撰寫期刊論文的序論:寫作困難及寫作策略

國立交通大學

英語教學研究所碩士論文

A Master Thesis

Presented to

Institute of TESOL,

National Chiao Tung University

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of

Master of Arts

撰寫期刊論文的序論:寫作困難及寫作策略

Writing RA Introduction: Difficulties and Strategies

研究生: 徐昱愷

Graduate: Yu-Kai Hsu

指導教授: 郭志華

Advisor: Chih-Hua Kuo

中華民國九十八年七月

July, 2009

論文名稱: 撰寫期刊論文的序論:寫作困難及寫作策略 校所組別: 國立交通大學英語教學研究所 畢業時間: 九十七學年度第二學期 指導教授: 郭志華教授 研究生: 徐昱愷

中文摘要

Swales 認為這些需求必須展現在所謂的創造研究空間(Create a Research Space or

CARS)的修辭結構中，這個結構蘊含複雜的文步(moves)與次要文步(steps)。然 而，期刊序論的文體分析大部分僅限於修辭結構上的分析。鮮少有研究探討英語 為非母語的人士撰寫這一個章節所經歷的寫作過程，例如探討他們在寫作上的困 難及寫作策略的運用。 本研究採用個案研究(case study)之研究方法，以質化的角度來看兩位來自不 同領域(應用語言學、資訊工程)的台灣博士班學生如何撰寫國際期刊論文，特別 著重在他們寫序論的過程中所遭遇到的各種困難與使用的寫作策略。本研究的資 料蒐集來自多重來源(multiple sources)，以便能呈現更完整的寫作面向以及整體 的寫作歷程。資料的蒐集來源包含博士班學生所撰寫的投稿稿件，指導教授的評 論，及與期刊審查者的審查意見。此外，研究者亦與這些博士班學生以及他們的 指導教授進行深度訪談，以澄清、明瞭這些新進學者在撰寫序論時的寫作困難及 策略。 研究的結果顯示這些新手寫作上的困難和序論的修辭結構十分相關。例如， 這兩位研究參與者都覺得要在文獻探討後批評前人研究的缺點是件困難及令他 們不安的事情。另外，我們也發現寫作序論的困難與策略在不同領域之間有所不

同，這似乎顯示了理工與社會人文領域之間的差異。像是資訊工程的知識建構是 比較偏重在「方法」上（method-oriented），而應用語言學則是比較偏向「言談」 （discursive）及「論說」性質（argument-oriented）。事實上，這樣的領域差異性 展現在序論寫作的許多層面上，從寫作的歷程、寫作上所遇到的問題、及寫作時 所運用的策略都在在顯示了領域的相異性。舉例來說，在寫作之前的規劃上，資 訊工程的研究參與者試圖將其知識宣稱（knowledge claims）建構在他所使用的 「研究方法」的價值上;相對而言，應用語言學的研究參與者則是從「研究目的」 來決定該探討哪些文獻及提出何種知識宣稱。甚者，就寫作困難而言，前者遭遇 較多的困難包含如何清楚描述採用的研究方法、簡潔正確地總結前人研究的方 法、及顯示本身研究方法的價值，這些困難幾乎都跟「方法」有關；相對地，後 者的主要困難在於：提供讀者適切的主題背景概論（topic generalization）、使用 合乎邏輯的論述、文章具有連貫性與轉折銜接、及提出有力的論點，這些問題的 本質都跟文章整體的「論證」極為相關。除此之外，寫作策略的不同更進一步顯 現領域之間的差異性：前者偏向採用跟方法有關的寫作策略（像是在做文獻探討 時，為了要正確、精簡地總結前人的方法，他所發展出來的策略是模仿所要引用 文章中結論的第一句話）；後者的策略則是跟她的論證與推理有關，比方說，寫 作前的規劃，她會詳盡地列出要點(outlining)，安排順序，以便協助她撰寫出具 有邏輯的序論。最後，根據這些質化的主要研究結果，本論文討論了期刊論文寫 作教學上的應用與省思，期待能協助英文為非母語的新進學者成功地撰寫這個艱 難的文體。

ABSTRACT

Introduction in research articles (RAs) is perceived by many L2 writers as the

most difficult section to write (Flowerdew, 1999; Shaw, 1991; Swales, 1990). As

Swales (2004) has indicated, there may be two main reasons for this: the need to

attract an audience and the need to compete for acceptance and recognition. In

Swales’ words, these needs should be met in the rhetorical organization of “creating a

research space” in Introduction, which involves complicated moves and steps. Most

genre studies on Introduction, however, have focused on its rhetorical move structure.

Little research is concerned with how RA writers, particularly L2 writers, learn to

cope with this section, such as their writing difficulties and strategies.

Adopting the method of case studies, the present study presents an in-depth

qualitative study of two Taiwanese doctoral students from two disciplines (Applied

Linguistics and Computer Science) writing for international publication, focusing on

their difficulties and strategies during their process of writing Introduction. Multiple

sources of data were collected and analyzed, including major drafts of the student

participants’ papers, their advisors’ comments, and, if any, correspondences with

journal editors. Moreover, interviews with the student participants and their advisors

were also conducted to further clarify and understand these novice writers’ specific

difficulties and strategies in writing Introduction.

Results show that L2 novice researcher writers’ distinctive difficulties in

writing Introduction are closely related to the rhetorical organization of Introduction.

For example, both participants seem to have difficulties and unease in making

negative evaluations after doing literature review, as in Swales’ (1990, 2004) “creating

a niche.” Furthermore, disciplinary variations in difficulties and strategy use are found,

found that knowledge construction in the discipline of Computer Science is more

method-oriented whereas the discipline of Applied Linguistics is more discursive and

argument-oriented. Such disciplinary contrasts are manifest in a number of ways in

terms of process, difficulties, and strategies of writing Introduction. At the planning

stage, the participant from Computer Science tried to ascertain his knowledge claims

on the basis of the values of his “method” whereas the participant from Applied

Linguistics used her “purpose statements” of the study to decide what to review and

what kind of knowledge claims she should form. Additionally, with regard to

difficulties of writing Introduction, the former encountered more difficulties in

delineating his own method, summarizing methods of related previous studies, and

proclaiming the values of his method, which are mostly method-related. The latter

encountered more difficulties in making appropriate topic generalization, making

logical sequencing and transitions, forming forceful arguments, all of which are

closely related to the overall argumentation. The types of strategies identified in the

study further attest the disciplinary differences: the former seems to deploy more

method-related strategies (such as copying the first sentence of the Conclusion from

the published paper to help him succinctly and correctly summarizing the cited study);

the latter was concerned more about her reasoning and argumentation; for instance,

she used detailed outlining to assist her writing of Introduction. Finally, pedagogical

implications regarding how to assist L2 novice researchers to grapple with such a

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This thesis study encapsulates my numerous bittersweet memories of the three years spent in the master’s program. Throughout this brain-racking research process as well as long-festering text formation, I feel fortunate and extremely grateful to a number of important people that have guided, enlightened, and supported me. First, without doubt, I would like to express my utmost appreciation to my advisor, Professor Chih-Hua Kuo. She embodies all the good traits that I could ever expect from an advisor and hope to become – a knowledgeable researcher, superb academic writer, righteous teacher, and caring mentor. Without her continuous guidance and unwavering support, this thesis study would have been immeasurably more difficult.

Besides, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my two sagacious and benevolent committee members, Professor Stephanie W. Cheng and Professor Tsai-Yu Chen, for their insightful and detailed comments on my thesis, enabling me to rethink many issues that were originally left out. Their warm remarks also encourage me greatly as a novice researcher and writer in the field.

Special thanks must be extended to my participants in this study, Chris and Anne. But for their patience and generosity of answering my seemingly never-ended

questions, and without their wholehearted sharing of their experiences, the results would not have been that fruitful. Moreover, I feel privileged to interact with their respectable advisors, Professor Shen and Professor Liu. Enlightened by their illuminating remarks, I become increasingly aware of numerous hidden rules and strategies of academic writing and research.

I am also indebted to the encouragement and love of my beloved family,

including my parents, my younger brother, my aunties, and my just deceased grandma. Nervous and panic as I often was, they soothed, comforted, and motivated me,

propelling me to continue to try and continue to learn. Finally, I am thankful for my endeared friends: Karen, Gary, Wales, Joseph, Patrick, Kevin, Elisa, and Louie. Because of their wacky behaviors, endearing personalities, agreeable companions, the quest for knowledge is never lonely but filled with joyful and memorable moments.

Thank you all for those who care and support me for the past three years. Another journey awaits me. Blessed and grateful, I will continue to learn and keep these fond memories forever in my heart.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ……… vii

LIST OF TABLES ……….. x

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION ………... 1

CHATPER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW ………... 7

Move Analysis of RA Introduction ……….. 7

Macro-level Studies on RA Introduction……….. 11

Macro-level disciplinary variation ………... Micro-level Studies on RA Introduction ……….. 13 18 Micro-level disciplinary variation ……….... 21

Citation practice ……….. 21

Metadiscourse ……….………. 23

Difficulties of L2 Researcher-writers ………... 27

Difficulties in writing RA Introduction ……….. 31

L2 Writers’ Composing Process ……….. 35

Coping strategies ………. 39

The use of L1 ……….. 39

Using previous literature as models ………... 40

Exploiting the linguistic resources at hand ………... 41

Consulting resource material ……….. 42

Seeking external help from NSs ………... 43

Opting for certain types of research ………... 44

Rhetorical strategies ……….... 46

CHAPTER THREE METHOD ……… 50

Participants ……….. 50 Data Collection ……….... 53 Questionnaire ………... 54 Textual data ……….. 54 Interviews ………. 55 Data Analysis ………... 57

CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS ………... 60

Background of Case 1 ……….. 60

Perceptions of Writing Major Rhetorical Sections ………... 62

Drafting process ………... 64

Difficulties in early drafting process ……….. 64

Ascertaining the method before writing Introduction ………. 65

Difficulties in summarizing and paraphrasing previous studies ……….. 65

Summarizing others’ methods based on published texts ………. 66

Using integral citations to arouse readers’ interest ……… 68

Being cautious about negative evaluations ……….. 69

Difficulties in summarizing his method in Introduction ………. 70

Advisor’s revision before journal submission ………. 71

Adding a clear illustration of the model ……… 72

Adding more specific information in positive justification and principal findings ……… 73

Making “itemized” presentation of the contribution claims ………. 75

Difficulties in proclaiming contributions ……….. 75

Negotiating knowledge contributions with the journal referees ……….. 76

Dealing with reviewers’ comments ………. 76

Foregrounding contribution claims ………... 77

Justifying and providing sufficient background information for new terms ………. 78

The story goes on ……… 82

Citing the lab’s works ……… 82

Citing the works from the target journal ………... 83

Learning to grasp main points from various academic generic experiences ……….. 83

Background of Case 2 ………. 86

Perceptions of Writing Major Rhetorical Sections ……….. 87

Process of Writing Introduction ……….. 88

Drafting process ……….. 88

Making a detailed outline and using her mother tongue to plan ………. 88

Difficulties in sequencing and making transitions ……….. 89

Using CARS model as outlining scheme ………... 90

Using “purpose statements” to generate her outline ………. 91

Difficulties in providing general background knowledge at the outset of Introduction ……… 91

Dealing with local development of text with confidence ……… 93

Using her advisor’s published works as stylistic models ………... 94

Forming awareness of coherence and cohesion ……….. 95

Using integral and non-integral citations for different purposes ………. 97

Making arrangement of the reviewed studies to lead to her research aims ………... 98

Advisor’s revision before journal submission ………. 100

Difficulties in presenting logical and coherent arguments ……… 101

Difficulties with citations to support knowledge claims ………. 104

Adding citations strategically ……….. 105

Irrelevant review breaks the coherent flow of the review theme…………. Difficulties in making forceful and concise propositions ……… 108 108 Difficulties in indicating a forceful gap ……….. 109

CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ………. 112

Summary of the Findings ……… 112

Pedagogical Implications ……… 122

Limitations of the Study ……….. 125

Suggestions for Future Research ………. 126

REFERENCES ……… 127

APPENDICES ……….. 136

Appendix A Consent form for student participants ……..……… Appendix B Consent form for advisors……….... Appendix C Questionnaire ………... 136 137 138 Appendix D Interview questions with student participants ………. 142

Appendix E Interview questions with students’ advisors………...……….. 147

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 The CARS Model for RA Introduction 8 Table 2.2 Functions of Metadiscourse in Academic Texts 25 Table 3.1

Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 3.4

Participants’ Demographic Information

Self-evaluated Language Proficiency in General English Self-evaluated Academic Literacy

Participants’ English-medium Scholarly Publication Experiences 51 52 52 53 Table 4.1 A Timeline of Chris’ Scholarly Publication Process 61 Table 4.2 Chris’ Perceived Difficulty Level of Each Rhetorical Section 62 Table 4.3 Addition of Specific Positive Justification of the Proposed

Method

73

Table 4.4 Addition of Specific Information in Principal Findings and Contributions

74

Table 4.5 Focused Presentation of the “Omni-directional Camera” and “Circular Landmarks”

78

Table 4.6 Anne’s Perceived Difficulty Level of Each Rhetorical Section 88 Table 4.7 The Sequence of the Cited Studies in the Review of Lexical

Bundles

99

Table 4.8 Difficulties in Making Logical and Coherent Presentation 102

Table 4.9 Difficulties in Supporting Knowledge Claims 105 Table 4.10 Insufficient Review and Irrelevant Review 106