1 Rhetorical Moves

Prévia do material em texto

ACADEMIC WRITING
Ao escrever um abstract, é mais comum usar verbos no presente. O passado é mais usado para falar dos resultados encontrados. 
Não falar na primeira pessoa, apenas usar o metadiscurso, ou seja, referências ao próprio texto como em “esse artigo...”. Se identifica o que está sendo feito, e não quem faz. Quando se usa “os autores...” não se tem mediscurso, mas uma referência indireta aos autores, mais próxima da frase em primeira pessoa.
Rhetorical moves (movimentos retóricos)
They are the parts of which an article is usually made of, and they usually answer implied questions about the text:
Move 1
It brings the background (contexto) on the subject, gives an introduction about the topic or illustrates the situation in which the study was conducted. Apresenta o ponto de partida do estudo. 
It says what is already known about the topic, why it is important and why one is writing about it.
Move 2
It presents the research and its purposes. It says what the study is about.
Move 3
It presents the methods, materials, subjects (the people) and procedures used to conduct the study, its participants, the location and length, as well as the collected data. It says how it was done.
É importante lembrar que "metodologia" é diferente de “método”. Este último é a perspectiva teórica, como um autor de referência no qual o estudo é baseado. Por exemplo, a etnografia é um método de análise linguística.
Move 4
It presents the results and findings acquired by the study. It says what was discovered.
Move 5
It presents the discussion, conclusion, implication or recommendations the authors could achieve by reflecting on the findings, which can be important for future studies. It says what the findings mean.
In summary:
	
	TYPICAL LABELS
	IMPLIED QUESTIONS
	Move 1
	Background, introduction, situation
	What do we know about the topic? Why is the topic important?
	Move 2
	Present research, purpose
	What is this study about?
	Move 3
	Methods, materials, subjects, procedures
	How was it done?
	Move 4
	Results, findings
	What was discovered?
	Move 5
	Discussion, conclusion, implications, recommendations
	What do the findings mean?
For example:
“Many scholars claim that democracy improves the welfare of the poor. This article uses data on infant and child mortality to challenge this claim. Cross-national studies tend to exclude from their samples non-democratic states that have performed well; this leads to the mistaken inference that non-democracies have worse records than democracies. Once these and other flaws are corrected, democracy has little or no effect on infant and child mortality rates. Democracies spend more money on education and health than non-democracies, but these benefits seem to accrue to middle- and upper-income groups.”
· Move 1: Sentences 1 and 3
· Move 2: Sentence 2
· Move 3: Sentence 2 (first part)
· Move 4: Sentence 4
· Move 4: Sentence 5
There is no obvious Move 5, such as, “This study shows that there is a liberal bias in many political science studies”.
As we can see, this structure is just a possibility, not every abstract needs to contain all of the moves. Also, the order of the moves is flexible.
Opening sentences (Move 1 and 2)
Usually, abstracts start with moves 1 and 2. There are four types of opening sentences:
Type A
Starting with a real-world phenomenon or with standard practice. For example:
“Corporate taxation rates vary around the world. Economists have long been interested in the relationship between corporate taxation and corporate strategy.”
Type B
Starting with purpose or objective. For example:
“The aim of this study is to examine the effects of the recent change in corporate taxation.”
Type C
Starting with present researcher action, uma ação do pesquisador. For example:
“We analyze corporate taxation returns before and after the introduction of the new tax rules.”
It is also the case of when the metadiscourse is used by saying “this article…”, for example.
Type D
Starting with a problem or an uncertainty, alguma lacuna. For example:
“The relationship between corporate taxation and corporate strategy remains unclear.”
Findings (Move 4)
To talk about the findings, sentences that have the following structure are usually used:
Inanimate subject + reporting verb + that + complement
For example:
This research shows that junior scholar often need help with their abstracts
Let’s talk about each part of it:
Inanimate subjects
It is common to use inanimate subjects - even though they don’t really do the action - instead of a human subject. So, it is more common to say “the results, the findings”, to introduce the topic by saying, for example, “the results show...” instead of “we show...”. That’s a way from, once again, to focus on the subject instead of the agent, just as in Portuguese expressions as “evidenciou-se, percebeu-se”.
Reporting verb
The results and what can be done with that information, can be reported in a stronger or weaker way, according to the reporting verb that is used. 
The author can make a strong claim by using:
· Prove;
· Reveal;
· Demonstrate;
· Point out;
· Confirm;
· Show.
The author can make a weak claim by using:
· Suggest;
· Support.
That clauses
They are used to give greater emphasis to the findings, instead to other information on the sentence. For example:
Noun-phrase: “Results confirm the influence of year of study and academic discipline on student information choices.”
“That” clauses: “Results confirm that year of study and academic discipline influence student information choices” or “results confirm that students are influenced by year of study and academic discipline”.
In the second case, the emphasis on who is being influenced - students. In the last case, the emphasis is on what influences - year of study and academic discipline. What comes first is more important. The choice between each of them may vary according to the message the author wants to give.
Signposting
It’s also important to notice that, usually, when presenting the findings, general result are shown first and then followed by more specific results. For example:
“Firstly, the EPI of Korea is more affected by other countries than those of the USA and Japan. Specifically, Korean economic growth and the balance of payment are largely affected by Japan.”
“The data confirmed the results of sensory evaluations and showed the ability of wild lactobacilli to generate key volatile compounds. Particularly, three wild lactobacilli strains…”
As we can see, there are words that can be used to make this connection, such as “specifically” and “particularly” used in the examples. Those are signposts. They are used to connect different parts of the text in different ways, having multiple functions:
Introduce something new
· “One aspect which illustrates […] can be identified as […]”
· “The current debate about […] illustrates/identifies/highlights […]”
· “With regard to […]/with respect to […]”
· “Initially/secondly/finally, […]”
Continuing an argument with a related point
· “Furthermore […]”
· “To further understand the role of […]”
· “In addition […]”
· “Similarly […]”
· “Likewise […]”
· “What is more […]”
· “Moreover […]”
· “Another issue regarding […] is […]”
· “Another line of thought on […] is […]”
Going into more detail on a point/rephrasing
· “In particular […]”
· “Specifically […]”
· “Concentrating on […]”
· “By focusing on […] in more detail, it is possible to […]”
· “To be more precise […]”
· “In other words […]”
· “To put simply […]”
Linking to a different point
· “Having established […], it is possible to consider […]”
· “[…] is one key issue; another of equal importance”
· “similar importance/significance is […]”
· “Also of importance is the issue of […]”
Reintroducing a topic
· “As discussed/explained earlier, […]”
· “The earlier discussion on […] can be developed further here, […]”
· “As stated previously, […]”
· “As noted above, […]”
Introducing an opposing/alternative view
· “However, […]”
· “Conversely, […]”
· “In contrast, […]”
· “Alternatively, […]”
· “Nevertheless/Nonetheless,[…]”
· “An alternative perspective is given by […] who suggests/argues that […]”
· “Despite this, […]”
· “This conflicts with the view held by […]”
Summarising/Reasoning [explicando] the point
· “Consequently/As a consequence, […]”
· “Accordingly, […]”
· “Therefore, […]”
· “It could be concluded that […]”
· “The strength of such an approach is that […]”
· “For this reason […]”
· “Evidently, […]”
· “Clearly/It is clear that, […]”
· “Naturally, […]”
· “It is clear that […]”
· “In short […]”
· “From this, it can be concluded/inferred/suggested that […]”
· “The evidence highlights that […]”
Hedging
The goal of academic writing is not to give the final solution to a problem, but to make a contribution to that solution, since scientific development is a team work. Also, the continous scientific development of a society requires texts to be able to be questioned and even proven wrong. Therefore, room for debate is necessary when it comes to academic writing, in order to allow further development to happen in a field of knowledge - when an author corrects, refines or gives another interpretation to a previous work. 
Because of this, it is common for researchers to present their results with uncertainty, making a more cautious claim, a hedged claim, in order to leave space for further debate. It is useful to indirectly make a claim, so it is not seen as a strong, certain, statement. 
Hedging allows writers to do so, to give their contribution to a situation, without making an absolute or categorical claim. It contributes to maintaining the balance and flexibility that is necessary in the scientific context. It is a writing technique that allows the writer to distance himself/herself from the absoluteness of his/her claim. Gives him/her flexibility to make a claim without it being absolute or categorical.
According to Hyland (1995), “hedging is the expression of tentativeness and possibility in language use”. It “represents an absence of certainty and is used to describe any linguistic item or strategy employed to indicate either lack of commitment to the truth of an accompanying proposition or a desire not to express that commitment categorically”.
The strength of a claim may vary according the adverbial construction that is used:
	Strength of the claim
	Modal verbs
	Stronger
Weaker
	Must
Will/would
Should
May
Can/Could
Might
There are other examples of words that can be used to make a caution claim:
· Modal verbs: could, might, may, can and should (as a synonym of “very likely”, expressing a strong probability of something happening);
· Lexical verbs: indicate, propose, assume, estimate, suggest, appear, tend to and argue;
· Adverbs: often, almost, occasionally, sometimes, quite, usually, probably and certainly.
For example:
Certain: “According to the results, X influences/will influence/must influence Y”.
Uncertain: “According to the results, X could/can/might/may influence Y”.
As we can see, “influence” when used as the main verb, presents a certainty. But when used with other verbs, leaves room for debate.