-
7/30/2019 Discourse on the Move Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure DouglasBiber
1/304
-
7/30/2019 Discourse on the Move Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure DouglasBiber
2/304
Discourse on the Move
-
7/30/2019 Discourse on the Move Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure DouglasBiber
3/304
Volume 28
Discourse on the Move. Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure
Douglas Biber, Ulla Connor and Tomas A. Upton
General EditorElena ognini-BonelliTe uscan Word Center/Te University o Siena
Advisory BoardMichael BarlowUniversity o Auckland
Douglas BiberNorthern Arizona University
Marina BondiUniversity o Modena and Reggio Emilia
Christopher S. ButlerUniversity o Wales, Swansea
Sylviane GrangerUniversity o Louvain
M.A.K. Halliday
University o Sydney
Susan HunstonUniversity o Birmingham
Stig JohanssonOslo University
Graeme KennedyVictoria University o Wellington
Geofrey N. LeechUniversity o Lancaster
Anna MauranenUniversity o Helsinki
Ute RmerUniversity o Hannover
Michaela MahlbergUniversity o Liverpool
Jan Svartvik
University o Lund
John M. SwalesUniversity o Michigan
Yang HuizhongJiao ong University, Shanghai
SCL focuses on the use of corpora throughout language study, the development
of a quantitative approach to linguistics, the design and use of new tools for
processing language texts, and the theoretical implications of a data-rich
discipline.
Studies in Corpus Linguistics (SCL)
Consulting EditorWolgang eubertUniversity o Birmingham
-
7/30/2019 Discourse on the Move Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure DouglasBiber
4/304
Discourse on the Move
Using corpus analysis
to describe discourse structure
Douglas BiberNorthern Arizona University
Ulla Connor
Tomas A. UptonIndiana University Indianapolis
John Benjamins Publishing Company
Amsterdam / Philadelphia
-
7/30/2019 Discourse on the Move Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure DouglasBiber
5/304
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Br, Dogl.
Dcor o th ov : g cor ly to dcr dcor trctr / Dogl
Br, Ull Coor, To A. Uto.
. c. (Std Cor Lgtc, issn 1388-0373 ; v. 28)
Icld logrhcl rrc d dx.
1. Dcor ly--Dt rocg. I. Coor, Ull, 1948- II. Uto, To
A. (To Al) III. tl.
P302.3.B53 2007
401'.41--dc22 2007029145
isbn 978 90 272 2302 9 (H; lk. r)
2007 Joh Bj B.V.
No rt o th ook y rrodcd y or, y rt, hotort, crofl, or yothr , wthot wrtt ro ro th lhr.
Joh Bj Plhg Co. P.O. Box 36224 1020 me Atrd T Nthrld
Joh Bj North Arc P.O. Box 27519 Phldlh pa 19118-0519 usa
T r d th lcto t th rqrt o
Arc Ntol Stdrd or Iorto Scc Prc o
Pr or Prtd Lrry Mtrl, ansi z.-.
8TM
-
7/30/2019 Discourse on the Move Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure DouglasBiber
6/304
Tble of conens
Pefce xi
chapter 1
Discouse nlysis nd copus linguisics 1
1 Disous nd disous nlysis 1
1.1 Disous sudis of lngug us 3
1.2 Disous sudis of linguisi suu byond snn 4
1.3 Disous sudis of soil is nd idologil ssumions ssoi-
d wi ommuniion 6
1.4 Rgis nd gn sivs on disous 7
1.5 Idnifying suul unis in disous 9
2 Cous-bsd invsigion of disous suu 10
3 To-down vsus boom-u ous-bsd os o disousnlysis 12
3.1 Exmls of o-down nlyss of disous 14
3.2 Exml of boom-u o 16
4 Cing silizd ous fo disous nlysis 17
5 Ovviw of book 19
Part 1. Top-down nlyses of discouse ognizion
chapter 2
Inoducion o move nlysis 23
WITH Budsaba Kanoksilapatham
1 Bkgound 23
2 Swls mov nlysis of s ils 25
3 Mov nlysis of s ils lid oss gns 29
3.1 Dsiion nd xmls 29
3.2 Summy of vious s on mov nlysis 32
4 Ovviw of mods fo mov nlysis 32
4.1 Gnl ss of mov nlysis 32
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?- -
7/30/2019 Discourse on the Move Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure DouglasBiber
7/304
Disous on Mov
4.2 In- libiliy 35
5 Using ous-bsd o o mov nlysis 36
5.1
Cous-bsd mov nlysis36
5.2 Gnl dvngs o ous-bsd os o disous nlysis 37
5.3 Sif dvngs o ous-bsd siv o mov nlysis 38
5.3.1 Idniying linguisi us o movs 38
5.3.2 Mov qunis nd lngs 39
5.3.3 Ming mov us nd loions 39
5.3.4 Gn ooys 40
6 Summy 40
chapter 3Identifying and analyzing rhetorical moves in philanthropic discourse 43
1 Bkgound 43
2 A silizd ous o undising xs 44
3 Dmining nd nlyzing disous movs: Di mil ls 46
3.1 Pvious nlysis o di mil ls 46
3.2 A mov nlysis o undising ls: Bkgound nd modology 46
3.2.1 Mov ys 46
3.2.2 Suul lmns 523.3 Anlysis 54
3.4 Rsuls 55
3.5 Disussion 57
3.6 L ooys 58
4 Linguisi nlysis o movs: king us o sn suus 61
4.1 Idniying gmmil sn dvis 62
4.2 Ining us o gmmil sn dvis usd in movs 63
5 Finl ougs 68
chapter 4
Rhetorical moves in biochemistry research articles 73
BY Budsaba Kanoksilapatham
1 Bkgound 73
2 Dsiion o ous 75
3 Dmining mov gois in gn o biomisy s
ils 76
3.1 T inoduion sion 77
3.2 T mods sion 78
3.3 T suls sion 79
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?- -
7/30/2019 Discourse on the Move Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure DouglasBiber
8/304
bl o onns
3.4 T disussion sion 81
4 Coding movs in ous o biomisy s ils 83
5
Disibuion o mov ys wiin xs om biomisyous 84
6 Linguisi isis o oil movs in biomisy s
ils 87
7 Linguisi viion mong mov gois in biomisy s
ils 90
8 Muli-dimnsionl viion mong mov ys wiin sm
sion 103
chapter 5Rheoicl ppels in undising 121
WITH Molly Anthony & Kostyantyn Gladkov
1 Elmns o susion 121
2 Dmining nd nlyzing oil ls 124
2.1 Rionl ls (Logos) 125
2.2 Cdibiliy ls (Ethos) 129
2.3 Afiv ls (Pathos) 131
3 Anlysis, sgmnion, nd lssiion 132
3.1 Rsuls nd disussion 133
4 Linguisi dsiion o ls 136
4.1 Wodliss 137
4.2 Kywods 138
5 Als nd disous suu o ls 141
6 Conlusion 143
Part 2. Boom-up nlyses o discouse ognizion
chapter 6
Inoducion o he idenifcion nd nlysis o vocbuly-bsed
discouse unis 155
WITH Eniko Csomay, James K. Jones, & Casey Keck
1 Conul inoduion o VBDUs 156
2 Auomi idniion o VBDUs in xs 161
3 Pul ols o VBDUs 163
4 Using VBDUs o nlyz disous suu o xs 169
5 Going on s u: Idniying gnlizbl VBDU ys 170
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?- -
7/30/2019 Discourse on the Move Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure DouglasBiber
9/304
Disous on Mov
chapter 7
Vocabulary-based discourse units in biology research articles 175
WITH James K. Jones1 Consuing ous o VBDUs 176
2 Anlyzing linguisi isis o VBDUs: Muli-dimnsionl
nlysis 178
3 Coming muli-dimnsionl isis o s il
sions 184
4 T muli-dimnsionl ofl o VBDUs wiin s il:
king movmn o disous 186
5 Idniying nd ining muli-dimnsionl x ys o biologys ils 190
6 Using VBDU x ys o dsib disous ognizionl ns
o biology s ils 194
7 Sing nd nding s il sions 196
7.1 Dsibing yil disous ognizions o inoduions 197
7.2 Dsibing yil disous ognizions o mods sions 199
7.3 Dsibing yil disous ognizions o disussion sions 201
8 Pd x y squns oss s il sion
boundis 203
9 Coming d disous syls o s jounls 205
10 Conlusion 208
chapter 8
Vocabulary-based discourse units in university class sessions 213
BY Eniko Csomay
1 Fom onsuing ous o VBDUs o idniying VBDU
x-ys 214
1.1 Consuing ous o VBDUs 214
1.2 Anlyzing linguisi isis o VBDUs lying MD nlyil
niqus 215
1.3 VBDUs nd dimnsion sos: muli-dimnsionl ofl o fs
VBDUs o businss mngmn lss 217
2 Dimnsion sos nd VBDU x-ys 222
2.1 Ining luss s VBDU ys bsd on i linguisi
isis 2242.1.1 Clus 1: Psonlizd ming 225
2.1.2 Clus 2: Inomionl monologu 227
2.1.3 Clus 3: Conxul iniv 228
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?- -
7/30/2019 Discourse on the Move Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure DouglasBiber
10/304
bl of os
2.1.4 Clus 4: Umk 229
3 Fom VBDU -ys o sous suu 230
3.1Fuol o of VBDU ys
230
3.2 s squs of VBDU ys 232
4 Summy oluso 237
chapter 9
Conclusion: Comparing the analytical approaches 239
1 Ovvw 239
2 Comg o-ow boom-u sos of bology
s ls. 242
2.1 Dsous us bology s ls 2432.2 T msos of lgus vo bology s ls 244
2.3 T fuol lgus ss of sous ys
(mov ys vs VBDU ys) bology s ls 249
2.4 Dso of yl sous ogzo of bology s
ls 253
3 Summy oss fo fuu s 258
Appendix 1 261A brief introduction to multi-dimensional analysis 261
A.1 Coul ouo o mul-msol o
o vo 261
A.2 Ovvw of moology mul-msol o 262
Appendix 2 267
Grammatical and lexico-grammatical features included in
the multi-dimensional analyses 267
References 273
Index
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?- -
7/30/2019 Discourse on the Move Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure DouglasBiber
11/304
-
7/30/2019 Discourse on the Move Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure DouglasBiber
12/304
Preface
Te idea or this book evolved slowly, emerging rom research taking place at sev-
eral institutions applying diferent approaches to a single research problem: can
discourse structure and organization be investigated rom a corpus perspective?
At Northern Arizona University (NAU), research on this topic began in a PhD
seminar in 1999. Inspired by the research o Youmans (1991; 1994) on the Vo-
cabulary Management Prole, students in that seminar explored ways in which
the discourse structure o a text can be discovered automatically by tracking the
text-internal use o vocabulary and other linguistic eatures. Tis initial efort re-
sulted in a PhD dissertation by Csomay (2002), ollowed by several other research
studies undertaken at NAU that employed the extiling methods originally de-
veloped by Hearst (1997).
Over the same period, researchers at Indiana University Purdue UniversityIndianapolis (IUPUI) and Georgetown University were exploring a completely
diferent approach to this same research problem: applying the ramework o rhe-
torical move analysis, developed by Swales (1981; 1990) or the detailed analysis o
texts, to analyze the general rhetorical and linguistic patterns o discourse struc-
ture in a corpus. At IUPUI, this research efort ocused primarily on philanthropic
discourse, especially grant proposals and undraising letters. And at Georgetown
University, this research culminated in 2003 with the completion o a PhD disser-
tation by Kanoksilapatham (2003) on the discourse structure o biochemistry re-search articles.
Te actual idea or the present book came about as colleagues rom these di-
erent institutions would get together at conerences and discuss their diferent
approaches to the study o discourse structure and organization rom a corpus
perspective. We realized that there had been very little previous research done on
this topic, and that by combining and comparing our approaches, we could pro-
vide a relatively comprehensive overview o this emerging subeld.
Because the book grew out o relatively independent research eforts, each au-
thor has had diferent primary responsibilities. At the same time, we have been
eager to structure the book as a coherent treatment o this subject: an authored
book rather than an edited collection o articles. Tus, the three book authors
-
7/30/2019 Discourse on the Move Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure DouglasBiber
13/304
Discourse on the Move
share equal responsibility or revising and editing all chapters, and ultimately the
content o all chapters. But on the other hand, each chapter has diferent primary
authors, including several co-authors in addition to the three book authors orChapters 13, 57, and 9. wo chapters are invited, single-authored contributions
Chapter 4 by Kanoksilapatham and Chapter 8 by Csomay. Te primary authors
or each chapter are as ollows:
Chapter 1: Biber, Connor, Upton
Chapter 2: Connor, Upton, Kanoksilapatham
Chapter 3: Upton, Connor
Chapter 4: Kanoksilapatham
Chapter 5: Connor, Anthony, Gladkov, Upton
Chapter 6: Biber, Csomay, Jones, KeckChapter 7: Biber, Jones
Chapter 8: Csomay
Chapter 9: Biber, Connor, Upton
We would like to thank the numerous colleagues who have made useul sugges-
tions and criticisms over the years in relation to the various research projects that
come together in the present book. We also owe a special thanks to Eric Friginal,
Bethany Gray, Jack Grieve, Mark Johnson, Erkan Karabacak, YouJin Kim, Poon-
pon Kornwipa, Jingjing Qin, Angkana ongpoon, and Faith Young -- the students
o ENG 707 (Seminar on Discourse) at Northern Arizona University in the all o
2006, who read the entire book manuscript and made numerous useul comments
and suggestions (including the title or our book, suggested by Jack Grieve).
-
7/30/2019 Discourse on the Move Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure DouglasBiber
14/304
chapter 1
Discourse analysis and corpus linguistics
1 Discourse and discourse analysis
T sudy o disous s bom mjo ous o s in mny disilins
o umniis, soil sins, nd inomion sins. Bus is o
sudy n b od om so mny din sivs, ms disous
nd disous nlysis v om o b usd in widly divgn wys.
Svl inoduoy mns suvy ng o dniions givn o
m disous (.g., Jwoski & Coulnd, 999, . 7; Siin, 994, .
2343). Siin, nnn, nd Hmilon (200) in i inoduion o Te Hand-
book of Discourse Analysis (. ), gou vious dniions o disous nlysis
ino gnl gois: ) sudy o lngug us; 2) sudy o linguisi
suu byond snn; nd 3) sudy o soil is nd idologilssumions ssoid wi lngug nd/o ommuniion.
T obj o sudy o s os o disous is insingly -
movd om s gols o diionl suul linguisis. T sudy o
lngug us ouss on diionl linguisi onsus, su s s suus
nd lus suus, bu ddsss oblm o wy lngugs v suul
vins wi nly quivln mnings (.g., il movmn, s inpick up
the book vsuspick the book up). By onsiding os no sily su-
ul, linguiss bl o di wn on o no vin is likly o b usd.Fo xml, lng o di obj noun s is n imon o
diing likliood o il movmn. Ass o disous onx
ofn imon o undsnding linguisi viion, silly o linguisi
onsuions involv wod od viion (su s ssivs, xosiion,
lfs, invsions, xisnil there, .). Fo xml, wis will oos ssiv
voi n iv voi dnding on oil lvn o in
noun s.
T sudy o linguisi suu byond snn ouss on lg ob-
j o sudy: xndd squns o uns o snns, nd ow os xs
onsud nd ognizd in sysmi wys. Aloug sudis o is y
movd om diionl onns o suul linguisis (wi ouss
-
7/30/2019 Discourse on the Move Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure DouglasBiber
15/304
Discourse on the Move
mostly on phrasal and clause syntax), the two share a primary ocus on linguistic
orm and how language structures are used or communication.
In contrast, the third approach to discourse is socio-cultural in orientation,and generally not concerned with the description o particular texts or the analysis
o language structure and use. Socio-cultural approaches to discourse sometimes
ocus on the actions o participants in particular communication events, and at
other times ocus on the general characteristics o speech/discourse communities
in relation to issues such as power and gender. Although the socio-cultural ap-
proaches are obviously important or understanding the broader role o texts in
culture, they typically are not concerned with understanding the linguistic orms
used in those texts.
Corpus linguistic studies are generally considered to be a type o discourseanalysis because they describe the use o linguistic orms in context. For example,
words are described in terms o their typical collocates: the words that normally
occur in the discourse context. Grammatical variation is also described in terms o
the words and other grammatical structures that occur in the context. As such,
corpus linguistic research has allen squarely under the rst approach to discourse:
the study o language use.
However, it has been much less common to study discourse organization rom
a corpus perspective. In act, these two subelds have research goals and methodsthat might be considered incompatible: Te study o discourse organization lin-
guistic structure beyond the sentence is usually based on detailed analysis o a
single text, resulting in a qualitative linguistic description o the textual organiza-
tion. In contrast, corpus studies are based on analysis o all texts in a corpus, utiliz-
ing quantitative measures to identiy the typical distributional patterns that occur
across texts.
In act, individual texts ofen have no status whatsoever in corpus investiga-
tions. Instead, what we nd are comparisons o the distributional patterns in one
sub-corpus to the patterns in a second sub-corpus. For example, Scott and ribble
(2006) describe how we can compare the keywords o the spoken versus written
sub-corpora rom the British National Corpus. Nesselhau (2005, Chapter 3) de-
scribes the deviant collocations in a corpus o learner English essays. And Rmer
(2005, Chapter 4) documents the variants and distributional patterns o progres-
sive verb phrases in the spoken sub-corpora rom the British National Corpus.
Tese studies are typical o corpus-based research on discourse: they describe the
typical patterns o language use, considering the systematic ways in which aspects
o the lexico-grammatical context tend to occur together with dierent linguisticvariants; but such corpus-based studies usually tell us nothing about the discourse
structure o particular texts.
-
7/30/2019 Discourse on the Move Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure DouglasBiber
16/304
Chapter 1. Discourse analysis and corpus linguistics
We thus see this interace as one o the current challenges o corpus linguistics:
Is it possible to merge the analytical goals and methods o corpus linguistics with
those o discourse analysis that ocuses on the structural organization o texts?Can a corpus be analyzed to identiy the general patterns o discourse organization
that are used to construct texts, and can individual texts be analyzed in terms o
the general patterns that result rom corpus analysis? Tese are the central issues
that we take up in the present book.
1.1 Discourse studies o language use
Te rst major approach to discourse identied above the study o language use
has been carried out rom several dierent perspectives, including research inpragmatics, speech act theory, unctional linguistics, variationist studies, and reg-
ister studies. Tese subelds all investigate how words and linguistic structures are
used in discourse contexts to express a range o meanings. Many o these ap-
proaches ocus on the study o linguistic variation, showing how linguistic choice
is systematic and principled when considered in the larger discourse context.
Tere have been numerous studies o grammar and discourse over the last two
decades, as researchers have come to realize that the description o grammatical
unction is as important as structural analysis. By studying linguistic variation innaturally occurring discourse, researchers have been able to identiy systematic
dierences in the unctional use o each variant. An early study o this type is
Prince (1978), who compares the discourse unctions o WH-clefs and it-clefs.
Tompson and Schirin have carried out numerous studies in this research tradi-
tion; Tompson on detached participial clauses (1983), adverbial purpose clauses
(1985), omission o the complementizer that (S. Tompson & Mulac, 1991a,
1991b), relative clauses (Fox & Tompson, 1990); and Schirin on verb tense
(1981), causal sequences (1985b), and discourse markers (1985a, 1987). Other
more recent studies o this type include Ward (1990) on VP preposing, Collins
(1995) on dative alternation, and Myhill (1995; 1997) on modal verbs.
Most corpus-based research is discourse analytic in this sense, investigating
systematic patterns of language use across discourse contexts, generalized over all
the texts in a corpus (see, e.g., Biber, Conrad, & Reppen, 1998; McEnery, Xiao, &
ono, 2006). Te advantages of a corpus approach for the study of discourse, lexis,
and grammatical variation include the emphasis on the representativeness of the
text sample, and the computational tools for investigating distributional patterns
across discourse contexts. Te recent edited volumes by Connor and Upton (2004b),Meyer and Leistyna (2003), Lindquist and Mair (2004), and Sampson and McCa-
rthy (2004) provide good introductions to work of this type. Tere are also a number
of book-length treatments reporting corpus-based investigations of grammar and
-
7/30/2019 Discourse on the Move Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure DouglasBiber
17/304
Discourse on the Move
discourse: or example, Aijmer (2002) on discourse particles, Collins (1991) on
clefs, Granger (1983) on passives, Mair (1990) on innitival complement clauses,
Meyer (1992) on apposition, Rmer (2005) on progressive verbs, ottie (1991) onnegation, and several books on nominal structures (e.g., de Haan, 1989; Geisler,
1995; Johansson, 1995; Varantola, 1984). Te Longman Grammar of Spoken and
Written English (1999) applies corpus-based analysis to a more comprehensive
grammatical description o English, showing how any grammatical eature can be
described or both structural characteristics and discourse patterns o use.
Te recent book by Partington (2003) is interesting here in that it combines
corpus-based study with an analysis o pragmatics, to investigate the discourse
eatures o White House briengs. A corpus o 48 briengs (250,000 words o run-
ning texts) was subjected to computerized concordance and keyword analysis.However, the computational analyses were guided by detailed qualitative analysis:
a summer reading the corpus briengs and making notes (p. 12). Tis allowed
Partington to check on oddities o computerized collocation analysis, highlighting
odd language usage that computerized analysis might not have revealed.
A more specialized corpus-based approach to the study o language use is
multi-dimensional (MD) analysis. Unlike most corpus-based research, MD stud-
ies investigate language use in individual texts. Tis approach describes how lin-
guistic eatures co-occur in each text, resulting in more general patterns o linguis-tic co-occurrence that hold across all texts o a corpus. Te approach can thus be
used to show how patterns o linguistic eatures vary across individual texts, or
across registers and genres. MD analysis is used in several chapters in the present
book, and so it is introduced more ully in Appendix One.
1.2 Discourse studies o linguistic structure beyond the sentence
Te second major approach to discourse analysis identied above the study o
linguistic structure beyond the sentence is the primary ocus o the present
book. Previous research on discourse-level structures has been undertaken rom
linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives.
Linguistic Perspectives: Linguistic analyses o discourse structure have ocused on
lexico-grammatical eatures that indicate the organization o discourse (see, e.g.,
the papers in Coulthard, 1994). Focusing on units beyond the sentence-level (e.g.,
paragraphs in written discourse and episodes in oral discourse), these researchers
investigate linguistic devices that signal the underlying discourse structure.
Much research o this type has described the discourse unctions o particular
words and phrases, reerred to as discourse markers, connectives, discourse par-
ticles (Schifrin, 1994), lexical phrases (Hansen, 1994; Nattinger & DeCarrico,
-
7/30/2019 Discourse on the Move Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure DouglasBiber
18/304
Chapter 1. Discourse analysis and corpus linguistics
1992), or cue phrases (Passonneau & Litman, 1996). Other studies discuss the
linguistic devices used to mark inormation structure, topical development, or
rhetorical structures in discourse (e.g., Mann, Matthiessen, & Tompson, 1992;Mann & Tompson, 1988; Prince, 1981). Finally, some studies track the use o
linguistic devices across a text. For example, discourse maps are used to track
verb tense and voice patterns across the sections o research articles (Biber et al.,
1998, Chapter 5), while other studies track reerential expressions used in ana-
phoric chains throughout a text (e.g., Biber, 1992; Fox, 1987; Givn, 1983).
A related area o research is the study o textual cohesion: the use o lexical
and grammatical devices as the glue o a text, holding the text together as dis-
course rather than an accidental sequence o sentences (see, e.g., Halliday, 1989;
Halliday & Hasan, 1976; Hoey, 1991; Phillips, 1985; yler, 1995). Linguistic de-vices used to establish cohesion include anaphoric pronouns, linking adverbials,
and the use o lexical repetition and synonymy to establish topical cohesion. Simi-
larly, annen (1989) ound that repetitions in conversation operate as a kind o
theme-setting at the beginning o a topical unit and at the end, orming a kind o
coda (p. 69).
Cognitive perspectives: Cognitive investigations o discourse structure study the
actors that make a text coherent. ext coherence reers to the linking o ideas
within a text to create meaning or readers. Analyses o textual coherence typically
identiy the propositions expressed in a text, the logical relations among those
propositions, and how listeners/readers are able to construct the overall textual
meaning in terms o those propositional relations. In contrast to the study o cohe-
sion, which reers to surace-level patterns, coherence entails the study o larger
discourse relationships. Many o these studies describe texts in terms o the coher-
ence relations expressed by clause-level propositions (Bateman & Rondhuis, 1997;
Dahlgren, 1996; Hobbs, 1979; Sanders, 1997; Sanders & Noordman, 2000). Related
studies also consider other actors that infuence coherence, including dierencesbetween subject versus presentational matter (Mann & Tompson, 1988), text
structural patterns like problem-solution (Connor, 1987) and given-new (theme-
rheme) structures (Cooper, 1988), and the semantic and pragmatic relations be-
tween units (Polanyi, 1985, 1988; Sanders, 1997). Several researchers have devel-
oped analytical rameworks or the study o coherence relations (e.g., Grosz &
Sidner, 1986; McNamara & Kintsch, 1996; omlin, Forrest, Ming Pu, & Hee Kim,
1997; Van Dijk, 1981, 1997; Van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983).
Te ongoing fow o inormation is also central to coherence (Grabe & Kaplan,
1996). Studies have approached inormation fow rom various perspectives, in-
cluding representations o the fow o thought (Chae, 1994, 1997) or short-term
memory (omlin et al., 1997).
-
7/30/2019 Discourse on the Move Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure DouglasBiber
19/304
Discourse on the Move
Computational perspectives: Computational studies o discourse organization have
attempted to model discourse organization or the purposes o inormation re-
trieval and natural language processing. Most computational studies o discoursestructure have ocused on written texts. For example, Morris and Hirst (1991)
developed a lexical algorithm to fnd chains o related terms, which can be used to
describe the structure o texts, applying Grosz and Sidners (1986) attentional/in-
tentional model. Marcu (2000) explores the easibility o automatic rhetorical
parsing, applying Mann and Tompsons (1988) Rhetorical Structure Teory.
One important study or the purposes o the present book is Youmans (1991;
1994), who developed the Vocabulary Management Profle (VMP), a computa-
tional method to track the introduction o new vocabulary into a text. Youmans
shows that VMPs are quite sensitive indicators o the episodic structure o writtenliterary texts, suggesting that the VMP graph provides a direct visual analogue or
constituent structure (p. 113). Youmans compared the results o the VMP to the
paragraph boundaries o literary texts and ound 80 percent agreement.
Fewer computational studies have ocused on the discourse structure o spo-
ken discourse. One o the best known o these, Passonneau and Litman (1996;
1997), attempts to automatically segment spoken texts (spontaneous, narrative
monologues) into discourse units, based on the use o reerential noun phrases,
cue words, and pauses. Tis study urther compares the results o the automaticsegmentation to perceptually-identifed discourse units.
1.3 Discourse studies o social practices and ideological assumptions
associated with communication
Finally, the third approach to discourse the study o communicative social prac-
tices and ideological assumptions ocuses on the social construction o discourse
rather than the linguistic description o particular texts. For example, proponents
o the New Rhetoric (e.g., Bazerman, 1988, 1994; Berkenkotter & Huckin, 1995;
Miller, 1984) have argued or the importance o understanding the knowledge o
social context surrounding texts or helping writers select rhetorical strategies that
work in a given situation. Te ocus here is to look not only at the products (texts)
but also the processes surrounding the production and consumption o texts, ask-
ing Why are specifc discourse-genres written and used by the specialist commu-
nities the way they are? (Bhatia, 1993a, p. 11).
In an attempt to understand the broader social contexts o the discourse, sev-
eral recent corpus-based studies have added analyses o interviews and ocusgroup discussions with actual writers and readers o the texts or other academic
specialists. For example, Hyland (2000) goes beyond the textual approach to dis-
course analysis o academic articles by adding ocus groups, unstructured inter-
-
7/30/2019 Discourse on the Move Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure DouglasBiber
20/304
Chapter 1. Discourse analysis and corpus linguistics
views, and discourse-based interviews with subject specialists rom those disci-
plines, although the interviewees were not the writers o the articles in Hylands
corpus. Te ocus groups and the rst part o the one-to-one interviews used asemi-structured ormat and encouraged the inormants to speak generally about
communication and publication practices in their elds. Te second stage used a
discourse-based interview which involved detailed discussions about particular
pieces o writing. Te inormants responded as members o the particular dis-
course community as they interpreted meanings, reconstructed writer motiva-
tions, and evaluated rhetorical efectiveness. Tey were also encouraged to discuss
specic points in their own work by reerring to a paper they had written.
In another corpus study, Hyland (2004b) analyzed a corpus o 240 disserta-
tions by L2 writers at Hong Kong universities, together with interviews with 24students. Te interviews helped in understanding the use o the analyzed metadis-
course markers transitions, rame markers, endophoric markers, evidentials,
code glosses, hedges, boosters, attitude markers, engagement markers, and sel-
mentions. Such qualitative analyses can shed light on disciplinary diferences as
well as diferences between MA and PhD level writers even i the interviewees are
not the actual writers.
Unlike many qualitative studies o texts and writing, in which the researcher
observes, interviews, and works with the actual writer or writers (see, e.g., Bazer-man & Prior, 2004), corpus studies tend to rely on anonymous writers who are
members o the particular discourse community. In many cases, corpora are con-
structed rom published resources, rather than being collected rom writers per-
sonally, making it nearly impossible to obtain inormation about the writers and
the circumstances o writing. However, like the Hyland studies cited above, it is
possible to combine corpus-based analysis with the careul observation o indi-
vidual writers. For example, Connor & Mauranen (1999) undertook a large-scale
corpus analysis o rhetorical moves in grant proposal writing in the sciences and
humanities. Tis study was later complemented by detailed interviews with ve
scholars in these disciplines (Connor, 2000). Tese scholars were not the writers o
the proposals in the large corpus. However, as specialist inormants they were able
to comment on the appropriateness o the move denitions and the identication
o move boundaries in a small corpus o their own proposals.
1.4 Register and genre perspectives on discourse
Te terms register and genre have been central to previous investigations o dis-course. Both terms have been used to reer to varieties associated with particular
situations o use and particular communicative purposes. Many studies simply
adopt one o these terms and disregard the other. In some cases, these authors
-
7/30/2019 Discourse on the Move Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure DouglasBiber
21/304
Discourse on the Move
might be assuming a theoretical distinction between the two terms, but that dis-
tinction is usually not explicitly noted. For example, studies like Bhatia (2002),
Samraj (2002), Bunton (2002), Love (2002), and Swales (2004) exclusively use theterm genre. In contrast, studies like Ure (1982), Ferguson (1983), Hymes (1984),
Heath and Langman (1994), Bruthiaux (1994; 1996), Conrad (2001), and Biber et
al. (1999) exclusively use the term register.
A ew studies attempt to dene a theoretical distinction between the constructs
underlying these two terms. For example, Ventola (1984) and Martin (1985) reer
to register and genre as dierent semiotic planes: genre is the content-plane o
register, and register is the expression-plane o genre; register is in turn the con-
tent-plane o language. Lee (2001) surveys the use o these terms, providing one o
the most comprehensive discussions o how they have been used in previous re-search (as well as terms like text type and style).
When research studies have attempted to distinguish between register and
genre (such as Couture, 1986; Ferguson, 1994; Martin, 1985; Swales, 1990; Ventola,
1984), the distinction has been applied at two dierent levels o analysis:
1) to the object o study;
2) to the characteristics o language and culture that are investigated.
Tus, the term register(when it is distinguished romgenre) has been used to reer
to a general kind o language associated with a domain o use, such as a legal reg-
ister, scientic register, or bureaucratic register. Registerstudies have usually o-
cused on lexico-grammatical eatures, showing how the use o particular words
and grammatical eatures vary systematically in accord with the situation o use
(actors such as interactivity, personal involvement, mode, production circum-
stances, and communicative purpose). As such, the term registerhas been associ-
ated with the rst general approach to discourse identied in Section 1 above the
study o language use.
In contrast, the term genre has been used to reer to a culturally recognizedmessage type with a conventional internal structure, such as an afdavit, a biology
research article, or a business memo. Genre studies have usually ocused on the
conventional discourse structure o texts or the expected socio-cultural actions o
a discourse community. For example, genres are how things get done, when lan-
guage is used to accomplish them (Martin, 1985, p. 250), and rames or social
action (Bazerman, 1997b, p. 19). As such, the termgenre is oen associated with
the second general approach to discourse identied in Section 1 above the study
o linguistic structure beyond the sentence.
In his previous work on linguistic variation, Biber has disregarded theoretical
distinctions between the terms registerandgenre, preferring the term genre in ear-
lier studies (e.g., Biber 1986, 1988) and the term register in later research (Biber,
-
7/30/2019 Discourse on the Move Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure DouglasBiber
22/304
Chapter 1. Discourse analysis and corpus linguistics
1995, 2006b). In both cases, these were used simply as a general cover term to reer
to situationally-defned varieties described or their characteristic lexico-grammat-
ical eatures, with no implied theoretical distinction between registerandgenre.However, in the present book we are ocused especially on the internal struc-
ture and organization o texts rom a specic variety (e.g., undraising letters or
biology research articles), a perspective typically associated with the analysis o a
genre rather than register. For this reason, we adopt the termgenre throughout the
book to reer to the linguistic variety being analyzed.
1.5 Identiying structural units in discourse
One specifc research emphasis or discourse studies o structure beyond the sen-tence has been the attempt to segment a text into higher-level structural units. Tese
studies are oundational to the goals o the present book, because the units o analy-
sis in corpus-based studies o discourse structure must be well-defned discourse
units: the segments o discourse that provide the building blocks o texts.
In studies o written texts, discourse units have generally been identied based
on visual as well as textual clues (see, e.g., Hunston, 1994). Te smallest unit o
analysis has usually been the proposition, ollowed by the t-unit or sentence, the
paragraph, and nally the chapter or the whole text (Meyer, 1985). Such units areidentied by written para-linguistic devices (such as sentence punctuation and
paragraph indenting), rather than analysis o textual content or unction.
Other studies have considered the initiation o new topics within a text. Inves-
tigating written ction, Youmans (1991, p. 774) claimed that syntactic unction
words do not denote new topics, whereas content words do. Similarly, Fox (1987)
ound that, in expository writing, ull noun phrases are more likely than pronouns
to indicate the start o a new topic.
In spoken discourse (especially conversation) it has proved especially difcult
to determine what constitutes a new topic, resulting in a reliance on qualitative or
impressionistic ndings. As annen (1984, p. 38) notes, the boundaries o the
shiing topics in conversation are not always clearly and readily identiable, and
the initiation o new topics is oen unclear (see also annen, 1984, 1989; Van Dijk,
1997). Some research has suggested that prosodic and linguistic cues can be used
to determine topical boundaries in oral discourse. For example, pauses, hesita-
tions, alse starts, change in pitch, discourse particles, preposed adverbials, sum-
mary statements, and evaluative comments have all been proposed as linguistic
markers that signal a discourse shi in theme or topic (e.g., Brown & Yule, 1983;Gee, 1986; Korolija & Linell, 1996; Polanyi, 1985; Stubbs, 1983; annen, 1987; Van
Dijk, 1981).
-
7/30/2019 Discourse on the Move Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure DouglasBiber
23/304
Discourse on the Move
In general, these studies have ocused on linguistic devices that signal the transi-
tion rom one topic to the next, but they have not attempted to rigorously segment
complete texts into well-defned discourse units. However, this is exactly the taskthat must be accomplished or corpus-based analyses o discourse structure: we
need comprehensive identifcation o the structural discourse units within all texts
in the corpus. wo general approaches to text segmentation have been employed in
previous corpus-based research: top-down and bottom-up methods o segmenta-
tion. Te ollowing section discusses these two approaches in more detail.
2 Corpus-based investigation of discourse structure
As summarized in the sections above, research on the linguistic characteristics o
texts and discourse has been carried out rom two major perspectives: one ocus-
ing on the distribution and unctions o surace linguistic eatures corpus studies
o language use in discourse (which typically disregards the existence o individu-
al texts) and the second ocusing on the internal organization o texts discourse
studies o linguistic structure beyond the sentence in particular texts.
Discourse studies o language use have usually been quantitative, and in more
recent years, they have been carried out on large text corpora using the techniqueso corpus linguistics; these studies ofen compare the linguistic characteristics o
discourse rom dierent spoken and written registers. Studies o the second type
have usually been qualitative and based on detailed analysis o a small number o
texts; these studies usually ocus on the internal structure o a ew texts rom a
single genre, such as scientic research articles.
Rmer (2005) is a good example o the rst approach. Tis study describes the
use o progressive verb phrases in spoken English, based on analysis o the British
National Corpus and the Bank o English. Rather than ocusing on the organiza-
tion o any particular text, the study ocuses on the overall patterns o distribution
and use, considering actors such as the tendency o progressives to occur with
dierent tenses and aspects; occurrence with dierent subject types or object
types; occurrence with dierent adverbials; and the tendency to occur with spe-
cic verbs and verb classes. In contrast, the chapters in Mann and Tompson
(1992) are good examples o the second approach. Tis book is based on analysis
o a single undraising letter, showing how the discourse structure and organiza-
tion o that single text can be analyzed rom dierent perspectives.
Surprisingly, ew studies have attempted to combine these two research per-spectives. On the one hand, most corpus-based studies have ocused on the quan-
titative distribution o lexical and grammatical eatures, generally disregarding the
language used in particular texts and higher-level discourse structures or other
-
7/30/2019 Discourse on the Move Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure DouglasBiber
24/304
Chapter 1. Discourse analysis and corpus linguistics
aspects o discourse organization. On the other hand, most qualitative discourse
analyses have ocused on the analysis o discourse patterns in a ew texts rom a
single genre, but they have not provided tools or empirical analyses that can beapplied on a large scale across a number o texts or genres. As a result, we know
little at present about the general patterns o discourse organization across a large
representative sample o texts rom a genre.
One o the major methodological problems to be solved by any corpus-based
analysis o discourse structure is deciding on a unit o analysis. Tat is, the frst
step in an analysis o discourse structure is to identiy the internal discourse seg-
ments o a text, corresponding to distinct propositions, topics, or communicative
unctions; these discourse segments become the basic units o the subsequent dis-
course analysis. For a corpus study o discourse structure, all texts in the corpusmust frst be analyzed or their component discourse units.
However, such analyses were not even possible based on early text corpora,
because they were composed o text-fles rather than complete texts. For example,
text fles in the Brown, LOB, and London-Lund Corpora were defned by length
2,000 words long in the case o Brown and LOB, and 5,000 words long in the case
o London-Lund. In some cases, a single text fle combines multiple texts, while in
other cases a text is truncated in a text fle when the word limit is reached.
Tis characteristic o early corpora might help to explain why most previous cor-pus studies have not considered individual texts at all. Rather, the analysis has re-
ported general patterns or the corpus as a whole, or it has compared overall results or
various sub-corpora (e.g., the overall requency o progressive verbs in a conversa-
tional sub-corpus compared to the requency in a sub-corpus o academic writing).
More recently, corpora such as the BNC and 2K-SWAL have been designed
to include complete texts, such as complete chapters rom a book or complete re-
search articles. It is thus possible, in theory, to analyze the internal discourse struc-
ture o each text in the corpus, and to then discover general patterns o discourse
organization that hold across all texts in the corpus. o achieve this goal, corpus
texts must frst be segmented into well-defned discourse units, and then those
units can be used to identiy the general ways in which the discourse o corpus
texts is organized. In the ollowing section, we introduce the two major corpus-
based approaches that can be applied to these research goals.
-
7/30/2019 Discourse on the Move Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure DouglasBiber
25/304
Discourse on the Move
3 Top-down versus bottom-up corpus-based approaches
to discourse analysis
o achieve generalizable corpus-based descriptions o discourse structure, seven
major analytical steps are required:
Determining the types o discourse units the unctional/communicative dis-
tinctions that discourse units can serve in these texts (Communicative/Func-
tional Categories)
Segmenting all texts in the corpus into well-dened discourse units (Segmen-
tation)
Identiying and labeling the type (or category) o each discourse unit in each
text o the corpus (Classication) Analyzing the linguistic characteristics o each discourse unit in each text o
the corpus (Linguistic analysis o each unit)
Describing the typical linguistic characteristics o each discourse unit type, by
comparing all discourse units o a given type across the texts o the corpus
(Linguistic description o discourse categories)
Describing the discourse structures o particular texts as sequences o dis-
course units, in terms o the general type or category o each o those units
(ext structure) Describing general patterns o discourse organization that hold across all texts
o the corpus (Discourse organizational tendencies)
Tese seven steps can be achieved through either a top-down research approach or
a bottom-up research approach. Te two approaches difer primarily in the order
o analytical steps. In a top-down approach, the analytical ramework is developed
at the outset: the discourse unit types are determined beore beginning the corpus
analysis, and the entire analysis is then carried out in those terms. In a bottom-up
approach, the corpus analysis comes rst, and the discourse unit types emergerom the corpus patterns. ables 1.1 and 1.2 summarize the major diferences be-
tween these two analytical approaches.
-
7/30/2019 Discourse on the Move Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure DouglasBiber
26/304
Chapter 1. Discourse analysis and corpus linguistics
Table 1.1 op-down corpus-based analyses o discourse organization
Required step in the analysis Realization in this approach
1. Communicative/Functional Categories Develop the analytical ramework: determine
set o possible unctional types o discourse
units, that is, the major communicative unc-
tions that discourse units can serve in corpus
2. Segmentation Segment each text into discourse units (applying
the analytical framework from Step 1)
3. Classication Identiy the unctional type o each discourse
unit in each text o the corpus (applying the
analytical ramework rom Step 1)
4. Linguistic analysis o each unit Analyze the lexical/grammatical characteristicso each discourse unit in each text o the corpus
5. Linguistic description o discourse
categories
Describe the typical linguistic characteristics o
each unctional category, based on analysis o
all discourse units o a particular unctional
type in the corpus
6. ext structure Analyze complete texts as sequences o dis-
course units shifing among the dierent unc-
tional types
7. Discourse organizational tendencies Describe the general patterns o discourse or-
ganization across all texts in the corpus
In the top-down approach, the rst step is to develop the analytical ramework,
determining the set o possible discourse unit types based on an a priori determi-
nation o the major communicative unctions that discourse units can serve in
these texts. Tat ramework is then applied to the analysis o all texts in a corpus.
Tus, when texts are segmented into discourse units, it is done by identiying a
stretch o discourse o a particular type; that is, that serves a particular communi-
cative unction.
In contrast, in the bottom-up approach, the rst step is to automatically seg-
ment all texts in the corpus into discourse units (based on linguistic criteria).
Tose discourse units are then analyzed or many other linguistic eatures, and
grouped into clusters o discourse units that are linguistically similar. Only then
afer the discourse units have already been grouped linguistically are those
groupings interpreted as discourse unit types, by determining their typical unc-
tions in texts.
-
7/30/2019 Discourse on the Move Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure DouglasBiber
27/304
Discourse on the Move
Table 1.2 Bottom-up corpus-based analyses o discourse organization
Required step in the analysis Realization in this approach
1. Segmentation Segment each text in the corpus into discourse
units, based on shifs in vocabulary or other lin-
guistic eatures
2. Linguistic analysis o each unit Analyze the ull range o lexical / grammatical
characteristics o each discourse unit in each text o
the corpus
3. Classication Identiy the set o discourse units types that emerge
rom the corpus analysis, based on linguistic crite-
ria; that is, group all discourse units in the corpus
into linguistically-dened categories or types4. Linguistic description o discourse
categories
Describe the typical linguistic characteristics o
each discourse category, based on analysis o all
discourse units o a particular type in the corpus
5. Communicative/unctional categories Describe the unctional bases o each discourse cat-
egory, based on post-hoc analysis o the discourse
units identied as belonging to a particular type
6. ext structure Analyze complete texts as sequences o discourse
units shifing among the dierent unctional types
7. Discourse organizational tendencies Describe the general patterns o discourse organi-
zation across all texts in the corpus
3.1 Examples o top-down analyses o discourse
Several top-level discourse structure theories were advanced by text linguists in
the 1980s and 1990s. Teories o superstructures were developed or dierent
types o texts such as exposition, argumentation, and narration. Tese superstruc-
tures o texts were called macrostructures by Van Dijk (1980), problem-solutionpatterns by Hoey (1983; 1986), superstructures o arguments by irkkonen-Con-
dit (1985), and story grammars by Mandler and Johnson (1977).
Story grammar analysis had its start in the work o Labov and Waletsky (1967),
who proposed the ollowing structure or analyzing oral narratives: orientation
(the major characters are introduced and a setting is established); complication (a
series o events unold, and a crisis develops); resolution (the crisis is solved); and
coda (the nal stage, in which the writer may express an attitude toward the story
or give her perspective on its signicance). Although developed or oral texts orig-inally, the story grammar analysis became a popular tool in written discourse
analysis. Martin and Rothery (1986) used it eectively as a research and teaching
method or school writing in Australia.
-
7/30/2019 Discourse on the Move Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure DouglasBiber
28/304
Chapter 1. Discourse analysis and corpus linguistics
Tere are other approaches to the analysis o text structure that could be clas-
sied as being top-down in nature. Mann and Tompson (1992) in their book,
Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-raising ext, showcaseseven dierent methods or looking at the text organization o a single undraising
letter. One, described by Callow and Callow (1992), is somewhat like the appeals
analysis described below, except that the ocus is on identiying the kinds o in-
tended meanings (rather than appeals) that refect the writers purposes. Tese di-
erent meaning purposes (e.g., inormative, expressive, and conative [expressing
desires and intentions]) can be used to analyze the meaning-basedstructure o the
text. In their chapter o the book, Mann, Matthiessen, & Tompson (1992) use
Rhetorical Structure Teory(RS) to analyze the relational structure o a text. At
its most basic level, RS identies coherence in a text that is, how dierent partso a text relate to each other, or more specically how one part o a text supports,
elaborates, provides background or, oers contrast to, justies, etc, another part o
the text. By looking at these relationships, the rhetorical structure o the texts in a
corpus could also be mapped out (see also Fox, 1987, Chapters 45).
Connor (1996) pointed out that the above kinds o analyses provided a new
development in written discourse analysis. Researchers became keenly aware that
dierent textual modes (e.g., narration, exposition, argumentation) used dierent
discourse structures. Unlike the study o cohesion, or example, the analysis osuper structures was specic to a text type. Te increased interest in specic genres
has urther stimulated research on discourse structures o texts.
Move analysis (Swales, 1981, 1990) is an example o such a specifc genre anal-
ysis. Move analysis was developed as a top-down approach to analyze the discourse
structure o texts rom a genre; the text is described as a sequence o moves, where
each move represents a stretch o text serving a particular communicative unction.
Te analysis begins with the development o an analytical ramework, identiying
and describing the move types that can occur in this genre: these are the unctional/
communicative distinctions that moves can serve in the target genre.
Subsequently, selected texts are segmented into moves, noting the move type
o each move. Te overall discourse structure o a text can be described in relation
to the sequence o move types. For example, a research article might begin with a
move that identies the topic and reviews previous research, ollowed by a move
that identies a gap in previous research, ollowed by a move that outlines the
goals o the present study, summarizes the major ndings, and outlines the or-
ganization o the paper.
Until recently, top-down approaches (including move analysis) have not beenapplied to an entire corpus o texts, because it is highly labor-intensive to apply a
top-down analytical ramework to a large corpus o texts. However, this invest-
ment o labor pays o by enabling generalizable analyses o discourse structure
-
7/30/2019 Discourse on the Move Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure DouglasBiber
29/304
Discourse on the Move
across a representative sample o texts rom a genre. For example, once a corpus o
texts has been coded or moves, we can easily analyze the typical linguistic (lexical
and grammatical) characteristics o each move type. It is then possible to identiythe sequences o move types that are typical or a genre, and against that back-
ground, it is also possible to identiy particular texts that use more innovative se-
quences o move types. In summary, corpus-based move analyses illustrate the top
down approach: the unctional analytical ramework is developed frst; that rame-
work is then applied to segment texts into discourse units (moves); and fnally the
moves and unctional move types are analyzed to describe their linguistic charac-
teristics. Chapters 34 in the present book illustrate this general approach to dis-
course structure.
Rhetorical appeals analysis is another top-down approach (see Chapter 5). In-stead o describing texts according to their communicative unctions (moves),
rhetorical appeals analysis divides texts into sections using the three basic means
o Aristotelian persuasion: ethos, pathos, and logos. Similar to move analysis, this
approach begins with the development o an analytical ramework, identiying
and defning the appeal types. Te texts in a corpus are then analyzed by applying
this analytical ramework: segmenting texts into appeals, noting the appeal type o
each appeal.
In practice, most previous discourse analyses have been top-down. However,there have been ew previous top-down studies o discourse applied to an entire
corpus o texts, in large part because the analyses are so labor-intensive. In the
present book, we illustrate two particular top-down approaches to discourse: move
analysis (Chapters 34) and rhetorical appeals analysis (Chapter 5).
3.2 Example o bottom-up approach
In contrast to the long research tradition applying top-down analyses o discourse,
the bottom-up approach was only recently developed, specifcally or corpus-
based analyses o discourse structure. Tis approach has not been previously prac-
ticed by discourse analysts because it requires advanced computational techniques
and does not make sense or the analysis o an individual text. Tat is, a discourse
analyst traditionally begins by considering the communicative-unctional context
o a text, and relies on those considerations to identiy the components o the text,
and how a text is organized in those terms.
In contrast, the bottom-up approach was developed to address the methodo-
logical problem of how discourse patterns could be analyzed in a large corpus, withhundreds or thousands of texts. In theory, top-down analyses can also be applied to
large text corpora, but in practice, such analyses are limited by the human resourc-
es that are available for manually coding discourse units in texts. Te bottom-up
-
7/30/2019 Discourse on the Move Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure DouglasBiber
30/304
Chapter 1. Discourse analysis and corpus linguistics
approach has no such limitations, because it incorporates automatic computational
techniques which can be easily applied to the analysis of hundreds of texts.
Vocabulary-Based Discourse Unit (VBDU) analysis is the specic bottom-upapproach illustrated in the present book. (See Chapter 6 or a detailed descrip-
tion.) Te rst step is to automatically segment texts into discourse units the
VBDUs. Tis is done using computational techniques, based on vocabulary repeti-
tion. At this stage, we know nothing about the underlying types o discourse units
or the communicative unctions served by these types. Ten, in the second step,
we undertake comprehensive linguistic descriptions o each VBDU (again utiliz-
ing automatic computational techniques). Tese linguistic descriptions are used to
group VBDUs into categories, so that all the VBDUs in a grouping are similar lin-
guistically. At that point, unctional considerations become important, becausethe linguistic groupings o VBDUs are interpreted as unctional VBDU-types. Tat
is, each type represents a grouping o VBDUs that are similar in their lexico-
grammatical characteristics, and those groupings are interpreted to identiy their
typical discourse meanings and unctions. Finally, the overall discourse organiza-
tion o texts is described as sequences o VBDUs, noting the unctional discourse
type o each VBDU.
One major diference between the two approaches is the role o the unctional
versus linguistic analyses. In the top-down approach, the unctional ramework isprimary. Tus, the rst step in the analysis is to determine the possible discourse
unit types (e.g., move types) and provide an operational denition or each one.
Tis unctional ramework is then used to segment texts into discourse units. Lin-
guistic analysis is secondary in a top-down approach, serving an interpretive role
to investigate the extent to which unctionally-dened discourse units also have
systematic linguistic characteristics.
In contrast, the linguistic description is primary in the bottom-up approach.
exts are automatically segmented into VBDUs based on vocabulary patterns, and
then VBDUs are grouped into categories based on the use o a wide range o lexi-
co-grammatical eatures. Functional analysis is secondary in VBDU analysis, serv-
ing an interpretive role to investigate the extent to which linguistically-dened
discourse unit categories also have systematic unctional characteristics.
4 Creating a specialized corpus for discourse analysis
One o the central methodological issues or corpus-based research is to ensurethat the corpus chosen or analysis actually represents the discourse domain being
studied and is thus suitable or the research questions being investigated (see Biber
1993, 2004). Tis is o course no diferent than any other quantitative research in
-
7/30/2019 Discourse on the Move Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure DouglasBiber
31/304
Discourse on the Move
the social sciences, where there is always concern that the sample being studied
actually represents the larger target population (one o the potential threats to
external validity).Corpus-based studies o discourse structure are potentially problematic in this
regard or two related reasons:
1. Corpora are oen designed or general use rather than a specic study. As a
result, the population being represented can be relatively general, such as
newspaper language, or even an entire language.
2. Researchers sometimes choose to use a corpus just because it is publicly avail-
able, with little consideration o whether that corpus actually represents the
target population being investigated.
However, these problems can be readily addressed. Most corpora have been de-
signed with relatively well-specied sub-corpora that represent particular text cat-
egories, such as academic research articles, newspaper editorials, or ace-to-ace
conversation. When corpus studies have been based on particular sub-corpora,
the ndings have been much more interpretable. In addition, many recent corpora
have been designed or more particular research purposes. For example, the 2K-
SWAL Corpus a relatively general corpus was designed to represent the range
o spoken and written genres used in American universities (including sub-corpo-
ra or ofce hours, study groups, textbooks, course syllabi, etc.; see Biber 2006b).
Te ICIC Fundraising Corpus is somewhat more specialized, designed to repre-
sent American undraising discourse, including sub-corpora or genres like direct
mail letters and grant proposals (see Connor & Upton, 2004a, 2004b; Upton, 2002;
Upton & Connor, 2001).
In general, more specialized corpora are more appropriate or the study o dis-
course structure. Te corpora used in the present book are all relatively specialized,
but they difer in the extent to which they represent a narrowly-dened genre. At
one extreme, the study reported in Chapter 4 o the present book is based on ahighly restricted corpus o research articles published in biochemistry academic
journals. Prior research was carried out to identiy the ve most prestigious aca-
demic journals in this discipline, and then research articles were collected over a
12-month period rom those journals. Te study reported in Chapter 7 is based on
a corpus o research articles published in biology academic journals, but it deliber-
ately includes a range o sub-disciplines in the sample. Te study in Chapter 3 is
based on analysis o the direct mail letters included in the ICIC Fundraising Cor-
pus; these include letters rom a wide variety o non-prot organizations across a
wide variety o non-prot elds (e.g., health and human services, education). Fi-
nally, the corpus used in Chapter 8 is probably the least specialized, consisting o
transcripts rom university-level classroom teaching sessions collected across sev-
-
7/30/2019 Discourse on the Move Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure DouglasBiber
32/304
Chapter 1. Discourse analysis and corpus linguistics
eral diferent academic disciplines. However, all corpora used here are relatively
specialized, restricted to particular genres. Such corpora are required or corpus-
based studies o discourse structure: each text has its own discourse organization,and it is reasonable to hypothesize that all texts rom a genre will tend to share
similar patterns o discourse organization. Our goals in the present book are rela-
tively straightorward: we hope to analyze corpora that represent particular genres,
to describe the patterns o discourse organization in those genres and to investigate
empirically the variation in discourse patterns across texts within a single genre.
5 Overview of the book
Te book is organized into two parts, corresponding to the two major corpus-based
approaches to discourse organization introduced in Section 2 above. Part I o the
book ocuses on op-down analyses o discourse organization. Chapter 2 intro-
duces top-down analysis in greater detail, describing the analytical procedures re-
quired or these analyses, with a special ocus on genre-based move analysis and
the methodological issues that arise during the application o this approach to the
analysis o a corpus o texts. Part I o the book then presents three case studies il-
lustrating the top-down approach. Te rst case study (Chapter 3) describes howundraising letters are structured in terms o rhetorical moves, ocusing on the lin-
guistic expression o stance in the diferent move types. Te second case study
(Chapter 4) describes the typical discourse organizations o biochemistry research
articles, again using move analysis as the primary analytical ramework. Rather
than ocusing on a restricted set o linguistic eatures, this second case study under-
takes a multi-dimensional analysis (see Appendix One) to describe the typical lin-
guistic characteristics o move types in this genre with respect to a wide range o
lexical and grammatical eatures. Finally, the last chapter in Part I o the book in-
troduces a second top-down approach to discourse structure: appeals analysis.
Tis approach is applied to the same corpus o undraising letters as in Chapter 3,
allowing a direct comparison o these two analytical approaches.
Part II o the book Bottom-up analyses o discourse organization then
deals primarily with Vocabulary-Based Discourse Unit (VBDU) analysis. Chapter
6 introduces this analytical ramework in detail, describing both the analytical
procedures and experimental research that explores the extent to which the auto-
matically-identifed VBDUs correspond to discourse units recognized on a per-
ceptual basis by human raters. Two case studies based on this approach are thenpresented: Chapter 7 presents a bottom-up analysis o a corpus o biology research
articles, describing how texts rom this genre are structured as sequences o VB-
DUs; Chapter 8 presents a similar analysis o VBDUs in university classroom
-
7/30/2019 Discourse on the Move Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure DouglasBiber
33/304
Discourse on the Move
teaching sessions. Finally, the concluding chapter (9) provides a synopsis o fnd-
ings, a more theoretical discussion o the strengths and weaknesses o each ap-
proach, and a discussion o uture prospects or investigations o this type.
-
7/30/2019 Discourse on the Move Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure DouglasBiber
34/304
Part 1
Top-down analyses of discourse organization
-
7/30/2019 Discourse on the Move Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure DouglasBiber
35/304
-
7/30/2019 Discourse on the Move Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure DouglasBiber
36/304
chapter 2
Introduction to move analysis
WIH Budsb Knoksilm
In C 1, w inodud wo difn os o using oo onlyz disous ognizion: o-down nd boom-u ous-bsd nlyss.
Tis ouss imily on on y o o-down o: mov
nlysis. W giv dild dsiion o mov nlysis inluding w i is,
w is y o nlysis lls you, xmls o sudis using mov nlysis, ss
o onduing mov nlysis, nd sil onsidions o nd dvngs o
using ous-bsd o. As nod in vious , mny
o-down os o disous nlysis, lik ls nlysis dsibd in
C 5; mov nlysis, owv, is o s bn mos qunly
usd o d in ous-bsd sudis. Cs 3 nd 4 ovid si xmls
o s kinds o sudis. T inn o sn is o inodu
gols nd mods o ous-bsd mov nlysis (s on ommon y o
o-down disous nlysis), in od o sow ow gnlizbl ous-bsd
dsiions o disous ognizionl ns n b ivd using o-
down o.
1 Background
Genre analysis using rhetorical moves was originally developed by Swales (1981) to
describe the rhetorical organizational patterns o research articles. Its goal is to
describe the communicative purposes o a text by categorizing the various dis-
course units within the text according to their communicative purposes or rhetori-
cal moves. A move thus reers to a section o a text that perorms a specic com-
municative unction. Each move not only has its own purpose but also contributes
to the overall communicative purposes o the genre. In Swales words, these pur-
poses together constitute the rationale or the genre, which in turn shapes the
schematic structure o the discourse and infuences and constrains choice o con-tent and style, with texts in a genre exhibiting various patterns o similarity in
terms o structure, style, content and intended audience (1990, p. 58).
-
7/30/2019 Discourse on the Move Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure DouglasBiber
37/304
Discourse on the Move
Genre analysis was developed in the 1970s and 1980s as part o the wider
growth o discourse analyses ocusing on the organization o discourse. Bhatia
(2004) documents how structural concerns, or example Hoeys (1983) problem-solution structure analysis, directed the analysts attention away rom studying
lexico-grammatical eatures o texts (e.g., passives and nominalizations, use o
tenses, coherence). Researchers involved in the analysis o text as genre urther
related discourse structures to the communicative unctions o texts, resulting in
the current approach o doing genre analysis using rhetorical moves.
In genre analysis, the purposes o the genre are recognized by the expert mem-
bers o the discourse community, less so by the novice members, and probably not
by the nonmembers. Tese purposes shape the rationale, and the rationale helps
develop the constraining conventions. According to Swales (1990), these conven-tions are constantly changing but still exert infuence. As we will see in later chap-
ters, discourse communities are powerul in shaping the conventions o the genre.
Research papers in scholarly disciplines are good examples o such discourse com-
munities where novice writers are indoctrinated into the paper-writing genre in
their graduate studies and young publishing lives. Tere are genres, however,
which are not shaped by such strong discourse community rationales. ake und-
raising letters as an example. It is air to say that both writers and readers recognize
a undraising letter as such. However, since readers and potential donors do nottypically write them, conventions may not be so strictly adhered to. In act, devi-
ance rom conventions may seem resh to the reader who may receive hundreds o
them a year but does not need to worry about writing any.
In move analysis, the general organizational patterns o texts are typically de-
scribed as consisting o a series o moves, with moves being unctional units in a
text which together ulll the overall communicative purpose o the genre (Con-
nor, Davis, & De Rycker, 1995). Moves can vary in length, but normally contain at
least one proposition (Connor & Mauranen, 1999). Some move types occur more
requently than others in a genre and can be described as conventional, whereas
other moves occurring not as requently can be described as optional. Moves may
contain multiple elements that together, or in some combination, realize the move.
Tese elements are reerred to as steps by Swales (1990) or strategies by Bhatia
(1993a). Te steps o a move primarily unction to achieve the purpose o the
move to which it belongs (see, e.g., Crookes, 1986; Dudley-Evans, 1994a; Hopkins
& Dudley-Evans, 1988; Swales, 1981, 1984, 1990). In short, moves represent se-
mantic and unctional units o texts that have specic communicative purposes; in
addition, as the ollowing sections show, moves generally have distinct linguisticboundaries that can be objectively analyzed.
-
7/30/2019 Discourse on the Move Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure DouglasBiber
38/304
Chapter 2. Introduction to move analysis
2 Swales move analysis of research articles
Swales (1981) developed the discourse approach o move analysis within the moregeneral feld o English or Specifc Purposes (ESP). Tis approach has been revised
and extended by several scholars, including Swales (1990). Te original aim o Swales
work on move analysis was to address the needs o advanced non-native English
speakers (NNSs) learning to read and write research articles, as well as to help NNS
proessionals who want to publish their articles in English. His analysis o 48 intro-
duction sections in research articles rom a range o disciplines (physics, medicine,
and social sciences), written in English, led Swales to propose a series o moves i.e.,
specifc communicative unctions perormed by specifc sections o the introductions
that defned the rhetorical structure o research article introductions.A closer examination o Swales move structure, or ramework, or these intro-
ductions helps elucidate the interaction between moves and steps in perorming
communicative unctions in scientifc texts. Swales three-move schema or article
introductions, collectively known as the Create a Research Space (CARS) model,
is presented in able 2.1. Te model shows the preerred sequences o move types
and steps, which are largely predictable in research article introductions.
Table 2.1 CARS model or research article introductions, adapted rom Swales(1990, p. 141)
Move 1: Establishing a territory
Step 1 Claiming centrality and/or
Step 2 Making topic generalization(s) and/or
Step 3 Reviewing items o previous research
Move 2: Establishing a niche
Step 1A Counter-claiming or
Step 1B Indicating a gap or
Step 1C Question raising or
Step 1D Continuing a tradition
Move 3: Occupying the niche
Step 1A Outlining purposes or
Step 1B Announcing present research
Step 2 Announcing principal fndings
Step 3 Indicating RA structure
Swales model includes three basic move types in research article introductions.
Move 1 Establishing a territory introduces the general topic o research. Move 2
-
7/30/2019 Discourse on the Move Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure DouglasBiber
39/304
Discourse on the Move
Establishing a niche identifes the more specifc areas o research that require
urther investigation. And Move 3 Occupying a niche introduces the current
research study in the context o the previous research described in Moves 1 and 2.Move 1 can have a maximum o three steps (Step 1, Step 2, and Step 3). In
Move 1, Step 1, Claiming centrality, the author can make a centrality claim by
claiming interest or importance in reerring to the classic, avorite or central per-
spective, or by claiming that there are many investigators in the area. Tis step is
usually, but not always, at the beginning o the introduction. o illustrate Move 1,
Step 1, Swales (1990) presents the ollowing examples:
Te study ofhas become an important aspect of
A central issue inis the validity of (Swales, 1990, p. 144)
Move 1, Step 2,Making topic generalizations, represents a neutral kind o general
statement. It usually takes the orm o either statements about knowledge or prac-
tice, or statements about phenomena. Usually, this step seeks to establish territory
by emphasizing the requency and complexity o the data. Some examples o Move
1, Step 2 are:
Te aetiology and pathology is well known.
A standard procedure for assessing has been
Tere are many situations where (Swales, 1990, p. 146)
Te last step o this move, Step 3, Reviewing items of previous literature, is where
the author reviews selected relevant groups o previous research. Here, the author
specifes the important fndings o the study and situates his/her own current re-
search study. Examples o Move 1, Step 3 are:
X Was found by Sang et al. (1972) to be impaired.
Chomskyan grammarians have recently (Swales, 1990, p. 150)
In establishing territory, then, the author convinces the readers about the importance
o the area o study by making strong claims with reerence to previously publishedresearch, which can be done in three ways, as indicated by the three step options.
Move 2 o the CARS model, Establishing a niche for about-to-be presented re-
search, is considered a key move in research article introductions because it con-
nects Move 1 to Move 3, by articulating the need or the research that is being
presented. Move 2 is maniested in one o our ways: Step 1A, Counter claiming;
Step 1B, Indicating a gap, Step 1C, Question raising, and Step 1D, Continuing a
-
7/30/2019 Discourse on the Move Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure DouglasBiber
40/304
Chapter 2. Introduction to move analysis
tradition. Te our options or realizing Move 2 are represented by the ollowing
examples, taken rom Swales, 1990, p. 154:
Step 1A, Counter Claiming Emphasis has been on, with scant
attention given to
Step 1B, Indicating a Gap Te rst group...cannot treat and is
limited to
Step 1C, Question Raising Both sufer rom the dependency on
Step 1D, Continuing a radition A questio