Swales CARS model applied to research article A.

The field I have researched and will be describing is the Engineering and Technology academic discourse community; specifically, I will focus on articles and literature about Mechanical Engineering. From what I have seen, most ME literature is collected in databases of group-based or collaborative research; for example, I seem to find a lot of related articles, building on each other one after the other, on the web pages of American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Institution of Mechanical Engineers (where I found my article of analysis), and Knovel (an interactive database of collaborated engineering and science resources). Personally, I did not think this was odd, because as Ive noticed through my own Engineering classes and other experiences, this field is definitely not a one-man show. As such, authors of these articles tend to cite the work of their contemporaries as a grounds upon which to develop and present their own findings. Also, most articles have multiple authors. These articles are generally headed by an abstract, which summarizes the content of the paper in a rather verbose fashion (the vocabulary is pretty technical). This abstract is then followed by several keywords used frequently throughout the entire article, before finally diving into the article proper. The writing of the paper is extremely impersonal. There is pretty much no regard for the un-initiated reader; those who are not part of the specific lexis of academic discourse are pretty much left completely bewildered by the jargon used in the paper. Furthermore, the citations in these articles are generally APA format, as APA is the preferred formatting style of scientific literature. B. 1. Mura, Andrea (2013). Sensitivity Analysis of a Six Degrees of Freedom Displacement Measuring Device. Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Retrieved 18 April, 2014, from http://m.pic.sagepub.com.ezproxy.lib.purdue.edu/content/228/1/158.full.pdf. In Andrea Muras Sensitivity analysis of a six degrees of freedom displacement measuring device, Mura follows the Swales CARS model very closely in his execution of the argument and the presentation of his findings. According to the CARS criterion, there are three discernible moves that an author will make in order to convey his or her information effectively and in a cohesive style (Swales Three-Move Model). Mura showcases all three of these moves in his work. The first move is to establish a territory; that is, Mura must establish the big picture idea of his research in order to create context and relevance for his reader. Mura accomplishes this by first pointing out the importance of the subject; in this case, he stipulates that a device resembling robotic legs can be linear actuators or linear sensors, and that they may easily control all degrees of freedom of an object into the space by controlling six translations (Mura, Sensitivity Analysis). Essentially, Mura is talking about a mechanical structure, consisting of six

legs and an array of rotary motors, that, when applied as part of an object, gives the object several degrees of freedom (allows it to move in several different directions with ease). By creating a general description of his subject of research and stipulating its possible uses in the first paragraph, Mura effectively creates context for his subject, essentially completing his Move 1. Not only does Mura create context for his subject; he also goes back and references several items of previous research done upon the subject, further establishing the territory. This is how the author incorporates other arguments. For example, the author references literature, namely Rees-Jones and Kerrs presentation and analysis of an early force/torque sensor based on a Stewart platform. Mura moves on to Move 2, establishing a niche. The niche is the subject of sensitivity analysis, specifically of a particular device. This part is much less pronounced than the establishing a territory phase. In fact, the niche is pretty much already very well established, as proven by the multitude of other authors who have already written about the field (and have been cited by Mura). Mura simply builds on their work and solidifies the niche. Move 3 focuses on occupying the niche created. Again, this section is not as pronounced as the first, as the niche is already well-occupied; the subject matter of this paper is not at all new or novel, its simply an elaboration of a rather complex concept. Therefore, Mura only performs Step 2 of this move, in which is he states the principal findings of the essay. As stated above, the writing style is impersonal, full of technical vocabulary, and straight to the point. 2. Rees-Jones J. (1987) Cross coordinate control of robot manipulators. In:Proceedings of International Workshop on Nuclear Robotic Technologies and Applications, University of Lancaster. Retrieved 18 April, 2014, from http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=UzZ3LAYqvRkC&oi=fnd&pg=PP9&dq=Cross+ coordinate+control+of+robot+manipulators.&ots=zUwqSDt2cM&sig=q2GfhgUatbQ8A0n6ujP AvcZ1e0g#v=onepage&q&f=false This work by Rees-Jones was referenced by Mura as a source of information and resources. It is not as concise as an article, yet follows the same basic patterns. The style and formatting of the piece is very similar to that of Muras; impersonal, full of jargon and calculations. The authors argument is essentially a proof of several different applications of a computer code (and a lot of complex mathematics) to controlling a robotic interface. This article serves as an expansive knowledge base upon which Mura builds his own specified argument.