Uchidas Critique of the Cultural Approach to Sex Differences: Article Structure Analysis

This paper aims to analyze the structure of the sociolinguistic journal article When

difference is dominance: A critique of the anti-power-based cultural approach to sex

differences using Swales and Feaks three moves of constructing a research paper (Uchida,

1992, p. 547, Swales & Feak, 2004). The object of study of this article is a critique of the anti-

power-based cultural approach to sex differences where the author takes a stance to draw

criticism on the difference/cultural approach to studying gender differences in language use,

while supporting the dominance approach proposed by previous research (Uchida, 1992, p. 547).

We notice at the introduction that the writer occupied move 1 by providing background

information of the two approaches he plans to discuss: the difference/cultural approach, which

treats ... and the dominance/power-based approach, which focuses on (Uchida, 1992, p.

547, Swales & Feak, 2004). We also find that the writer applied move 2 in order to show

exigence by establishing the arguments he aims to discuss There seems to be two points

regarding this position of that are worth questioning before further explaining the authors

two arguments regarding these positions (Uchida, 1992, p. 548, Swales & Feak, 2004). We

notice occupying the niche in move 3 by stating I propose that the relationship between gender

and language should where the hypothesis he intends to prove is made clear (Uchida, 1992,

p. 547, Swales & Feak, 2004). The author continues to apply move 3 by vividly revealing the

purpose of the article this article analyzes the dichotomization of two opposing approaches

(Uchida, 1992, p. 547, Swales & Feak, 2004).

The structure of this article does not follow the IMRD structure proposed by Swales and

Feak, but rather follows a problem-solution structure (Swales & Feak, 2004, Uchida, 1992). The

author noticeably built the structure around the two approaches offered by previous research in
the field (Uchida, 1992). He provided clear definitions of the approaches at the introduction,

before further explaining each thoroughly in the following two sections of the article (Uchida,

1992). The explanations were accompanied by the writers critique and overview of the two

approaches (Uchida, 1992). The author remarkably discussed the problems of each approach,

along with precise details of the strengths and weaknesses the two approaches may demonstrate

(Uchida, 1992). The writer then finalized the article with a conclusion that provided solutions

that account for the problems discussed throughout the paper (Uchida, 1992). Although the

author argued at the introduction to take a stance against the difference approach, he

substantially collected the strengths found in this approach and positively connected them with

the dominance approach to show relevance and arrive at a seemingly new adequate approach

(Uchida, 1992).

This academic work is best represented as problem-solving, rather than empirical

research. The school of citation used is the American Psychological Association, which is the

commonly used school of citation in the field of Linguistics. It is noticed that no visual data were

used in the paper, while clearly noticing the continuous references to previous scholarly research

throughout the different sections of the paper.

The representation of this article reflects a typical problem-solving structure in the

interface area of Linguistics, Sociolinguistics. This article reveals the long controversial

discussion of language and gender through the analysis of the most dominant approaches in the

field. The direct relationship found in Sociolinguistics between language, behavior and

psychology has been remarkably explored and discussed throughout the paper.
References
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and
skills. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Uchida, A. (1992). When "difference" is "dominance": A critique of the "anti-power-based"
cultural approach to sex differences. Language in Society, 21(4), 547-568.