本研究旨在探究應用語言學學術論文中「討論」章節之寫作方法。數十年來發現不同的領域的學術論文會以不同的結構來寫作，因此許多研究致力於探討於不同領域中各章節的寫作方法。本研究選擇應用語言學中的「討論」章節做為研究主體，此章節的寫作結構相當複雜，因此值得更進一步的研究。除了結構分析之外，時態的使用以及提出論述的行為(claim-making behavior)也為本研究之重點。
本研究修改了Peacock (2002)用來分析「討論」章節寫作結構的架構，將其增修為九個言步(move)來分析二十篇選自六本知名國際應用語言學期刊的學術論文。在時態研究方面，時態在「討論」章節的大致使用狀況以及這九個言步的使用情形會做詳細的探討。至於研究提出論述行為(claim-making behavior)的方面，會歸納出最常用來提出論述的動詞(claim-making verbs)，而在提出論述時較常使用的規避策略(hedging strategies)也會用Swales & Feak (2004)觀察論述強度的架構來做分析。
研究結果顯示，就結構而言，言步二(研究結果)、言步四(文獻參照)以及言步六(論述)為「討論」篇章中必要的三個言步。如果將「討論」章節分為前言、主體、結論三個部分，由言步二搭配言步四(研究結果+文獻參照)、言步六搭配言步二(論述+研究結果)、言步一搭配言步二(背景資訊+研究結果)所組成的言步群組(move combination)為最常出現於前言開始的三個群組，主體的部分最常出現的是七個言步群組：言步四搭配言步六(文獻參照+論述)、言步二搭配言步六(研究結果+論述)、言步二搭配言步五(研究結果+解釋)、言步四搭配言步五(文獻參照+解釋)、言步二搭配言步四搭配言步六(研究結果+文獻參照+論述)、言步二搭配言步四搭配言步五(研究結果+文獻參照+解釋)、言步二搭配言步四搭配言步五搭配言步六(研究結果+文獻參照+解釋+論述)。至於在「討論」章節的結論部分，通常會出現的獨立言步有：言步七(研究限制)、言步八(研究建議)以及言步九(教學啟示)，還有二個常用的言步群組：言步七搭配言步八(研究限制+研究建議)以及言步九搭配言步四(教學啟示+文獻參照)。
研究時態的結果顯示，在「討論」章節中，現在式的使用的頻率比過去式來的高一些。而在九個言步當中，言步一(背景資訊)、言步二(研究結果)、言步三(預期中或預料外之研究結果)主要以過去式呈現，言步四(文獻參照)、言步六(論述)、言步八(研究建議)、言步九(教學建議)則是多以現在式呈現，而言步五(解釋)、言步七(研究限制)似乎在時態上沒有特別的偏好。在提出論述的行為中，最常使用來提出論點的動詞為suggest，而最常用來保護研究論點的規避策略則為「可能性策略」(strategy of probability)以及「語氣較薄弱之動詞策略」(strategies of weaker verbs)。
本研究結果能增進我們對於應用語言學學術文章中「討論」章節的結構與語言特質的瞭解。鑑於每年有越來越多的學生在撰寫語言教學方面的學術文章，本研究對於教授學術寫作的講師們有教學上獨特的重要性。最後也提出了教學上的啟示、研究限制以及為來研究方向的建議。

The present study aims to explore the discussion section of research articles in applied linguistics. The research of academic writing, over the past few decades, has investigated different sections in various disciplines. The current study focuses on the analysis of the discussion section, whose structural complexity often creates challenges for novice research writers. In addition to structures, the use of tense and the claim-making behavior were also analyzed.
Twenty research articles from six prestigious international journals of applied linguistics were selected for analysis. A revised scheme of nine moves, which is based on Peacock (2002), was adapted for the analysis of structure. The use of tense was analyzed for its general use and its realization in the nine moves in terms of the present tense and the past tense. As for the claim-making behavior, the verbs that were adopted to present claims were identified and, in addition, the hedging strategies were analyzed using Swales & Feak’s (2004) taxonomy of hedging devices.
The results showed that Move 2 Finding, Move 4 Reference to previous research and Move 6 Claim were three obligatory moves. With a discussion section divided into the opening part, the body part and the concluding part, the most frequently used move combinations in the opening part were “Move 2 + 4” (Finding + Reference to previous research), “Move 6 + 2” (Claim + Finding), and “Move 1 + 2initial” (Information + Finding). The body part comprised mainly of a number of move combinations: the combinations of “Move 4 + 6” (Reference to previous research + Claim), “Move 2 + 6” (Finding + Claim), “Move 2 + 5” (Finding + Explanation), “Move 4 + 5” (Reference to previous research + Explanation), “Move 2 + 4 + 6” (Finding + Reference to previous research + Claim) , “Move 2 + 4 + 5” (Finding + Reference to previous research + Explanation) and “Move 2 + 4 + 5 + 6” (Finding + Reference to previous research + Explanation + Claim). As for the concluding part, the most frequently appearing moves and move combinations were Move 7 Limitation, Move 8 Recommendation, Move 9 Pedagogical implication, “Move 7 + 8” (Limitation + Recommendation) and “Move 9 + 4 (Pedagogical implication + Reference to previous research).”
The results of tense analysis revealed that the use of the present tense was slightly higher than that of the past tense. In the nine-move scheme, Move 1 Information, Move 2 Finding and Move 3 Expected or unexpected outcome were predominantly realized in the past tense while Move 4 Reference to previous research, Move 6 Claim, Move 8 Recommendation and Move 9 Pedagogical implication were mainly in the present tense. Not a specific tense was found in Move 5 Explanation and Move 7 Limitation. In terms of claim-making behavior, it was discovered that “suggest” was the most frequently used claim-making verbs, and “strategy of probability” and “strategies of weaker verbs” were two more frequently used hedging strategies in the discussion section.
The findings of the present study contribute to our understanding of the structure and linguistic properties of the discussion section in applied linguistics. These findings are of great pedagogical significance to researchers and instructors in applied linguistics. Suggestions for future research, pedagogical implications and limitations are also provided.

Adams-Smith, D. E. (1984). Medical Discourse: aspects of author's comments. The ESP Journal, 3, 25-36
Ard, J. (1982). The semantics of tense and aspect in scientific discourse. Paper given at Ohio State University Conference on the Semantics of Tense and Aspect, May, 1982.
Beatty, C. J. & Chan M. J. (1984). Chinese scholars abroad: changes in perceived academic needs. The ESP Journal, 3, 53-59.
Berkenkotter, C. & Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/Culture/Power. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: language use in professional settings. London: Longman Publishing.
Brett, B. (1994). A genre analysis of the results section of sociology articles. English for Specific Purposes, 13(1), 47-59.
Bruce, N. J. (1983). Rhetorical constraints on information structure in medical research report writing. Paper presented at the ESP in the Arab World Conference, University of Aston, UK, August, 1983.
Burrough-Boenisch, J. (2005). NS and NNS scientists’ amendments of Dutch scientific English and their impact on hedging. English for Specific Purposes, 24(1), 25-39.
Cantor, J. A. (1993). A guide to academic writing. London: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.
Coffin, C., Curry, M. J., Goodman, S., Hewings, A., Lillis, T. M. & Swann, J. (2003). Teaching academic writing: a toolkit for higher education. London: Routledge.
Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 271-287.
Crooks, G. (1986). Towards a validated analysis of scientific text structure. Applied Linguistics, 7, 57-70.
Dudley-Evans, T. (1994). Genre analysis: an approach to text analysis for ESP. In M. Coulthard (Ed), Advances in Written Text Analysis (pp.219-228) London: Routledge.
Dudley-Evans, T. (1997). Genre: how far can we, should we go? World Englishes, 16(3), 351-358.
Een, J. A. (1982). Tense usage in reporting research in geotechnical writing. Working papers in ESL, 2, 72-91.
Egbert, J. (2007). Quality analysis of journals in TESOL and Applied Linguistics. TESOL Quarterly, 41(1), 157-171.
Flowerdew, J. & Peacock, M. (Eds.) (2001). Research perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp. 71-83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Flowerdew, J. (Ed). (2002). Academic discourse. London: Pearson Education.
Heslot, J. (1982). Tense and other indexical markers in the typology of scientific texts in English. In J. Hoedt et al. (Eds), Procedings of the 3rd European Symposium on LSP Copenhagen, August 1981; Pragmatics and LSP (pp. 83-105). Copenhagen: Copenhagen School of Economics.
Hewings, M. & Hewings, A. (2002). “It is interesting to note that…”: a comparative study of anticipatory ‘it’ in student and published writing. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 367-383.
Hill, S. S., Soppelsa, B. F. & West, G. K. (1982). Teaching ESL students to read and write experimental-research papers. TESOL Quarterly, 16(3), 333-347.
Holmes, J. (1988). Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 21-44.
Holmes, R. (1997). Genre analysis, and the social sciences: an investigation of the structure of research article Discussion Sections in three disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 321–337.
Hopkins, A., and Dudley-Evans, T. (1988). A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes, 7(2), 113–121.
Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 13(3), 239-256.
Hyland, K. (1996). Nurturing hedges in the ESP curriculum. System, 24(4), 477-490.
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hyland, K. (1999). Academic attribution: Citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 20, 341-367.
Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091-1112.
Hyland, K. & Milton, J. (1997). Qualifications and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of. Second Language Writing, 16(2), 183-205.
Hyon, S. (1996). Genre in three traditions: Implications for ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 30(4), 693-722.
Johns, A. M. (2003). Genre and ESL/EFL composition instruction. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 195-217). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kennedy, C. (2001). Language use, language planning and EAP. In J. Flowerdew and M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp. 71-83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kong, C. C. (2006). Linguistic resources as evaluators in English and Chinese research articles. Multilingua, 25(1-2), 183-216.
Lewin, B. A., J. Fine, & L. Young (2001). Expository discourse: A genre-based approach to social science research texts. London: Continuum.
Lorés, R. (2004). On RA abstracts: From rhetorical structure to thematic organization. English for Specific Purposes, 23(3), 280-302.
Malcolm, L. (1987). What rules govern tense usage in scientific articles? English for Specific Purposes, 6, 31-44.
Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 1-35.
Nwogu, K. N. (1997). The medical research paper: structure and functions. English for Specific Purposes, 16(2), 119–138.
Ostler, S. E. (1980). A survey of academic needs for advanced ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 14(4), 489-502.
Peacock, M. (2002). Communicative moves in the discussion section of research articles. System, 30, 479-497.
Popken, R. L. (1987). A study of topic sentence use in academic writing. Written Communication, 4(2), 209-228.
Posteguillo, S. (1999). The schematic structure of computer science research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 139–160.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 149-170.
Santos, M. B. (1996). The textual organization of research paper abstracts in applied linguistics. Text, 16(4), 481-499.
Skelton, J. (1988). The care and maintenance of hedges. ELT Journal, 42(1), 37-43.
Skelton, J. (1994). Analysis of the structure of original research papers: an aid to writing original papers for publication. British Journal of General Practice, 44, 455-459.
Starfield, S. (2001). ‘I’ll go with the group’: Rethinking ‘discourse community’ in EAP. In J. Flowerdew and M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp. 71-83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. & Najjar, H. (1987). The writing of research article introductions. Written Communication, 4, 2, 175-191.
Swales, J. M. & Feak, C. B. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: exploration and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tarone, E., Dwyer, S. Gillette, S. & Icke, V. (1981). On the use of the passive in two astrophysics journal papers. The ESP Journal, 1, 123-140.
Thomas, S. & Hawkes, T. (1994). Reporting verbs in medical journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 16(3), 129-148.
Thompson, D. (1993). Arguing for experimental facts in science. Written Communication, 10(1), 106–128.
Tsai & Feng. (2008). An investigation of the research article discussion sections by Taiwanese graduate students in applied linguistics. Paper from the Second Tamkang International Conference on Second Language Writing.
Ventola, E. & Mauranen, A. (1996). Academic writing: Intercultural and textual issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
West, G. K. (1980). That-nominal constructions in traditional rhetorical divisions of scientific research papers. TESOL Quarterly, 14(4), 483-488.
Wood, A. (2001). International scientific English: The language of research scientists around the world. In J. Flowerdew and M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp. 71-83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yang, R. & Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 365-385.
Yang, R. & Allison, D. (2004). Research articles in applied linguistics: structures from a functional perspective. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 264-279.
Yeh, C.C. (2007). Graduate students’ use of hedging devices. Taiwan Journal of TESOL, 4(2), 24-42.
Zappen, J. P. (1983). A rhetoric for research in sciences and technologies. In P. V. Anderson, R. J. Brockman, & C. R. Miller (Eds.), New Essays in Technical and Scientific communication (pp. 123-138). New York: Farmingdale Baywood.