The Schematic Structure of Literature Review in Research Articles of Applied LinguisticsH U JianBeijing University of Aeronautics and AstronauticsAbstractThis paper reports a schematic analysis of LR texts drawn from research articles (RAs) written in English and from research articles written in Chinese. The schematic structure of these articles was explored via coding and genre analysis. Generic and intercultural perspectives were used to identify similarities and differences between these two groups of articles. It was found that both groups were characterized by a 4-move pattern. The move structure of the Chinese LRs, however, was found to be more straightforward than the move structure of the English LRs. Most of the other observed differences were related to strategy use below the level of moves. The move structures identified in this study may highlight some useful meta-language that will enable students and apprentice writers to be better able to overcome the structuring problems they encounter when writing LRs.Key words: literature review (LR); English and Chinese research articles; schematicstructure; genre; culture 1. IntroductionResearch articles (RAs) are an important means of communication within a discourse community. They are also important for the advancement of a scholar’s professional standing. Most RAs include an Introduction-Methods-Results-Discussion (IMRD) structure (Swales, 1990). The IMRD model is based on the prototype of experimental reporting in the natural sciences, but it does not give sufficient attention to variation between different disciplines (Varttala, 2001). Hu’s study (2008) further identified an Introduction-Literature Review (Background)-Method-Results-Discussion structure inThe Schematic Structure of Literature Review in Research Articles of Applied Linguisticsthe RAs of linguistics articles written in English and Chinese. Although it is a significant topic in the research literature, the literature review (LR) fails to obtain sufficient attention in Chinese academic circle. The popularity of the IMRD model, which does not include a component of literature review, may partly account for the scarcity of, research on LRs in RAs.Reviewing the literature is an indispensable task in research writing. Lack of attention to this crucial part of RAs may hinder our comprehensive understanding of the RA genre and the processes that underlie the structuring of RAs. The purpose of the current study is to fill this research gap. Its aim is to identify the rhetorical movements of LRs that appear in Applied Linguistics research articles that have an ILrMRD format.2. Background to the study2.1 The genre-centered approach to LRGenre analysis, which identifies prototypical moves or functional components, is very important for the study of research articles. “Move Analysis” (Swales, 1990), for example, was developed as a top-down approach to analyzing the discourse structure of texts from a genre: the text is described as a sequence of “moves”, each move representing a stretch of text that serves a particular communicative function. In considering the difficulties that ESL learners have with scientific writing, Swales (1984, cited in Taylor & Chen, 1991) proposed a four-move structure to describe the schematic pattern of the introductions in research articles. In order to investigate the rhetorical styles and discourse types employed in academic and research settings, Swales (1990) established a theoretical framework to define the scope and nature of academic discourse, and offered a model that is designed to examine and describe academic discourse, and his revised Create a Research Space (CARS) model seemed to have adequately captured the textual characteristics of RA introductions.Two recent studies on RAs focused specifically on LRs. Kwan (2006) identified the rhetorical structure of LR chapters and compared this structure with the revised CARS model in the corpus of 20 applied linguistics doctoral dissertations produced by native English speakers. He proposed a 3-move structure to describe the schematic pattern in LRs. His findings suggest that LRs and introductions may not be entirely the same structurally. Chen (2008) conducted a cross-disciplinary comparison in which she probed into the generic similarities and differences among LRs in natural science and social science dissertations. She identified a 4-move structure for LRs: Constructing reference to the published work—General comments on the subject under investigation—Detailed evaluations on the previous research—Summary. Most of the previous research on LRs has focused on LR chapters in theses or dissertations. Only a limited amount of research has examined LRs in research articles.The main purpose of a LR, whether in a thesis or in a RA, is to justify the value of a current investigation, and to show how it is different from what is currently documented in the research literature (Kwan, 2006). This suggests that LRs in theses and in RAs mayH U Jianbe similar in terms of their rhetorical structure. “Rhetorical structure” refers to the underlying structure that determines the organization of a text. Kwan’s model is most specific to the field of linguistics and very relevant to this study.Kwan (2006) proposed a 3-move structure to describe the schematic pattern of the thematic sections in the body of LRs (Figure 1). He further examined their respective elements, and differentiated them as steps and strategies. None of the elements occur in their respective move 100% of the time, and they do not appear in a predictable sequential pattern so, in Kwan’s study, only strategies were included as elements.Move 1Establishing one of the territory of one's own research bystrategy A#surveying the non-research-related phenomena or knowledge claimsstrategy B#claiming centralitystrategy C surveying the research-related phenomenaMove 2Creating a research niche (in response of move 1) by:strategy A creating-claimingstrategy B gap-indicatingstrategy C a sserting confirmative claims about knowledge or research practices surveyedstrategy D asserting the relevancy of the surveyed claims to one’s own researchstrategy E a bstracting or synthesizing knowledge claims to establish a theoretical position or a theoretical frameworkMove 3 (optional)Occupying the research niche by announcing:strategy A research aims, focuses, research questions or hypotheses*strategy B theoretical positi ons/theoretical frameworks*strategy C research design/processes*strategy D interpretations of terminology used in the thesis*Figure 1. Kwan’s move structure for the thematic units in LR chapters (Kwan, 2006: 51) I used the rhetorical moves that was developed by Swales (1984, 1990) and applied by Kwan. (2006) I did, however, make some changes. Kwan’s study employed Bunton’s (2002, cited in Kwan, 2006) modified CARS model for introductions. I propose, however, that certain adjustments need to be made. LRs and introductions are not entirely the same. An introduction presents a general picture of the research, whereas the main purpose of a LR is to justify the value of a new research project, and to show why it is distinct from what can be seen in the literature (Creswell, 2003, cited in Kwan, 2006). Because of this, identifying relevant work that has already been done is essential. Therefore, it is appropriate to classify “Surveying research activities” as a move, not a strategy, because, according to Kwan (2006), a strategy is a non-obligatory and non-sequential element of a LR. I propose a 4 move model that includes surveying and summarizing previous research as a move (Figure 2).Move 1:Establishing a thematic territoryMove 2:Surveying and summarizing previous researchMove 3:Creating a research niche (preparing for present research)Move 4:Occupying the research nicheFigure 2. The moves in the LRThe Schematic Structure of Literature Review in Research Articles of Applied LinguisticsThe analyses included in our study also incorporated the strategies established by Kwan (2006) as well as the steps and moves in Swales’ (1990) CARS model and Chen’s (2008) model. Elements that are obligatory and sequential are referred to as “steps”. Elements that are non-obligatory and non-sequential are referred to as “strategies”. Unlike previous LR studies focusing on academic discourse produced by native speakers of English, this analysis focuses on both English LRs (which are assumed to have been produced by native speakers of English) and Chinese LRs (which are assumed to have been produced by native speakers of Chinese).2.2 Intercultural rhetoric research on academic discourseIn 1966, Kaplan published his contrastive rhetoric hypothesis and, in 1996, Ulla Connor published her book on contrastive rhetoric. Many new methodolical trends have since appeared in the literature. Previously limited to the EAP (English for Academic Purposes) study of student essays, intercultural rhetoric has expanded its scope to include the study of writing in many different disciplines and genres. “Intercultural rhetoric research” is a new term introduced by Ulla Connor (2004) that may better reflect the dynamic nature of this area of study, with changing definitions of written discourse analysis—from text-based to context sensitive—and of culture—from static to dynamic.In a comparative study of the RA introductions written by Anglo-American and Chinese scientists, Taylor and Chen (1991) identified some of the sources of variability in discourse structure. They found, “there is a basic rhetorical structure that is common to all language groups, but that there are systematic variations from this structure, some of which characterize the discipline or culture rather than the language”. Their findings suggest that attempts to make broad generalizations about the connections between discourse structure and culture-linguistic systems are futile.Findings from other studies on academic writing, such as Cmejrkova (1996, cited in Martin, 2003), Mauranen (1993) and Martin (2003), suggest that scientific discourse is not universal—there are socio-cultural factors that may condition the members of different scientific communities to prefer certain rhetorical strategies. Mauranen (1993) asserts that there is significant intercultural variation in the rhetorical preferences of writers despite a relative consistency in requirements for academic papers that are imposed by journals within each genre. The underlying assumption, here, is that writing is a cultural object that is heavily influenced by the educational system within which a writer has been socialized (Moreno, 1997).Instead of focusing on the larger aspects of culture (i.e., national or ethnic culture), intercultural rhetoric research needs to consider the ways in which smaller cultures interact with each other in educational settings, or in other intercultural settings. Drawing on the work of Holliday (1994, 1999), Atkinson (2004) shows how small cultures (i.e., classroom culture, disciplinary culture, student culture, etc.) interact with the national culture.H U JianThe present study is designed to answer the following research questions:1. Do LRs in ILrMRD research articles exhibit a common schematic structure and, if they do, what is their prototypical structure?2. Is the prototypical structure of LRs characterized by cross-cultural variations and, if so, what are some plausible explanations for this?3. The Study3.1 Data collectionOur analyses included 80 ILrMRD RAs—40 were written in English and 40 were written in Chinese. The articles included a variety of linguistic topics. All English RAs were published during the period between 2001-2007. All of these articles were published in one of the following journals: The Modern Language Journal, ELT Journal, English for Specific Purposes, Linguistics and Education,and Journal of English for Academic Purposes. All Chinese RAs were published during the same time period. All Chinese articles were published in one of the following journals: Foreign Language Teaching and Research, Foreign Language Research, Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, Foreign Language Education and Foreign Language World. Eight articles were selected from each of the journals listed above.3.2 CodingA functional-semantic approach was used to perform the coding analysis. The theoretical assumption underlying the concept of a move is that “each move has a local purpose, but also contributes to the overall rhetorical purposes of the text” (Kwan, 2006). This theoretical definition of a move is in line with a functional approach to text analysis. This approach relies on cognitive judgments, rather linguistic criteria, to identify the intention and textual boundaries of a text (Kwan, 2006; Paltridge, 1994). According to Paltridge (1994), “the search for structural divisions in texts should be seen as a search for cognitive boundaries in terms of convention, appropriacy, and content rather than as a search for linguistically defined boundaries” (p. 288). In this study, the function of each text segment was first examined to determine its local purpose, such as highlighting major studies that were conducted in the past. Each text segment was then examined to determine its contribution to the ultimate goal of the writer’s research. Coding analysis was performed to identify the main semantic features of the target text segment. References were made to the semantic scheme developed by Lewin et al. (2001) and to semantic features identified in other studies.3.3 ProceduresI first developed a general understanding of the overall rhetorical purpose of the literature review texts in the RAs that were selected for analysis. I then identified the function of each text segment and determined its local purpose. Next, I identified common functional and semantic themes. These functional-semantic themes were then grouped together based onThe Schematic Structure of Literature Review in Research Articles of Applied Linguisticscontributions to the overall rhetorical purpose of the LR text.Our proposed model, which includes both moves and strategies/steps, was our starting point. During our analysis, a new strategy or step was proposed each time a segment of the text seemed to have a communicative purpose that was not yet accounted for. After the analysis of the 80 RAs included in the study, a 2-level Move and Strategy/ step model for literature reviews in RAs was proposed. The model also differentiate moves and strategies/steps that are usually present (i.e., in more than half the texts) from moves and strategies/steps that are sometimes present (i.e., in more than one tenth of the texts). Particular attention was given to observed differences between English and Chinese LRs.The entire corpus was coded by the author of this paper, and a research assistant—an applied linguistic graduate student who was experienced in genre analysis. We performed coding for four English LRs and four Chinese LRs in order to assess inter-rater reliability. Discrepancies were resolved via re-coding and discussion. All samples for the inter-rater reliability assessment were chosen randomly.4. Findings and discussionOur analysis included 40 English LRs and 40 Chinese LRs. The 4 moves included in our revised model were present in many of the LRs. Table 2 gives an overview of the number and proportion of English and Chinese LRs containing these moves.T able 1. Moves found in the LRsMovesEnglish (n=40)Chinese (n=40) n%n%1. Establishing a thematic territory3587.52767.52. Surveying and summarizing previous research40100401003. Creating a research niche3792.53177.54. Occupying the research niche2972.52357.5I considered a move to be obligatory if it appeared in 100% of the LRs. The data presented in Table 2 suggests that Move 2 is obligatory, supports the assertion that it is a move, not a strategy.Prior to this study, Kwan (2006) drew on Bunton’s (2002, cited in Kwan, 2006) modified CARS model for Ph. D. dissertation introductions to propose a 3-move structure to describe the schematic pattern in LRs. Our investigation, however, suggests that both English LRs and Chinese LRs are characterized by a 4-move pattern. Introductions and literature reviews have different functions in an article. Introductions present a general picture of the research, whereas LRs justify the value of a current investigation and show how it is distinct from research that has already been published. Therefore, surveying and summarizing previous research (Move 2) is indispensable in LRs.H U JianT able 2. Development patterns found in the LRsPattern English ChineseLinear17 (42.50%)31(77.50%)Recursive23 (57.50%)9 (22.50%)In 31 of the 40 Chinese LRs, the moves appeared in a single progression. Nevertheless, I did identify a cycle of recursive moves in 23 of the 40 English LRs, and this suggests that recursive patterns are more common than linear sequences in English LRs. In this sense, the move structure of the Chinese LRs is more straightforward than that of the English LRs. This tendency may be explained, in part, by the length of Chinese LRs. The Chinese LRs tend to contain less content than the English LRs for at least two reasons: scholars in China are expected to employ a terse style of scientific writing (Liu, 2001), and submission guidelines for Chinese journals set stringent limits on word counts for RAs. .4.1 Establishing a thematic territory as the first moveMost literature reviews start with segments that establish particular themes that are relevant to the author’s research as Table 1 shows. These segments can be categorized into three different strategies: making topic generalizations (1A), claiming centrality (1B) and giving background information (1C). Strategy 1A expresses in general terms the current state of the art—of knowledge, or of practices. Centrality claims has been conceptualized by Swales (1990) as “appeals to the discourse community whereby members are asked to accept that the research is part o a lively, significant or well-established research area”. Besides, I found in my corpus some writers make use of giving background information as a means to establishing the field.4.2 Surveying and summarizing previous research as the second moveIn both corpora, Move 1 is found to be followed by segments that survey and summarize previous research that is relevant. This move was found to be obligatory. I find that its segments fall roughly into three categories: constructing reference to the published work (Step 2A, as the element is found to be obligatory), making positive and/or negative evaluations (Strategy 2B), and making summary statements (Strategy 2C). The two latter strategies are optional, and generally do not appear in a fixed order. These elements are exemplified in the following examples for illustration in turn:A: O xford and her colleagues have contributed a great deal to establishing questionnaire research methods for learning strategy identification (e.g., Nyikos & Oxford, 1993; Oxford, 1990; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989). (Eng. No. 3)B: C itation typologies based on formal criteria avoid this pitfall by focusing on the linguistic realization of citations… (Eng. No. 7)C: P revious ESP studies have generally reported positive effects of genre-based teaching for non-native English speakers… (Eng. No. 6)The Schematic Structure of Literature Review in Research Articles of Applied Linguistics4.3 Creating a research niche as the third moveMove 3, creating a research niche, includes 5 major types of strategies, four of which correspond to those in Kwan’s (2006) model. These strategies include counter-claiming (3A), gap-indicating (3B), asserting the relevancy (3D) and establishing or synthesizing a theoretical position or framework (3E). Move 3 was present in most of the LRs.The gap-indicating elements serve to identify a scarcity or limited amount of a certain type of published research. In this study, terms such as “need” and “problem” are assumed to be semantic elements of the gap-indicating strategy. This assumption is in line with Kwan’s (2006) perspective on the gap indicating strategy. Here are some sample passages that contain gap-indicating elements:Further research is needed in order to determine whether and how voice plays a role in academic writing. (Eng. No. 9)The problem with representing a culture of the future is, of course, that of foreseeing, a particularly individual and subjective phenomenon. This problem makes it impossible to select teaching materials that adequately reflect the future. (Eng. No. 23)Another way to establish a niche is to raise a question (3C), as in the following case: What happens when the presence and implications of voice are examined in a high-stake academic writing situation where voice, if it can be identified, would matter? (Eng. No. 9)This strategy may also be used concurrently with the other strategies; for example, the question-raising strategy and the gap-indicating strategy are used jointly in the English No. 9 LR (see the underlined elements in the above examples).4.4 Occupying the research niche as the final moveMost of the instances of Move 4 include segments that introduce aspects of the current research. Some examples appear below:Strategy 4A: Announcing the aims or research questionsWith respect to… the study aimed to address the following research questions: 1. How relevant were the genres covered in the course to students’ subsequent L2 reading materials?… (Eng. No. 5)Strategy 4B: Announcing theoretical framework or positionsThe cross-disciplinary approach taken here endeavors to provide such a framework. (Eng. No. 8) In our view, the basic meanings of the progressive aspect appear to be common and natural;whereas its special meanings are unusual. Therefore, the former ought to be deemed as unmarked, and the latter marked. (Chin. No. 10, English translation)Strategy 4C: Indicating RA structureTherefore, I take as a starting point the functional criteria of Thompson’s (2001) typology of citations. I exclude the formally based categories and introduce other function-based categories that emerged from the analysis of the corpus. Section 3 describes the corpus andH U Jianthe method, while Section 4 outlines the typology of rhetorical functions of citations used in this study. (Eng. No. 7)Strategy 4D: Announcing the adoption or definitions of terminologyWhile realising that this is a useful distinction, I shall employ the term lingua franca in a broader sense to include situations including native speakers, viz. to refer to communication between “groups of people who speak different native languages”. (Eng. No. 5)Strategy 4E: Indicating possible findingsApplying a functional grammar analysis should reveal the colloquial features of informal speech that mark students’ performance of stance-support in online discussion, and perhaps suggest the formal structures they need to be taught for expository essay writing. (Eng. No. 13) Strategy 4F: Announcing research design or processThis study thus adopts a qualitative methodology to examine students’ learning process in a listening comprehension strategies programme. (Eng. No. 26)I plan to start with discourse structure and prosodic features of texts, adopt an experimentaltool to study the effects of discourse structure and prosodic features on English majors’listening comprehension of English texts. (Chin. No. 1, English translation)Strategies 4C and 4E found in the analysis of this corpus are absent from Kwan’s (2006) model. Kwan excluded concluding and introductory texts of LRs, and focused exclusively on thematic units in LR chapters, which is probably why strategy 4C and 4E are excluded in his categorization.The data for the frequency and distribution of the various moves and strategies/ steps in English and Chinese LRs are summarized in Table 3. This table includes data for moves and strategies/steps that occur in more than half of the English and Chinese LRs. Also included are data for moves and strategies/steps that occur in more than 1/10 of the LRs. The frequency of these moves and strategies/steps is also recorded as the number of occurrences divided by the number of LRs being analyzed (N=40). (Note: as recursive moves appear in the English corpus, their numbers of occurrence are counted, and therefore some frequency rates are more than 1.As can be seen in Table 3, both English and Chinese LRs have a discourse structure that is congruent with the pattern of moves proposed in our model. Our findings also support our assertions regarding Move 2: Constructing reference to the published work. This item was found to be obligatory in both English and Chinese texts. Strategies 2B and 2C are not obligatory, but the frequent occurrence of strategy 2B suggests that making positive/negative evaluations is a prevalent strategy in both English and Chinese LRs. LRs from both language groups seem to be working within the same rhetorical schema.The above findings suggest that LRs in Chinese applied linguistics RAs largely follow the international conventions established by the English-speaking international academic community. A possible explanation for this finding may be related to the extent to which the discipline of applied linguistics in China has been influenced by English-speaking scholars. In China, applied linguistics is an academic discipline for scholars that areThe Schematic Structure of Literature Review in Research Articles of Applied Linguisticsdevoted to the study of English language and culture. Many Chinese academics in this field use sources that are published in English. It seems reasonable to assume that English RAs have exerted a strong influence on the ways in which Chinese scholars approach research articles. Similar conclusions were drawn in Martin’s (2003: 25-43) study of abstracts for experimental social science RAs written in Spanish. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that genre, rather than language, may have the most significant influence on the structure and content of RA texts.Differences between the two groups appear to emerge, however, when I consider the distribution of strategies/steps. In Move 1, the most frequently occurring strategy was Strategy 1A in the English LRs, followed by Strategy 1C (giving background information) and Strategy 1B (claiming centrality), but their distribution in the Chinese samples was much more sparse (less than 1/10), with only 1 article offering background information to establish the territory. In Move 3, gap-indicating stood out as the most preferred strategy in both the English LRs and the Chinese LRs, but its frequency in the Chinese LRs was only 47%. The other 4 strategies from Move 3 were also present in the English samples. Only one of these 4 strategies was present in a significant number of the Chinese samples: Strategy 3E (Establishing theoretical framework or position). The other three strategies appeared in the Chinese LRs only occasionally. In Move 4, the strategies seemed to be distributed somewhat evenly, with no clear preference for any given strategy. What is noteworthy is that Strategy 4C, indicating RA structure, was present in the English LRs, but not the the Chinese LRs.T able 3. Moves and steps in English and Chinese LRsLanguages Usually Present (>50%)Freq.Present (>10%)Freq.English LRs (N=40)Move 1: Establishing a thematic territoryS. 1A: Making topic generalizationsMove 2: S urveying and summarizingprevious researchS. 2A: c onstructing reference to thepublished workS. 2B: making positive/negative evaluationMove 3: Creating a research nicheS. 3B: Gap-indicatingMove 4: Occupying the research niche0.880.832.273.101.500.930.770.73S. 1B: Claiming centralityS. 1C: Giving background informationS. 2C: Making general/summary statementS. 3A: Counter-claimingS. 3C: Question-raisingS. 3D: Asserting the relevancyS. 3E: E stablishing theoretical framework orpositionS. 4A: A nnouncing aims/research questionsS. 4B: A nnouncing theoretical frameworkor positionS. 4C: Indicating RA structure0.200.270.300.130.170.170.370.470.170.23。
