名古屋外国語大学論集第4号

2019年2月

Research Note

Disciplinary Content Knowledge and Description:
An Introduction to Golebiowski’s Framework
for the Analysis of the Relational Structure of Texts
Allan GOODWIN

Introduction
All teachers (including English as a second / foreign language teachers) aretrained to teach a specific subject to a specific audience, with expectations thatthey will possess both disciplinary content knowledge (knowledge of their field)
and pedagogical content knowledge (knowledge of how to teach) (Richards,
2016). In the field of ELT, graduate qualifications (most often beginning at
the diploma or master’s level) train a prospective teacher in the teaching of the
English language (an incredibly broad subject which includes language andculture) to adult learners who speak another language as their first language(an exceedingly broad target audience). There is an expectation that teachers
know significantly more about their subject than their students, and also thatthey probably know more about the subject than they teach their students. In
ELT, disciplinary content knowledge includes the ability to analyze language at
a high level, both at the sentential level (language teacher trainees take courses
in descriptive grammar that often assume prior knowledge of English language
tense and aspect, and the ability to split the nominative from the predicate inEnglish sentences) and at the discourse level (teacher trainees take courses in209discourse analysis, which is itself an extremely broad discipline, one that analyzes
language in use). This paper seeks to introduce readers to Zosia Golebiowski’s
Framework for the Analysis of the Relational Structure of Texts (FARS) as an excellent tool for analyzing written academic discourse in English, because it allows theanalyst to make descriptive analyses of what actually occurs in a particular introduction within this genre of writing. It thereby improves the applied linguist’s/language
teacher’s disciplinary content knowledge of their area. This paper is structured
into three parts: 1) Create a Research Space- a familiar, pedagogical discourse
model, 2) Rhetorical Structure Theory- the basis from which Golebiowski
developed her work, and 3) Framework for the Analysis of Relational Structures.

Create A Research Space (CARS) – A Familiar Pedagogical Discourse
Model
Create A Research Space (CARS), developed by David Swales, is to discourse
analysis what prescriptive grammar is for sentence level language. It gives
instruction on how to write research paper introductions. It is particularly relevant
in language teacher training programs because graduates can use CARS to help
them write articles for publication in TESOL and Applied Linguistics journals.
CARS is specific to research papers, and Swales teaches English for Academic
Purposes. Swales’ 1990 article, “Create A Research Space” (CARS) Model of
Research Introductions gives an overview of the moves (the main sections of
the introduction) and steps within each move that make up CARS. It seems to
be a more advanced version of the type of introduction that is commonly taught
to undergraduate students in academic writing classes. There are three moves in
CARS, and steps are listed within them. Not all steps are necessarily followed.
In Move 1 Establish a Territory, the author sets up the context for the research,
the background:
Step 1 Claiming Centrality
Step 2 Making Topic Generalization
210

Disciplinary Content Knowledge and Description: An Introduction to Golebiowski’s Framework for the Analysis of the Relational Structure of Texts ■Step 3 Reviewing Previous items of research. (Swales, 1990, pp. 6–7).
Move 2 is Establishing a Niche. By niche, Swales means a research gap to be
filled. It can be done in one of four ways:
1) Counter-claiming- challenging earlier research
2) Indicating a Gap- earlier research does not sufficiently address all questions3) Question raising- additional research needs to be done4) Continuing a tradition- it is the claim that this essay is a useful extensionof existing research (Swales, 1990, pp. 7–8).
Move 3 is Occupying a Niche- how you intend to respond to Move 2. This isdone in several steps only one of which (either 1a or 1b) is required.
1 a) Outlining purposes: “In this article I argue…” or “The present researchtries to clarify”.
1 b) Announcing present research: “This paper describes three separate studies
conducted between March 2008 and January 2009”.
2. Announce Principle findings- presenting main conclusions of the research.
“The results of this study suggest…” or “When we examined x, we discovered…”
3. Indicating the Structure of the Research Article: “This paper is structured asfollows…” (Swales, 1990, p. 8).
CARS is useful for people involved in language teaching at the tertiary level
where it is common to publish empirical studies. It is commonly a part of MA
TESOL programs because it is a formula for the type of writing that teachers may
do after they graduate, especially if they go on to do doctoral studies. Therefore,
it allows trainees to enter the applied linguistics academic community of practice.

Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST)A brief overview of this theory is relevant to a discussion on Golebiowski’s
Framework in the Analysis of the Relational Structure of Texts (FARS)
211

because of the relationship it has with FARS. Golebiowski introduces FARS
by acknowledging that it was developed out of RST, writing in 2006, “FARS,
not unlike RST out of which it developed, provides a functional account of text
structure in the form of coherence relations obtaining between conceptual entities
represented by text segments” (Golebiowski, 2006, p. 261).
RST was developed as a real-world application of linguistics that would be
the first step in creating computer-generated media-related genres of writing in
English: advertising sales letters (direct mail letters), popular science magazines
etc. RST was developed by William C. Man, whose PhD was in artificial intelligence and computer science (Matthiessen, 2005, p. 162), and Sandra Thomas,
a linguist who, according to her web site at the University of California, Santa
Barbara specializes in interactional linguistics, conversation and grammar,cross-linguistic studies of morphosyntactic patterns and languages of East Asian(Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Hmong). This marks it as significantly different
than CARS.
RST is a tool for analyzing texts. In a 1989 article, Rhetorical Structure
Theory and Text Analysis, William C. Mann, Christian M. I. M. Mattheissen
and Sandra A. Thompson write that RST “describes texts in a rich and highly
constrained way and thus predicts much about their character and effects. It
describes functions and structures that make texts effective and comprehensible
tools for human communication” (Mann, Mattheissen, Thomson, 1989, p. 6).
RST, like FARS, describes texts rather than prescriptively listing requirements
for a particular genre. Because it focusses on genres other than the academic
essay, it is incongruous with ELT training, and therefore may not be included intraining programs. Academic essays would not be compatible with the purposeof RST- to create computer-generated texts.
There are differences between RST and FARS beyond the genre that each it
applied to. In this same article on RST, in a section called “underlying assumptions”, one assumption (number 7) is Asymmetry of Relations, in which RST
212

Disciplinary Content Knowledge and Description: An Introduction to Golebiowski’s Framework for the Analysis of the Relational Structure of Texts ■is set up through a nucleus and satellite. These authors describe asymmetry of
relations as “the most common type of text structuring” (Mann, Mattheissen,
Thomson, 1989, p. 7). Describing what they mean, they write, “one member ofa pair of text spans is more central (the nucleus) and one more peripheral (thesatellite)” (Mann, Mattheissen, Thomson, 1989, p. 8). This is one aspect of RST
that is not continued in FARS.
Describing the steps taken in order to do an RST analysis, Mann, Mattheissen
and Thomspon write,
1. Divide into units: could be single word, through to paragraphs or longer.
Often clauses, but also clauses plus restrictive relative clauses.
2. Identify spans and relations: either top down (progressive refinement) or
bottom up (aggregation), or both (Mann, Mattheissen, Thomson, 1989,
p. 16).
As far as this goes, it seems to be quite similar to the requirements of FARS.
Soon after, the authors list sets of relations used in RST. These relations are not
the same as FARS, but like FARS, are not considered to be finalized. These sets
are what the authors describe as “[a]mong those which we have found useful”(Mann, Mattheissen, Thomson, 1989, p. 18).
Nucleus- Satellite Relations
Evidence
Concession
Elaboration
Motivation
Volition Result
Condition
Evaluation

Justify
Circumstance
Background
Volition / Cause
Non-Volition Result
Otherwise
Restatement

Antithesis
Solutionhood
Enablement
Non-Volition Cause
PurposeInterpretation
Summary

Multi-Nuclear Relations
Sequence

Contrast(Mann, Mattheissen, Thomson, 1989, p. 18)

213

Joint

The results of an RST analysis look quite different than a FARS analysis. An
example for illustrative purposes shown in Mann and Thompson’s Rhetorical
Structure Theory: Toward a functional Theory of Text Organization is as follows:(Mann and Thompson, 1988, p. 254)

Finally, Mann, Mattheissen and Thompson write,
If a linguistic theory of text structure is to be functional, judgements
about the functions of texts and text parts must be made in the process ofcreating and testing a theory. In practice, such judgements are necessarily
subjective, since they are made only by human beings who communicate,on the basis of what they know about their culture, their society and theirlanguage. (Mann, Mattheissen and Thomspon, 1989, p. 19)
This is important in FARS as well. In the case of RST, however, “[Judgements
in RST] are used not only in evaluating an analysis, but in producing it” (Mann,
Mattheissen and Thompson, 1989, p. 19), and that is not the case in FARS.

214

Disciplinary Content Knowledge and Description: An Introduction to Golebiowski’s Framework for the Analysis of the Relational Structure of Texts ■Framework for the Analysis of the Relational Structure of Texts(FARS)FARS was developed out of RST and both are descriptive in their approach tolanguage. CARS is prescriptive in its approach. Knowledge of both pedagogicaland descriptive approaches to language mirrors the type of understanding of
language at the sentence level that is typically required of language teachers
graduating from training programs, and it increases an applied linguist’s language awareness considerably.
FARS analysis is built up on relations that can be articulated through sevendifferent ‘relational clusters’ with multiple ‘delicacies’ within each. This is useful for language teacher training because learners of ELT can fairly easily decide
what is occurring in a piece of discourse in a general way before being specific.
The following chart is used in several essays to illustrate FARS subdivisions:
Relational Cluster
Elaboration
Digression
CausalAssessing
Facilitation
List
Adversative

Delicacy within cluster
Extension, Amplification, Explanation, Reformulation,
Instantiation, Addition
Explanation, Instantiation, Addition, Extended
Reference
Cause, Circumstance, Condition, Evidence, Means
Conclusion, Evaluation, Interpretation
Framing, Advance Organisation, Introduction,
Enumeration
Collection, Sequence, Disjunction
Contrast, Concession, Collateral, Comparison(source: Golebiowski, 2009b, p. 11)

For the beginning analyst, FARS analysis can be done by defining the relations,and then picking what seems to the analyst to be most appropriate from theiropinion of what the writer intended with each proposition. The relationships are
displayed on a chart in the same way that a parse tree (commonly referred to as atree diagram) is used in I-C (Immediate Constituent) Grammar and part of (P-S)
Phrase Structure Grammar- Generative. The type of chart used in FARS is taught215

as a space-saving alternative to a tree diagram in some English language teaching
programs in North America. This shape of diagram is likely to be familiar topeople undertaking, or having completed, graduate studies in language teaching.
Following is an example to illustrate a sentence written in a tree diagram and thesame sentence put into the kind of chart used in FARS.

The reader typically reads the full sentence, reading from left to right and top
down the tree first the nominative (or noun phase), and then down through thetree on the predicate (or verb phase) in order to understand the analysis of thesentence section by section. The above chart shows the noun phase being broken
into a determiner followed by a noun phrase. This last noun phrase is then broken
into a determiner and a noun. The verb phase is broken into a verb and a nounphrase. The noun phrase is then broken into a determiner and a noun. Finally,
the specific word is shown in the full sentence. The same information may be
put into a chart to save space, as follows:216

Disciplinary Content Knowledge and Description: An Introduction to Golebiowski’s Framework for the Analysis of the Relational Structure of Texts ■The purpose of this kind of representation is to achieve a quite precise description. It shows1) linear order of elements2) syntactic (or in the case of FARS, relational) category for each element3) hierarchy category for each element
4) ambiguities(source: lecture by Dr. Jaramira Rakusan at Carleton University,
February 5, 2002)
The probable familiarity with the chart is a way that FARS is user-friendly to
ELT programs. Teacher trainers (or applied linguists who are learning autonomously) can smoothly transition from sentence to discourse level analysis.

FARS Analyses: Native Level and Learner Level Texts
Following are two texts and analyses of them (see appendix for coding), first ina tree diagram form and then in a chart, the latter being more common in FARS.
Both texts are expository in nature, the function of which is to “put forward apoint of view or argument, for example an essay or letter to the editor. [Theyare l]ogical rather than temporal [in] sequenc[e]” (Taylor, 2007, p. 6). Bold andunderlined typeface marks relatively important information. This means thatin a relationship in which either A or B part is shown in bold and underlined,
it functions as a hypotactic relationship with the bold part being the stronger.
Where both A and B parts are in bold typeface and underlined, the relationshipfunctions as a paratactic relation. The analyses of these texts was not done by ahighly experienced FARS analysis but is illustrative of the kind of analysis thatis done with FARS.
TEXT 1 Native Level Text
1. All writers use the language of their discourse communities, andcommunicate in ways deemed appropriate to and by their discourse217communities. 2. The rhetorical choices made by writers are influenced
by cultural norms, values and belief systems prevailing in discourse communities which constitute social contexts of texts. 3a. Studies in academic
rhetoric (Berkenkotter & Huckin, 1995; Berkenkotter, 1990) clearly showthat epistemologies and ideological assumptions of academic cultures are
firmly embedded in the conventions of academic genres, 3b. which revealand signal the academic discourse community’s norms, values and social
ontology. 4. Research into the development of rhetorical conventionsof scientific writing reveals close connection between the formationof scientific discourse community and the development of discursive
strategies for making scientific claims and the appearance of genre textual
features (Bazerman, 1988).
5. At the same time, the cross-cultural studies of academic text organization (eg Ahmad, 1997; Clyne, 1981, 1991, 1994; Cmejrkova, 1994;
Duszak, 1994; Golebiowski, 1998, 1999; Gunnarsson, 1993; Mauranen,
1992, 1997; Markkanen & Schroder, 1992; Safnil, 2000) have shownthat the rhetorical structure of research prose produced by a non-native
English writer, similarly to rhetorical styles of other discoursal domains,
cannot escape being conditioned by cultural norms, traditions and conventions which underlie the discourse community into which the author
has been socialised. 6. Neither can it totally disentangle itself from rules
and systemic limitations of the author’s mother tongue.
7. In this paper, we will therefore argue that the writers of specialist academic texts are not influenced entirely by their culture or by their speechcommunity in their writing, but rather that each writer is located at anintersection between culture and discourse community. 8. This particularintersection of culture and discourse community has the potential to beresolved differently in different cultures and in different disciplines.
9. This study will review research in contrastive rhetoric to investigate
the impact of cultural and disciplinary factors on text construction at a
range of levels in a range of disciplines and across a range of languages.
(Golebiowski and Liddicoat, 2002, p. 59)

218

Disciplinary Content Knowledge and Description: An Introduction to Golebiowski’s Framework for the Analysis of the Relational Structure of Texts ■In this chart, the type of relationship is shown between sections that are blocked
off and with a dotted line. The top of the tree therefore shows 1 E 2-9. Thisshows that section 1 (the first sentence of Text 1) has a relationship with sections 2–9 (the rest of the text). The type of relationship is described broadly as a
type of elaboration, and more finely as an extension (meaning the delicacy thatis assigned to it). Sections 2–9 were considered more important than section 1.
The same information in FARS is more commonly shown in the following chart:

This is a text that follows the moves seen in CARS closely, and can therefore
be seen as being highly acceptable as a piece of academic discourse in English.
The tree diagram looks similar in shape to the tree diagram of a grammaticalsentence in that it is easy for the reader to move from top to bottom, left toright and understand what is occurring. The chart also flows smoothly- there
are no sections where it seems that a lower level does not connect to the level219

immediately above it. This FARS analysis shows the following information:
1 E 2-9

2-6 AN 7-9

Section 1 has a relationship with sections 2 through 9 that is
described broadly as a type of Elaboration, and more finely as an
Extension. Sections 2–9, the latter part, is the more important.
Sections 2 though 6 have a relationship with sections 7 through9 that is described broadly as Adversative and more finely as aConcession, with sections 7 through 9, the latter part, being themore important.

First, going through sections 2 through 6,
2-4 A 5-6

Sections 2 through 4 have a relationship with sections 5 through6 that is described broadly as Adversative and more finely as aContrast, with neither section being more important than the other.

Within sections 2 through 4,
2 E 3a-4

3a-3b EI 4

3a EE 3b

Section 2 has a relationship with sections 3a through 4 that is
described broadly as Elaboration and more finely as an Extension,
with section 2, the former part, being more important.
Sections 3a though 3b have a relationship with section 4 thatis described broadly as Elaboration and more finely as an
Instantiation, with sections 3a though 3b, the former part, being
more important.
Section 3a has a relationship with section 3b that is describedbroadly as Elaboration and more finely as an Explanation, withsection 3a, the former part, being more important.

Looking back near the top of the chart at the line 2-4 A 5-6, within the latterpart, sections 5–6,
5E6

Section 5 has a relationship with section 6 that is described broadly
as Elaboration and more finely as an Extension, with section 5, theformer part, being more important.

Looking back near the top of the chart at the line 2-6 AN 7-9, within the latterpart, sections 7–9,

220

Disciplinary Content Knowledge and Description: An Introduction to Golebiowski’s Framework for the Analysis of the Relational Structure of Texts ■7 E 8-9

8 FA 9Section 7 has a relationship with sections 8 through 9 that is
described broadly as Elaboration and more finely as an Extension,
with section 7, the former part, being more important.
Section 8 has a relationship with section 9 that is described broadly
as Facilitating and more finely as an Advance Organising, withsection 8, the former part, being more important.

Overall, text 1 is marked by frequent use of elaboration cluster. It introduces
two separate contrasting ideas, which means that they are described using theadversative cluster.
Following, is an advanced learner’s text, and a FARS analysis in the formof a tree diagram:
TEXT 2 Learner’s Text
1. Mt. Fuji is a most highest and beautiful mountain. 2. Mt. Fuji even has
a majesty and elegance. 3. Its beauty of wide-flowing skirts and nearly
perfect profile has known as a symbol of Japan throughout the world.
4. The time when its upper half is covered with snow is at its best. 5a. Not
only viewing such a beautiful piece of scenery but also climbing up to
the top and having experience of “goraiko”, 5b. which is the name given
to the ever-change phenomenon of the beautiful sunrise, is popular insummer time.
6. Hokusai Kastushika, traditional Japanese painter in Edo era, haddrawn a lot of painting of Mt. Fuji as a strong image. 7. Those still haveincorrigible popularity.
8. Japanese people have thought of Mt. Fuji as a ( ) and ordered theirlife when they feel its existence from ancient time. 9. So people have a
festival at the mountain for purifying and praying for climber’s safety andflourish at the beginning of the mountaineering season.
10. By way of parenthesis, Mt. Fuji has been passed up to be a world
heritage because of its environmental contamination problem. 11. Somepeople have had an activity for clean up Mt. Fuji strenuously.
(source: unpublished learner essay, used with permission)

221

[Note: said in a later interview, at ( ) the learner meant ‘kami’ which translates
as ‘god’, but did not want to use that word because of potential misunderstanding
with an English audience.]

Immediately noticeable is that it is significantly more difficult to follow the tree
diagram than in Text 1. Text 2 was written by an advanced though not fluent
learner of English who spent six months living and working in western Canada
before returning to Japan three years prior to writing Text 2. The appearance of
the analysis is neater in the standard chart used in FARS, as follows:This FARS analysis shows the following information:
1 E 2-11

2-5b E 6-11

Section 1 has a relationship with sections 2 through 11 that is
described broadly as a type of Elaboration, and more finely as an
Extension. Section 1, the former part, is the more important.
Sections 2 though 5b have a relationship with sections 6 through11 that is described broadly as Elaboration and more finely as
an Extension. Sections 2 through 5b, the former part, is the more
important.

222

Disciplinary Content Knowledge and Description: An Introduction to Golebiowski’s Framework for the Analysis of the Relational Structure of Texts ■Within sections 2 through 5b,
2 E 3-5b

3 E 4-5b

4 EA 5a-5b

5a EE 5b

Section 2 has a relationship with sections 3 through 5b that is
described broadly as Elaboration and more finely as an Extension.
Section 2, the former part, is the more important.
Section 3 has a relationship with sections 4 through 5b that is
described broadly as Elaboration and more finely as an Extension.
Section 3, the former part, is the more important.
Section 4 has a relationship with sections 5a through 5b thatis described broadly as Elaboration and more finely as an
Amplification. Section 4, the former part, is the more important.
Section 5a has a relationship with section 5b that is describedbroadly as Elaboration and more finely as an Explanation. Section
5a, the former part, is the more important.

The analysis shows that the rest of Text 2 is made up of sections that each havea relationship with sections 2 through 5b as a whole. The first of these columns
refers to the relationship between sections 2 through 5b and sections 6 through 7.
2-5b DI 6-7

6 EA 7

Sections 2 through 5b have a relationship with sections 6 through7 that is described broadly as Digression and more finely as an
Instantiation, with sections 2–5b, the former part, being more
important.
Section 6 has a relationship with section 7 that is described broadly
as Elaboration and more finely as an Amplification, with section 6,
the former part, being more important.

The second of these columns refers to the relationship between sections 2
through 5b and sections 8 through 9.
2-5b ED 8-9

8E9

Sections 2 through 5b have a relationship with sections 8 through9 that is described broadly as Elaboration and more finely as
an Addition, with sections 2–5b, the former part, being more
important.
Section 8 has a relationship with section 9 that is described broadly
as Elaboration and more finely as an Extension, with section 8, theformer part, being more important.

The third and final of these columns refers to the relationship between sections223

2 through 5b and sections 10 through 11.
2-5b D 10-11 Sections 2 through 5b have a relationship with sections 10 through11 that is described broadly as Digression and more finely as
an Addition, with sections 2–5b, the former part, being more
important.
10 E 11
Section 10 has a relationship with section 11 that is describedbroadly as Elaboration and more finely as an Extension, withsection 10, the former part, being more important.

Text 2 uses only the elaboration and digression clusters. The distinction between
elaboration and digression is often fuzzy and guided by culture.
As can be seen by a quick look at the shapes of the two FARS analyses, theproficient user’s text is structured so that each element subdivides neatly. In
the learner’s text, items the writer used to illustrate a point are done in such a
way as to create a somewhat disjointed text. This is not the kind of disjunctionthat could be remedied with discourse markers. 2-5b has three different sets ofrelationships. As previously mentioned, it is often difficult to decide between
elaboration cluster and digression cluster. In this case, probably both could beapplied, because to a native speaker of English, the text in 6–7 and 10–11 seemdisjointed. These sentences come across as being a digression from the topic.
However, it is possible that the writer thought of them as explaining the topic
itself, particularly 6–7. In 10–11, the writer specifically marks the text as being‘[b]y way of parenthesis’. Just as in any communication, the individual idiolectmeans that understanding another person’s communication is always a guess.
FARS, like RST, is inherently subjective.

Conclusion
When combined with CARS, FARS allows for academic writing to be approached
in a manner similar to other kinds of writing. For people who pursue academic
programs in nonacademic macro-genres such as creative writing, nonfiction
writing, journalism, and advertising/public relations, the learning of their craft
224

Disciplinary Content Knowledge and Description: An Introduction to Golebiowski’s Framework for the Analysis of the Relational Structure of Texts ■involves learning the theory (or structure) of a piece of writing, analyzing
examples of the writing and practicing the writing through in-class assignments,
the development of portfolios and their professional practice. The most important
genre for most applied linguists/language teachers is the academic essay. ESL
teachers prepare learners to do their degrees in English medium institutions inpart by teaching them how to write academic essays, and language teachers also
publish their own essays as articles in professional journals. CARS teaches thesepeople how to structure the introduction to research essays, FARS gives them thetools to analyze introductions of research essays, and they practice through thewriting of their own papers. When combined with CARS, FARS considerablyincreases a language teacher/applied linguist’s disciplinary content knowledge ofthe type of writing they engage with, in a similar way that descriptive grammar
increases their disciplinary content knowledge of sentence level grammar after
learning prescriptive grammar. For applied linguists/language teachers who
have experience with (or are involved in) studying other varieties of writingin English, FARS is a tool with which they can approach academic essays in asimilar manner to their other genre(s).

References
Bawarshi, A. (2000). The genre function. College English, 62(3), 335–360.
Department of Linguistics, University of California, Santa Barbara (2018). Sandra A. Thompson.
Retrieved November 10, 2018 from http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/people/sandra-thompson
Golebiowski, Z. & Liddicoat, A. (2002). The Interaction of Discipline and Culture In Academic
Writing. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics. 25(2), 59–71.
Golebiowski, Z. (2004). Description of FARS relational clusters and definitions of relations.
Unpublished paper, 1–28.
Golebiowski, Z. (2005). Globalization of academic communities and the style of research reporting.
The case of a sociology research article. Transcultural studies: a series in interdisciplinary
research, 1, 57–72.
Golebiowski, Z. (2006). The distribution of discoursal salience in research papers: Relational hypotaxis
and parataxis. Discourse Studies. 8(2), 259–278.
Golebiowski, Z. (2009a). Prominent messages in Education and Applied Linguistic abstracts: How do
authors appeal to their prospective readers? Journal of Pragmatics. 41(4), 753–769.

225

Golebiowski, Z. (2009b). ECL 756 Discourse Analysis Study Guide and Readings Topic 5 Genre,
Analysis. Deakin University.
Mann, W.C., Matthiessen, C.M.I.M., & Thompson, S.A. (1989). Rhetorical Structure Theory and Text
Analysis. ISI Research Report ISI/RR-89-242 November 1989. Downloaded August 10, 2018from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235178249_Rhetorical_Structure_Theory_and_Text_Analysis
Mann, W.C., Matthiessen, C.M.I.M., & Thompson, S.A. (1992). Rhetorical Structure Theory and Text
Analysis. In W.C. Mann & S.A. Thompson (Eds.), Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic
Analysis of a Fund-raising Text (pp. ix-xiii, 39–78).
Mann, W.C. & Thompson, S.A. (1988). Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theoryof Text organization Text and Talk: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse andCommunication Studies. 8(3), 243–281.
Mattheissen, C.M.I.M. (2005). Remembering Bill Mann Computational Linguistics. 31(2), 161–171.
Paltridge, B. (2006). Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum.
Richards, J.C. (2016, May 22). What does it mean to be a teacher of English? [Video File]. Retrieved
from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYuK18e8V08
Richards, J. & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied
Linguisitics. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.
Swales, J. (1990). Research Articles in English. Genre Analysis (pp. 110–176). Cambridge University
Press.
Swales, J. (1990b). “Create a Research Space” (CARS) Model of Research Introductions. Downloaded
August 8, 2018 from https://iuuk.mff.cuni.cz/~andrew/EAP/john-swales-cars-article.pdf
Taylor, E. (1994). Preference organization in teacher-supervisor talk. In Spoken Interaction Studies inAustralia, edited by Gardner, R. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics Series S 11: 137–152.
Melbourne: Applied Linguistics Association of Australia.
Taylor, E. (2007). ECL 753 Linguistics for Language Teaching Study Guide Topic 6 Language, culture
and context; Genre and register. Deakin University.

226

Disciplinary Content Knowledge and Description: An Introduction to Golebiowski’s Framework for the Analysis of the Relational Structure of Texts ■Appendix: Coding of the FARS Relations
Relational Cluster
Delicacy withincluster and symbol
within chart

Adversative
Contrast- A
Collateral- AC
Comparison- AM
Concession- AN

AssessingConclusion- Cn
Interpretations- In
Evaluation- Ev

CausalCause- C
Circumstance- CI
Condition- CD
Evidence- CE
Means- CM

Relational Cluster
Delicacy withincluster and symbol
within chart

Digression
Addition- D
Explanation- DE
Reference- DR
Instantiation- DI

Elaboration
Addition- ED
Extension- E
Amplification- EA
Explanation- EE
Instantiation- EIReformation- ER

Facilitating
Framing- F
AdvanceOrganising- FA
Enumeration- FE
Introduction- FI

Relational Cluster
Delicacy withincluster and symbol
within chart

List
Collection- L
Disjunction- LD
Sequence- LS

227