discourse and Interaction, 10(2), 61–83.