Marco Teorico

Journal of English for Academic Purposes 33 (2018) 82e99
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of English for Academic Purposes

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jeap
Creating a theoretical framework: On the move structure of

theoretical framework sections in research articles related to
language and linguistics
Ming-Yu Tseng
National Sun Yat-sen University, Department of Foreign Languages and Literature, 70 Lien-Hai Road, Kaohsiung 804, Taiwan
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: This study analyzes the theoretical framework (TF) section of the research article. It is
Received 6 July 2017 based on a dataset of 20 TFs from nine linguistics journals covered by the Web of Science in
Received in revised form 7 January 2018 its Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), especially those related to applied and social as-
Accepted 9 January 2018
pects of linguistics. Adopting a contextualist view of rhetorical moves, this paper proposes
a theory-centered perspective from which to examine the TFs of research articles. The
proposed model - Creating a Theoretical Framework (CATF) - consists of three moves:
Keywords:
Providing a theoretical background, Establishing a theoretical framework, and Sharpening
Genre analysis
Linguistics-related research article
the significance/focus of one's study that uses the framework. Each move is achieved by a
Move analysis combination of strategies. The results show that although the combination and sequence
Schematic structure of strategies in each move may vary, certain strategy patterns occurred frequently. This
Strategy paper offers pedagogical suggestions regarding the teaching of the TF section and con-
Theoretical framework section cludes with remarks on connections between the CARS and CATF models.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In studies of research articles, much attention has been paid to the key sections of the IMRD model (Swales, 1990), i.e.,
Introduction (Hirano, 2009; Lim, 2012; Loi & Evans, 2010; Swales, 1990, 2004; Wang & Yang, 2015), Methods (Cotos, Huffman,
& Link, 2017; Lim, 2006, 2017), Results (Brett, 1994; Bruce, 2009; Lim, 2010; Thompson, 1993) and Discussion (Basturkmen,
2012; Berkenkotter & Huckin, 1995; Holmes, 1997; Peacock, 2002). In the model, literature review (hereafter LR) was not
treated as a separate section but covered in Introduction or regarded as one similar to it. This may be the reason why LRs,
compared with the identified sections in the model, have received relatively less attention.
Kwan's (2006) study is one rare study of LRs or, rather, LR chapters in doctoral theses. According to her, LRs and in-
troductions have some resemblance in that both generally have a similar move structure starting from establishing a territory
through creating a niche to occupying the niche (cf. Bunton, 2002; Swales, 1990). Despite the similarity, they also differ in
their overall function. Introductions are more concerned with creating a research space. In contrast, LRs “delineate the
complex conceptual and theoretical contours of a thesis” and may also “prepare the ground for specific methodological as-
pects of the writer's research study” (Kwan, 2006, p. 51).
Research articles (hereafter RAs) sometimes contain a section named theoretical framework (TF) or something similar
instead of LR. Surprisingly, no study has specifically examined this subgenre. This might be attributed to potential similarities
E-mail addresses: mytseng_2000@yahoo.com.tw, mytseng@mail.nsysu.edu.tw.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.01.002
1475-1585/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.-Y. Tseng / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 33 (2018) 82e99 83
between TF and LR and to the association of LR with Introduction. TF and LR are similar in at least two respects. Firstly, the TF
section always involves reviewing relevant literature, as will be shown in section 4. Secondly, LR may cover some knowledge
claims as its theoretical base. As Kwan (2006, p. 51) puts it, LR sometimes enacts the strategy of “abstracting or synthesizing
knowledge claims to establish a theoretical position or a theoretical framework”. The possible similarities between them and
their association with Introduction, especially the move of establishing a territory by reviewing items of previous research,
could make the teaching of writing the TF section difficult. Shall instructors of EAP tell students that they produce the
Introduction based on the CARS model and then repeat using the model when working on the subsequent section so long as it
concerns LR and/or TF? While stimulating discussion of this issue, the present study attempts to offer an alternative. Building
on the niche-establishing perspective (Kwan, 2006; Lim, 2012; Swales, 2004) and taking it as a point of departure, this paper
proposes an alternative perspective e a theory-centered one e from which to exam how the created research space in the
Introduction develops in the TF. This perspective is not intended to deny the significance of establishing niches or to challenge
the well-established CARS model but to complement the niche-surrounding perspective, especially when the unfolding of
research writing shifts from Introduction to TF. This study explores the move structure of TFs using a perspective in dialogue
with, but not identical to, creating a research space.
2. Theoretical framework: toward a contextualist view of rhetorical moves
A rhetorical move in genre analysis is defined as “a discoursal or rhetorical unit that performs a coherent communicative
function in a written or spoken discourse” (Swales, 2004, p. 229). A move can be realized by one clause, one or more sen-
tences, a paragraph or longer. Although the ways to perform a move vary, they can be classified in functional terms called steps
or strategies, which are subunits of a move.
It is often assumed that a move is identified not through a specific lexical or syntactic pattern but mainly based on the
meaning of the text segment being examined. However, sometimes the purpose of a textual segment may not be self-evident
until contextual information is available, e.g., the title, section, paragraph, and position where it is used. This contextualist
view of rhetorical moves calls for the notion of utterances rather than that of grammatical sentences. The meaning of an
utterance is somewhat indeterminate until its context is considered (Kecskes, 2008; Searle, 1980; Sperber & Wilson, 1995),
e.g. who speaks it to whom, where it is uttered, for what purpose it is used, and what effect can be generated by it. In written
academic discourse, what action a textual segment performs also requires contextual information.
In this study, a move is defined as a stretch of utterances that serve a specific communicative purpose and is achieved by a
set of discourse strategies. Furthermore, a move is both embedded within the coherence of the paragraph(s) where it appears,
and is coupled with the persuasion of argumentative writing. Move structure is defined as a configuration of stretches of
utterances serving not only specific communicative purposes in context but also paralleling with the coherence and devel-
opment of ideas. The significant implication is that move structure is also characterized by discourse development that
contributes to coherence and persuasion. In other words, the development of rhetorical moves and that of strategies within
the moves run in parallel, co-contributing to the development of ideas in the examined section.
When identifying and naming the rhetorical moves and strategies, I particularly consider four points and their interaction.
Firstly, although the functional-semantic feature of a text segment is the key to move analysis, the title and subject matter of
the article, the heading of the section and its subheadings, if any, are also considered. For example, (1) appears to be a niche-
like statement, but it is cited from a section called ‘Theoretical background and rationale’. Can (1) be interpreted the same way
as in an introduction section? It can be if we see TF as the same as Introduction. Nevertheless, if a niche has been established in
Introduction (see (2)) and we see the TF as developing from Introduction, then (1) can be renamed in its new context. The two
possibilities might not be in conflict if we view the two sections as connected yet different. The Introduction can contain an
account of the used theory, but it can be restructured in ways that the theory is treated separately in the subsequent section.
In the latter case, the TF section is written in response to the research space created in Introduction, and the space can be
sustained and reinforced in the TF, thus taking a more developed shape in terms of theoretical underpinning. That is, there
could be two parallel move structures in the TF, especially if we view the TF as closely connected with the Introduction: that of
the potentially latent CARS model and a newly emerging structure developing from but not identical to it. Taking this
perspective, we may interpret (1) as a gap-indicating statement which may serve a purpose in its new context in addition to
the latent function of establishing a niche (see section 4.3).
(1) So far, little attention has been paid to the influence of literacy histories on an understanding and implementation of
academic writing conventions in the context of a master's thesis. (JEAP3)
(2) The current study extends this line of enquiry in the specific context of student mobility in the European Higher Ed-
ucation Area … (JEAP3)
Secondly, the identification and naming of a move need to consider the position where it is located, e.g. at the beginning,
middle or ending part of a section or subsection. That is, a move is embedded within the development of ideas and the
organization of a section. According to Bakhtin (1986), while sentences can be repeated, utterances cannot because the
context is bound to change (pp. 105e107). Viewed in this way, a gap-indicating statement could have a different function
when appearing in different parts that fulfill different move functions. For example, (3) immediately follows (1), and
84 M.-Y. Tseng / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 33 (2018) 82e99
altogether they form a paragraph used toward the end of a TF section. Considering this position and the paragraph where (1)
appears, we may see (1) afresh. Instead of seeing it as a recycled or another niche statement, we interpret it as pertinent to
what comes next (see (3)) and the ending position. Both (1) and the first sentence in (3) comment on the knowledge claims
about literacy histories in order to strengthen the focus/significance of one's study, and then the second sentence in (3) relates
the raised issues to one's own study, hence justifying one's study.
(3) Equally, there has been little research on the influence of European master's students' literacy histories in their
negotiation of conventions when studying at a British university. This study combines these strands … (JEAP3)
Thirdly, the identification of move structure considers the development of ideas in the section, in the whole article and,
where appropriate, even in the development of a field or discipline. Interpreting a textual unit merely as a background, as the
main framework, or as the focus of a study all depends on knowledge beyond the literal meanings of sentences. Identifying a
move is never a bottom-up process, i.e., more than reading a set of sentences and giving it a code. A top-down process is
required (Biber, Connor, & Upton, 2007; Pho, 2008; Upton & Cohen, 2009), i.e., the analyst needs some knowledge about the
field of research, about the entire section and about the article, and s/he activates such knowledge as supplementary in-
formation in doing coding. While sentences provide clues to functional interpretation, broader knowledge and assumptions
about a research topic and field assist in identifying moves (cf. Kintsch, 2005).
Fourthly, potential connections between two adjacent sections such as Introduction and TF also need to be considered, i.e.,
the moves in the Introduction may be in a dialectical relationship with those in its subsequent section such as TF. For example,
this consideration motivates the label of the first strategy for Move 1 in TFs to be connected to the research space created in
Introduction (see strategy (1A) below). Furthermore, how the moves in the TF relate to the three moves in CARS awaits further
examination.
These four points, together with their interaction, constitute the basis of a contextualist view of moves, one that attends to
contextual information, including headings, utterance position, move environment, and textual development (e.g. from
Introduction to TF). By adopting this perspective, this study analyzes the schematic structure of the TF section. A scheme
called Creating a Theoretical Framework (CATF) will be proposed.
3. Methodology
3.1. Data collection and size
This study set up four criteria for data selection:
(i) Journals are to be selected from the Linguistics list covered by the Web of Science in its Social Sciences Citation Index
(SSCI), especially those related to applied and social aspects of linguistics.
(ii) The heading of the selected text contains theory or concept, including their derivatives: theoretical or conceptual.
(iii) The target section appears in the position between Introduction and Methods/Methodology/Data
(iv) If a section heading meets the criterion (iii) but not (ii), and the end of the Introduction section states that the next
section deals with the theoretical foundation (e.g. Section 2 addresses the theoretical framework within which the study is
situated), then the section is treated as a TF.
After an initial collection, two problems arose. One concerned the scarcity of TF in some of the initially selected journals.
Some journals (e.g. ELT Journal) tend to use a topic-specific heading for the section placed after Introduction, thus making it
difficult to collect the target data. We had to read our list of possible journals and include a wider range of publication years
although journals were all selected from the SSCI Linguistics journals. The other problem was about whether to cover articles
that have an additional section before or after TF. While all the collected articles contain TF sections, some of them have an
extra section placed between Introduction and TF, or between TF and Method/Data, and the section is variously named,
ranging from a general heading (e.g. Background of the study, Introducing research, or The study) to a topic-specific one (e.g.
Health identity in a mediated society). The in-between section may supply information about background studies and/or extra
information about one's research not given in Introduction (e.g. research questions, contribution). Having a section like that
can affect how the move structure of a TF section is organized because some information that would have been covered in the
TF section was moved to the extra section and elaborated there. In order to collect TF sections that contain a relatively
comprehensive configuration, this study selected only articles that contain neither an in-between section between Intro-
duction and TF nor one between TF and Method/Data. Articles whose TF sections are further divided into subsections were
covered so long as they meet the stated criteria.
Twenty articles, published between 2010 and 2016, were selected from 9 leading journals related to applied and social
aspects of language and linguistics, including pragmatics and discourse analysis (see Appendix A).1 These articles analyze
1
The journals were selected mainly because the target data are available therein and because the researcher is familiar with these subfields of linguistics.
diverse types of discourse (e.g. audio-recorded interactional data among multilingual teenagers, postgraduate writing,
facebook posts, field notes) and in different contexts (e.g. educational, institutional, commercial, intercultural). The dataset
comprised 20 TF sections from the 20 articles (see Appendix B) and consisted of 21,439 words, including tables and figures but
excluding headings and subheadings.
The headings of the collected TF sections varied (see Table 1). Among the most frequently used were Theoretical framework,
Theoretical background, Conceptual framework, and Theoretical foundations.2 The differences in these headings suggest that
variations exist in the dataset, ranging from using a specific framework based on a theory, through combining two or more
models, to alluding to a field or perspective in general. Even a section called Theoretical background does not indicate that the
article lacks a theoretical framework but that the framework is based on the development of a field/topic, not necessarily a
specific work.
3.2. Coding procedures
Based on the theoretical assumption of a move, I read five TF sections, identified possible moves and strategies, and
provided their names. Then I read five more TF sections and applied the tentative coding scheme to them and checked if the
scheme was sufficient. In the process, the scheme was constantly revised in order to distinguish moves or strategies.
After a workable coding scheme was tentatively settled, I had a series of discussions with three research assistants, who
were graduate students of Applied Linguistics and were fluent in English. In order to ensure that they well understood the
scheme, I prepared a coding sample, gave it to them for their reference, and asked them to hand-code three other texts
independently. We then discussed until we reached an agreement. Coding disputes usually derived from potential similarities
between certain strategies, the ambiguity of the sentence(s) involved, insufficient attention to context (e.g. the data used in
the article, its argument, the way subsections are numbered), or the ways to parse a paragraph. Another challenge is the use of
subsections/subheadings in a TF section. In some cases, each of them was treated as having its own Move 1-2-3 structure, but
in some others, each of the subsections roughly corresponded to a specific move.
After the assistants became familiar with the coding scheme and practice, proper coding was conducted. Three assistants
hand-coded the same set of articles independently. The coding conducted by them was then checked, approved and, where
necessary, revised by the author. Where appropriate, we fine-tuned the semantic attributes of some of the codes.
Altogether 20 TF sections from 20 articles were hand-coded by the three assistants and the author. After the coding of each
of the TF sections was finalized, it was stored in an independent WORD file. Both the files and the coding results of the texts at
the final stage were imported into the NVivo 11 software for overall pattern identification and descriptive statistical analysis.
3.3. Move coding
This study proposes a model called CATF, short for Creating a Theoretical Framework. Unlike Swales' CARS model or
Kwan's scheme of LRs, the CATF model does not center around the niche but the adopted theory or concept. Besides, it does
not treat reviewing previous studies as a step or strategy contributing to a specific move because a review of some previous
studies is conducted throughout the TF, e.g. when providing a background (Move 1), establishing and explaining the adopted
theory/concept (Move 2) and/or strengthening the significance of one's study (Move 3). The model is further illustrated with
examples in Results section. An overview of it is given in section 5 (cf. Table 2).
Table 1
The headings used in the collected corpus.
Section Headings Numbers of Use

Theoretical framework 6
Theoretical background 5
Conceptual framework 3
Theoretical foundation 3
(Name of a specific) theory 1
Theorizing (research topic) 1
Some notes on (research topic) 1
2
One of the headings was “Theoretical background and rationale”, and another uses “Background literature and conceptual framework”. The former was
treated as “Theoretical background”, and the latter as “Conceptual framework”. Occasionally, a heading might be followed by a colon and additional words,
e.g. “Theoretical framework: basic concepts”. These extra words are not shown in Table 1.
4. Results: move analysis
4.1. Move 1: providing a theoretical background
Move 1 typically involves conducting a survey of studies which are related to one's own research but do not constitute the
focus of one's inquiry. The purpose of Move 1 is to orientate the reader to a broad area of research within which one's study
can be situated and its contribution can be evaluated. It is grounded on a general view of a topic or field and paves the way for
Moves 2 and 3 e a subsequent movement toward specificity. It typically appears at the beginning of the TF section. Never-
theless, when a TF section is short, this move may not appear.
Four strategies that contribute to performing Move 1 are identified. Strategy (1A) creates a point of entry into a research
area where the research space created in the Introduction can be situated or evaluated. If used, it appears at the beginning
paragraph of the TF section or that of a subsection. It may point out a broad or general definition of the research topic (e.g. (4)
& (5)). It may characterize a topic or a field of study relevant to one's research (e.g. (6) and (7)). It may converge with a
sentence that summarizes or introduce the topic(s) to be reviewed in a subsection or in the whole TF section (e.g. (8) & (9)). Or
it may indicate a phenomenon or topic reported in existing work (see (10) & (11)).
(4) A broad definition of IT [I think] is that it is a ‘stance marker’: it signals the speaker's stance or attitude towards
segments of discourse (Carter & McCarthy, 2006, p. 222; Ka €rkka
€inen, 2010, p. 213). (AL2)
(5) For the ordinary native speaker of English, disagreeing is simply seen as the opposite of agreement. (IP1)
(6) Butler (1999) conceptualized performativity as the iterative corporal enactment of social identity, regulated by insti-
tutional and cultural discourses (e.g., teacher becoming authoritative teacher through repeated enactment of curric-
ulum standards and high-stakes accountability behavioral regimen). (LE2)
(7) Discourse analysis focuses on the nature of language in use. (LE2)
(8) … what will be presented here is a brief overview of studies which focused on FB [Facebook] as an instance of social
interaction. (JP2)
(9) This article employs a set of three analytic constructs: narrative, genre, and identity. (LS2)
(10) Our world is becoming more profoundly interconnected with the extensive reach of digital and portable devices that
principally draw on digital tools for making meaning to global audiences (Appadurai, 1996; Hull, Zacher, & Hibbert,
2009; Madianou & Miller, 2012). (TT2)
(11) The negotiation of prior writing experience in L2 postgraduate writing has been acknowledged in genre-based research
of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) (see Tardy, 2006 for an overview; Cheng, 2008, 2011). (JEAP3)
While strategy (1A) usually needs only one or two sentences, strategy (1B) esurveying a body of work representing or
showcasing the pointed out area e can occupy much space. The work under survey is not the theory to be adopted. Instead, it
renders a theoretical perspective whose development can be traced, thus building a theoretical background and setting the
stage for the explanation of the adopted theory or concept. It makes the area indicated by (1A) more specific and detailed. This
can be achieved by stating its feature(s) (e.g. (12) & (13)), describing how the named concept or theory has been applied or
extended (e.g. 14.1), introducing one or more particular studies (e.g. 14.2e14.3) and their findings (e.g. (15)), classifying a body
of background work (e.g. (16)), or combining any of these methods.
While strategy (1A) provides a point of entry into an area, strategy (1B) further characterizes the area, thus adding
theoretical details to (1A). In some papers, strategy (1A) is enough, but in some others strategy (1B) is needed, in varying
degrees. It is sometimes used extensively in order to set the stage for Move 2, especially when the author intends to treat and
develop the reviewed studies in a new light.
(12) Academic Literacies approaches emphasise the role of “literacy histories” for academic writing (Barton, Ivani c, Appleby,
Hodge, & Tusting, 2007). Literacy histories are prior experiences of writing students accumulated while participating in
a range of academic practices. The notion of practice underlines the view of writing as situated, cultural phenomenon
(Barton & Hamilton, 2000). (JEAP3)
(13) One of the major features identified by previous studies on FB is that it consists of social interaction. Indeed, as Golder,
Wilkinson, and Huberman (2007) affirm in a study that investigated 284 million messages and 79.6 million pokes
exchanged by 4.2 million American students, FB is a ‘locus’ for social interaction … (JP2)
(14) In recent years, performativity theories have been applied to the exploration of second language issues such as teacher
identity, adult language learning and institutional discourses (e.g., Miller, 2012, 2014; Morgan, 2004; Pavlenko, 2001;
Pennycook, 2007; Wooten, 2012). (14.1)Wooten (2012), for example, conducted a performance ethnographic study to
explore how nine non-native teachers of Spanish in grades 6e12 in Georgia public schools constructed and acted out
their second language identities. (14.2) Language learners/teachers deeply invested in their second language identities
struggled with feelings of inadequacy when caught in the native speaker/non-native speaker binary but felt
empowered when able to see themselves as connecting to “the both/and of linguistic and cultural identities”(p. 359).
(14.3) (LE1)
(15) … agreement is generally perceived as the desirable, preferred option (Pomerantz 1984) while disagreement is
regarded as its negative, undesirable counterpart. However, research has demonstrated that disagreement is not
necessarily the dispreferred option (e.g., Hayashi, 1996; Kakava, 1993, 2002; Tannen, 2002) but can be used even to
foster intimacy and sociability (Schiffrin, 1984; Tannen & Kakava, 1992). (IP1)
(16) Studies of IT [I think] have different theoretic approaches with different focuses. Definitions are summarized in Table 1,
from three perspectives: epistemic, grammatical, and pragmatic. These three aspects cover most literature on IT,
providing a representational and comprehensive picture of IT studies. (AL2)
Strategy (1A) or (1B) may be followed by (1C), i.e., positively evaluating the work under survey (e.g. (17) & (18). It states the
value or relevance of one or more studies, thus paving the way for the building of a proper theoretical framework. The strategy
is in contrast with that of critically commenting on previous studies (i.e., (1D)) (e.g. 21) & (22)). Although the work that (1C) or
(1D) evaluates may be mentioned when (1B) is in operation, it may be briefly introduced or cited only when an evaluation is
being given. An evaluation may be made by citing a study (e.g. (19)). More importantly, while (1B) merely reports previous
studies, (1C) and (1D) evaluate and reinterpret them. Both (1C) and (1D), characterized by a shift to a heightened voice of the
author doing the review, are marked by explicitly evaluative terms (e.g. relevant, missing) (e.g. (17) & (22)), metadiscourse
devices (e.g. in summary, thus, however, for example, As … stated in her study) used in interpreting the cited work (Hyland,
2005; cf.; Kwan, Chan, & Lam, 2012) (e.g. (17)e(19) and (21)e(25)), and/or an explicit connection between a previous
work and one's own study (e.g. (20)).
(17) In summary, although previous studies have investigated FB from different perspectives, they have all pointed out that
it is a form of social interaction. This is relevant to the purpose of this investigation. (JP2)
(18) It [i.e. the notion of practice] thus underscores the institutional and social context of academic writing, that is, how
writing is shaped by its context, for example by assessment requirements, and how it shapes contexts, for example by
perpetuating discipline-specific ways of knowledge construction in writing a specific master's thesis. (8.5) (JEAP3)
(19) As Miller (2012) stated in her study of adult language learners, performativity theory provides us with a way to “focus on
the dynamic constitution of social realities in discursive practice” (p. 89). (LE1)
(20) The present study responds to Ellis (2010) call for teacher educators to evaluate and reconsider SLA courses in order to
establish which ideas are found useful by teachers as well as methods by which teachers develop/modify their own
theories of language learning. (S1)
Strategy (1D) critically comments on (some of) the surveyed work by indicating a gap (e.g. (21) & (22)) or pointing out its
problematic assumption (e.g. (23)), calling for a new conception (e.g. (24)), or suggesting the difficulty and challenge involved
(e.g. (25)). It may be regarded as a development of the niche statement in Introduction. For example, in the Introduction of the
article from which (23) was quoted, the niche statement was used: “Yet further work remains to integrate a discourse
centered approach to race and racism with concepts from social theory in an effort to better inform the everyday un-
derstandings that impact public thinking” (LS1). By critically commenting on folk theories, (23) underpins the niche state-
ment in that a better social theory is needed, one that does not constitute any hegemonic ideology, thus setting the stage for
the adopted theory to be illustrated in Move 2 (see (33)).
(21) However, and despite its complexity, disagreement has been relatively less studied than other speech acts such as
requests or compliments (Díaz Pe rez, 2003; Lawson, 2009). (IP1)
(22) … however, what is missing is the investigation of the ways in which teacher education courses on SLA practices shape,
and inform current and future teaching practices of teacher-learners. (S1)
(23) Thus, like any hegemonic ideological system, folk theories can be difficult to dislodge from the collective imagination.
Folk theories are naturalized as self-evident, immutable, and undeniable facts about ‘the way things simply are’. (LS1)
(24) The majority of extant literature discusses ITH [I think] functions in isolation, but they are actually interconnected. ITH
can express tentativeness, mitigation, emphasis, online planning, and evaluation, both individually and collectively …
For example, while an emphatic ITH conveys assertiveness and authority, it may combine with mitigating ITH to achieve
another goal. These multiple and overlapping phenomena call for an innovative conception: elasticity of ITH's prag-
matic functions. (IP2)
(25) However, developing sustainable practices to weave SLA research throughout teacher education programs is a highly
challenging task since “the relationship of pedagogy to L2 acquisition is a complex one that is not clearly agreed on by
applied linguists” (Bardovi-Harlig, 1995, p.151). (S1)
Among the 20 TF sections collected for the current study, 13 of them contained Move 1. The move did not appear in 7 of
them because a similar move was already used in the introduction section. When a topic has not been extensively studied, a
literature review in the introduction may be sufficient because the available references are limited. Therefore, Move 1 is
sometimes not needed in TFs.
Fig. 1 shows how the four strategies in the Move1 environment were distributed in terms of word count and percentage.
Strategy (1B) constituted the largest proportion, suggesting that surveying a body of work representing or showcasing the
Fig. 1. The word counts and percentages of Move 1 strategies.
pointed out area in the TFs is common. Strategy (1A) usually requires one or two sentences, thus accounting for about 10%
only. Strategy (1C) and (1D) together represented over 25% of Move 1 utterances, indicating their supplementary role in the
development of the move, i.e., evaluating work under survey and enhancing the purpose of doing the background work.
Fig. 2 demonstrates the frequency counts of the four strategies. Fig. 2 reinforces not only the dominant role of (1B) but also
the supplementary role of (1C) and (1D). Although (1B) used many more words than (1C) and (1D), the latter altogether
appeared even more frequently than the former, suggesting their subtle significance despite their disproportionate word
counts. In the dataset, strategy (1A) always appeared when Move 1 was used.
Fig. 3 illustrates the patterns involving the first two or three strategies in the Move 1 environment and only the patterns
that appeared in at least two articles are cited. As can be seen, among the most frequent patterns are (1A)-(1B)-(1C) and (1A)-
(1B) (cf. Appendix C).3 The (1A)-(1B)-(1D) pattern, which takes a critical perspective, and (1A)-(1C) appeared less frequently
than other two.
4.2. Move 2: establishing a theoretical framework
Move 2 aims at establishing a theoretical framework by narrowing down to a specific theoretical or conceptual account.
What distinguishes Move 1 from Move 2 is that at least one keyword of the article, which is usually also used in the title or
subtitle of the article, typically appears in the latter. Alternatively, the author may explicitly state that a notion or classification
of it is adopted, thus indicating Move 2. Four strategies contribute to the development of the move.
Strategy (2A) refers to announcing the adoption of a theory/concept. The name of the adopted concept usually draws on a
study or a synthesis or modification of knowledge claims. If used at all, the strategy can be easily identified (e.g. (26) & (27)).
Strategy (2B) claims the centrality of the concept(s) or framework to be used (e.g. (28) & (29)). The two strategies may not
appear in the TF.
(26) This study adopts the concept of elasticity (Zhang, 2011) … (AL2)
(27) The theoretical framework of this study draws on Lave and Wenger's (1991; Wenger, 1998) conceptualization of
communities of practice and Bourdieu's (1977, 1986, 1991; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990) notions of capital. (AL1)
(28) The notion of ‘expectation’ is fundamental to studies of (im)politeness. (JP3)
(29) Fundamental to the development of our understandings of the patterns of writing reported on in this paper have been
recent developments in the description of language systems at the level of discourse semantics within SFL (Martin &
Rose, 2007; Martin & White, 2005). (JEAP2)
Strategy (2C), elucidating the used theory/concept, is essential to Move 2. It usually starts with an account of the seminal
work that proposed the adopted theory/notion (e.g. (30)) or of a representative work in which the notion is treated (e.g. (31)).
It may also characterize the framework (e.g. (32) & (33)).
(30) In line with the sociocultural traditions that focus on the social and situated nature of learning, Lave and Wenger (1991;
Lave, 1996; Wenger, 1998) propose that learning is a process of growing participation in a community of practice. (AL1)
(31) As Culpeper (2015, p. 270) notes, ‘‘expectations feature in many definitions of politeness and impoliteness.’’ For
example, Culpeper (2011) associates impoliteness with clashes of ‘expectations’ and defines the construct as situated
behaviours that are in conflict with ‘‘how one expects them to be’’ (p. 23). Drawing on Opp (1982), Culpeper (2011, p.
3
Although (1A)-(1B) is also found in (1A)-(1B)-(1C) and (1A)-(1B)-(1D), in order to show the diversity of strategy patterns, I treat them as three patterns
and count them separately.
Fig. 2. The frequency counts of Move 1 strategies.
Fig. 3. Frequently used strategy patterns in Move 1.
33) argues that ‘‘regular behaviours develop into expectations, those expectations give people a sense of certainty, and
it is this certainty that has value.’’ (JP3)
(32) From this perspective, language and other identities are performed and negotiated in interaction: influenced by both
local contexts and wider ideologies in circulation, participants align with, contest, or subvert social categories of
belonging. (AL3)
(33) In contrast to the folk theory, the critical theory recognizes that what are taken to be biologically given categories are in
fact socially constructed categories … Deciding how to divide the continuum of human variation into groups is a
historically situated social process; and different societies at different points in history have devised different classi-
ficatory systems. (LS1)
The initial explanation of the used theory/notion is elaborated by a follow-up discussion of other works by the same
theorist(s) and/or by different scholars. The extended discussion is presented in various ways. Firstly, it may relate the
adopted concept/theory to another concept or combine them (e.g. (34) & (35)). For example, (34), a paragraph following (31),
draws on schema theory and relates it to the adopted notion of expectation. Secondly, it may trace the development and
modification of the used theory (e.g. (36) & (37)). This is often marked by references subsequent to the seminal work of the
theory. Thirdly, it may indicate the extended applications of the adopted theory (e.g. (38) & (39)). It may detail the complexity
involved (e.g. implications of a perspective) (e.g. (40) & (41)).
(34) Schema theory can be used to explain the fact that previous experiences have a strong bearing on how people tend to
interpret an act or behaviour (e.g. Minsky, 1975; Neisser, 1976; Schank & Abelson, 1975; Van Dijk, 1987). It appears that
participants enter an interaction with a set of expectations informed by previously acquired schemata. (JP3)
(35) The approach that complements the above sketched insights is the empirical-conceptual approach to verbal
communication. It is based on the idea that there is a link between cognition and language use, a unity between
concepts and practices: social actors conceptualize their own practices and, therefore, the character of those practices
must be partly determined by their own way of perceiving it. (JP1)
(36) Hao and Humphrey (2012) have further developed the classification of entities provided by Martin & Rose to describe
more delicately the development of knowledge across the undergraduate years of biology and to examine taxonomic
relations within the introductions of expert research articles. (JEAP2)
(37) While earlier appraisal researchers were “concerned with techniques that could be applied systematically to whole
texts from any register” (Martin, 2003, p. 171), in the light of subsequent research such a proposition appears overly
ambitious. Among others, Bednarek (2007) and Lee (2007) have challenged the notion that the three subsystems of
Attitude remain largely separate and inviolate … Bednarek (2007, p. 107), for instance, explores what she labels
“polyphonic phenomena” which she believes arises out of the fusion or blending of various types of systems and
subsystems characteristic of appraisal analysis, leading to a co-occurrence of these systems. (TT1)
(38) Although CA [conversation analysis] has been introduced as a methodological approach to investigate spoken con-
versation, it has also been successfully applied to analyze online data, such as multi-party and dyadic chats, forums,
blogs and social network sites like Twitter (Antaki, Arde vol, Nún
~ ez, & Vayreda, 2005; Garcia & Jacobs, 1998, 1999;
Lomicka & Lord, 2012; Scho € nfeldt & Golato, 2003). (JP2)
(39) CA has also been extensively applied in second language acqui-sition (SLA) by Firth and Wagner (1997). (LE2)
(40) An implication of the negotiated nature of identities is that pre-existing categories such as class, ‘race’, and ethnicity
cannot be taken for granted or the boundaries of such categories universally defined (Bucholtz & Hall, 2005; inter alia).
Instead, these are ‘interactional achievements grounded in concrete social contexts and evolving with them’ (De Fina,
2007, p. 374). (AL3)
(41) Martin and Rose (2008), however, also imply that just as descriptions are fundamental genres in the above contexts, in
the discipline of history so too are recounts. That is, they both need to be built upon to develop the more valued written
genres in the field, such as the argument genre of exposition. (JEAP2)
Strategy (2D) reappropriates the theory/field/concept to one's subject matter. By relating it to one's study or justifying its
use in one's study, this strategy may raise an issue arising from a consideration of one's language data against the theory (e.g.
(42) & (43)), make a point that connects the used concept(s) (e.g. praxis, elasticity) with the topic (e.g. teacher-learners in
(44)) or the language data under examination (e.g. I think in (45)), or describe the features and capacity of the theory to
address the main issue (e.g. (46) & (47)). Nevertheless, the identification of this strategy requires a knowledge of the data to be
analyzed later in the article whether or not the data is mentioned in the sentence(s), e.g. coming-out stories ((42) & (47)),
interviews with NNES doctoral students in a university in the US (43), written artifact by teacher-learners in the process from
teaching preparation to actual teaching (44), instances of I think used a in TV documentary series (45), and digitally enabled
text making that combines videos, visual and sounds (46). It makes the theoretical account relevant to one's study, and, at the
same time, paves the way for a smooth transition from Move 2 to Move 3 because it articulates a subtle link between the
theory/topic being elucidated and the focus of one's study. For example, (42) appeared after a brief background review of
recent narrative research was presented (strategy (1A)) and a narratives-in-context perspective was announced (strategy
(2A)). While relating the author's data (i.e., coming-out stories) to the adopted perspective, it raises an issue, making the
inquiry more focused. The issue is raised not necessarily in response to the studies under survey but out of a motivation to
bring one's research topic to the fore against the backdrop of a theoretical perspective.
(42) The emergence of narrative genres such as the coming-out story raises the question of how these narratives are ‘put
together’ and performed in ways that make them both culturally intelligible and institutionally viable to recipients.
(LS2)
(43) Our inquiry in this article is fundamentally about what forms of competence doctoral students need to develop and
display in different disciplinary communities. (AL1)
(44) Our study contributes to this body of research by shedding light on how teacher education practices are beginning to
foster praxis (Sharkey, 2009) and by providing concrete examples from coursework that prepare teacher-learners as
“transformative intellectuals” (Johnson, 2006, p. 248) who reconceptualize their knowledge, skills and dispositions to
“talk back to theory” (Sharkey, 2009, p. 141). (S1)
(45) Zhang's elasticity framework has a main maxim and four specific maxims, one of which is “go subjective”: speak in
subjective terms (2011: 579); ITH [I think] falls into this category. (IP2)
(46) This integrated framework also enables understanding of multimodal text making as process that draws from a range of
semiotic and linguistic resources. (TT2)
(47) This represents a useful lens for examining coming-out stories in that any single performance of the genre may echo
prior tellings (i.e. by the same and other speakers). (LS2)
Nineteen out of the collected 20 articles used strategies associated with Move 2. The only exception is one article that deals
with disagreement in English as a lingua franca. Its lack of Move 2 may be due to the unavailability of a theory for the author to
adopt; therefore, the research topic was treated as situated within a theoretical background. Move 2 is essential to almost all
of the collected TF sections. The word counts or percentages of strategies (2A)e(2D) in the dataset are demonstrated in Fig. 4.
Strategy (2C) accounted for more than 75% of all the Move 2 utterances. This supports the view that the center of the TF
section is the expounding of a theoretical model. Furthermore, the significance of (2D), constituting almost 25%, is further
illustrated in its frequency count e only next to (2C) (see Fig. 5).
The distribution of strategy patterns in Move 2 appears to vary considerably (cf. Appendix C). Nevertheless, some general
patterns can be identified as Fig. 6 suggests. For example, (2A), when used, tended to appear before (2C) (e.g. article no. 1, 3, 4,
8, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20). Next, strategy (2B), when used, appeared before (2C) (e.g. 11, 16) or between two segments of (2C) (e.g. 5, 6,
16, 17, 19). Strategy (2D), used most flexibly, appeared before/after (2C) (e.g. 3, 4, 6, 14) or between two segments of (2C) (e.g. 1,
2, 5, 8e10, 13, 14, 16e20). If we treat the positions of (2B) and (2D) as flexible, then a common pattern can be identified: (2A)–
(2C)–. That is, (2A), if used, tended to appear before (2C). The two-hyphen mark in the pattern suggests the possibility of a
Article No. Strategy Pattern

1 (AL1) 2A-2C-2D-2C-2D-2C-2D-2C-2D-2C-2D-…..
2 (AL2) …..-2C-2D-2C-…..
3 (AL3) 2A-2D-2C-…..
4 (JEAP1) …..-2D-2A-2C-…..-2A-2D-2C-2D-2A-2C
5 (JEAP2) …..-2C-2D-2C-2D-2B-2C-2B-2C-2D-2C-…..
6 (JEAP3) …..-2C-2B-2C-2D-…..
7 (IP1) ..…(no Move 2)…..
8 (IP2) …..-2A-2C-2D-2C-2D-2C-2D-2C-…..
9 (JP1) 2A-2C-2D-2C-2D-…..
10 (JP2) …..-2C-2D-2C-…..
11 (JP3) 2B-2C-…..
12 (LE1) …..-2D-2C-…..
13 (LE2) …..-2C-2D-2C-2D-2C-2D-2C-2D-…..-2C-…..
14 (LE3) 2A-2C-2D-2A-2C-2A-2C-2D-2A-2C-2A-2D-2C-2D-2C-2D-…..
15 (LS1) …..-2C-…..
16 (LS2) …..-2A-2D-2C-2B-2C-…..-2C-2D-…..-2B-2C-2D-2C-…..
17 (MLJ1) 2C-2A-2D-2C-2B-2C-3A-2A-2C-2D-2C-2A-2D-2C-2A-2B-2C-2A-2C-…..
18 (S1) …..-2A-2C-2D-2C-…..
19 (TT1) 2C-2B-2C-2D-2C-2D-2C-2D-…..
20 (TT2) .….-2A-2D-2C-2D-2C-2D-…..
Fig. 6. Move 2 strategy patterns in the collected articles.

different Move 2 strategy (e.g. (2B) or (2D)) placed in-between or after (2C). Strategy (2D), used in almost all the articles, are
highly flexible in its positions of appearance, suggesting its role as an omnipresent strategy in Move 2. This role reveals the
subtle function of connecting the theory being expounded and the specific study of one's own, and this function is usually
carried out repetitively. Furthermore, (2C) and (2D) each recurred frequently, and their co-presence (e.g. 1, 5, 8, 9, 13, 14, 19,
20) suggests the significance of (2D) to the explanation and elaboration of the adopted theory/concept.
4.3. Move 3: sharpening the significance and/or focus of one's study that uses the framework
The focus of this move is not on the theoretical illustration but shifts to one's study as a whole, including its issue(s) and
significance. To some extent, it looks like the move of occupying the niche in the CARS model or to the move of announcing
the present research in Bunton's (2002) modified CARS model for Ph.D. theses introductions. Nevertheless, it also offers
justification for one's topic. As a whole, this move, on the one hand, enhances the importance of one's study and, on the other
hand, sharpens the focus of one's study as a whole. Three strategies simultaneously contribute to implementing this move.
Strategy (3A) comments on the knowledge claims made so far or states and/or comments on one or more so as to
strengthen the focus/significance of one's study. It may raise an issue with the help of one or more citations (e.g. (48) & (49))
or without using any reference (e.g. (50)). It may indicate a gap (e.g. (51) & (52)). Strategy (3A) may highlight a related topic
and its significance or relevance (e.g. (53) & (54)).
(48) This leads to an important question also raised by Haugh (2013, p. 53): if variability is inherent in evaluation of offense,
then what are the bases for evaluation of an act as offensive? (JP3)
(49) As pointed out by Lawson (2009, p. 11), “there appears to be an absence of studies which examine the common, yet
highly complex speech act of offering an opinion in everyday conversation with a dialogue partner of relatively equal
status or power.” Disagreement is also tackled from the position of computer-mediated communication. Previous
studies (Langlotz & Locher, 2012) have dealt with online disagreement but in a conflictive context rather than a
cooperative one. (IP1)
(50) If elasticity exists, then how is it manifested in ITH use? (IP2)
(51) People have general expectations about how they should be treated in a particular situation and they also form hy-
potheses about what the (im)politeness norms are in their nation (Mills, 2003). Yet the nature of these expectations,
especially when one deals with the issue of ‘taking offense’, has not been adequately addressed, particularly in Persian.
(JP3)
(52) So far, little attention has been paid to the influence of literacy histories on an understanding and implementation of
academic writing conventions in the context of a master's thesis. Equally, there has been little research on the influence
of European master's students' literacy histories in their negotiation of conventions when studying at a British uni-
versity. (JEAP3)
(53) While announcements may occur casually in an interaction, stories generally do not, and in fact they are usually
triggered by something which has been previously said in interaction (Sacks, 1992). When a telling is completed, a
response is relevant. In other words, on completion of a telling, a teller expects his or her recipient to respond to it. This
response is particularly important because it shows the recipient's understanding of the telling. (JP2)
(54) This study, the inquiry project we co-designed, and the course we co-taught were guided by Freeman and Johnson
(1998) call for reconceptualization of L2 teacher knowledge base, that is not static but enacted and re-created by
teachers on a daily basis as they serve language learners in diverse teaching contexts. (S1)
Viewed on their own, (51)e(52) could have been interpreted as critically commenting on some work under survey (cf.
strategy (1D)), and (53) as explaining an adopted notion (i.e. tellings) (cf. strategy (2C)). However, their appearance at a
position after a theoretical exegesis is presented and towards the end of the TF section makes it necessary to reconsider such
interpretations. Although (48)e(54) might appear to be somewhat different in purpose, they all contribute to sharpening the
significance of one's study. The meaning of strategy (3A) is clearer when it is considered in relation to strategy (3B) e
justifying one's own study/topic/research design. For example, (55)e(57), which appear right after (48)e(50) respectively,
relate the raised issues (i.e., taking offense, disagreement in a cooperative context, and elastic expression) to their own
proposed topics (i.e., expectations, disagreement expressed by using English as a lingua franca, and use of I think in real-life
institutional discourse). Strategy (3B) justifies the author's study. In a similar vein, interpreting (53) and (54) as drawing up
strategy (3A) is more convincing when they are read in relation to the paragraphs following them respectively (see (58) &
(59)), both of which exemplify strategy (3B). Strategies (3A) and (3B) together create a space to relate one's own research to
the raised issue, thus sharpening the focus and significance of one's study.
(55) The first step towards studying the grounds on which evaluation of offense is situated is therefore the investigation of
expectations. (JP3)
(56) Finally, a further contrast with previous studies is that all the participants are non-native speakers and use English as a
lingua franca rather than being L2 learners proper. (IP1)
(57) To answer this question, this study uses real-life data of institutional discourse. The spoken data is often tension-prone,
providing a rare and rich insight into strategic and often confronting negotiations. (IP2)
(58) Therefore, responses to tellings are particularly important to the aim of this paper. (JP2)
(59) As we designed the course, we built upon fundamental pillars of their framework: teachers as learners, involving
teachers in the examination of schools and social contexts, and placing the activity of teacher-learning at the center of
inquiry. (S1)
Strategy (3B) can also be implemented by citation use that supports one's own study. Example (60), which appears right
after (51), is a case in point. The repeated use of the two strategies in the same article (e.g. (48) and (53); (51) and (60))
indicates extended justification of one's study.
(60) As Haugh, Davies, and Merrison (2011, p. 10) note, the “expectations constitute a rich vein for politeness researchers to
examine, since they arguably embody ‘norm’ distributed across broader social networks.” (JP3)
Strategy (3C) confirms and further explains some key aspects of one's own study, e.g., purpose, nature, approach, research
question(s), findings, argument, and/or subsequent organization. Strategy (3C) shifts focus from theoretical considerations to
one's own research as a whole against a backdrop of a theory-rich TF section. The presence of strategy (3C) is usually indicated
by a self-mention marker (e.g. I examine, I analyze) (see (61)) or one's own study (e.g. this paper, the current study) (see (62))
and by the relatively-towards-the-end position in the TF.
(61) Expanding on notions of dialogics and crossings, I examine the digitally enabled text making of the youth and the
dialogic features of their language crossings. I use the term migrating literacies to explain their social shaping of
technology as part of their literacy practices and participation in hip-hop culture … (TT2)
(62) This article aims to illuminate the construction of identities across boundaries as well as the field conditions which
enable or constrain the agentive use of language. We explore, in particular, the identities generated by particular
discursive moves, the temporary orders of interaction (Goffman, 1983) they shape, and the more enduring social and
cultural processes they index. (AL3)
In the 20 collected TFs, only one did not have Move 3. This suggests that although not essential to the TF, this move is
common. Strategy (3C) constituted almost half of the Move 3 utterances (see Fig. 7) and therefore is the most frequently used
one in Move 3. Although as a whole (3A) used more words than (3B), they are close in frequency count (Fig. 8), and this
explains the tendency of their co-occurrence and reinforces their mutual reliance (cf. Fig. 9).
Fig. 9 demonstrates the strategy patterns of Move 3 (cf. Appendix C). The most frequently used among the 19 articles that
used Move 3 was the general pattern (3A)-(3B)-(3C), including its variants e with an additional (C) or (B) placed before (3A)
(e.g. article no. 7, 8, 12, 13), with a repetition of (3A)-(3B) (e.g. 8, 11), and/or with (3A) or (3B) dropped (e.g. 20, 15, 19). Four of
the articles used only (3C) in their Move 3 environment. Altogether the general pattern and the pattern containing only (3C)
illustrated the Move 3 structures in most of the articles. These patterns suggest that while confirming the key aspects of one's
study is essential in Move 3, efforts are also made to strengthen its focus/significance and/or justify it.
4.4. An overview of the distribution of the three moves
In the dataset, the overall distribution of the three moves in terms of word count matches that in frequency as Figs. 10 and
11 illustrate, revealing that Moves 1 and 2 together constitute a substantial proportion of TFs. This reinforces the CATF model,
which places theory, not niche, at the center. Although the extent to which theoretical background is elaborated varies from
case to case, providing a theoretical background and establishing a theoretical framework constitute the main body in the
dataset of TFs.

5. Conclusion and pedagogical implications
Some generalizations can be made here regarding the CATF model. Firstly, the largest proportion of the TFs concerns the
explanation and elaboration of the adopted concept or theory. As such, taking a perspective other than creating a niche is
justified. Secondly, the proposed model is not intended to replace or challenge CARS but to offer an alternative perspective
from which to examine the section called Theoretical Framework, placed between Introduction and Methods. A niche
perspective and a theory-centered one are not necessarily in conflict. While the former provides an insight into an ever-
present influence or evocation of niches, the latter elaborates on the research territory and space from a theory-sensitive
viewpoint.
Thirdly, the proposed three moves together connect the TF section with Introduction because the research space created in
introduction becomes more concrete and developed with theoretical details and further justifications of the study. To some
extent, the three moves in the CATF scheme develop from and elaborate on the three moves in CARS. The move of providing a
theoretical background enriches our theoretical understanding of the established territory in the Introduction. The process of
establishing a theoretical framework shows us how the established niche in the Introduction is to be addressed in theoretical
terms. The move of sharpening the significance and focus of one's study reconfirms and further justifies the occupying of the
niche and provides key details not necessarily mentioned in the Introduction (e.g., research questions, subsequent
organization).
This study also has some practical pedagogical implications for the teaching of the TF section. Firstly, the coding scheme of
CATF may serve as a guideline for the teaching of writing a TF section (see Table 2). Although relying on reviewing previous
studies, the TF section has its own move structure more complicated than the wording “reviewing previous studies” can
explain. The proposed CATF scheme helps students raise awareness of the ways they present their adopted theory or concept,
i.e., from an account of theoretical background, through a theory- or concept-rich elucidation, to a clear focus of one's study.
Secondly, in Table 2, the ways a particular strategy is implemented are also suggested. However, they should be under-
stood in relation to the move they enact. When using the scheme, the instructor is advised to draw the student's attention to
the move environment in which a strategy is adopted. For example, raising an issue (e.g. challenging the assumption of a
theory) does not function identically in different contexts (i.e., different move environments). In Move 1 (e.g. (23)), it paves
the way for the writer to adopt and illustrate a theory other than the one being criticized (e.g. (33)). In Move 2, it reap-
prorpiates the used theory to one's study, thus making the theory somehow close to one's data or topic (e.g. (42) & (43)). In
Move 3, it further strengthens the focus/significance of one's study (e.g. (48) and (49)). The complexity is inevitable because,
as Bazerman (2012, p. 235) notes, “The signs we study are only residue of complex psychosocial-cultural processes, in which
they served as mediators of meaning”. Thirdly, the common strategy patterns in the moves may serve as a basis for teaching
this subgenre, e.g. (1A)-(1B) and (1A)-(1B)-(1C) in Move 1; (2A)–(2C) plus omnipresent (2D) in Move 2; (3A)-(3B)-(3C) and
(3C) in Move 3.
Fourthly, to help students become aware of the subtle working of promotional and persuasive nature of academic
discourse in the TF section, we may draw their attention to the relatively frequent patterns that reoccurred adjacently in each
of the three moves. Cited in Fig. 12 are five patterns that were found in at least two articles and were used at least four times in
the dataset (see Appendix C). The total count of such patterns is 36. In Move 1, the repeated patterns (1B)-(1D) and (1C)-(1D)
center around accounts of theoretical backgrounds and comments on them, thus paving the way for and justifying a sub-
sequent adoption of a theory. In the Move 2 environment, common repetitions include strategy patterns such as (2C)-(2D)
and (2D)-(2C). Surrounding the building of a theoretical framework in relation to one's data/topic, these two patterns indicate
a sophistication of establishing a theoretical framework. The repeated addition of strategy (2D) to (2C) suggests that a
framework is built in the context of one's own study. Such repetitions also strengthen the connections between Move 2 and
Move 3 because strategy (2D) itself links theory with one's study. The repeated (3A)-(3B) in the same paragraph or two
adjacent ones contributes to making a gradual, smooth transition from a theory-rich account to a topic-focused study of one's
own. At least one of the five adjacently repeated strategy patterns was used in 12 out of the 20 articles (cf. Appendix C). The
repetition of a strategy pattern in its move environment is not a random phenomenon but motivated to strengthen the
Article No. Strategy Pattern

1 (AL1) …..-3C
2 (AL2) …..-3C
3 (AL3) …..-3C
4 (JEAP1) (no Move 3)
5 (JEAP2) …..-3C
6 (JEAP3) …..-3A-3B-3C
7 (IP1) …..-3C-3A-3B-3C
8 (IP2) …..-3C-3A-3B-3A-3B-3C
9 (JP1) …..-3B-3A
10 (JP2) …..-3A-3B-3C
11 (JP3) …..-3A-3B-3A-3B-3C
12 (LE1) …..-3C-3A-3B-3C
13 (LE2) …..-3B-3A-3B-3C
14 (LE3) …..-3B-3A-3C
15 (LS1) …..-3A-3C
16 (LS2) …..-3A-3B-3C-…..-3C-…..-3C
17(MLJ) …..- 3C-3A
18 (S1) …..-3A-3B-3C
19 (TT1) …..- 3A-3C
20 (TT2) .….- 3B-3C
Fig. 9. Move 3 strategy patterns in the collected articles.
Fig. 10. An overview of the distribution of the three moves.
functions of the respective strategies. All the repetitions of these strategy patterns suggest the non-linear nature of academic
writing, which weaves layers of textual fabric in different move environments to strengthen its argumentative foundation.
Several issues arising from this study but not fully discussed await further research. Firstly, in the CATF model, a similar
strategy (e.g. indicating a gap) appears in Move 1 and Move 3, two moves named differently due to contextual considerations,
Fig. 11. An overview of the frequency counts.
Table 2
The move and strategy categories in the CATF model.
Category Gloss Example

MOVE 1 Providing a theoretical background
Strategy creating a point of entry into a research area where the created research space can be situated or evaluated (4)e(11)
1A ・ using a broad or general definition
・ characterizing a topic or a field
・ summarizing/introducing the topic(s) to be reviewed
・ indicating a phenomenon or topic reported in existing work
Strategy surveying a body of work representing or showcasing the pointed out area (12)
1B ・ stating its feature(s) e(16)
・ describing how the named concept/theory has been applied or extended
・ introducing one or more particular studies, including their findings
・ classifying a body of background work
Strategy positively evaluating the work under survey (17)
1C ・ stating the value and relevance of one or more studies e(20)
Strategy critically commenting on the work under survey (21)
1D ・ indicating a gap e(25)
・ pointing out its problematic assumption
・ calling for a new conception
・ suggesting the difficulty and challenge involved
MOVE 2 Establishing a theoretical framework (in response to the perspective reviewed or the issue raised in Move 1)
Strategy announcing the adoption of a theory/concept/perspective (26)
2A ・ naming the concept(s)/perspective/theory to be employed, combined or discussed e(27)
Strategy claiming the centrality of the theory/concept to be used (28)
2B ・ stating its significance e(29)
Strategy elucidating the used theory/concept/topic/model or a combination of concepts (30)
2C ・ giving an account of the seminal work that proposed the adopted theory/notion e(41)
・ describing a representative work in which the notion is treated
・ characterizing the framework
・ relating the adopted concept/theory to another concept or combining them
・ tracing the development and modification of the used theory
・ indicating the extended applications of the adopted theory
・ detailing the complexity involved
Strategy reappropriating the theory/field/concept to one's subject matter (42)
2D ・ relating it to one's study e(47)
・ justifying its use in one's study
・ raising an issue arising from a consideration of
one's language data against the theory
・ making a point that connects the used concept(s)
with the topic or the language data to be examined
・ describing the features and capacity of the theory to address the main issue
MOVE 3 Sharpening the significance and/or focus of one's study that uses the framework
Strategy commenting on the knowledge claims made so far or stating and/or commenting on one or more so as to strengthen the focus/ (48)
3A significance of one's study e(54)
・ raising an issue with or without the help of one or more citations
・ (re)indicating a gap
・ highlighting a related topic and its significance or relevance
Strategy justifying one's own study/research topic/research design (55)
3B ・ relating the raised issue to one's proposed topic e(60)
・ using a citation that supports one's own study.
Strategy further explaining/confirming the key aspects of one's (61)
3C own study e(62)
・ (re)stating its purpose, nature, approach, research question(s), findings, argument, and/or subsequent organization
Fig. 12. Common adjacently repeated strategy patterns and their numbers of uses.
but this might appear to be somewhat odd and requires further clarification. Secondly, the dataset of this study was selected
from 20 articles which have sections named “Theoretical Framework” or something similar, but a section which can serve the
same purpose may be named in a totally different way, e.g., by using a topic-specific heading. Thirdly, Move 3 in the CATF
model, to some extent, resembles the move of occupying the niche in the CARS model. The resemblance raises the question of
how the suggested label in the current model would distinguish itself from “occupying the niche”. Furthermore, also worth
exploring are whether literature reviews can be reanalyzed using the proposed CATF model and how the model can be further
elaborated by analyzing articles beyond applied and social aspects of linguistics.
Acknowledgements
This project was conducted under the auspices of Taiwan's Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST 106-2410-H-110-
036). I would like to extend my gratitude to it for its support. I am also grateful to my assistants for their help, especially Lotus
Shen, Mick Chen, Yana Kabalina, Sean Huang, Eugene Wang and Kevin Huang, and to Guangwei Hu and two anonymous
reviewers for their constructive feedback, which has helped me tremendously in the revision process.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.01.002.
References
Antaki, C., Ardevol, E., Nún

~ ez, F., & Vayreda, A. (2005). For she who knows who she is: Managing accountability in online forum messages. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(1), 114e132.
Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Bakhtin, 1986Bakhtin M., (1986), Speech genres and other late essays, In: (V.W. McGee , Trans.), Emerson, C., and Holquist, M. (Eds.), University of Texas
Press, Austin, Texas.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1995). The interaction of pedagogy and natural sequences in the acquisition of tense and aspect. In F. R. Eckman, D. Highland, P. W. Lee, J.
Mileham, & R. R. Weber (Eds.), Second language acquisition theory and pedagogy (pp. 151e168). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (2000). Literacy practices. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton, & R. Ivani c (Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context (pp.
7e15). London: Routledge.

Barton, D., Ivanic, R., Appleby, Y., Hodge, R., & Tusting, K. (2007). Literacies, lives and learning. London. Routledge.
Basturkmen, H. (2012). A genre-based investigation of discussion sections of research articles in Dentistry and disciplinary variation. Journal of English for
Academic Purposes, 11(2), 134e144.
Bazerman, C. (2012). Genre as social action. In J. P. Gee, & M. Handford (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 226e238). London:
Routledge.
Bednarek, M. (2007). Polyphony in appraisal: Typological and topological perspectives. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 3(2), 107e136.
Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/culture/power. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Biber, D., Connor, U., & Upton, T. A. (2007). Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). The economics of linguistic exchanges. Social Science Information, 16(6), 645e668.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241e258). Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture (R. Nice, Trans.) (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Brett, P. (1994). A genre analysis of the result sections of sociology articles. English for Specific Purposes, 13(1), 47e56.
Bruce, I. (2009). Results sections in sociology and organic chemistry articles: A genre analysis. English for Specific Purposes, 28, 105e124.
Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4e5), 585e614.
Bunton, D. (2002). Generic moves in Ph.D. thesis introductions. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse. London: Pearson Education.
Butler, J. (1999). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York, NY: Routledge.
Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cheng, A. (2008). Individualized engagement with genre in academic literacy tasks. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 387e411.
Cheng, A. (2011). Language features as the pathways to genre: Students' attention to non-prototypical features and its implications. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 20, 69e82.
Cotos, E., Huffman, S., & Link, S. (2017). A move/step model for methods sections: Demonstrating rigour and credibility. English for Specific Purposes, 46,
90e106.
Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Culpeper, J. (2015). Epilogue, the ‘‘how’’ and ‘‘what’’ of (im)politeness. In M. Terkourafi (Ed.), Interdisciplinary perspectives on im/politeness (pp. 257e267).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
De Fina, A. (2007). Code-switching and the construction of ethnic identity in a community of practice. Language in Society, 36(3), 371e392.
Díaz Pe rez, F. J. (2003). La cortesía verbal en ingl tica intercultural. Jaen: Universidad de Jaen.
~ ol: Actos de habla y pragma
es y en espan
Ellis, R. (2010). Second language acquisition, teacher education, and language pedagogy. Language Teaching, 43(2), 182e201.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in second language acquisition research. The Modern
Language Journal, 81(3), 285e300.
Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. E. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher education. Tesol Quarterly, 32(3), 397e417.
Garcia, C. A., & Jacobs, B. J. (1998). The interactional organization of computer mediated communication in the college classroom. Qualitative Sociology, 21(3),
299e317.
Garcia, C. A., & Jacobs, B. J. (1999). The eyes of the beholder: Understanding the turn-taking system in quasi-synchronous computer-mediated commu-
nication. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33(4), 337e367.
Goffman, E. (1983). The interaction order. American Sociological Review, 48(1), 1e17.
Golder, S., Wilkinson, D., & Huberman, B. (2007). Rhythms of social interaction: Messaging within a massive online Network. In Proceedings of Third in-
ternational conference on communities and technologies (pp. 41e66). London: Springer.
Hao, J., & Humphrey, S. (2012). The role of ‘coupling’ in biological experimental reports. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 5(2), 169e194.
Haugh, M. (2013). Im/politeness, social practice and the participation order. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 52e72.
Haugh, M., Davies, B., & Merrison, A. (2011). Situating politeness. In B. Davies, M. Haugh, & A. J. Merrison (Eds.), Situated politeness (pp. 1e23). London:
Continuum.
Hayashi, T. (1996). Politeness in conflict management: A conversation analysis of dispreferred message from a cognitive perspective. Journal of Pragmatics,
25(2), 227e255.
Hirano, E. (2009). Research article introductions in English for specific purposes: A comparison between brazilian Portuguese and English. English for
Specific Purposes, 28, 240e250.
Holmes, R. (1997). Genre analysis and the social sciences: An investigation of the structure of RAs' discussion sections in three disciplines. English for Specific
Purposes, 16(4), 321e337.
Hull, G., Zacher, J., & Hibbert, L. (2009). Youth, risk, and equity in a global world. Review of Research in Education, 33(1), 117e159.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
Johnson, K. E. (2006). The socio-cultural tum and its challenges for L2 teacher education. Tesol Quarterly, 40(1), 235e257.
Kakava, C. (1993). Negotiation of disagreement by Greeks in conversations and classroom discourse. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Washington, D.C: Geor-
getown University.
Kakava, C. (2002). Opposition in modern Greek discourse: Cultural and contextual constraints. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1537e1568.
Ka€rkka€inen, E. (2010). Position and scope of epistemic phrases in planned and unplanned American English. In G. Kaltenbo € ck, W. Mihatsch, & S. Schneider
(Eds.), New approaches to hedging (pp. 203e236). Bingley: Emerald.
Kecskes, I. (2008). Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(3), 385e406.
Kintsch, W. (2005). An overview of top-down and bottom-up effects in comprehension: The CI perspective. Discourse Processes, 39(2e3), 125e128.
Kwan, B. S. C. (2006). The schematic structure of literature reviews in doctoral theses of applied linguistics. English for Specific Purposes, 25(1), 30e55.
Kwan, B. S. C., Chan, H., & Lam, C. (2012). Evaluating prior scholarship in literature reviews of research articles: A comparative study of practices in two
research paradigms'. English for Specific Purposes, 31(3), 188e201.
Langlotz, A., & Locher, M. A. (2012). Ways of communicating emotional stance in online disagreements. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(12), 1591e1606.
Lave, J. (1996). Teaching, as learning, in practice. Mind, Culture and Activity, 3/3, 149e164.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lawson, A. J. (2009). From the classroom to the bar-room: Expressions of disagreement by Japanese speakers of English. Unpublished Master Dissertation.
University of Birmingham.
Lee, S. H. (2007). An application of multiple coding for the analysis of attitude in an academic argument. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 3(2), 165e190.
Lim, J. M. H. (2006). Method sections of management research articles: A pedagogically motivated qualitative study. English for Specific Purposes, 25(3),
282e309.
Lim, J. M. H. (2010). Commenting on research results in applied linguistics and education: A comparative genre-based investigation. Journal of English for
Academic Purposes, 9(4), 280e294.
Lim, J. M. H. (2012). How do writers establish research niches? A genre-based investigation into management researchers' rhetorical steps and linguistic
mechanisms. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(3), 229e245.
Lim, J. M. H. (2017). Writing descriptions of experimental procedures in language education: Implications for the teaching of English for academic purposes.
English for Specific Purposes, 47, 61e80.
Loi, K. C., & Evans, M. S. (2010). Cultural differences in the organization of research article introductions from the field of educational psychology: English
and Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(10), 2814e2825.
Lomicka, L., & Lord, G. (2012). A tale of tweets: Analysing microblogging among language learners. System, 40(1), 48e63.
Madianou, M., & Miller, D. (2012). Migration and new media. transnational families and polymedia. Abingdon & New York: Routledge.
Martin, J. R. (2003). Introduction. Text, 2(2), 171e181.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London: Continuum.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox.
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation. London: Palgrave.
Miller, E. R. (2012). Performativity theory and language learning: Sedimenting, appropriating, and constituting language and subjectivity. Linguistics and
Education, 23(1), 88e99.
Miller, E. R. (2014). The language of adult immigrants: Agency in the making. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Mills, S. (2003). Gender and politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In P. H. Winston (Ed.), The psychology of computer vision (pp. 211e277). New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Morgan, B. (2004). Teacher identity as pedagogy: Towards a field-internal conceptualization in bilingual and second language education. Bilingual Education
and Bilingualism, 7(2/3), 172e188.
Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Opp, K.-D. (1982). The evolutionary emergence of norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 21(2), 139e149.
Pavlenko, A. (2001). How am I to become a woman in an American vein?: Transformations of gender performance in second language learning. In A.
Pavlenko, A. Blackledge, I. Piller, & M. Teutsch-Dwyer (Eds.), Multilingualism, second language learning, and gender (pp. 133e174). Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Peacock, M. (2002). Communicative moves in the discussion section of research articles. System, 30(4), 479e497.
Pennycook, A. D. (2007). Global Englishes and transcultural flows. London: Routledge.
Pho, P. Z. (2008). Research article abstracts in applied linguistics and educational technology: A study of linguistic realizations of rhetorical structure and
authorial stance. Discourse Studies, 10(2), 231e250.
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson, & J. Heritage (Eds.
), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation analysis (pp. 57e103). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (Vol. II). Cambridge: Blackwell.
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1975). Scripts, plans, and knowledge. In Proceedings of the fourth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp.
151e157). Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufman.
Schiffrin, D. (1984). Jewish argument as sociability. Language in Society, 13, 311e335.
€nfeldt, J., & Golato, A. (2003). Repair in chats: A conversation analytic approach. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36(3), 241e284.
Scho
Searle, J. (1980). The background of meaning. In J. Searle, F. Kiefer, & M. Bierwisch (Eds.), Speech act theory and pragmatics (pp. 221e232). Dordrecht: Reidel.
Sharkey, J. (2009). Can we praxize second language teacher education? an invitation to join a collective, collaborative challenge. Ikala, Revista de Lenguaje y
Cultura, 14, 125e150.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. (2004). Research genres: Exploration and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tannen, D. (2002). Agonism in academic discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1651e1669.
Tannen, D., & Kakava, C. (1992). Power and solidarity in Modern Greek conversation: Disagreeing to agree. Journal of Modern Greek Studies, 10(1), 11e34.
Tardy, C. M. (2006). Researching first and second language genre learning: A comparative review and a look ahead. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16,
79e101.
Thompson, D. (1993). Arguing for experimental facts in science. Written Communication, 10(1), 106e128.
Upton, T. A., & Cohen, M. A. (2009). An approach to corpus-based discourse analysis: The move analysis as example. Discourse Studies, 11(5), 585e605.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1987). Communicating racism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Wang, W., & Yang, C. (2015). Claiming centrality as promotion in applied linguistics research article introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,
20, 162e175.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wooten, J. (2012). Confessions of a cultural drag queen, or reflections on acting like the native speaker in foreign language education. In P. C. Miller, J. L.
Watzke, & M. Mantero (Eds.), Readings in language studies: Language and identity (3) (pp. 349e363). Grandville, MI: International Society for Language
Studies.
Zhang, G. (2011). Elasticity of vague language. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8, 571e599.
Ming-Yu Tseng's research interests include discourse analysis and pragmatics. His publications have appeared in Intercultural Pragmatics, Metaphor & Symbol,
Journal of Pragmatics and Text & Talk. Among his most recent publications are ‘Toward a pragmatic analysis of product discourse: creative force and met-
apragmatic performance’, Pragmatics & Society (2016); and ‘Describing creative products in an intercultural context’, Journal of Pragmatics (2015). He is
Professor in the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature, National Sun Yat-sen University, Taiwan. Email: mytseng@mail.nsysu.edu.tw or mytseng_
2000@yahoo.com.tw.

Marco Teorico

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Marco Teorico

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Journal of English for Academic Purposes 33 (2018) 82e99

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of English for Academic Purposes

Creating a theoretical framework: On the move structure of

E-mail addresses: mytseng_2000@yahoo.com.tw, mytseng@mail.nsysu.edu.tw.

2. Theoretical framework: toward a contextualist view of rhetorical moves

3.1. Data collection and size

This study set up four criteria for data selection:

3.2. Coding procedures

3.3. Move coding

Section Headings Numbers of Use

4. Results: move analysis

4.1. Move 1: providing a theoretical background

Fig. 1. The word counts and percentages of Move 1 strategies.

4.2. Move 2: establishing a theoretical framework

Fig. 2. The frequency counts of Move 1 strategies.

Fig. 3. Frequently used strategy patterns in Move 1.

Fig. 4. The word counts and percentages of Move 2 strategies.

Fig. 5. The frequency counts of Move 2 strategies.

Article No. Strategy Pattern

Fig. 6. Move 2 strategy patterns in the collected articles.

4.4. An overview of the distribution of the three moves

Fig. 7. The word counts and percentages of Move 3 strategies.

Fig. 8. The frequency counts of Move 3 strategies.

5. Conclusion and pedagogical implications

Article No. Strategy Pattern

Fig. 9. Move 3 strategy patterns in the collected articles.

Fig. 10. An overview of the distribution of the three moves.

Fig. 11. An overview of the frequency counts.

Category Gloss Example

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data related to this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.01.002.

Antaki, C., Ardevol, E., Nún

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen