Academic communication in a digital age

Poster proceedings of the 2014 Languages for

Specific Purposes Conference

12-14 June 2014

Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Edited by Špela Mežek,

Miguel García-Yeste,
& Raffaella Negretti
Academic communication in a digital age
Poster proceedings of the 2014 Languages for Specific Purposes Conference

12-14 June 2014, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

A joint conference of the European Association of Languages for Specific Purposes

(AELFE) and the Swedish LSP symposium

Edited by Špela Mežek, Miguel García-Yeste, & Raffaella Negretti

Cover image by Špela Mežek

Published by the Department of English/Centre for Academic English, Stockholm

University
December 2014

ISBN 978-91-980395-2-8
Preface

The 2014 Languages for Specific Purposes (LSP) Conference in Stockholm, Sweden,
was a joint conference of the European Association of Languages for Specific
Purposes (AELFE) and the Swedish LSP symposium. The theme of the conference was
“Academic communication in a digital age”. Its aim was to draw connections between
new publication practices, changing language uses, and new genres of academic
communication, and to acquire a better understanding of language uses in the
academy and the role of LSP professionals in this changing sociopolitical context. The
conference included sessions by four plenary speakers, nine presentations, nine
poster presentations, and a round table discussion with the plenary speakers. The
poster presentations included speed talks for the posters, where the poster
presenters could briefly introduce their posters before the poster session.
This electronic publication brings together some of the posters which were
displayed at the 2014 LSP Conference. They cover a range of topics related to
academic communication such as language features of promotional webpages and of
diverse academic disciplines, multimodal communication in science publications, and
rhetorical strategies in international and national journals, focusing on the different
sections of the research article (introduction, methods, results, and discussion). This
online publication aims at sharing some of these projects and raise awareness of the
need for further research on these topics.
We would also like to take this opportunity to thank the poster presenters who
have contributed to these electronic poster proceedings, the conference organising
committee, and everyone else who has helped us put this publication together and
make it available online.

Špela Mežek, Miguel García-Yeste, & Raffaella Negretti

i
Contents

Preface ........................................................................................................................................................... i
Book and enjoy! A corpus-based approach to the use of verbs in promotional hotel
webpages .....................................................................................................................................................1
Nuria Edo Marzá
Lexical bundles in several academic disciplines: A comparative study ....................................3
Purificación Sánchez Hernández
Data commentary in science writing: A discourse model for multimodal result
presentation in science publication .....................................................................................................5
Lene Nordrum & Andreas Eriksson
Rhetorical strategies to get published in international versus national journals: The devil
is in the details ...........................................................................................................................................8
Ana I. Moreno
‘Devilish details’ in research article introductions: A comparative analysis of national
and international rhetorical strategies ............................................................................................ 10
Sally Burgess
A comparison of the rhetorical structure of the Methods section in international versus
national research articles..................................................................................................................... 12
Maria-Lluïsa Gea-Valor
The rhetorical structure of research article Results (and Discussion) sections in
international versus national journals............................................................................................. 15
Pedro Martín
The rhetorical structure of research article Discussion (and/or Conclusion) sections in
national versus international journals............................................................................................. 17
Ana I. Moreno
Book and enjoy! A corpus-based approach to the use of verbs in
promotional hotel webpages

Nuria Edo Marzá

Universitat Jaume I, Spain

Email: nedo@ang.uji.es

Abstract
The increasingly prominent position of tourism in digital media makes it necessary a
multi-perspective, in-depth analysis of the defining features of tourism online
discourse in order to continue developing and enhancing it. From a linguistic
perspective, tourism is mainly aimed at persuasion and persuasion cannot be
achieved without the mastery of the linguistic conventions associated to each genre.
This study is thus focused on a specific digital genre –the hotel webpage – and aims
to discuss how it is constructed and exploited according to the use of its most
significant and representative verbs.
As a starting point, the verbs analysed have been selected according to
saliency/keyness and frequency criteria, proceeding then to describe their use in real
communication. Therefore, on the basis of COMETVAL’s data (Corpus Multilingüe de
Turismo de la Universidad de Valencia), a preliminary corpus-based analysis of highly
salient and highly frequent verbs has been conducted with WordSmith Tools 5.0 in
order to detect and retrieve those verbs that prototypically shape the domain under
study, and thus to draw the first conclusions about the kind and real use of verbs in
hotel webpages. Subsequently, a proposed categorisation of verbs based on the
semantic and pragmatic traits detected in the corpus has been devised and the verbs
under study have been classified in order to obtain a comprehensive picture of their
usage.
Hence, this study analyses the importance and possible reasons underlying verb
choice in online communication of promotional hospitality-related content since via
the static and moving picture provided by verbs “the language of tourism attempts to
persuade, lure, woo and seduce millions of human beings, and, in so doing, convert
them from potential into actual clients” (Dann, 1996, p. 2). In this way, this study has
tried to provide a useful corpus-based characterisation of the verbs shaping the
domain under study which can lead to dramatic improvements in accuracy and
persuasiveness, and thus in a better understanding of how tourism online discourse is
and should be constructed and why.

References
Dann, G. M. S. (1996). The language of tourism: A sociolinguistic perspective. Oxford:
CAB International.

1
Lexical bundles in several academic disciplines: A comparative study

Purificación Sánchez Hernández

Universidad de Murcia, Spain

Email: purisan@um.es

Abstract
Recurrent word combinations, clusters, phrasicon, n-grams, or lexical bundles refer to
recurring sequences of three or more words that appear frequently in natural
discourse, either oral or written. These chunks are fundamental parts of discourse
whose research is becoming very important in EAP.
This paper adopts an automated frequency-driven approach to identify and
analyse the most common 4-word lexical bundles in different sections of research
papers published in several academic disciplines (Applied Linguistics, Law,
Experimental Sciences, Medicine and Economy) applying a corpus-driven approach.
Our results support the idea that lexical bundles are important components in
written discourse. Concluding discussion highlights the pedagogical implications of
exposing students to more samples of written language. Furthermore, the importance
of explicit instruction in these types of word combinations in courses on English for
Academic Purposes is highlighted.

3
Data commentary in science writing: A discourse model for
multimodal result presentation in science publication

Lene Nordruma & Andreas Erikssonb

a
Lund University, Sweden
b
Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden

Email: lene.nordrum@englund.lu.se; Andreas.Eriksson@chalmers.se

Abstract
Our study concerns the use of data commentaries (Swales & Feak, 2012), i.e. the
linguistic presentation of graphs, figures and tables, and contributes to the
description of multimodal (Kress, 2010) science communication for applied purposes.
Research has shown that integrating written and visual modes represents a complex
task for students and that students often need to be scaffolded into disciplinary
practices (Blåsjö, 2011; Wharton, 2012). At the same time, the type of support that is
available for students is often insufficient. For instance, Roth et al. (2005, p. 40) note
that textbooks often lack “many resources that would assist in reading”, including
clear linguistic descriptions/explanations of data that is expected in research genres.
Further, the multi-modal nature of science writing has been pointed out as an
‘important problem’ (Shaw, 2007) in linguistic approaches to disciplinary discourse,
but remains relatively under-investigated. More research on how multimodal
communication is handled in science publications is therefore needed.
We present a model for discourse moves in data commentaries in results and
results & discussion sections in research papers and master theses in applied
chemistry. The model is based on a corpus of data commentaries annotated for
discourse moves following the methodological steps of the Biber-Connor-Upton
approach (Biber et al., 2007), and by use of the UAM corpus tool (O’Donnell, 2008).
The UAM tool has been applied to make the data commentaries searchable by first
converting data commentaries from PDF-files into text-files and then storing and
annotating the texts in the tool. The UAM tool allows for searches of words and
phrases as well as the annotated discourse moves and is intended to be used by both
students and researchers. The visual material accompanying the data commentaries
has been made available via PDF-files. All in all, this means that the tool and
methodology offers a novel approach to addressing the use of data commentaries in
disciplinary writing.
The model presented draws on theoretical concepts from genre-based language
instruction in the two ‘schools’: English for Specific Purposes (ESP) and Systemic
Functional
Linguistics (SFL) (Johns, 2008) and is developed for ESP writing at technical
universities. Following Flowerdew (2004, 2010), we argue that a small, specialized

5
corpus enables the integration of top-down and bottom-up approaches to discourse
– a type of integration that is highly useful in such a context.

References
Biber, D., Connor, U., Jones, J., & Upton, T. (2007). Discourse on the move. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Blåsjö, M. (2011). From percentage to prediction: University students meeting a
parallel language of visuals and numerals. Ibérica, 22, 123–140.
Flowerdew, L. (2004). The argument for using English specialized corpora. In U.
Connor & T. A. Upton (Eds.), Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus
linguistics (pp. 11–33). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Flowerdew, L. (2010). Using a corpus for writing instruction. In A. O’Keeffe & M.
McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (pp. 444–457).
London/New York: Routledge.
Johns, A. M. (2008). Genre awareness for the novice academic student: An ongoing
quest. Language Teaching, 41, 237–252.
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary
communication. London: Routledge.
O’Donnell, M. (2008). The UAM Corpus Tool: Software for corpus annotation and
exploration. Proceedings of the XXVI Congreso de AESLA, Almeria, Spain, 3-5 April
2008.
Roth, W.-M., Pozzer-Ardenghi, L., & Han, J. Y. (2005). Critical graphicacy:
Understanding visual representation practices in school science. Dordrecht: Springer.
Shaw. P. (2007). Introductory remarks. In K. Fløttum (Ed.), Language and discipline
perspectives on academic discourse (pp. 2–13). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2012). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential
tasks and skills (3rd ed.). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Wharton, S. (2012). Epistemological and interpersonal stance in a data description
task: Findings from a discipline-specific learner corpus. English for Specific Purposes,
31, 261–270.

6
Rhetorical strategies to get published in international versus
national journals: The devil is in the details

Ana I. Moreno
Universidad de León, Spain

Email: ana.moreno@unileon.es

Abstract
Phase 2 of the ENEIDA project aims to compare the rhetorical strategies to get
empirical research articles (RAs) published in English-medium vs. Spanish-medium
international scientific journals. Since the 1980s, there has been a substantial number
of models of the rhetorical structure of RAs in English, sometimes by comparison with
other languages However, the coding process giving rise to many of these models
has often been applied by a single researcher and important details occluded, raising
questions about its reliability. Although more and more studies are using
independent coders, very few offer the percentage agreement figure, as well as the
Kappa coefficient, as measures of inter-coder reliability (e.g. Kanoksilapathan, 2005).
Furthermore, no (cross-cultural) studies have proven reliability at the step level, where
more revealing cross-cultural differences are likely to be identified. The present
poster shows the methodological procedure followed by the ENEIDA team to analyze
and code the rhetorical structure of a pilot sample of 10-12 pairs of RAs from the
EXEMPRAES (Exemplary Empirical Research Articles in English and Spanish) corpora
down to the level of the (sub)step achieving greater transparency and reliability. By
way of illustration, it offers the average Cohen’s Kappa coefficient and the average
agreement percentage obtained after two independent coders coded the Discussion
(and Conclusion) sections in two pairs of this sample of RAs and assesses the
usefulness of these two calculations. The results show that applying this procedure to
the Discussion (and Conclusion) section has led to a very high level of agreement in
percentage terms (above 97.21%) on the 23 categories analysed, higher than is
generally considered acceptable in qualitative research. However, as the Kappa
coefficient has been poor (below 0.40) on five of the categories – and this is a more
useful measure because it takes into account the likelihood of the agreement
between coders occurring by chance – we have revised aspects of the procedure
before coding more RA Discussion (and Conclusion) sections. Each of the next four
posters deals with a different RA section and offers preliminary cross-cultural results
after coding 10-12 pairs of RAs in the pilot corpora.

References
Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005). Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles.
English for Specific Purposes, 24, 269–292.

8
 Rhetorical strategies to get published in international versus national journals:
the devil is in the details

AELFE/LSP Ana I. Moreno, Director of ENEIDA

Spanish National Team for Intercultural Studies
Conference 2014 of Academic Discourse: http://hdl.handle.net/10612/1824
Stockholm University Universidad de León (Spain)
(Ref.: FFI2009-08336/FILO)

Introduction Methods
Phase 2 of the ENEIDA project aims  Reviewing the literature (Genre theory, RA rhetorical structure, qualitative research, results from Phase 1)
to compare the rhetorical strategies to  Reformulating the research questions
get empirical research articles (RAs)  Drawing a pilot sample of 12 RAs from EXEMPRAES (a compilation of 32 pairs of RAs based on
published in English-medium vs. recommendations made by expert informants from the life sciences, social sciences, healthcare
Spanish-medium international sciences and agricultural sciences) balanced by discipline and subdivision of the RA into main sections
scientific journals. Since the 1980s,  Defining the elementary meaning unit for coding purposes in functional terms: at least one proposition
there has been a substantial number which allows the reader to infer some relevant functional-semantic import, or value, that is typically expected
of models of the rhetorical structure of in the section of the RA in which it appears at the moment of the text in which it appears. Elementary
RAs in English, sometimes by meaning units may be steps (nuclear) or subsidiary functions (secondary)
comparison with other languages  Segmenting the first six pairs of texts into coding units, or fragments of text, on paper
However, the coding process giving  Categorising or assigning labels (codes) to similar coding units by their inferred elementary function
rise to many of these models has  Writing the coding protocol, making the rules guiding the coding process explicit
often been applied by a single  Organising the codes into a preliminary coding scheme in Nvivo 10 (qualitative analysis software)
researcher and important details  Coding the first six pairs of texts according to the coding scheme in Nvivo (after training the coders)
occluded, raising questions about its  Revising the coding scheme in Nvivo as pairs (up to 10) are coded: relabelling and resizing meaning units
reliability.  Exploring the data from a cross-cultural perspective (graph) to assess the significance of codes in Nvivo
Although more and more studies are  Merging insignificant codes (steps or sub-steps) into more comprehensive ones in Nvivo
using independent coders, very few  Grouping steps into moves by their common more general function in Nvivo
offer the percentage agreement figure,  Writing a codebook for each RA section, including the hierarchical list of codes, their definitions, typical
as well as the Kappa coefficient, as signals of each meaning unit and two examples in each language (e.g. see definitions in the graph below)
measures of inter-coder reliability (e.g.  Training an independent coder in coding according to each codebook and the coding protocol in Nvivo
Kanoksilapathan, 2005). Furthermore,  Coding two new pairs of RAs by two independent coders in Nvivo (e.g. Ana Moreno, the author, and
no (cross-cultural) studies have Silvia Ramos -PhD Candidate in English, BA in Psychology- in coding Discussion (and Conclusion) sections)
proven reliability at the step level,  Calculating the Kappa coefficient and the agreement percentage for each code in Nvivo 10 and the
where more revealing cross-cultural average Kappa coefficient and agreement percentage for each code weighted by source size in EXCEL
differences are likely to be identified.  Revising the codebook, the coding protocol or the coding of particular segments

The present poster shows the

methodological procedure followed by
the ENEIDA team to analyze and code
the rhetorical structure of a pilot
sample of 10-12 pairs of RAS from the ENEIDA Coders:
Sally Burgess, Ana Moreno, Lluisa
EXEMPRAES (Exemplary Empirical Gea, Pedro Martín (from left to right)

Research Articles in English and

Spanish) corpora down to the level of
the (sub)step achieving greater
transparency and reliability. By way of
illustration, it offers the average
Cohen’s Kappa coefficient and the
average agreement percentage
obtained after two independent coders
coded the Discussion (and
Conclusion) sections in two pairs of
this sample of RAs and assesses the
usefulness of these two calculations.

Results Discussion References

Kappa Agree A and Not A Disagre A and B and
AGREEMENT AFTER CODING THE MOVES AND STEPS IN DISCUSSION
(AND CONCLUSIONS) SECTIONS BY TW O INDEPENDENT CODERS
ment B (%) and Not ement Not B Not A  The results show that applying this Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005).
(%) B (%) (%) (%) (%)
MOVE 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 0,87 98,13 6,79 91,33 1,87 1,12 0,76 procedure to the Discussion (and Conc.) Rhetorical structure of biochemistry
STEP 1.1. Re-stating key features of the current study 0,77 99,68 0,54 99,14 0,33 0,16 0,17 section has led to a very high level of research articles. English for Specific
STEP 1.2. Reporting background information with citations 0,90 99,35 3,08 96,28 0,65 0,58 0,07
agreement in percentage terms (above Purposes, 24: 269-292.
STEP 1.3. Providing background information without citations 0,77 99,05 1,67 97,37 0,95 0,59 0,36

MOVE 2. SUMMARIZING OR RESTATING KEY FINDINGS 0,48 97,68 1,11 96,57 2,32 1,78 0,54
97.21%) on the 23 categories analysed, Nvivo10 help (2014). Run a Coding
0,52 98,41 0,89 97,52 1,59 1,47 0,12 higher than is generally considered Comparison query. http: help-
STEP 2.1. Presenting a finding as positive, expected or neutrally
STEP 2.2. Presenting a finding as negative, contrasting or unexpected -0,01 99,10 0,00 99,10 0,90 0,53 0,37 acceptable in qualitative research. nv10.qsrinternational.com/desktop/pro
STEP 2.3. Highlighting a finding 0,00 99,72 0,00 99,72 0,28 0,00 0,28 cedures/run_a_coding_comparison_q
MOVE 3. DISCUSSING KEY FINDINGS AND OTHER FEATURES 0,52 97,21 1,61 95,60 2,79 0,58 2,21  However, as the Kappa coefficient has uery.htm [13/01/14]
STEP 3.1. Deducing from findings 0,40 97,96 0,71 97,25 2,04 0,26 1,78 been poor (below 0.40) on five of the
Moreno, A. I. (2013). Compiling
STEP 3.2. Discussing causes and effects 0,62 99,53 0,39 99,14 0,47 0,20 0,27
categories –and this is a more useful
STEP 3.3. Comparing with previous studies 0,86 99,92 0,23 99,70 0,08 0,08 0,00 comparable corpora of research
1,00 100,00 0,04 99,96 0,00 0,00 0,00
measure because it takes into account articles for writing teaching purposes
STEP 3.4. Making a prediction
STEP 3.5. Commenting on a finding or side-effect 0,48 99,64 0,16 99,48 0,35 0,12 0,23 the likelihood of the agreement between through interdisciplinary collaboration.
MOVE 4. EVALUATING CURRENT AND/OR PAST RESEARCH 0,67 98,96 1,10 97,85 1,04 0,56 0,48 coders occurring by chance – we have 7th Conference of the EATAW. Central
STEP 4.1. Pointing out a negative feature or a limitation 0,74 99,73 0,39 99,34 0,27 0,27 0,00
revised aspects of the procedure before European University, Budapest,
STEP 4.2. Stating addition to the discipline 0,38 99,86 0,04 99,82 0,14 0,14 0,00
0,91 99,87 0,67 99,20 0,13 0,00 0,13
coding more RA Discussion (and Hungary. 27-29/06/2013.
STEP 4.3. Evaluating the state of knowledge, practice or previous studies
STEP 4.4. Pointing out a positive feature of the current study 0,00 99,84 0,00 99,84 0,16 0,16 0,00 Conclusion) sections. Swales, J. (1981, 2011). Aspects of
STEP 4.5. Expressing support to an existing theory or method 0,00 99,65 0,00 99,65 0,35 0,00 0,35
 Each of the next four posters deals with Article Introductions. Ann Arbor, MI:
MOVE 5. DRAWING IMPLICATIONS 0,82 98,42 3,81 94,61 1,58 0,17 1,41
a different RA section and offers University of Michigan Press.
STEP 5.1. Making recommendations for future practice or research 0,75 97,95 3,34 94,61 2,05 0,32 1,74

STEP 5.2. Suggesting applicability of findings or or usability of outcomes 0,00 99,53 0,00 99,53 0,47 0,33 0,14 preliminary cross-cultural results after Tesch, R. (1990) Qualitative research:
Average Kappa coefficient for each category in the Discussion (and Conclusions) section (weighted by Source Size) coding 10-12 pairs of RAs in the pilot Analysis types and software tools.
corpora. New York: Palmer Press.
‘Devilish details’ in research article introductions: A comparative
analysis of national and international rhetorical strategies

Sally Burgess
Universidad de La Laguna, Spain

Email: sburgess@ull.es

Abstract
The many studies of research article introduction (RAI) in the intercultural rhetoric
tradition have found variations in rhetorical structure. While often attributed to socio-
cultural differences, publication context has also emerged as a key factor (see
Burgess, 2002). Drawing on a corpus of 10 comparable pairs of exemplary empirical
RAs in English and Spanish from the EXEMPRAES Corpora, the present poster further
examines the effect of publication context on the rhetorical structure of the RAI.
The analysis shows that while ESTABLISHING WHAT IS KNOWN is an obligatory move
making up 38.5% of the total references, in the Spanish texts this move is achieved
without explicit reference to the literature more frequently (10.2%) than it is in English
(4.5%), where knowledge statements are more likely to be supported by citations
(11.5%). PROVIDING A CONTEXT FOR THE CURRENT RESEARCH takes up 13.7% of the total
references making it the second most prevalent move in both sets of texts. The
preferred means of context provision is IDENTIFICATION OF A PARTICULAR RESEARCH ISSUE TO
BE ADDRESSED (11.5%), with more space devoted to this step in the Spanish texts (7%)
than in English (4.5%), where a wider range of strategies are employed. Interestingly,
IDENTIFYING GAPS OR DEFICIENCIES IN PREVIOUS RESEARCH is present in both groups of texts
(3.3% Spanish; 2.9% English), though it is less prevalent than ESTABLISHING WHAT IS
KNOWN or PROVIDING A CONTEXT. Less prevalent still is ANNOUNCING PRESENT RESEARCH at
3.4% of the total. ARTICULATING THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK (5.4%) or OUTLINING ELEMENTS
OF RESEARCH DESIGN (5.5%) are more frequent means of presenting current research.
We also find that 4.5% of the textual space is devoted to HYPOTHESISING OR RAISING
RESEARCH QUESTIONS, though in English (2.2%) explicit hypothesizing is more frequent
than in Spanish (1.4%). The English texts also provide more instances of CLAIMING
VALUE OF PRESENT RESEARCH (2.1% as opposed to 0.8% in Spanish).
While the two groups of texts are relatively similar in terms of move structure,
differences at the step level suggest that these authors adopt strategies tailored to
the needs of either international or national audiences.

References
Burgess, S. (2002). Packed houses and intimate gatherings: Audience and rhetorical
structure. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp.196–215). Harlow:
Longman.

10
 analysis of national and international rhetorical strategies
Sally Burgess
AELFE/LSP
ENEIDA Team
Conference 2014
Universidad de La Laguna
Stockholm University
(Spain) (Ref.: FFI2009-08336/FILO)

Introduction Results
Since the publication of
MOVES AND STEPS IN INTRODUCION AND Sp Eng Sp Eng
Swales (1981 and 1990) the (%)* (%)* RAs RAs
LITERATURE REVIEW SECTIONS
introduction (RAI) has held its
place as the most frequently MOVE 1. ESTABLISHING WHAT IS KNOWN 20.6 17.9 10 10
and exhaustively analysed Step 1.1 Supporting a statement with reference to the literature 9.0 11.5 8 10
section of the research article. Step 1.2 Summarising previous research 1.4 1.9 5 8
Variations in RAI structure
Step 1.3 Making a statement without support from the literature 10.2 4.5 9 9
have been reported in the
many cross-cultural studies MOVE 2. REVIEWING PREVIOUS RESEARCH 3.3 4.2 7 9
conducted. One of the most MOVE 3. CLAIMING INTEREST VALUE OR IMPORTANCE 3.3 1.7 9 8
frequently reported MOVE 4. IDENTIFYING A GAP OR DEFICIENCY 3.3 2.9 8 9
differences is a tendency for
MOVE 5. PROVIDING A CONTEXT FOR CURRENT STUDY 7.7 6.1 10 8
non-English-speaking
background scholars to omit Step 5.1 Drawing logical conclusions from previous research 0.0 1.1 0 6
the move Swales (1990) Step 5.2 Making a claim or counterclaim 0.7 0.5 4 2
Step 5.3 Identifying research issues to be addressed 7.0 4.5 10 8
Step 5.4 Raising a research problem or question 3.1 1.6 8 5
Ahmad, 1997, and Mur-
Dueñas, 2010). This has Step 5.5 Problematising methods in previous research 1.3 2.1 6 6
sometimes been attributed to Step 5.6 Suggesting the potential contribution of study 2.6 0.9 7 5
socio-cultural differences, MOVE 6. ANNOUNCING PRESENT RESEARCH 2.0 1.5 9 9
though publication context
MOVE 7. HYPOTHESES OR RESEARCH QUESTIONS 1.8 2.6 4 2
has also been cited as a
factor (see Burgess, 2002). A Step 7.1 Introducing hypothesis or research question 0.4 0.4 2 1
key objective in the current Step 7.2 Stating a hypothesis or research question 1.4 2.2 3 4
study was to determine how MOVE 8. ARTICULATING CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 3.2 2.2 3 4
far this and other differences MOVE 9. OUTLINING ELEMENTS OF RESEARCH DESIGN 2.3 3.2 6 5
might emerge from the
MOVE 10. ANNOUNCING PRINCIPAL OUTCOMES 0.2 0.6 2 3
analysis of a small corpus of
paired RAIs in Spanish and MOVE 11. CLAIMING VALUE FOR PRESENT RESEARCH 0.8 2.1 3 6
English. MOVE 12. INDICATING THE STRUCTURE OF THE PAPER 0.4 0.4 2 1
*Percentage of total text segments devoted to each move/step

Methods Discussion References

Two comparable corpora of While the two groups of texts are relatively
20 empirical RAs in English similar in terms of move structure,
and Spanish, recommended differences at the step level suggest that Ahmad, U. (1997). Research article introductions
in Malay: Rhetoric in an emerging research
by expert informants from these authors adopt strategies tailored to community. In A. Duszak (Ed.), Culture and styles
various disciplines, were the needs of either international or national in academic discourse (pp. 273-303). Berlin:
taken from the EXEMPRAES audiences. Mouton de Gruyter.

Corpora. In those moves and steps which optionally Burgess, S. (2002). Packed houses and intimate
involve reference to the research gatherings: Audience and rhetorical structure.
In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp.
In a corpus-driven approach literature, the authors of the Spanish texts
196-215). Harlow: Longman.
to the analysis of the RAIs, are marginally less likely to cite sources.
text segments were coded in When contextualizing their research, the Mur Dueñas, P. (2010). A contrastive analysis of
Nvivo without assuming that authors of the English texts make use of a research article introductions in English and
Spanish. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses,
any of the moves or steps wider range of strategies. 61, 119-133.
identified in earlier studies There is only a small difference in the
would be present. Each text proportion of text segments devoted to gap Swales, J. (1981). Aspects of article
introductions. Birmingham, UK: Aston University,
segment was labelled or deficiency identification between the two The Languages Studies Unit.
according to its sets of RAIs. This suggests that Spanish
communicative purpose . authors may have adopted rhetorical Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in
academic and research settings. Cambridge:
strategies associated with international Cambridge University Press.
publications in English.
A comparison of the rhetorical structure of the Methods section in
international versus national research articles

Maria-Lluïsa Gea-Valor
Universitat Jaume I, Spain

Email: gea@ang.uji.es

Abstract
The rhetorical structure of the research article (RA) has been the focus of many genre
analysis studies since the 1990s (Swales, 1990; Bhatia, 1993). However, RA writing may
vary considerably depending on the intended audience, whether this is national or
international. On the basis of two corpora of 20 exemplary empirical RAs in English
and Spanish (EXEMPRAES), the present poster studies the influence of the publication
context variable on the rhetorical structure of the Methods section of the RA.
The results show that the obligatory move in both groups of texts is DESCRIBING
PROCEDURE (32.5% in Spanish and 32.3% in English), in which the experimental
procedure applied in the research is offered as well as the equipment or instrument
employed. This move is mainly realised by means of the steps Detailing method or
technique and Detailing equipment.
The second most frequent move is DESCRIBING DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURE, which is
used significantly more often in the English corpus (34.2%) than in the Spanish one
(16.1%). Here the most common steps in the English RAs are Providing the
background of the procedure (9.5%) and Detailing data analysis procedure (9.1%).
Spanish writers also give preference to the step Detailing data analysis procedure
(7.1%), followed by Detailing data analysis instrument (3.9%).
Finally, we find DESCRIBING DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE more frequent in the Spanish
RAs (31%) than in the English ones (15.3%) .Within this move, the step Describing
materials is the most frequent in the Spanish corpus (8.2%). Next, Elaborating on the
data collection procedure is employed in similar percentages in both groups of texts
(6.9% in English and 6.3% in Spanish).
We may conclude that describing the procedure is the most relevant move in both
corpora given the main communicative function of the Methods section, which is to
provide a detailed account of the research carried out so it can be repeated in other
experiments following the same procedure. However, there are significant differences
in the frequency of use of other moves and steps, which reveal the influence of the
publication context variable in the rhetorical structure of this section.

References
Bhatia, V.K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. London:
Longman.

12
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

13
 A comparison of the rhetorical structure of the Methods
section in international versus national research articles
AELFE/LSP Conference Maria-Lluïsa Gea-Valor
12-14 June 2014 ENEIDA Team
Stockholm University Universitat Jaume I
(Ref.: FFI2009-08336/FILO)

Introduction Results
MOVES AND STEPS IN METHODS SECTION Sp Eng Sp Eng
(%) (%) RAs RAs
The rhetorical structure of
the research article (RA) has Move 1. PROVIDING BACKGROUND OF STUDY 0.8 2.1 1 4
been the focus of many Step 1. Providing additional information 0.4 1.5 1 2
genre analysis studies since Step 2. Restating research aims 0.4 0.5 1 2
the 1990s (Swales, 1990; Step 3. Stating general methodology 0.4 0.3 1 1
Bhatia, 1993). However, RA
writing may vary Move 2. DESCRIBING DATA COLLECTION 31 15.3 8 9
considerably depending on PROCEDURE
the intended audience, Step 1. Describing materials 8.2 1.2 4 3
whether this is national or Step 2. Elaborating on data collection procedure 6.3 6.9 4 6
international.
Move 3. DESCRIBING DATA COLLECTION RESULTS 2.0 3.1 3 4
The present poster studies Step 1. Detailing characteristics of final sample 1.6 2.2 3 4
the influence of the Step 2. Providing rationale for data collection results 0.0 0.9 0 2
publication context variable
on the rhetorical structure of Move 4. DESCRIBING PROCEDURE 32.5 32.3 8 8
the Methods section of the Step 1. Detailing method or technique 14.9 12.4 6 4
RA. Step 2. Detailing equipment 5.5 5 5 5
Move 5. DESCRIBING DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURE 16.1 34.2 5 6
Step 1. Providing background of procedure 2.4 9.5 2 4
Step 2. Detailing data analysis procedure 7.1 9.1 4 5
Methods Step 3. Detailing data analysis instrument 3.9 5.2 5 6

Two comparable corpora of ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

20 empirical RAs in English Average percentage of text segments devoted to each step/move and number of RAs
and Spanish, recommended containing each step/move.
by expert informants from
various disciplines, were
taken from the EXEMPRAES Discussion References
Corpora.
Bhatia, V.K. (1993). Analysing genre:
• Move 4 ‘Describing the procedure’ is language use in professional settings.
The rhetorical structure of the most relevant one in both corpora London: Longman.
the texts was coded in the given the main communicative Bruce, I. (2008). Cognitive genre
Nvivo platform and analysed function of the Methods section, which structures in Methods sections of
following a genre-analytic is to provide a detailed account of the research articles: A corpus study. ESP, 7,
approach (Kanoksilapatham, research carried out so it can be 38-54.
2005; Bruce, 2008; Peacock, repeated in other experiments Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005). Rhetorical
2011). following the same procedure. structure of biochemistry research
articles. ESP, 24, 269-292.
Peacock, M. (2011). The Structure of the
• However, there are significant Methods Section in Research Articles
differences in the frequency of use of Across Eight Disciplines. Asian ESP
other moves, such as moves 2 and 5, Journal, 7 (2), 97-124.
which reveal the influence of the Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis:
publication context variable in the English in Academic and Research
rhetorical structure of this section. Settings. Cambridge: CUP.
The rhetorical structure of research article Results (and Discussion)
sections in international versus national journals

Pedro Martín
University of La Laguna, Spain

Email: pamartin@ull.es

Abstract
Of particular interest to scholars who use English as an additional language is an
examination of the most frequent rhetorical strategies used to present Results in
recently published research articles (RAs) responding to the expectations of either
national or international audiences. Based on two comparable corpora of 10 pairs of
empirical RAs in English and Spanish (EXEMPRAES), the present poster shows the
effect of the publication context variable on the rhetorical structure of the Results
(and Discussion) section of RAs. The analysis of our corpora have revealed that the
obligatory move in both groups of texts is STATING FINDINGS (60.8% of all references in
Spanish and 57.7% in English), mainly realized by means of the strategy “Making
observations on the results or data”. The second most commonly used move, also
found in all the abstracts analyzed, is ESTABLISHING THE MEANING OF FINDINGS (12.8% in
Spanish and 11.0% in English). The preferred strategy to realize this move in English is
“Interpreting findings” (6.6%), whereas in Spanish is “Explaining findings” (5.6%).
Another prevalent move is PROVIDING BACKGROUND INFORMATION (14.0% in Spanish and
12.8% in English), mainly achieved through the step “(Re)stating an aspect of the
method”. Fewer instances of the move EVALUATING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS and the
move DRAWING IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS were found in either of the languages. We may
conclude, at this stage of our pilot analysis, that there is a great deal of similarity
across both groups of texts. However, some degree of divergence was also observed:
Within the most prevalent move (STATING FINDINGS), there is a higher tendency among
the writers in English (13.4%) to make specific comments on the meaning of the
results or data presented in tables and figures than on the part of the Spanish writers
(6.7%). It seems that the latter consider tables and figures as self-standing elements
that speak for themselves, whereas English-speaking writers tend to put more effort
into discussing the contents of these.

15
 The rhetorical structure of research article Results (and
Discussion) sections in international versus national journals
Pedro Martín
AELFE/LSP Conference
ENEIDA Team
12-14th June 2014
University of La Laguna
Stockholm University
(Spain) (Ref.: FFI2009-08336/FILO)

Results
MOVES AND STEPS IN RESULTS (& DISCUSSION) Sp Eng Sp Eng
Introduction SECTIONS (%) (%) RAs RAs
MOVE 1. PROVIDING BACKGROUND INFORMATION 14.0 12.8 7 8
Of particular interest to STEP 1.1. (Re)Stating aims, hypotheses or research questions 3.4 3.0 4 6
scholars who use English as STEP 1.2. (Re)Stating an aspect of the method 8.8 9.0 6 8
an additional language is an STEP 1.3. Making generalizations (without citations) 0.8 0.6 3 2
examination of the most STEP 1.4. Reporting from previous studies 0.8 0.2 1 1
frequent rhetorical strategies MOVE 2. STATING FINDINGS 60.8 57.7 10 10
used to present Results in
recently published research STEP 2.1. Announcing where the results or data are located 8.0 5.4 9 9
articles (RAs) responding to STEP 2.2. Making observations on the results (in tables or fig.) 6.7 13.4 7 10
the expectations of either STEP 2.3. Making observations on the results or data 42.6 33.8 9 10
national or international STEP 2.4. Reporting difficulties in obtaining findings 1.0 0.8 1 3
audiences. STEP 2.5. Reporting additional results in the current study 1.6 2.6 3 4
STEP 2.6. Highlighting non-consistent findings in the study 0.0 0.4 0 2
The present poster shows the STEP 2.7. Reporting expected results 0.0 0.6 0 2
effect of the publication STEP 2.8. Reporting unexpected results 0.8 0.8 2 2
context variable on the MOVE 3. ESTABLISHING THE MEANING OF FINDINGS 12.8 11.0 10 10
rhetorical structure of the
Results (and Discussion) STEP 3.1. Interpreting findings 5.6 6.6 7 5
section of research papers. STEP 3.2. Explaining findings 5.6 1.0 7 3
STEP 3.3. Clarifying findings (reformulation) 0.8 0.4 2 1
STEP 3.4. Comparing findings with previous research 0.5 1.8 2 3
STEP 3.5. Drawing conclusions 0.2 1.2 1 1
MOVE 4. EVALUATING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS 1.3 0.6 4 2
Methods
STEP 4.1. Establishing the value of findings 0.5 0.0 1 0
STEP 4.2. Stating the limitation of findings 0.8 0.6 3 2
A comparable pilot sample of MOVE 5. DRAWING IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS 1.3 0.0 2 0
10 pairs of RAs in English
and Spanish, recommended STEP 5.1 Recommending future research or practice 1.0 0.0 2 0
by expert informants from STEP 5.2. Reporting future research 0.2 0.0 1 0
various disciplines, was --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
drawn from the EXEMPRAES Average percentage of text segments devoted to each move/step and number of RAs containing each move/step.

corpora.

The rhetorical structure of the

Results (and Discussion) Discussion
section of the texts was
analysed following a genre- References
analytic approach (e.g. Brett, • At this stage of our pilot analysis we found
1994; Williams, 1999; Lim, that there is a great deal of similarity across
both groups of texts, although some degree Brett, P. (1994). A genre analysis of the Results
2010) and coded in Nvivo. section of sociology articles. English for
of divergence was also observed. Specific Purposes, 13, 47-59.
Subsidiary functions (e.g.
Lim, J. (2010). Commenting on research
supporting claims with • It is worth highlighting the higher tendency, on results in applied linguistics and education: A
citations), occupying 9.8% the part of the Spanish writers, to omit comparative genre-based investigation. Journal
specific comments on the meaning of the of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 280-294.
and 17.9% of the Spanish
and English texts, results or the data presented in tables and Williams, I. (1999). Results sections of medical
respectively, have been figures. It seems that they consider these as research articles: Analysis of rhetorical
categories for pedagogical purposes. English
excluded, due to space self standing elements that speak for for Specific Purposes, 18, 347-366.
constraints. themselves, whereas English-speaking
writers tend to put more effort into discussing
the contents of tables and figures.
The rhetorical structure of research article Discussion (and/or
Conclusion) sections in national versus international journals

Ana I. Moreno
Universidad de León, Spain

Email: ana.moreno@unileon.es

Abstract
The Discussion (and/or Conclusion) section of a research article published in an
international journal has proven to be the most difficult to write especially for those
who use English as an additional language (Moreno et al., 2012). It has also been
suggested that greater awareness of the differences in the rhetorical structure of this
section across international English-medium journals and national journals may help
multilingual scholars to write this part-genre in English more confidently. Thus, the
present poster shows the differences observed in the rhetorical structure of the
Discussion (and/or Conclusion) sections of empirical research articles in Spanish-
medium versus English-medium international scientific journals. In the present study,
a pilot sample of 12 pairs of RA Discussion (and Conclusion) sections was drawn from
the EXEMPRAES corpora. These texts were analyzed and coded for their rhetorical
structure (Hopkins & Dudley-Evans, 1988; Holmes, 1997; Ruiying & Allison, 2003;
Swales & Feak, 2012; among others) down to the level of the sub-step, following the
methods expounded in Poster 1 (p. 8 of this publication). Due to space limitations,
comparative data are offered just down to the level of the step. Subsidiary functions
(e.g. exemplifying), occupying an average of 15.6% of the text, are excluded. The
results show apparent differences across the Spanish and English sample at the move
level. More telling differences, however, can be found at the step level within all
moves. Despite the small size of the sample, the results suggest clear evidence that
the publication context variable affects the rhetorical structure of RA Discussion
(and/or Conclusion) sections with implications for multilingual scholars. Having
identified text fragments that express similar specific communicative functions in
highly comparable rhetorical contexts across the two languages opens the possibility
of further comparisons of text resources at the propositional and metadiscourse
levels with tremendous language teaching pedagogical applications.

References
Holmes, R. (1997). Genre analysis, and the social sciences: An investigation of the
structure of research article discussion sections in three disciplines. English for
Specific Purposes, 16, 321–337.
Hopkins, A., & Dudley-Evans, T. (1988). A genre-based investigation of the discussion
sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes, 7, 113–121.

17
Moreno, A. I., Rey-Rocha, J., Burgess, S., López-Navarro, I., & Sachdev, I. (2012).
Spanish researchers’ perceived difficulty writing research articles for English-
medium journals: the impact of proficiency in English versus publication
experience. Ibérica, 24, 157–184.
Ruiying, Y., & Allison, D. (2003) Research articles in applied linguistics: Structures from
a functional perspective. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 264–279.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2012). Academic writing for graduate students. Ann Arbor:
The University of Michigan Press.

18
 The rhetorical structure of research article Discussion
(and/or Conclusion) sections in national versus international journals

AELFE/LSP Conference Ana I. Moreno

12-14th June, 2014 ENEIDA Team
Stockholm University Universidad de León (Spain)
(Ref.: FFI2009-08336/FILO)

Introduction Results
The Discussion (and/or
Conclusion) section of a
MOVES AND STEPS IN DISCUSSION (& CONCLUSIONS) SECTIONS Sp(%) Eng(%) Sp RAs Eng RAs

MOVE 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 24% 29% 10 12

research article published in
STEP 1.1. Re-stating key features of the current study 11% 9% 9 11
an international journal has
STEP 1.2. Reporting background information with citations 7% 15% 8 10
proven to be the most difficult
STEP 1.3. Providing background information without citations 6% 5% 5 9
to write especially for those
MOVE 2. SUMMARIZING OR RESTATING KEY FINDINGS 20% 15% 12 12
who use English as an
additional language (Moreno STEP 2.1. Presenting a neutral or expected finding 16% 13% 12 12
et al., 2012). STEP 2.2. Presenting a finding as contrasting or unexpected 3% 3% 4 7
STEP 2.3. Highlighting a finding 1% 0% 3 0
It has also been suggested
MOVE 3. DISCUSSING KEY FINDINGS AND OTHER FEATURES 15% 21% 10 12
that greater awareness of the
STEP 3.1. Deducing from findings 5% 6% 7 11
differences in the rhetorical
STEP 3.2. Discussing causes and effects 3% 6% 5 8
structure of this section
STEP 3.3. Comparing with previous studies 3% 6% 4 10
across international English-
STEP 3.4. Making a prediction 2% 1% 3 5
medium journals and national
journals may help multilingual STEP 3.5. Commenting on a finding or side-effect 1% 1% 3 3
scholars to write this part- MOVE 4. EVALUATING CURRENT AND PAST RESEARCH 9% 11% 7 11
genre in English more STEP 4.1. Pointing out a negative feature or a limitation of the current study 3% 5% 4 8
confidently. STEP 4.2. Stating contribution or addition to the discipline 2% 1% 3 6
STEP 4.3. Evaluating the state of knowledge, practice or previous studies 1% 3% 2 8
Thus, the present poster
STEP 4.4. Pointing out a positive feature of the current study 3% 2% 4 5
shows the differences
STEP 4.5. Expressing support to an existing theory or method 1% 1% 3 5
observed in the rhetorical
structure of the Discussion MOVE 5. DRAWING IMPLICATIONS 16% 7% 7 11
(and/or Conclusion) sections STEP 5.1. Making recommendations for future practice or research 14% 6% 6 10
of empirical research articles STEP 5.2. Suggesting applicability or usability of findings or outcomes 2% 1% 5 2
in Spanish-medium versus STEP 5.3. Hypothesising for future research 0% 0% 0 1
English-medium international Average percentage of text segments devoted to each step/move and number of RAs containing each step/move
scientific journals.

Methods
In the present study, a pilot Discussion References
sample of 12 pairs of RA
 The results show apparent differences across Hopkins, A., & Dudley-Evans, T. (1988). A
Discussion (and Conclusion) genre-based investigation of the discussion
sections was drawn from the the Spanish and English sample at the move sections in articles and dissertations. English
EXEMPRAES corpora. These level. More telling differences, however, can be for Specific Purposes, 7, 113-121.
texts were analyzed and found at the step level within all moves. Holmes, R. (1997). Genre analysis, and the
coded for their rhetorical social sciences: An investigation of the
 Despite the small size of the sample, the structure of research article discussion
structure (Hopkins and
results suggest clear evidence that the sections in three disciplines. English for
Dudley-Evans, 1988; Holmes Specific Purposes, 16(4), 321-337.
publication context variable affects the
1997; Ruiying and Allison, Moreno, A. I., Rey-Rocha, J., Burgess, S.,
rhetorical structure of RA Discussion (and/or
2003; Swales and Feak, López-Navarro, I., & Sachdev, I. (2012).
Conclusion) sections with implications for Spanish researchers’ perceived difficulty
2012; among others) down to
multilingual scholars. writing research articles for English-medium
the level of the sub-step, journals: the impact of proficiency in English
following the methods  Having identified text fragments that express versus publication experience. IBERICA, 24:
expounded in Poster 1. Due similar specific communicative functions in 157-184.
to space limitations, highly comparable rhetorical contexts across Ruiying, Y., & Allison, D. (2003) Research
comparative data are offered articles in applied linguistics: Structures from
the two languages opens the possibility of a functional perspective. English for Specific
just down to the level of the further comparisons of text resources at the Purposes, 23(3), 264-279.
step. Subsidiary functions propositional and metadiscourse levels with Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2012).
(e.g. exemplifying), occupying tremendous language teaching pedagogical Academic Writing for Graduate Students. Ann
an average of 15.6% of the applications. Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
text, have been excluded.