A Comparative Study of Saudi and International Journals of Applied Linguistics: The Move–Bundle Connection Approach

Abstract

<jats:p>The present study implemented a genre-based approach to analyze the rhetorical structure of English language research articles (RAs): specifically, the Introduction-Methods-Results-Discussion-Conclusion (I-M-R-D-C) sections. Next, lexical bundles (LBs) associated with patterns of moves were identified by applying a corpus-driven approach. The study analyzed two corpora of 30 RAs purposely selected from 16 peer-reviewed journals of applied linguistics published in Saudi Arabia and internationally during the years of 2011-2016. First, a genre-based approach was used to identify the move structures of RAs through analyzing different RA sections by different models. Next, lexical bundles associated with each identified move in each IMRDC section were analyzed using a corpus-driven approach, based on structural and functional taxonomies. The study findings showed that both corpora share similarities and differences related to rhetorical structures and lexical bundles. These findings have pedagogical implications for novice writers, graduate students, and English for Academic Purposes (EAP) instruction, including raising awareness of rhetorical structures and LBs in academic writing for publication, which could help produce more successful publishable research articles.</jats:p>

Previous studies have several limitations …: Indonesian Doctoral Students’, Indonesian Academics’, and International Authors’ Research Gap Strategies in ELT Research Article Abstracts and Introductions

“…Although they have mastered English both in oral and written communication, the majority of non-native English authors still have problems in writing English RAs, particularly in proposing novelty in their research (Adnan, 2009;Arono & Arsyad, 2019;Arsyad, Purwo, Sukamto, & Adnan, 2019;Basthomi, 2007;Flowerdew, 2001). Furthermore, since English RAs published in international journals can be used as guidelines for students in writing RAs (Alamri, 2020;Futasz, 2006;Khany & Tazik, 2010), in this study, the Indonesian doctoral students' research gap strategies were also compared to the strategies used by Indonesian academics and international authors whose ELT RAs had been published in high-quality, peer-reviewed international journals. A comparative analysis enabled us to see the differences and similarities, particularly involving the realization of research gap strategies.…”

Rhetorical Structure of Applied Linguistics Research Article Discussions: A Comparative Cross-Cultural Analysis

“…Similar findings were reported by Basturkmen (2012) and Le and Harrington (2015), indicating "commenting on results" to be the most crucial Move in the discussion sections in dentistry and applied linguistics RAs, respectively. Moreover, reporting research results, i.e., Move 2, has been reported as an obligatory Move in several previous studies, as well (e.g., Alamri, 2020;Amirian et al, 2008;Atai & Falah, 2005;Dudley-Evans, 1994;Hopkins & Dudley-Evans, 1988;Nodoushan, 2011;Peng, 1987). However, little research has reported Move 1 as an obligatory Move (e.g., Rasmeenin, 2006, as cited in Nodoushan, 2011.…”

“…Several studies have explored and presented frameworks for all sections of RAs (e.g., Kanoksilapatham, 2005;Lewin et al, 2001;Nwogu, 1989), while others have focused on specific sections such as the introduction (e.g., Samraj, 2002;Swales, 1990), methods (e.g., Chen & Kuo, 2012;Lim, 2006), results (e.g., Brett, 1994), and discussion (e.g., Basturkmen, 2012;Peacock, 2002). As a text analytical approach, many researchers have adopted Move analysis to identify the structure of information in different contexts, registers, and genres, such as academic prose (e.g., Alamri, 2020;Alinasab et al, 2021;Hu & Liu, 2018;Loi et al, 2016;Marefat & Mohammadzadeh, 2013). Researchers classified Moves as conventional if they appeared in 50% (Holmes, 1997;Swales, 1990), 60% (Kanoksilapatham, 2005), or 66% (Hatzitheodorou, 2014), and obligatory if they appeared in 90% (Santos, 1996) or 100% (Cross & Oppenheim, 2006;Kanoksilapatham, 2005) of the investigated genre.…”

Seven Deadly Sins: Culture’s Effect on Scholarly Editing and Publishing

“…Academics, especially young and new-career, often let their L1 or native language influence rhetorical moves and steps in their English writing. Learning to naturally express thought according to rhetoric patterns of a language is the mastery level of fluency (Alamri, 2020).…”