Move analysis is a text analytical approach first developed by John Swales (1981) to investigate the underlying generic structure of research articles (RAs) in terms of movesand-steps for pedagogical purposes. A widely shared aspiration of move analysts has been to identify the linguistic features characterizing the various RA moves not only in English, but also across languages. One shortcoming blocking this advancement is the lack of multilingual corpora fully annotated for their specific communicative functions in a coordinated and reliable manner. In this paper, we describe and discuss a methodology for analysing the various RA sections for their generic structure up from the step level in two languages and across a wide range of disciplines, using the discussion section as a test case for illustrating that methodology. Among the topics treated are establishing criteria for choosing a suitable sample of comparable RA discussions across the two languages, designing a model for annotating the section's moves and steps, creating an accessible computer-assisted coding scheme, achieving good levels of inter-rater reliability, and obtaining validation from expert informants and writers. In essence, this is a methodology paper offered as a working model for other EAP researchers undertaking similar analyses in future.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The present paper starts out by assuming that, despite a relative uniformity of research articles (RAs) imposed by the requirements of the genre, there will be significant intercultural variation in the rhetorical preferences of national cultures. Its aim is to find evidence for or against this assumption. To do so, it focuses on one micro-level feature of text rhetoric, the use of causal metatext (or text about text) in orienting readers in the interpretation of cause-effect intersentential relations (CEISRs). An empirical contrastive analysis of 36 RAs in English and 36 RAs in Spanish on business and economics written by native speakers of each language is carried out. In fact, the results show that both language groups seem to make CEISRs explicit with similar frequency. In addition, they use similar strategies for expressing CEISRs, as reflected in the amount of emphasis given to the causal relation, the basic mechanism of coherence used and the choice of peripheral or integrated signals. Moreover, those strategies appear similarly distributed. The only differences across the two languages are shown in their tendencies towards verbal or nominal anaphoric and anaphoric-cum-cataphoric signals. Thus, overall these results tend to suggest that it is the writing conventions of the RA genre, and not the peculiarities of Spanish and English writing cultures, that govern the rhetorical strategies preferred by writers to make the CEISR explicit and the frequency with which these are made explicit.