Universidad de Chile Facultad de Filosofa y Humanidades Departamento de Lingstica English Language III, Written Discourse II, 2013 Prof.

Pascuala Infante A.

Espinoza, Espaa; Rivera, Cintia; Seplveda, Stephanie; Valds, Gloria; Velsquez, Katherine.

An interdisciplinary comparison of introductions structure: Arthurian Literature and Systemic Functional Grammar.

1- Introduction

Recently, there has been wide interest in analysing paper introductions. This part in the research, it is only suggested, follows rules or, at least, some tendencies can be clear. According to John Swales on his Writing of Research Article Introductions (1987), introductions are useful for researchers because they help to understand the process and product of specialized academic writing. It also works as an attempt to establish that his or her particular area of research is of some significance, as the previous author and Betty Samraj (2002) agrees. So, it is understandable that introductions have a certain manner of presenting information in order to attract the audience and, indeed, may follow a model to organise it. Because of these factors, and because of the tendencies and patterns that introductions tend to have, is that Swales proposed the CARS model (creating-a-researchspace) where explains the moves and steps used in these texts. However, according to the conclusion in the work by Samraj Introductions in Research Articles Variation across Disciplines (2002) the CARS model would be more effective if two factors could be
1

improved. The first one has to do with the rigidity the model has. This does not accept changes from any move or step in the text, nor it accepts embedding, being the main objection of Samraj, who suggests that steps and moves are too unstable to be in the same place in the text. The second factor is that the CARS model can be restrictive, as it does not accept new steps. Those points are enough reason to reanalyse the model and, therefore, propose a rather flexible and alternative version of the same. The aim of the paper was to find similarities and differences between two areas of study by means of using the CARS model. These subjects are different from each other in their nature: Systemic-Functional grammar and Arthurian literature. The results of the analysis indicate that the aforementioned model requires a flexible version, in which new steps may be added, and the embedding phenomenon may be accepted, since it is used as a rhetorical element. The paper is organised into eight sections. After introducing the topic of the study, the theoretical framework is exposed, referring to the main concepts used in the paper. After this, the methodology and its respective subsections will be exposed, being followed by the results and the discussion of them. 2. Theoretical framework 2.1 Swales and Najjar The process of how to write a good introduction may be problematic for many writers when doing research. The previous model was the problem-solution example, which consisted mainly of organising the text according to the goal it had to achieve, the actions the researcher could make at the moment of investigating, the gaps the study could face, and the solution for the same, followed by criteria in order to evaluate the results of the investigation. The main comment about the model was that, even if the research was incomplete, the authors attempted to justify their work. This resulted in an unbalance between positive and negative comments about the research being more frequent the latter type of critiques-. In other words, the model was not an audience-sensitive problemsolution model, but rather a going on pattern (Swales 1987).

In order to change the complete situation the problem-solution model could induce, the alternative criterion proposed by John Swales and Hazem Najjar, called create-aresearch space model, CARS (1987) had been proposed, and it became into one of the most popular guides followed by authors of multiple disciplines. This is aimed at claiming that the research made by an author is significant, and that there is some interest in it. Move 2, as mentioned by Swales et al. (1987), summarizes the relevant previous research. The role of move 3 is to show that the reported previous research is not complete, usually by indicating a gap, raising a question, or indicating that new explanation is required. Finally, move 4 the gap is turned into the research space for the present article, or it presents an answer to the question raised in move 3. In his work, Swales researched about the inclusion of announcement of principal findings (APF) in introductions of two different fields which were physical science and psychology. From the former area of study, they analysed the journal Physical Review, and from the latter field, the Journal of Educational Psychology. The purpose of their work was to confirm if manuals, style sheets, or handbooks of the field had worked as a guide to the author at the moment of writing the introduction, and of including or omitting APF. The conclusion was a mismatch between the advices given by the manual and the real practice in both fields, because the tendency in actual writing showed exactly the opposite of what was suggested by the manuals. It was also found that the incorporation of APF might be caused by the differences between the two disciplines. Actually, Swales (1987) proposed that one of the reasons for the opposite phenomenon may be the nature of investigation in both areas: physicists tend to write in a brief manner because of the quantitative essence of their discipline. Therefore, the results, being more relevant than writing, are shown in three sections of the paper (abstract, results and introduction). On the other hand, psychologists may consider showing the results at the beginning of the paper as unwise, due to its qualitative nature. Instead, psychologists would prefer showing the method in introductions, starting with a hypothesis or statement in order to obtain the attention of the reader.

After this study, years later, the CARS model proposed by Swales in the previous described research was subsequently modified by himself on his work Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings (1990), where the purposes of the Moves were changed. The modifications made by this author consisted of: in move 1 he incorporated the review of previous research step, which was previously part of move 2. His earlier move 3 indicating a gap, raising a question, or requiring new explanation, now became move 2; and move 4 is placed into what is now move 3, where it has been also incorporated the announcement of present findings, the structure of the paper, and the optional inclusion of evaluation of findings. 2.2 Samraj Betty Samraj (2002) took the CARS model proposed by John Swales as a base for analysing and comparing introductions of research articles from two fields of Biology: Wildlife Behavior and Conservation Biology, taken from the journals Animal Behaviour and Conservation Biology respectively. The work attempted to define the variations of the aforementioned model in relation with these two disciplines. The analysis was based on the samples the author selected, and described depending on each move. It helped to determine which moves and steps were present, and if there were similarities or irregularities based on the CARS model. After reading the research written by Samraj, it may be observed that one of the possible phenomena that has been found was the presence of embedding in the samples of both disciplines, that is to say, there was the possibility of finding a certain step or move inside another one; in the case of the work by Samraj, it is referred specifically to the review of previous research step, belonged to move 1 (establishing a niche), which function may vary depending on the position it can take in the different moves from providing information on the territory the paper is situated, to justifying the topic generalisation and the gap created. Another phenomenon found was a different manner of claiming centrality and gap specifying It has been added two objectives for this step: to make clear the importance of the topic in the real world, and the importance of the same in research. It is also proposed
4

the need of another step in move 2 (establishing a niche) which would be positive justification. This is, in words of the author positive reasons for conducting the study reported (Samraj 2002)-. Finally, it is suggested that background information which specifies the textual space of the research object (Samraj 2002) - could be studied separately, or as a subordinate step within step 1 outlining purposes of move 3 occupying the niche, according to the CARS model, which gives the paper the possibility of explaining important concepts that could be considered on a paper of these two disciplines. Even though background information appears in other two positions in the end of move 1 establishing a territory and in between moves 2 and 3 it is only those two previously stated ideas that prevailed. After defining the CARS model and describing the two main points of view about this, it can be presented the current work, starting with how the research was made.
3. Methodology

In this paper, ten introduction samples were taken from two different disciplines; five introductions from Systemic Functional grammar and the same number of texts from Arthurian literature. The former area belongs to Linguistics field, whereas the latter does not, belonging instead to Literature branch of knowledge. This type of choice is necessary to observe similarities or discrepancies in the use of the CARS model (Swales 1990). On the one hand, Arthurian Literature samples were taken from the book A companion to Arthurian Literature (2009) while, on the other hand, Systemic-Functional grammar introductions were randomly obtained from different journals and articles. The main reason of selecting the aforementioned samples in such manner was that journals related to SFG were not available at the moment of choosing the articles; so the chosen articles were written by authors from different countries as well as Arthurian literature samples, in order to avoid discrepancies. 3.1. Samples Description From Systemic-Functional grammar samples:

- Towards the Application of Systemic-Functional Linguistics in Writing Tools, by Sandra Aluisio (female, Brazilian), and Rex Gantenbein (male, American). First language: Portuguese and English respectively. Year of publication: 1997. With abstract included. - From Systemic-Functional Grammar to Systemic Functional Text Generation: Escalating the Exchange, by John Bateman (male, American). First language: English. Year of publication: 1990. No abstract included. - Systemic Functional Linguistics and a Theory of Language in Education, by Frances Christie (female, Australian). First language: English. Year of publication: 2004. With abstract included. - Systemic Functional Grammar and Authentic Language Input, by Stephen Jennings (male, English). First language: English. Year of publication: 2009. No abstract included. - The Analysis of an Online Debate: the Systemic Functional Grammar Approach, by Isidora Wattles (female, Serbian) and Biljana Radic- Bojanic (female, Serbian). First language: Serbian. Year of publication: 2007. With abstract included. Arthurian Literature samples: - Migrating Narratives: Peredur, Owain, and Geraint, by Ceridwen Lloyd-Morgan (female, Welsh). First language: English. Year of publication: 2009. No abstract included. - Scandinavian versions of Arthurian Romance, by Geraldine Barnes (female, Australian). First language: English. Year of publication: 2009. No abstract included. - The Matter of Britain on the continent and the Legend of Tristan and Iseult in France, Italy and Spain, by Joan Tasker Grimbert (female, French). First language: French. Year of publication: 2009. No abstract included. - Arthur and Merlin in Early Welsh Literature: Fantasy and Magic Naturalism, by Helen Fulton (female, English). First language: English. Year of publication: 2009. No abstract included.

- The end of Roman Britain and the coming of the Saxons: An Archeological Context for Arthur? By Alan Lane (male, Scottish). First language: English. Year of publication: 2009. No abstract included. 3.2. Procedures After passing through the process of selecting texts, the samples were analysed one by one into the parameters of the CARS model (Swales 1990) in order to identify each move and step proposed by Swales, and to compare among each other. Later on, the samples were revised again, this time, with the purpose of correcting possible mistakes during the first step of analysis. At the end of the analysis it has been possible to recognise several findings; most of them associated with the addition, omission, or even, change of steps and moves not included or mentioned in the CARS model (Swales 1990). In Arthurian Literature samples, for instance, has been found with pattern related to background information, which was previously mentioned by Samraj, in her Introductions in research articles: variations across disciplines (2002). The complete explanation of findings is to be present in the Results section. 3.3 Research Questions The following research questions were formulated before and after the analysis of samples, considering that both disciplines differ on their main perspectives. For that reason, the moves and steps of the CARS model may vary in their introductions. These are: 1. Which steps and moves proposed by the CARS model do both disciplines share? 2. Do these disciplines include APF (Announcement of Principal Findings) in their introductions? 3. Might the difference between these two disciplines be the possible main factor that affects the structure of introductions? 4. According to the results, would it be necessary to modify the CARS model, such as adding steps or modifying them? If so, how would it be modified?
7

5. How much is the gender factor relevant for our findings? 6. Might the structure of introductions depend on the nationality of the authors, or on the country of publication?

4. Results In the following table (table 1) the results of the analysis of samples is presented. Table 1 Number of Systemic- Functional grammar and Arthurian literature introductions, which contain the three moves and their constituent steps
Systemic- Functional Grammar Move 1 Step 1: Making a centrality claim Step 2: Making topic generalizations Step 3: Reviewing items of previous research Move 2 Step 1A: Counter-claiming Step 1B: Indicating a gap Step 1C: Raising a question Step 1D: Continuing a tradition Move 3 Step 1A: Outlining purposes Step 1B: Announcing present research Step 2: Announcing main findings Step 3: Indicating structure of the paper Step 4: Evaluation of findings Background Information e Arthurian Literature

4 2 3a

0 1 4b

0 2 0 2

1 1 2c 0

5d 3 1 3 0 0

0 1 0 1 0 5

a c

and b An introduction can contain more than one move 1 step 3 reviewing items of previous research An introduction can contain more than one move 2 step 1C Raising a question d An introduction can contain more than one move 3 step 1A outlining purposes e Background information was present in all five samples of Arthurian Literature. This step is not included in the CARS model, but was mentioned by Samraj (2002) as a possible new step. According to this, it was not possible to find a proper place for this step, because it occurred in different levels. In two samples, background information was present twice in the same introduction. With the purpose of identifying a place for this pattern further analysis is required.

5. Discussion of Results Arthurian literature samples exposed findings which are very different from the CARS model proposed by Swales, because the analysed texts did not present all the moves of the model. On the other hand, about Systemic-Functional grammar, it could be stated that the samples analysed would not follow strictly the CARS model. Mainly because the moves did not have a linear and clear structure in their moves and steps. Some of them were present during the whole introduction, and the use of embedding also provoked an extra incorporation of moves that were not distinguished by Swales in his model. The structure of both samples will be described in the following: Move 1 According to the Arthurian literature samples studied, the presence of move 1 establishing a territory was indispensable. It occurred in all the five cases, and the most frequent step was the third one, reviewing of previous research, which was not present in only one sample. Regarding step 1 making centrality claim, it was absent in all introductions, and step 2 making topic generalisations, only appeared in one introduction out of the five samples. In the meanwhile, Systemic-Functional grammar has different results, even though there are some coincidences. In relation to move 1, it occurred in all samples, even more than one time. Step 1 making centrality claim, was present in four out of five samples. Step 2 making topic generalizations, was present in two out of five introductions, in which one of them was embedded, and step 3 reviewing items of previous research, existed in three out the five samples of which one was embedded. Move 2 About move 2 establishing a niche in literature, two out the five samples contained it. In relation to subsections, step 1A counter-claiming, was in only one introduction, as well as step 1B indicating a gap. Step 1C raising a question, was twice in the same sample, while step 1D continuing a tradition, was absent in the introductions analysed.

About move 2 in SFG, it occurred in four out the five samples of which one of them was repeated in the same introduction. Step 1A counter-claiming, and step 1C raising a question were absent in the samples. Step 1B indicating a gap, existed in two out of the five samples. Finally, step 1D continuing a tradition, was present in two out of five samples. Move 3 Occupying the niche was present in only 2 of the Arthurian literature samples. Step 1A outlining purposes, step 2 announcing main findings, and step 4 evaluation of findings, were absent in the samples. Step 1B announcing present research, was part of one sample, and step 3 indicating structure of the paper, was clear in only one sample too. Finally, move 3 in Systemic-Functional grammar occurred nine times in the samples. Six of them were present in two introductions, three of them each. Step 1A outlining purposes, appeared in all samples, and in one of them was embedded. Step 1B announcing present research, existed in three out of the five introductions. Step 2, announcing main findings, was evident in one out of five samples. Step 3, indicating structure of the paper, was present in three out of five samples, and finally, step 4 was absent in the introductions. Extra Steps The presence of background information or descriptive information, exposed in table 1, is a phenomenon that was not related to the CARS model proposed by Swales. It is necessary to state that it occurred in all Arthurian Literature samples, and sometimes more than one time, due to the embedding phenomenon. From this point of view, it could be suggested that the former step was a frequent pattern in this type of introductions. Also, the use of this pseudo-step is different in most of the cases. Two samples out of five had a similar structure regarding background information that was move 1 and step 2, followed by the description of information until the end of the introduction.

10

Another sample contains the pseudo-step after move 2, step 1C raising a question, and before move 3, step 1B announcing present research. The fourth sample begins with background information, and then followed by move 2, step 1A counter-claiming. The use of this pseudo-step is different in most of the cases. Two samples out of five had a similar structure regarding information. Those were move 1 establishing a niche, step 2 making topic generalizations; and followed by the description of information until the end of the introduction. Another sample contains the pseudo-step after move 2 establishing a niche; step 1C raising a question; and before move 3 occupying the niche, step 1B announcing present research. The fourth sample begins with background information, and then followed by move 2, step 1A counter-claiming. The last sample contains a different structure. It begins with move 1, step 3 reviewing items of previous research, followed by descriptive information, and then, move 3 occupying the niche, step 3 indicating structure of the paper, and finalizes with move 1, step 3, reviewing items of previous research, followed by final background information. The results concluded that the inclusion of background information is specifically used in Arthurian literature, because none of the Systemic-Functional grammar introductions analysed in this work showed this element in their development, as it is expressed in Table 1. The use of moves is rather similar between the two disciplines. One of the findings is that none of the samples of Arthurian literature included the announcement of principal findings, neither its evaluation, while in Systemic- Functional grammar introductions it is present only in one of the samples. As Swales claimed in his work, the difference between two disciplines, in terms of structure, might be conditioned by the dissimilarity between the two fields. Both areas have a clear marked type of structure that is repeated in all the sampled analyzed in this work. While Arthurian literature includes background information and a variation of the

11

CARS model, Systemic functional grammar usually follows the model, but includes little modifications, such as the repetition and mixture of moves throughout the introductions. Regarding gender, in Arthurian Literature, four samples were written by women, instead of one written by men. In the analysis, no relevant difference was found among the introductions. The same occurs in Systemic Functional Grammar samples, in which two of them were written by men and two by women. The fifth Systemic Functional sample was written in collaboration of both genders. In sum, the gender factor is not relevant in our findings. The last factor, country, is not relevant also, as it does not make any difference or similarity in the structure of introductions, therefore, it is not a pivotal element in writing. As a proposal, it should be useful to modify the CARS model and make it more flexible, especially move 3 and 2 similar to the one proposed by Swales. It is also advisable to include an optional step in move 1 referred to background information, because this resource, usually, comes immediately after move 1. 6. Conclusion To sum up, as it was previously stipulated in the analysis of results, none of the samples from both disciplines followed completely the CARS model. Mostly, in Arthurian Literature samples where in some cases lacked of one or two moves. In Systemic Functional Grammar samples, almost all moves and steps proposed by Swales were present but with a different order. Some of these elements were embedded into another moves, as the example of move 1 establishing a territory, step 3 reviewing items of previous research, that was embedded into move 3 occupying the niche, step 1A, outlining purposes. In spite of the aforementioned findings, a pattern was present in all Arthurian Literature samples analysed regarding to background information. This feature was not previously considered by Swales; therefore, background information has not a place into the CARS model. Yet, this pattern was present in the proposal made by Samraj (2002), in which she placed background information at the beginning of move 3 occupying the

12

niche. In the current research, it was difficult to find a proper move for this pattern, because in most of the samples occurred in different levels. In this case, further analysis is required. In addition to the aforementioned findings, the step Announcement of Principal Findings (APF), as part of the move 3 occupying the niche, was for the most part absent on the samples, with the exception of one Systemic-Functional Grammar introduction. With this, it is possible to state that the practically complete absence of APF is a relevant finding in the present research, because it indicates that, in introductions from the last five years, it is not a common step used by researchers. Nevertheless, further analysis is required as well. Also, gender and nationality are not significant factors in the structure of introductions, as opposed to the difference of both disciplines. Arthurian Literature samples, which are primarily focused on previous research, and Systemic Functional Grammar samples, which are mainly focused on further research, have quite different structures. The first one does not follow the steps and moves proposed by Swales. In spite of that, it adds a new step as background information and might elide more than one move. In the second one, almost all the moves and steps of the CARS model are present, but with a different order. Taking this into account is possible to say that most of the time and in most of the disciplines, the CARS model is not always present in the mind of the researchers at the moment of writing the introduction. This statement is based only in the results of this paper. However, further analysis is required. 7. References Primary samples Samraj, B. (2002) Introductions in research articles: variations across disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 1-17. Retrieved from:

http://cswwwarchiv.cs.unibas.ch/lehre/fs12/cs304/_Downloads/samraj_on_introduct ions.pdf
13

Swales, J. and Najjar, H. (1987). The Writing of Research Article Introductions. University of Michigan. Written Communication 4, 175- 191. Retrieved from: http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/68973/10.1177_074108838 7004002004.pdf?sequence=2

Swales, J. (1990) Genre Analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from: http://sana.tkk.fi/awe/style/reporting/sections/intros/cars/cars.pdf

Secondary samples Aluisio, S. A, and Gantenbein, R. (1997) Towards the Application of Systemic Functional Linguistics in Writing Tools. Proceedings of the ISCA 12th International Conference, 1 1-1 5. www.icmc.usp.br sandra ISCA.doc Barnes, G. (2009) Scandinavian versions of Arthurian Romance. A Companion to Arthurian Literature, Blackwell Publishing, 189-201. Bateman, J. A. (1990) from Systemic-Functional Grammar to Systemic-Functional text generation: Escalating the Exchange. Information of Sciences Institute. University of Southern California, 1-11.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a224689.pdf Christie, F. (2007) Systemic functional linguistics and a theory of language in education. University of Melbourne and University of Sydney, 13-40. http://www.periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/desterro/article/view/7390/6795 Fulton, H. (2009) Arthur and Merlin in Early Welsh Literature: Fantasy and Magic Naturalism. A Companion to Arthurian Literature, Blackwell Publishing, 84-101. Jennings, S. (2009) Systemic Functional Grammar and Authentic Language Input. Maebashi Kyoai Gakuen College, 97-112.

http://www.kyoai.ac.jp/college/ronshuu/no-09/jennings.pdf Lane, A. (2009) the end of Roman Britain and the coming of the Saxons: An Archaeological Context for Arthur? A Companion to Arthurian Literature, Blackwell Publishing, 15-29. Lloyd-Morgan, C. (2009) Migrating Narratives: Peredur, Owain, and Geraint. A Companion to Arthurian Literature, Blackwell Publishing, 128-141.
14

Tasker Grombert, J. (2009) The Matter of Britain on the continent and the Legend of Tristan and Iseult in France, Italy, and Spain. A Companion to Arthurian Literature, Blackwell Publishing, 145-159.

Wattles, I. and Radic-Bojanic, B. (2007). The Analysis of an Online Debate: the Systemic-Functional Grammar Approach. Facta Universitatis, series Linguistics and Literature, 47-58.

15