FARS (Framework for the relational analysis of texts)

Brief Description

The first part of the workshop will introduce the theory and premises of the framework for the rhetorical analysis of the structure of texts (FARS). FARS provides a functional account of the structure of text in terms of the strategies employed by writers to achieve their communicative purposes. Its coherence relations obtain from the level of text as a whole to the clausal level. The discourse parts at all levels except the bottom level constitute relational schemata. FARS relational taxonomy includes the following relational clusters: Elaboration, List, Causal, Adversative, Facilitation, Assessing and Digression. The second part of the workshop will provide opportunity to practice relational analyses of selected texts within this framework. Framework for the Relational Analysis of Texts (FARS) which accounts for the paratactic and hypotactic realization of coherence relations. Within this framework, the taxis of coherence relations is co-textually dictated. I consider the writer choices in the distribution of discoursal salience and the intertextual and intercultural variation of these choices. It is suggested that divergence between approaches that perceive text as exhibiting both hypotactic and paratactic organization and those that see nuclearity as a basic characteristic of text structure arises from differences in the linguistic corpora examined during the construction of respective theoretical frameworks.

Read More

Swales & the CARS Model

Swales examined the introductions to forty-eight articles in the natural and social sciences, and found that most of them contained a sequence of four rhetorical moves through which a scientist creates a research space for his work. Using these moves the writer: (1) establishes the field in which he or she is working, (2) summarizes related research in the area of concern, (3) creates a research space for the present study by indicating a gap in current knowledge or by raising questions and (4) introduces the study by indicating what the investigation being reported will accomplish for the field (“Structure of Introductions," 80-92; “Article Introductions,” 178-80). An article by Cynthia L. Selfe in Research in the Teaching of English includes an illustration of this four-move schema.

1. Establishing the Field:

The term "writing apprehension," originally coined in 1975 by Daly and Miller (1975b), refers to a generalized tendency to experience some form of anxiety when faced with the task of encoding messages."

2. Summarizing Previous Research: 

Much of the early research in writing apprehension was concerned with defining the theoretical construct of writing apprehension and establishing the validity of the Writing Apprehension Test (WAT). an instrument designed to measure that construct (Daly & Miller, 1975b, 1975c). Later research has explored the correlative and predictive functions of the WAT: Specific studies have connected Scores on WAT with choice of academic majors and careers (Daly & Shamo, 1976, 1978), Scores on self-concept and self-confidence measures (Daly, 1979), and performance on various assessments of writing skill and writing quality (Daly. 1378a, 1978b; Daly & Miller, 1975a, 1975d).

3. Creating a Research Space by Indicating a Gap: 

To date, however, no substantive research has been done to define the relationship between writing apprehension and the processes students employ as they compose. It is not even certain, for example, how or to what extent the theoretical construct of writing apprehension is evidenced during the act of composing. whether, in other words, there are definable differences between the composing process [sic] of high and low apprehensives.

4. Introducing Present Research:

The current study was designed to address this particular question. The research project reported in this paper had three main goals:

1. To record the predrafting processes of several high and several low writing apprehensives engaged in academic writing.

2. To analyze the predrafting processes of both groups.

3. To examine the results of this analysis for evidence of differences related to writing apprehension.

Swales’ Model of Rhetorical Moves in Research Articles (CARS)

The Create A Research Space (CARS) Model, by John Swales

Move 1 Establishing a territory

Step 1 Claiming centrality and/or

Step 2 Making topic generalization(s) and/or

Step 3 Reviewing items of previous research

Move 2 Establishing a niche

Step 1A Counter-claiming or

Step 1B Indicating a gap or

Step 1C Question-raising or

Step 1D Continuing a tradition

Move 3 Occupying the niche

Step 1A Outlining purposes or

Step 1B Announcing present research

Step 2 Announcing principal findings

Step 3 Indicating Research Article structure

Dudley-Evans Model of the Moves Identifiable in Master’s Theses[1]

Move 1:           Introducing the Field. 

Move 2:           Introducing the General Topic (within the Field)

Move 3:           Introducing the Particular Topic (within the General Topic)

Move 4:           Defining the Scope of the Particular Topic by:

(i) introducing research parameters

(ii) summarizing previous research

Move 5:           Preparing for Present Research by:

(i) indicating a gap in previous research.

(ii) indicating a possible extension of previous research 

Move 6:           Introducing Present Research by:

(i) stating the aim of the research or

(ii) describing briefly the work carried out (iii) justifying the research.

---

[1] A Six-move schema of rhetorical moves for master’s theses in scientific fields (Dudley-Evans, 1986)

Read More

Characteristics of FARS coherence relations

The FARS draws on earlier studies on discourse structure, textual coherence, and functions of textual relations. It has been influenced by a line of research into text coherence and discourse relations outlined in Part 1 of this topic.  The FARS model provides a functional account of the structure of text in terms of the writer’s communicative purposes. It displays a pattern of discourse relations utilised by the writer to achieve his/her communicative purposes.  Discourse relations have been referred to as ‘rhetorical predicates’, or ‘interclausal relations’ by Grimes (1975),  ‘conjunctive relations’ by Halliday and Hasan (1976), ‘deep structure relations’ by Longacre (1983), ‘logico-semantic’ relations by Martin (1992), ‘discourse relations’ by Hobbs (1985), ‘relational propositions’ by Mann et al. (1992), ‘rhetorical relations’ by Grosz and Sidner (1986) and ‘coherence relations’ by Sanders et al. (1992).  FARS identifies the following clusters of relations which exist between conceptual entities representing parts of text and which are involved in the production and reception of a coherent discourse. As seen in table 6.1, a substantial degree of delicacy is introduced within broad relational categories. 

FARS shows how all parts of a text work together, complementing each other in the production of the text’s global message. It describes the meaning of text based on the writer’s perceived general and specific textual goals. It bears similarities to the RST theory. However, while RST analysts investigated mainly persuasive and directive prose, such as advertisements, offers, administrative memos, instructions, personal letters, fundraising letters, when building their model, the construction of FARS has been mainly based on the analysis of research articles. The FARS framework is seen to be applicable for the relational analysis of other academic genres as well as other types of texts. It is also suggested that FARS can be adapted to the analysis of discourse written in languages other than English and produced in languacultures other than ‘Anglo’. 

The hierarchical structure 

It has been claimed that hierarchy is a general structure of all discourse types (Mann, Matthiessen & Thompson 1992; Polanyi 1988). The writer’s intentions, expressed through the organisation and staging of his/her discourse and assigning rhetorical functions to the text, play a significant role in the interpretation of the meaning of text. As the writer’s main goals translate into ways of detailed presentation, higher level discoursal phenomena control those at lower levels.  

The macropropositions at the global level of discourse are the most abstract and represent sets of propositions found at the meso-level, and macropropositions at the meso-level represent sets of propositions formulated on the basis of the meaning of units at micro-level.  You will find the illustration of a hierarchical structure of text in the sample FARS analysis of Text 6.9 in this topic. 

Macropropositions 

The top level of FARS analysis determines the macrostructure of text. Macrostructure is understood as a theoretical construct which constitutes a semantic representation of discourse, consisting of acropropositions representing the meaning of text at a global level. Following van Dijk (1981), it is suggested that propositions which build the macrostructure represent the most important, relevant and abstract information. They are textual topics defined in propositional terms. Macropropositions indicate the intended denotation of text – they specify what text as a whole is about, through organising, summarising and interpreting complex information to a manageable size.  The formulation of major macropropositions expressing the gist of respective text spans is essential in the identification of coherence relations between the denotata of textual segments. Consider text 6.8 (an earlier quotation from Grice): 

Read More

Paratactic and Hypotactic in FARS Model

This study investigates the rhetorical structure of abstracts of papers published in Applied Linguistics and Education. It examines how abstract authors in these two fields emphasise the significance of their research, and how they appeal to their prospective readership. Although abstracts in both disciplinary groups are found to display a coordinate textual development they exhibit a utilization of different relational schemata to indicate the functional prominence of textual propositions. In particular, different relational patterns are seen to be employed to fulfil the two primary objectives of an abstract: to provide a synopsis of the accompanying article, and to promote it to relevant research and professional communities. The way authors demonstrate the value of their research and their professional credibility appears to be conditioned by disciplinary writing conventions. It is proposed that relational choices, which result in differences in the accentuation of communicative messages in Applied Linguistics and Education abstracts, depend on the perceived relationship between the author and the discourse community in terms of expectations of prior knowledge.

1. Introduction

The role of the abstract in the contemporary exchange of scholarship continues to grow in importance. Abstracts are the first port of call in search for relevant literature and readers’ first encounter with a text, indicating whether the corresponding article merits further attention. The abstract has attained the status of an independent academic genre which is critical to knowledge making. Journals, edited volumes of papers, conferences, congresses and seminars require and publish abstracts and there are publications which consist entirely of abstracts.

Due to its pivotal role in exchange of scholarship in research communities, the genre of the abstract has attracted considerable attention from text analysts, and its rhetorical organisation has become the object of extensive research. Abstracts have been studied across disciplines (e.g., Anderson and Maclean, 1997; Hartley and Benjamin, 1998; Huckin, 2001; Hyland, 2000; Lore´s, 2004; Melander et al., 1997; Nwogu, 1990; Salager-Myer, 1992; Samray, 2002, 2005; Santos, 1996), and across cultures (e.g., Anderson and Maclean, 1997; Johns, 1992; Martı´n, 2003, 2002; Melander et al., 1997; Ventola, 1994a, 1994b). The abstract has been seen as a ‘‘concise summary’’ of the accompanying paper (Lore´s, 2004:281), and its main function as ‘‘informing about the exact content of the article’’ Martı´n, 2002:26). Previous research has suggested that the textual structure of an English abstract follows the generally accepted structural patterns of a research paper. The observed patterns of the latter have been described variously as: Introduction–Methods–Results–Discussion (IMRD) (Ventola, 1994a), Problem–Methods–Results–Conclusion (PMRC) (Graetz, 1985), Purpose–Methods–Results–Conclusion (PMRC) (McNab, 1990), Introduction– Methods–Results–Conclusion (IMRC) (Martin 2003), and Objective–Methods–Results–Conclusion (OMRC) (Melander et al., 1997).

Although a great deal of research has been carried out on the rhetorical structure of abstracts, the outcomes of these investigations have been rather inconclusive. The studies of macro patterns lead to examination of the rhetorical organisation of the abstract through the lens of the framework of rhetorical moves derived from

canonical moves present in a research article, such as the Swalesian conception of moves 1 (Swales, 1990).

However, while move analyses work well in longer texts that can be easily segmented into substantial chunks of discourse (cf., Anderson and Maclean, 1997), an abstract’s brevity imperative results in propositional density where textual chunks are congested and embedded in other textual chunks. Consequently, studies such as those of Lore´s (2004) or Martı´n (2003) that investigated abstracts in terms of Swales’ ‘‘Create a Research Space’’ (CARS) schema, were only partially successful in applying this model to their texts. Merely 30.5% of Lore´s’ abstracts featured CARS moves, and in Martı´n’s abstracts, Swales’ moves were confined to the first of the four structural units of IMRC. Among other attempts at move analysis, Santos (1996) reported that of his five move pattern, only ‘‘introducing research’’ and ‘‘describing methodology’’ moves were compulsory; and Nwogu (1990) found that of 11 moves identified in his research articles, just two, ‘‘indicating consistent observations’’ and ‘‘stating research conclusions’’, were commonly found in abstracts. A corollary of the considerable variability in the findings reported by different studies has been a lack of comparable data (cf., Melander et al., 1997). These difficulties can be attributed to the analytical methods employed as well as to interdisciplinary differences in abstract writing conventions.

This study investigates the relational structure of abstracts of papers published in Applied Linguistics and Education. The paper moves away from analysing specific rhetorical moves in the linguistically tight structure of an abstract, and instead explores the coherence relations employed in the communication of the abstract’s

propositional content. It examines how writers appeal to their readers through the choices of coherence relations and reveals how they emphasise the significance and value of their work by indicating the functional prominence of textual propositions. Such issues are directly related not only to the abstract’s role in presenting the synopsis of a paper, but also to its role in promoting the paper to future readership – an area which has so far received scant scholarly attention. This article aims to fill this gap by exploring how authors of abstracts select and highlight not only those aspects of their studies that are of primary importance, but also those deemed most appealing to prospective readership.

Read More