Towards the synergy of genre and corpus based approaches to academic writing research and pedagogy

Towards the Synergy of Genre- and Corpus-Based Approaches to Academic Writing Research and Pedagogy Xiaofei Lu, The Pennsylvania State University, USA https://orcid.org/0000-0003-236

DOI: 10.4018/IJCALLT.2021010104

 Copyright©2021,IGIGlobal.CopyingordistributinginprintorelectronicformswithoutwrittenpermissionofIGIGlobalisprohibited.



Towards the Synergy of Genre- and

Corpus-Based Approaches to Academic Writing Research and Pedagogy

Xiaofei Lu, The Pennsylvania State University, USA

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2365-2581

J Elliott Casal, The Pennsylvania State University, USA

Yingying Liu, The Pennsylvania State University, USA

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5077-2231

ABSTRACT

Thispaperoutlinestheresearchagendaofaframeworkthatintegratescorpus-andgenre-based approachestoacademicwritingresearchandpedagogy.Thisframeworkpositstwoprimarygoalsof academicwritingpedagogy,thatis,tohelpnovicewritersdevelopknowledgeoftherhetoricalfunctions characteristicofacademicdiscourseandbecomeproficientinmakingappropriatelinguisticchoices tomaterializesuchfunctions.Totheseends,researchinthisframeworkinvolves1)compilationof corporaofacademicwritingannotatedforrhetoricalfunctions,2)analysisoftheorganizationand distributionofsuchfunctions,3)analysisofthelinguisticfeaturesassociatedwithdifferentfunctions, 4)developmentofcomputationaltoolstoautomatefunctionalannotation,5)useoftheannotated corporainacademicwritingpedagogy,and6)explorationoftheroleofform-functionmappingsin academicwritingassessment.Theimplicationsofthisframeworkforpromotingconsistentattention toform-functionmappingsinacademicwritingresearch,pedagogy,andassessmentarediscussed

KeyWoRdS

Assessment, Computational Tools, Corpus Analysis, Form-Function Mappings, Genre Analysis, Genre Competence, Linguistic Features, Rhetorical Functions

INTRodUCTIoN

DecadesofEnglishforAcademicPurposes(EAP)writingresearchhaveemphasizedthe“dynamic complexityofdiscursivepractices”(Bhatia,2015,p.9)byhighlightingtheintentionsandchoicesof writers,aswellastheexpectationsofdiscoursecommunitymembers.Suchresearchhasdrawnon variousmethodologicalapproachesbutisparticularlyassociatedwithrhetoricalmove-stepanalysis ofwriters’communicativegoalsandcorpusanalysisofrecurringpatternsoflinguisticfeatures.A substantialportionofthisresearchhasfocusedonresearcharticle(RA)writing,inlargepartdueto theincreasingimportanceforscholarsaroundtheworldtopublishtheirresearchinEnglishlanguage academicjournals(Curry&Lillis,2004)andtheunderstandingthattheRArepresents“ahighstakes

gameuponwhichhiring,promotion,andcontinuedemploymentcandepend”(Belcher,2007,pp. 1-2)intheacademicworld

EAPwritingpedagogyismotivatedbythecomplexityandsignificanceofEAPresearchwriting

fornoviceandestablishedscholars.Thenotionofwriting developmentitselfhasexpandedbeyond

formalknowledgeoflanguage(Polio,2017)and/orrhetoricalknowledgeinisolation.Rather, developinggenrecompetenceforparticipationindisciplinarygenrepracticesentailsdevelopment andintegrationofrhetoricalandformalknowledgedimensions(amongothers),ashighlightedin Tardy’s(2009)multidimensionalmodelofgenreknowledgedevelopment.Therehavebeencalls forthe“integrationofgenreanalysisandcorpus-basedinvestigations”(Flowerdew,2005,p.5)in genre-basedanalysisofacademicwritingpractices,andanumberofscholarshavebeguntorespond byimplementingmove-basedgenreanalysisandcorpusapproaches(e.g.,Cortes,2013;Durrant

&Mathews-Aydınlı,2011;Le&Harrington,2015;Lim,2010;Lu,Casal,&Liu,2020;Omidian, Shahriari,&Siyanova-Chanturia,2018;Yoon&Casal,2020a)

However,researchaddressingthe“function-formgap”(Moreno&Swales,2018,p.41)inlarge-scale,systematicwaysisscarceinEAPwritingscholarship.Furthermore,manyextantintegrated analysesprivilegecorpus-basedapproachesovermove-stepanalysisbyassigningmove-stepcodesto decontextualizedextractedfeatures,perhapsduetotheconsiderabletimecommitmentsinvolvedin manualanalysis(Flowerdew,2005).Thispaperaddressesthispaucitybyproposingandoutlininga frameworkforEAPcorpus-basedgenreanalysisthatcoverscorpuscompilation;qualitativerhetorical andfunctionalcodingandannotation;corpus-basedlinguisticanalysisandannotation;andintegrated rhetorical-linguisticpedagogicalandassessmentapplications

eNGLISH FoR ACAdeMIC PURPoSeS ReSeARCH oN WRITING PRACTICeS eAP Writing Research in the “Social/Genre” Tradition

Tribble(2009,2015)identifiedthreeapproachestoEAPwritinginstruction:“Social/Genre”,

“Intellectual/Rhetorical”and“AcademicLiteracies”.MuchEAPwritingresearchalignswiththe Social/Genreapproach,whichis“situatedwithinanEnglishforSpecificPurposestradition”(Tribble, 2015,p.442).Suchresearchpredominantlyfollowstherhetoricalmoveanalysiscloselyassociated withtheworkofSwales(1990,2004)andisvaluedfortheemphasisplacedonwriters’rhetorical choicesinrelationtotheirunderstandingofcommunityexpectationsandconventionalizedgenre practices.Insuchanalysis,arhetoricalmovereferstoarecurring,recognizablefunctionalaimof aparticulargenre(e.g.,establishingaresearchterritoryinRAintroductions;Swales,1990).Steps aretheproposition-driven(Moreno&Swales,2018)componentsthatbuildarhetoricalmove.Both movesandstepscanbelinguisticallyrealizedoverchunksofvariablelength,somoveanalysisis oftenconductedwiththerhetoricalchunkastheunitofanalysis.Rhetoricalmoveframeworksare developedandappliedthroughbothbottom-upandtop-downmanualanalysisoftextthatrelieson linguisticcues,rhetoricalmarkers,structuralelements,andavarietyofothersignalsofrhetorical intent.Itoftenresultsinrhetoricalmoveframeworksthatdescribeboththerangeandconsistency ofrhetoricalaimswithinagenre

Swales’(1990,2004)(revised)CreatingaResearchSpacemodelhasbeenahighlyproductive frameworkforanalyzingRAintroductions(e.g.,Hirano,2009;Samraj,2002)andliteraturereviews (e.g.,Jian,2010;Kwan,Chan,&Lam,2012).GenreanalystshavecontinuedtheSwaleseantraditionby creatingframeworkstoaccountfortherhetoricalstructureofothermainRAsections,includingCotos, Huffman,andLink’s(2017)DemonstratingRigorandCredibilitymodelforresearchmethodologies andYangandAllison’s(2003)unnamedframeworkforResults,Discussions,andConclusionsections (seealsoBasturkmen,2011;Bruce,2009).Otherscholarshaveconductedmove-stepanalysison otheracademicgenres,suchasconferenceabstracts(e.g.,Samar,Talebzadeh,Kiany,&Akbari, 2014;Yoon&Casal,2020b)

Suchscholarshiphasresultedinanumberofdisciplinespecificorgeneralframeworkstoanalyze RAwritingandhasshowcasedvariabilitywithinandacrossdisciplines.RhetoricalMoveframeworks suchastheCARSmodelhaveprofoundlyimpactedEAPwritingpedagogy,featuringprominentlyin graduatewritingtextbooks(e.g.,Swales&Feak,2012)andclassrooms,andhavebecomerecognized analyticalandpedagogicaltoolsbeyondAppliedLinguistics.However,asvaluableasrhetoricalmove analysishasbeeninEAPresearchandpedagogy,rhetoricaldescriptionsoftextcanonlyprovide learnerswithlimitedunderstandingsoftherangeofresourcesavailabletowritersintherealization ofrhetoricalgoals.MorenoandSwales(2018)notethata“widelysharedaspirationofmoveanalysts hasbeentoidentifythelinguisticfeaturescharacterizingthevariousRAmoves”(p.40),andyet, untilsomewhatrecently,thevastmajorityofthesestudiesexploretherhetoricalmovestructures themselves,ratherthanhowthesecommunicativegoalsareaccomplished

Corpus-Based eAP Writing Research

AnotherimportantportionofEAPwritingresearchhasadoptedacorpus-basedapproach,witha strongfocusonthelinguisticfeaturesoftheacademicdiscourse,linguisticdifferencesofacademic writingproducedbydifferentwritergroups,therelationshipofvariouslinguisticfeaturestowriting quality,andtheuseofcorporainEAPwritingpedagogy

Corpus-basedEAPwritingresearchhasinvestigatedlinguisticfeaturesoftheacademicdiscourse ofvariousformal(e.g.,imperativesandconditionals)andfunctionalcategories(e.g.,hedgesand boosters)(e.g.,Banks,2017;Hyland,1998).Additionally,therehasbeennotableinterestincompiling pedagogicallyusefullistsofacademicvocabulary(e.g.,Coxhead,2000;Gardner&Davies,2014), collocations(e.g.,Ackermann&Chen,2013;Lei&Liu,2018),andvarioustypesofmultiword expressions,suchasformulas(e.g.,Simpson-Vlach&Ellis,2010)andphrase-frames(e.g.,Lu,Yoon,

&Kisselev,2018),usingincreasinglysophisticatedcorpusmethodologiesandlargeacademiccorpora. Listsofacademicvocabularyandcollocationsareusuallyorganizedalphabetically,byfrequency, orbycollocationtypeanddonotconcernthemselveswithrhetoricalfunctions.Listsofmultiword expressions,however,areoftenorganizedbystructureandfunctiontoenhancetheirpedagogical usefulness(e.g.,Lu,Yoon,etal.,2018;Simpson-Vlach&Ellis,2010).Itshouldbenoted,however, thatthefunctionalcategoriesofformulaicsequencesarenotrhetoricalfunctions,butbroaddiscourse functionssuchasreferentialexpressions,stanceexpressions,anddiscourseorganizers(Biber,Conrad,

&Cotes,2004).Iftheproductsofsuchresearcharetoserveaspowerfulpedagogicalresourcesorto informEAPwritingsyllabusconstruction,insightsintotherhetoricalaffordancesofsuchlinguistic resourcesareneeded

Manycorpus-basedstudieshavecomparedtheuseofvariouslinguisticfeaturesinacademic writingamongdifferentwritergroups,suchaswriterswithdifferentL1status,levelsoflanguage proficiency,orlevelsofexpertise.Forexample,somestudiesidentifieddifferencesinformulaic languageuseinacademicwritingbetweenexpertandnovicewriters(e.g.,Hyland,2008;O’Donnell, Römer,&Ellis,2013),althoughithasbeenshownthatthespecificdifferencesfoundmaybe affectedbyvariousmethodologicalconsiderations,suchashowformulaicsequencesaredefinedand operationalized(Lu,Kisselev,Yoon,&Amory,2018;O’Donnelletal.,2013).Manycomparative studiesreportedextrachallengesfacedbyL2learnersinacademicwriting,suchasunderuseof linguisticfeaturescharacteristicofexpertwriting(Gilquin,2015),employmentofidiosyncratic expressionsnotpresentinexpertwriting(Chen&Baker,2010;Gilquin,2015),andpersistenceof interlingualerrorsevenattheadvancedproficiencylevel(Laufer&Waldman,2011).Thebetween-groupdifferencesandlearnerchallengesidentifiedinsuchstudiesmayhelpinformtheformalfocus ofEAPwritingpedagogy

Alargebodyofcorpus-basedEAPwritingresearchhasassessedthequantitativerelationships ofdiverselinguisticconstructsandfeaturestoacademicwritingquality.Studiesalongthislinehave generallyusedcomputationaltoolstoautomatetheanalysisofoneormorelinguisticconstructsand adoptedsophisticatedstatisticalprocedurestoevaluatetheirrelationshipstohumanratingsofwriting

quality.Oneexampleofaheavilyresearchedconstructissyntacticcomplexity,oftenconstruedas thevarietyanddegreeofsophisticationofthesyntacticstructuresdeployedinwrittenproduction (e.g.,Crossley&McNamara,2014;Kyle,2016;Lu,2011,2017).Severalcomputationaltoolsthat incorporatevariouscoarse-orfine-grainedmeasuresofsentential,clausalandphrasalcomplexity havebeenusedtoautomatesyntacticcomplexityanalysis,suchastheBiberTagger(Biber,Johansson, Leech,Conrad,&Finegan,1999),theL2SyntacticComplexityAnalyzer(Lu,2010),Coh-Metrix (McNamara,Graesser,McCarthy,&Cai,2014),andtheToolfortheAutomaticAnalysisofSyntactic SophisticationandComplexity(Kyle,2016).Anumberofstudieshaverevealedfeaturesincorporated inthesetools(e.g.,Crossley&McNamara,2014;Kyle&Crossley,2018;Yang,Lu,&Weigle,2015) ortheirco-occurrencepatterns(Biber,Gray,&Staples,2016;Friginal&Weigle,2014)thatare discriminativeofhighandlow-scoredessaysorpredictiveofwritingquality.Thisbodyofresearch hasofferedusefulinsightintohowtheabsence/presence,frequency,orcooccurrencepatternsof diverselinguisticfeaturesmaybequantitativelyrelatedtowritingquality

Theexplicitlystatedaimofmuchofsuchcorpus-basedEAPresearchistoinformEAPwriting instruction,eitherthroughtheprovisionofinsightsintowhatshouldbeincludedinacoursesyllabus, orbyinformingmaterialsdesign.Meanwhile,pedagogicalresearchthatdirectlyintegratescorpus resourcesinacademicwritinginstructionisemergingbutrelativelylimited(Chang,2014;Charles, 2014,2018;Dong&Lu,2020;Gilmore,2009).Somestudieslookedintotheuseofcorporaasa resourcetofacilitatelearners’self-correctionoflexico-grammaticalerrorsintheirwriting(Gilmore, 2009).Othersrevealedthepedagogicalvalueofspecializedcorporaand/orstudent-compiled discipline-specificcorpora,alongwithhands-on,contextualizedsearchesandexaminationsofthe usagepatternsofrelevantlinguisticfeatures,inpromotinglearnerengagementandattentiontodetails inacademicwriting(Chang,2014;Lee&Swales,2006;Charles,2014,2018;Dong&Lu,2020). Positivelearnerfeedbacktosuchacorpusapproachandsustainedlearnerengagementwiththe approachafterthecompletionofformalinstructionhavebeenreported(e.g.,Charles,2014;Dong

&Lu,2020).Theimportanceofadequateinstructorsupportindeployingsuchanapproachhasbeen explicitlydiscussed(e.g.,Chang,2014).Additionally,somescholarsnotedtheneedtointegrate corpusanalysisandgenreanalysisofacademicwriting.Charles(2007),forexample,recommended reconcilingtop-downandbottom-upapproachestoEAPwritinginstructionandproposedvarious teachingactivitiesforthispurpose

Anotablelimitationofextantcorpus-basedEAPwritingstudiesliesintheirtendencytoprivilege theexaminationoflinguisticfeaturesoverrhetoricalfunctions.Thefocusonlinguisticfeaturesdivorced fromtheirrhetoricalfunctionsfailstofullycapturetheimportantfactthatitisfunctionallyeffective useoflinguisticfeaturesthatunderliesqualitywritinginthewritingconstruct,notthepresenceand frequencyoflinguisticfeaturesalone.Tosomeextent,theform-functiondisconnectmaynegatively impactEAPwritinglearners(e.g.,learnerstryingtoplugindesirablefeaturesinfunctionally inappropriateways).Itisthuscriticalforcorpus-basedEAPwritingresearchtostartthinkingmore rigorouslyintermsofhowitmaybettercontributetoconsistentattentiontoform-functionmappings inteaching,learning,researching,andassessingacademicwriting

Towards Corpus-Based Genre Analysis

Withanunderstandingthatcompetentwritersdonotmakerhetoricalorlinguisticdecisionsinisolation, butratherintegrateformalandrhetoricalknowledgeaspartofacomplexgenrecompetence(Tardy, 2009),theauthorsarguethatEAPresearchandpedagogyshouldintegraterhetoricalmove-step researchandcorpus-basedapproaches.Thatistosay,bothinscholarlyandpedagogicalapproaches toEAPpractice,attentionshouldbepaidtolinguisticconstruction-rhetoricalfunctionrelationships. Suchanintegratedapproachcancaptureandorientlearnerstowardstherangeoflinguisticresources involvedintherealizationofrhetoricalaims,ratherthanemphasizingeitherrhetoricalorlinguistic dimensionsontheirown.Fromascholarlyperspective,corpusanalysisalone,suchasthosethat generateacademiclists(e.g.,Coxhead,2000;Gardner&Davies,2014)oftenlackinformationof

howrecurrentlinguisticpatternsoffeaturesareused,whilerhetoricalmove-stepanalysisaloneoften showcasesasmallrangeoflinguisticresources.Onlyrecentlyhavestudiesdrawingfromcorpusand genreanalysisbeguntoproliferate,withrecentscholarshipemphasizinganalysisoflinguisticfeatures intermsoftherhetoricalfunctionstheyserve(e.g.,Cortes,2013;Durrant&Mathews-Aydınlı,2011; Le&Harrington,2015;Lim,2010;Luetal.,2020;Omidianetal.,2018;Yoon&Casal,2020a) Cortes(2013),Omidianetal.(2018),andYoonandCasal(2020a)adoptedphraseological, formulaiclanguageapproachesfromcorpuslinguisticsandrhetorical‘generic’movestructure perspectivestoexplorethechoiceswritersmakeinthelinguisticrealizationofcommunicativegoals. Cortes’(2013)analysisofover1,300publishedRAintroductionsfrom13disciplinesfoundthatmany ofthelexicalbundlesthatwritersemployedcorrelatedwiththerealizationofspecificrhetorical moves/steps,andOmidianetal.’s(2018)analysisof5,910RAabstractsacrosssixdisciplinesrevealed

“differentprioritiesforrepresenting”(p.1)researchacrossdisciplines.However,whiletheserepresent amajorsteptowardsintegratedcorpusandgenreanalysisofEAPwriting,bothanalysesattempted rhetoricalanalysisoftheextractedlinguisticchunks,reducingthelinguisticcontextthatcoderscan relyontodeterminerhetoricalaims.Rhetoricisnotaccomplishedexclusivelyatthephraseological level,butratherintractsoftextofvariablelength.YoonandCasal(2020a)analyzedtheroleofphrase frames,aformofdiscontinuousmulti-wordsequences,inthelinguisticrealizationofwriters’aimsin 625acceptedconferenceabstractsfromtheAmericanAssociationofAppliedLinguisticsconference, andtheiranalysisfullyintegratedcorpus-basedlinguisticanalysiswithcompletemoveannotationof theentirecorpus.Theseanalyseshighlightthestrongassociationthatsomephraseologicalfeatures havewithparticularrhetoricalaims

LikeYoonandCasal(2020a),othershavemorefullyintegratedgenreandcorpusanalysis toexplorelinguisticpatternsintermsoftherhetoricalaimstheyrealize.Lim(2010)andLeand Harrington(2015)conductednotablysmalleranalyses,withLimexploringlexicalchoicesinResults sectionsandLeandHarringtonexploringclustersinDiscussions.DurrantandMathews-Aydınlı

(2011)alsoanalyzedformulaicsequences,withparticularemphasisonindicating the structure,

usingintroductionsectionsofessaysintheBAWECorpusasadataset,andKanoksilapatham(2007) combinedtheanalysisofmovestructureofthebiochemistryRAsandmulti-dimensionalcorpus-basedanalysis.Theformerofthesestudiesonlyprovidedadetaileddiscussionforonefunction, andthelatterlackeddetaileddiscussionofspecificlinguisticfeaturesassociatedwitheachmove. Luetal.(2020)adoptedfivepreviouslyusedsyntacticcomplexitymeasurestocomparetheuseof syntacticallycomplexstructuresintherealizationofwriters’rhetoricalgoalsin600publishedRA introductionsfromsixsocialsciencedisciplines,alsoexploringtherhetoricalfunctionsofthemost complexsentencesforeachmeasure.Thesestudiesallpresentevidenceoftherhetoricalaffordances ofparticularlinguisticfeatures,whichcarriesimportantimplicationsforEAPtextanalysisresearch andfortheteachingofEAPwriting

Fromapedagogicalperspective,Charles’(2007)integratedcorpusandgenreanalysisapproach isespeciallyprominent.Inherapproach,classroomactivitymovesbetweeninteractivegenre-based discourseanalysisandstudentcorpus-investigationtoexaminetherhetoricalandlinguisticconstruction oftexts,aswellastherangeofresourcesavailabletowriters.Otherpedagogicaldiscussionsalong similarlinesexist.Forexample,Eriksson(2012)presentedalexicalbundleworkshopforESLdoctoral studentsinbiochemistryandbiotechnology.Theactivitiesinvolvedraisingstudents’awarenessof therhetoricalfunctionsoflexicalbundles,examininglexicalbundlesspecifiedbytheinstructorfor acertainrhetoricalfunctioninacorpusofpublishedtexts,andusinglexicalbundlesintheirown writing.Giventhelimitedinformationprovidedregardingtherhetoricalfunctionsandthelimited scopeoftheworkshop(twothree-hourworkshops),thisstudyshowcasesapotentiallyusefulapproach butdoesnotdocumentitsimpact.ChenandFlowerdew(2018)conductedasimilar,butlarger-scaleproject.Theresearchersrecruited473graduatestudentwritersforathree-phasepedagogical interventionconsistingofanintroductiontocorporaandcorpustechniques,aseriesofworkshopsto

guideparticipantsthroughanalysisofrhetoricalgoalsandtheirlinguisticrealizationsindiscipline-specificcorporawiththeconcordancetools,andaself-directedcorpus-buildingandanalysisproject thataskedlearnerstocomparetheirworktotheexpertcorpustheycompiled.Participantswerehighly positiveintheirevaluationoftheprocess,buttheimpactswerenotassessed.Morerecently,Dong andLu(2020)analyzedtheimpactsofadisciplinespecificcorpusandrhetoricalmoveanalysis basedpedagogyonthewritingof30engineeringmaster’sstudentsinamajorChineseuniversity.The pedagogicalapproach,whichincludedlearnersandtheinstructorcollaborativelycompilingdiscipline specificcorporaandanalyzingthemlinguisticallyandrhetorically,wasratedhighlybylearnersand ledtomorefrequent,intentional,andappropriateintegrationofrhetoricalmovesintheirwriting Overall,extantliteratureonEAPwritingandwritinginstructionistrendingtowardsacorpus-based genreanalysisapproach,whichispositionedtoaddressthewidelysharedgoalsofEAPscholarship andpedagogy,raisingstudentawarenessofrhetoricaldimensionsofdisciplinarygenrepracticesand expandingtheirrepertoireofacceptablelinguisticresourcesfortherealizationofrhetoricalaims. Notably,aparalleltrendisemerginginthefieldofregisteranalysis,nowreconceptualizedfromits priorfocusoncross-registerlinguisticvariationtoafocuson“thesituationofuse,…thelinguistic features;andthefunctionalassociationsbetweenthesituationalcharacteristicsandthelinguistic features”(Conrad,2019,p.170).Registeranalysisisdistinguishedfromgenreanalysisintermsof itsanalyticalfoci.Forexample,whilegenreanalysisisusuallyperformedoncompletetexts,with attentiontotheglobalrhetoricalstructureofandfeaturesconventionallyassociatedwiththetarget genre,registeranalysismaybeperformedontextexcerpts,withbroaderattentiontoallpervasive linguisticfeaturesofaregisterortexttype(Biber&Conrad,2009).Acknowledgingtheusefulness ofsuchdistinctionsfordelineatingdifferentorientationstotextanalysis,theauthorsdonotdelve intothesedistinctionshereandusetheterm“corpus-basedgenreanalysis”torefertotheintegrated analysisofformalandrhetoricalfeaturesofatargetgenreusingcorpustechniques.EAPwriting studiesemployingthisapproacharestillscarce,andtheapproachhasnotmaturedmethodologically. Similarly,suchscholarshipdoesnotdirectlyinterfacewithexistingintegratedapproachestoEAP pedagogy.Theremainderofthisarticlethereforeoutlinesaframeworkforcorpus-basedgenreanalysis asaresearchandpedagogicaltool

ToWARdS A SyNeRGISTIC FRAMeWoRK

Thissectionoutlinestheresearchagendaofasynergisticframeworkthatintegratescorpus-basedand genre-basedapproachestoacademicwritingresearch,pedagogyandassessment.Thisframework positstwofundamentalgoalsofacademicwritingresearchandpedagogy,i.e.,tohelpnoviceacademic writersdevelopadequateknowledgeoftherhetoricalfunctionscharacteristicofacademicdiscourse andbecomeproficientinmakingappropriatelexico-grammaticalchoicestoeffectivelymaterialize suchfunctions.Totheseends,researchinthisframeworkinvolves1)compilationofcorporaofexpert andnoviceacademicwritingannotatedforrhetoricalfunctions,2)analysisoftheorganizationand distributionofsuchfunctions,3)analysisofthelinguisticfeaturesassociatedwithdifferentfunctions, 4)developmentofcomputationaltoolstoautomatefunctionalannotation,5)useoftheannotated corporainacademicwritingpedagogy,and6)explorationoftheroleofform-functionmappingsin academicwritingassessment.Itwillhopefullybecomeclearthatresearchwithinthisframeworkwill bewellpoisedtohelppromoteconsistentattentiontoform-functionmappingsinacademicwriting research,pedagogy,andassessment

Compilation of Corpora of Academic Writing Annotated for Rhetorical Functions

Anecessary,criticalpartoftheresearchagendaofthissynergisticframeworkisthecompilationof corporaofexpertandlearneracademicwritingannotatedforrhetoricalfunctions.Suchcorporawill formthebasisofthetypesofresearchoutlinedinthefollowingsections.Whileanumberofcorpora ofacademicwritingalreadyexist,large-scale,publiclyavailablecorporaofacademicwritingthat havebeenannotatedforrhetoricalmovesandstepsarerare

Existingcorporaofacademicwritingcoverdifferentdisciplines,genres,andexpertiselevels, andinthecaseofL2learneracademicwriting,differentL1backgroundsandproficiencylevelsas well.AgoodexampleofpubliclyavailablecorporaofacademicwritingistheBritishAcademic WrittenEnglish(BAWE)Corpus(Alsop&Nesi,2009).Manyscholarshavedescribedself-compiled corporathatfittheirspecificresearchneeds,too,suchastheHylandCorpusofPublishedResearch Articles(Hyland,1998).Theseandothersimilarcorporahaveprovenhighlyusefulforthetypesof corpus-basedEAPwritingresearchdescribedabove

Tofacilitatethetypesofcorpus-basedgenreanalysisenvisagedwithintheproposedresearch framework,however,itwouldbedesirabletoaddrhetoricalfunctionannotationtocorporaof academicwriting.Thisannotationeffortwillentailthedevelopmentofmodelsofrhetoricalmoves andstepsappropriateforthegenresandtypesofacademicwritingtextsrepresentedinthetarget corpus,whichmaybeachievedusingacombinationofthetop-downapproachthattapsintoexisting taxonomiesdevelopedbygenreexpertsandthebottom-upapproachthatallowsfornewfunctional categories(rhetoricalmovesandsteps)toemergeinthedata.TheCorpusofSocialScienceResearch ArticleIntroductions(COSSRAI)(Lu,Yoon,etal.,2018;Luetal.,2020)representsanexample ofacorpusofacademicwritingthathasbeenfullyannotatedwithrhetoricalmovesandsteps.The corpuscontainstheintroductionsectionsof600publishedRAsinsixsocialsciencedisciplines (Anthropology,AppliedLinguistics,Economics,PoliticalScience,Psychology,andSociology).All sampleshavebeenannotatedforrhetoricalmovesandstepsbyateamofsevenresearchersusingan extensivelyadaptedversionofSwales’(1990,2004)CARSmodel.Whiletheunitofanalysisisthe rhetoricalmoveorstep,atagisattachedtotheendofeachsentencetoindicatetherhetoricalmoves andstepsitispartof.Thevalueofsuchacorpuswillbecomeapparentinthediscussionofother researchagendaitemsbelow

Corpus-Based Analysis of Rhetorical Function organization and distribution

Asecondpartoftheresearchagendaistoanalyzetherhetoricalorganizationaswellasthedistribution ofdifferentrhetoricalfunctionsusingcorporaofacademicwritingthathavebeenannotatedfor rhetoricalmovesandsteps.Thiscorpus-basedgenreanalysisapproachwillusefullycomplement previousgenreanalysisstudiesthatexaminedtherhetoricalstructureofdifferentacademicwriting genresonasmallerscale.Inparticular,itwillallowustoexaminepatternsofrhetoricalfunction organizationanddistributionforspecificgenresinamoregeneralizableway.Someexamplesof thetypesofinformationthatcanbegeneratedincludetherangeofwaysinwhichrhetoricalmoves andstepsmaybestructuredorsequenced,theoverallfrequencyofindividualmovesandsteps,the frequencyofindividualmovesandstepsindifferentpositions(e.g.,thebeginningorendingofan RAintroduction),andthefrequencyofdifferentcombinationsorsequencesofrhetoricalmovesand steps.Importantly,itwillalsobeusefultoexaminevariationofrhetoricalfunctionorganizationand distributionacrossdifferentdisciplinesandacrosswriterswithdifferentexpertiseorproficiency levels.Forexample,theCOSSRAImentionedabovecanbeanalyzedtorevealinter-disciplinary variationinhowtheresearchterritoryisestablishedatthebeginningofRAintroductionsaswellas rhetoricalstepsthatareuniquetocertaindisciplines

Corpus-Based Analysis of Linguistic Realizations of Rhetorical Functions

Thecorecomponentoftheresearchagendaforthisframeworkisthesystematicanalysisofthe linguisticrealizationsofdifferentrhetoricalfunctions,orthelinguisticfeaturesassociatedwith differentrhetoricalmovesandsteps.Asdiscussedearlier,genreanalysisresearchhasalonghistory ofreportingtheemerginglinguisticpatternsobservedinsmaller-scalerhetorically-orientedanalyses, andeffortshavebeenmadeinmanylarger-scalecorpus-basedstudiesofacademicwritingtoconsider functionbroadly,butresearchthatattemptstocloselyconnectlinguisticfeaturestorhetoricalmoves andstepsisemergingonlyrecently(e.g.,Cortes,2013;Durrant&Mathews-Aydınlı,2011;Le& Harrington,2015;Lim,2010;Omidianetal.,2018),withfewadoptingtheapproachoflarge-scalefull

functionalannotation(withLuetal.,2020andYoon&Casal,2020arepresentingnotableexceptions). Withcorporaofacademicwritingfullyannotatedwithrhetoricalmovesandstepsandthepowerof corpus-basedlinguisticanalysis,itbecomespossibletodramaticallyexpandthescopeoflinguistic featuresthatcanbesystematicallyalignedwithdifferentrhetoricalfunctions.Thisintegratedanalysis willprovidearicherdescriptionoftheformalandrhetoricalfeaturesofdifferentacademicgenres thananalysesoflinguisticfeaturesandrhetoricalfunctionsinisolation.Theanalyticalresultscanalso constituteusefulpedagogicalandreferenceresourcesthatcanbeusedtohelpEAPwritinglearners seehowdifferentrhetoricalfunctionsmaybelinguisticallyrealizedorwhatrhetoricalfunctions differentlinguisticfeaturesareusuallyassociatedwith.Asanexample,Luetal.(2020)analyzedthe rhetoricalfunctionsofsyntacticallycomplexsentencesintheCOSSRAI.Itwouldalsobepossible tosystematicallyalignotherlinguisticfeatures,suchaslexicalbundlesandphrase-framesidentified fromthecorpus,totherhetoricalmovesandstepsinthecorpus

development of Computational Tools to Automate Rhetorical Functional Annotation

Tofacilitatefurtherexpansionofthescopeofresearchwithinthisframework,theresearchagenda wouldalsoincludethedevelopmentofcomputationaltoolstoautomaterhetoricalfunctionannotation. Limitedpriorworkexistsinthisarea.Forexample,Anthony’s(2003)AntMoverwasdesigned todeterminethemostlikelyrhetoricalmoveforeachsentenceinatext.Thetoolrequiredthe researcherstodefineasetofmovesfortextsinaspecificdisciplineorgenreandmanuallyannotate asetoftextswiththosemoves.Itthenlearnedasetoffeaturescharacteristicofthemovesand usesthemtoguessthemostprobablemoveforeachsentenceinnewtexts.AnthonyandLashikia (2003)evaluatedtheperformanceofthesystemoncomputersciencejournalarticlesandreported anaccuracyof70%onitsbestestimatesand90%whenthetoptwobestestimateswereconsidered. Morerecently,CotosandPendar(2016)describedasystemdesignedtoautomaticallyannotateeach sentenceinRAintroductionswitharhetoricalmoveandstep.Thesystemlearnedasetofn-gram featuresfromacorpusofmanuallyannotatedRAintroductionsandusedaSupportVectorMachine classifiertolabelsentencesinnewtexts.TheauthorsreportedanF-scoreof.654forrhetoricalmove classificationandof.61forrhetoricalstepclassification.Futureeffortstoimprovetheaccuracyof automatictoolsforrhetoricalfunctionannotationwillbenefitfromtheavailabilityoflarge-scale trainingdatarepresentingdifferentacademicdisciplinesandgenres,integrationofadvancedmachine learningmethodssuchasdeeplearning(e.g.,Deng&Liu,2018),andinclusionofanenrichedset ofdiscriminativefeaturesderivedfromresearchfindingsonrhetoricalfunctionorganizationand distributionandlinguisticrealizationsofdifferentrhetoricalfunctions.Meanwhile,giventhatlearner textsmaycontainfeaturesthatareabsentinthetrainingdata,itisimportanttoempiricallyevaluate theaccuracyofsuchautomatictoolsonlearnerstextsand,iftheaccuracyisbelowexpectation,to consideradditionaltrainingwithannotatedlearnertextsorusingsuchtoolsforcomputer-assisted humanannotation(see,e.g.,Dong&Lu,2020)

Corpus-Based Genre Analysis and eAP Writing Pedagogy

Giventhetwofundamentalgoalspositedforthisresearchframework,thetypesofresearchdescribed aboveareenvisagedtonotonlyprovideresearchfindingsonrhetoricalandlinguisticcharacteristics ofacademicwritingofdifferentgenresandindifferentdisciplinesthatcanbeusedtoinformEAP writingpedagogy,butalsogeneratefunctionallyannotatedcorporaandpedagogicalresourcesinthe formoflinguisticformsalignedwithdifferentrhetoricalfunctionsthatcanbedirectlyusedinEAP writingclassrooms.Anessentialpartoftheresearchagendaisthentoexplorewaystoeffectivelyapply theseannotatedcorpora,pedagogicalresources,andresearchfindingsinEAPwritingclassrooms, buildingonthesuccessofpriorstudiesthatadoptedacorpus-basedgenreapproachtoacademic writingpedagogy(e.g.,Charles,2007;Chen&Flowerdew,2018;Dong&Lu,2020).Inparticular, theannotatedcorporaandpedagogicalresourceshavethepotentialofhelpingEAPwritinglearners developadeeperunderstandingofnotonlytherhetoricalandlinguisticexpectationsofdifferent

academicgenresbutalsothealignmentbetweenthetwo.Additionally,theycanalsoserveasuseful referencetoolsthatEAPwritinglearnerscanuseintheirownwritingorrevisionprocesses

exploring the Role of Form-Function Mappings in Academic Writing Assessment

Afinalcomponentoftheresearchagendaofthisframeworkistosystematicallyexploretheroleof form-functionmappingsinacademicwritingassessment.Previouscorpus-basedresearchonacademic writingassessmentandautomaticessayscoring(AES)hasprimarilyfocusedonlinguisticfeatures predictiveofwritingqualityinisolation(e.g.,Biber,Gray,&Staples,2016;Crossley&McNamara, 2014;Yang,Lu,&Weigle,2015).Suchstudiesprovideinsightsintowhichformallinguisticstructures learnersmaybenefitfromacquiring,butthefocusonfrequencyofstructuresdivorcedfromfunction provideslittleinsightintohowlearnerscanusesuchstructurestocreatemeaningfularguments.In ordertocapturethefactthatitisfunctionallyappropriateuseoflinguisticfeaturesthatunderlies qualitywritinginthewritingconstruct,itisimportanttosystematicallyinvestigateEAPwriting learners’useoflinguisticfeaturesintermsoftherhetoricalgoalstheyaredeployedtorealizeandthe relationshipofsuchform-functionmappingstoacademicwritingquality.Researchinthisareamay involveratingthegenreappropriatenessandfunctionaleffectivenessofthelinguisticfeaturesusedin academicwritingandassessingtherelationshipofsuchratingstoacademicwritingquality.Tothis end,itwillbenecessarytodevelopvalidandreliablewaystoprovidesuchratings.Theidentification oflinguisticfeaturesthatwarrantanalyticalattention(e.g.,formulaiclanguagefeaturesorsyntactic features)maybeinformedbyfindingsfrompriorcorpus-basedresearchwithrespecttofeaturesthat effectivelyoperationalizerelevantlanguagesubconstructsspecifiedintheratingrubricandthatare predictiveofhumanratingsofwritingquality.Asthetechnologyforautomaticrhetoricalfunction annotationmatures,alonger-termgoalinAESresearchcouldbethedevelopmentoftechnology toautomaticallyratethegenreappropriatenessandfunctionaleffectivenessofimportantlanguage features

CoNCLUSIoN

Buildingonemergingcorpus-basedgenreanalysisresearchthatintegratesrhetoricalandformal analyses,thesynergisticframeworkofcorpus-basedgenreanalysisresearchandtheinterconnected researchagendaitemsoutlinedhereaimtocontributeaconcreteandsystematicwaytopromote consistentattentiontoform-functionmappingsinresearching,teaching,learningandassessing academicwriting.Withinthisframework,theauthorscallforresearcheffortsincompilingcorpora ofacademicwritingannotatedforrhetoricalfunctionsandinusingsuchcorporatosystematically analyzetheorganizationanddistributionofrhetoricalfunctionsinacademicwritingofdifferent genresanddisciplinesand,moreimportantly,thealignmentbetweenlinguisticfeaturesandrhetorical functions.Suchresearchcannotonlygenerateinsightsintothelinguisticrealizationsofdifferent rhetoricalgoalsinacademicwriting,butalsousefulpedagogicalresourcesthatdocumentimportant linguisticexpressionsalignedtodifferentrhetoricalmovesandsteps.Theauthorsencouragecorpus-basedgenrepedagogythatutilizestheresearchfindings,annotatedcorpora,andpedagogicalresources generatedbysuchresearchtopromoteEAPwritinglearners’awarenessofform-functionmappings indifferentacademicgenresandtheircompetenceinappropriatelanguagefeaturestoeffectively achievetheirrhetoricalgoals.Finally,theauthorscallforacademicwritingassessmentresearchthat considerstherelationshipofform-functionmappingstoacademicwritingquality,soastoprovide EAPwritingassessorsandautomaticwritingevaluationsystemswithinsightsintohowtheycan accountforandrewardeffectivedevelopmentofindividualvoiceinstudentacademicwriting,rather thanthefrequencyoflinguisticfeaturesalone

Ackermann,K.,&Chen,Y.-H.(2013).Developingtheacademiccollocationlist(ACL)–Acorpus-driven

andexpert-judgedapproach.Journal of English for Academic Purposes,12(4),235–247.doi:10.1016/j.

jeap.2013.08.002

Alsop,S.,&Nesi,H.(2009).IssuesinthedevelopmentoftheBritishAcademicWrittenEnglish(BAWE)

corpus.Corpora,4(1),71–83.doi:10.3366/E1749503209000227

Anthony,L.(2003).AntMover, Version 1.0.WasedaUniversity.http://www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp

Anthony,L.,&Lashikia,G.V.(2003).Automatic identification of organizational structure in writing using

machine learning.PaperpresentedattheSixthInternationalConferenceonLanguagesforSpecificPurposes,

Leiden,Netherlands.

Banks,D.(2017).Theextenttowhichthepassivevoiceisusedinthescientificjournalarticle,1985-2015.

Functional Linguistics,4(12).Advanceonlinepublication.doi:10.1186/s40554-017-0045-5

Basturkmen,H.(2011).Agenre-basedinvestigationofdiscussionsectionsofresearcharticlesinDentistryand

disciplinaryvariation.Journal of English for Academic Purposes,11(2),134–144.doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2011.10.004 Belcher,D.D.(2007).SeekingacceptanceinanEnglish-onlineresearchworld.Journal of Second Language

Writing,16(1),1–22.doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2006.12.001

Bhatia,V.K.(2015).Criticalgenreanalysis:Theoreticalpreliminaries.Journal of Language and Communication

in Business,54,9–20.

Biber,D.,&Conrad,S.(2019).Register, genre, and style.CambridgeUniversityPress.doi:10.1017/9781108686136 Biber,D.,Conrad,S.,&Cortes,V.(2004).If you look at…:Lexicalbundlesinuniversityteachingandtextbooks.

Applied Linguistics,25(3),371–405.doi:10.1093/applin/25.3.371

Biber,D.,Gray,B.,&Staples,S.(2016).Predictingpatternsofgrammaticalcomplexityacrosslanguageexam

tasktypesandproficiencylevels.Applied Linguistics,37(5),639–668.doi:10.1093/applin/amu059

Biber,D.,Johansson,S.,Leech,G.,Conrad,S.,&Finegan,E.(1999).Longman grammar of spoken and written

English.Longman.

Bruce,I.(2009).Resultssectionsinsociologyandorganicchemistryarticles:Agenreanalysis.English for

Specific Purposes,28(2),105–124.doi:10.1016/j.esp.2008.12.005

Chang,J.(2014).TheuseofgeneralandspecializedcorporaasreferencesourcesforacademicEnglishwriting:

Acasestudy.ReCALL,26(2),243–259.doi:10.1017/S0958344014000056

Charles,M.(2007).Reconcilingtop-downandbottom-upapproachestograduatewriting:Usingacorpustoteach

rhetoricalfunctions.Journal of English for Academic Purposes,6(4),289–302.doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2007.09.009 Charles,M.(2014).Gettingthecorpushabit:EAPstudents’long-termuseofpersonalcorpora.English for

Specific Purposes,35,30–40.doi:10.1016/j.esp.2013.11.004

Charles,M.(2018).Corpus-assistededitingfordoctoralstudents:Morethanjustconcordancing.Journal of

English for Academic Purposes,36,15–25.doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2018.08.003

Chen,M.,&Flowerdew,J.(2018).Introducingdata-drivenlearningtoPhDstudentsforresearchwritingpurposes:

Aterritory-wideprojectinHongKong.English for Specific Purposes,50,97–112.doi:10.1016/j.esp.2017.11.004 Chen,Y.,&Baker,P.(2010).LexicalbundlesinL1andL2academicwriting.Language Learning & Technology,

14(2),30–49.

Conrad,S.(2019).RegisterinEnglishforacademicpurposesandEnglishforspecificpurposes.Regional

Studies,1(1),168–198.

Cortes,V.(2013).Thepurposeofthisstudyisto:Connectinglexicalbundlesandmovesinresearcharticle

introductions.Journal of English for Academic Purposes,12(1),33–43.doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2012.11.002