During last decade, there are many studies to examine the people’s writing seen from particular patterns that are popularly called genre (for example Kaplan, 1966; Swales, 1990; Mirahayuni, 2002; Susilo, 2004; Kuntjara, 2004; Basthomi, 2006; Tseng, 2011; Ozmen, 2016). Accordingly, the present study is investigating how Indonesian authors write discussion sections, both in English and Indonesian research articles.
Both English and Indonesian discussion sections of research articles are written by the same Indonesian authors. Author’s choices of rhetorical pattern in their writing can be consciously or unconsciously chosen during the time; their writing might be influenced by their cultural, geographical, and linguistic backgrounds. Further, it continues to explore and dig deeply some information supporting the existing rhetoric. The discussion sections of research articles are mostly taken from accredited journals that are published in Indonesia. The study of contrastive rhetoric has been aimed at not only finding the rhetorical patterns but also identifying the problems faced by L2 learners. As stated by Connor (1996), the research in L2 acquisition identify problems in the composition encountered by the L2 learners related to the L1’s rhetorical strategies. Having seen from its prior study done by Kaplan, 1966 to recent time, the contrastive rhetoric developed significantly, in terms of focusing the subject of the study. Further, the contrastive rhetoric studies, then, are classified in four domains of investigation: (1) contrastive text linguistic studies; (2) studies of writing as cultural and educational activity; (3) classroom-based contrastive studies; (4) genre-specific investigation (Connor, 2002). The studies reviewed in accordance with the above classification are purposefully chosen in terms of recent publication and investigation.
Various studies came up to fill the gaps of contrastive rhetoric area in terms of investigating different product of writing or text types (genrespecific investigation), changing the subject of the study into the professional writers such as article writers of local and international journals, post-graduate students and many more. Firstly, Susilo (1999) reported the Indonesian writers who write their articles in The Jakarta Post tend to formulate their thesis statement in four ways: inductive pattern, deductive pattern, mid-position and unclearly stated thesis statement.
Again, Susilo (2004) investigated thought patterns as reflected in the linguistic features of either English or Indonesian letters written by Indonesians and he found that rhetorical organization developed and organized in Indonesian and English letters were similar in three ways: completely tripartitestructure-constructions, two-element-tripartite structure constructions, and one-elementtripartite structure constructions. Whereas, Chakorn (2002) reported that native speakers may also employ distinctive writing patterns in letters revealing diversity in some rhetorical moves, linguistic realizations, rhetorical appeals and politeness strategies. Further, the area of rhetoric studies have gradually shifted from classroom-based investigating the students’ academic writing with specific modes of writing, to genre-specific investigating letters and news articles, which are more contextual ones. Some studies in rhetoric and genre analysis come up in the surface to flourish the variances. In relation to the RA investigation, there are three popular sections studied, namely abstract, introduction, and discussion.
RA introduction and discussion are two challenging sections since both of them require writers to organize their thoughts and ideas comparing with others. These two sections of RA however, are considered problematic. Although some journals provide specific requirement of publishing RA, the ones thought patterns cannot be controlled and may be different from one another. Introduction sections are placed in the beginning to deliver researcher’s ideas, beliefs, reasons and reviewing the previous studies in the form of background of the study. Thus, most introduction sections start by stating the general information to the specific one. On the contrary, discussion section usually starts recapitulating the results, which are the specific ones, next organizing into the general information one.
Therefore, it is extremely necessary to conduct more detail investigation that it is in the (contrastive) rhetoric field and not many investigations on the rhetoric of discussion sections are conducted. In Indonesian context, Mirahayuni (2002) investigated generic structure of English Research Articles focusing on Introduction and Discussion sections written by English (Native) and Indonesian (Non Native) writers, which may contribute to their acceptance for international publication. Another idea was done by Al-Qathani (2006) that compared the rhetoric patterns of English and Arabian RA Introduction by inserting educational background as another variable.
Purposefully, Basthomi (2006) and Safnil (2013) investigated the rhetoric of English RA Introductions taking from accredited Indonesian journals that obviously written by Indonesian writers and looked for the reasons behind the existing of the rhetoric. In terms of rhetoric analysis, Swales’ IMRD structure and CARS model (1990) were still relevant to be utilized by these previous researchers. In accordance with previous studies, the interesting part comes up that investigating English and Indonesian RA discussion sections written by different authors certainly shows the differences and similarities of rhetorical patterns of RA discussion sections, because of some reasons namely; every author has different backgrounds such as educational and linguistic backgrounds, she/he is from different country; native or non-native, and she/he may use the writing style required by the selected journals.
Having investigated deeper on the rhetorical patterns, we investigate how Indonesian authors write their English and Indonesian RA discussion sections in an attempt to describe the differences and similarities of rhetorical patterns of RA discussion sections. The differences and similarities found can be as a result of the way the authors using the language, since they write using different languages and having particular patterns.
Name : Lulus Irawati, Ali Saukah, and Suharmanto
Source : https://media.neliti.com/media/publications/272366-none-8b76014c.pdf