Rhetorical Analysis of "Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology"

This Journal was very well done and thoroughly covered dozens of articles over a wide range of the topic in interest.  Due to the professionalism of the articles written, an analysis of the entire journal can be done through both Linton et al. and/or Swales' genre model.

Linton et al.'s model consists of three important conventions consisting of structure, reference, and language.  Concerning structure, there is a consistent framework that is used for each and every one of the articles included.  First, there is an "Abstact", which explains the study's purpose and the methods that will be used, as well as briefly reviewing items of previous research.  Second, is the "Introduction", where the sport/technology is explained, including what the variables will be and how they will be measured/recorded.  The introduction is also where most of the topic generalizations were made along with indicating the gap between the old previous ways of doing the experiment and the ways of which the experiment will be executed.  Next, is explained how each method is executed and what instrumentation is needed.  Now, the "results" section is given for the announcement of present research  simultaneously releasing the found variable data and any charts/graphs that are necessities in coming to a conclusion.  Following the "results" section is the "discussion" section that converts the understanding of the results into short la-mans terms, or announcing the principal findings.  Lastly, the "conclusion" section is explained by answering the questions had by the study's purpose.  "Acknowledgment" and "references" sections are also there for thanks and citing purposes.

The Conventions of reference came into play numerous times through each of the articles.  For example, both the "abstract" and "introduction" sections preview information and methods that were documented long ago.  The reason for this, was to show that even though this study has been done before, technology now allows for new and more accurate methods of testing and measuring.  This convention was also useful in portraying the difference between the accuracy of old and new data even though the overall conclusions were sometimes close to the same.  The idea of adding to existing data instead of replacing data became alive throughout the section as well.

Finally, the convention of language stood out as expressing minor disagreements in methods and/or results.  For most cases, disagreement was tried to be towards methods and not the individual him/herself.  This was the case because the individual probably didn't have the technology/knowledge that we do today, since this combined journal publication was from 2008-2009.  Also, there was some language of conviction used in response to these disagreements towards methods/individuals.  For example, if the new methods and/or data is significantly more accurate than the previous, then it will be stated that this is more of a correction and not so much an addition to the original study.