ENGLISH FOR

SPECIFIC
English for Specific Purposes 26 (2007) 25–38 PURPOSES
www.elsevier.com/locate/esp

The textual organisation of research

article introductions in applied linguistics:
Variability within a single discipline
Ismet Ozturk *

Department of English Language Teaching, Faculty of Education, Uludag University, 16059 Bursa, Turkey

Abstract

This paper explores the degree of variability in the structure of research article introductions
within a single discipline. It is an exploratory study based on the analysis of 20 research articles.
The study investigates the differences between two subdisciplines of applied linguistics, namely sec-
ond language acquisition and second language writing research, in terms of Swales’s [Swales, J. M.
(1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press] CARS model. Some subdisciplinary variation was identified. The two subdisciplines seemed to
employ different and almost unrelated move structures. In the second language acquisition corpus
one type of move structure was predominant while in the second language writing corpus two dif-
ferent types of move structure were almost equally frequent. It is suggested that these differences
can be explained in terms of the concepts of ‘‘established’’ field and ‘‘emerging’’ field.
Ó 2005 The American University. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In recent years there has been a growing interest in the study of academic writing. One
line of research has concentrated on the study of grammatical and stylistic aspects of writ-
ten academic discourse. Among the phenomena investigated are the use of tense and
aspect (Burrough-Boenisch, 2003; Hinkel, 2004), modality (Vassileva, 2001), the use and

*
Tel.: +90 224 4429204x178; fax: +90 224 4429214.
E-mail address: iozturk@uludag.edu.tr.

0889-4906/$30.00 Ó 2005 The American University. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.esp.2005.12.003
26 I. Ozturk / English for Specific Purposes 26 (2007) 25–38

function of adjectives (Soler, 2002), nouns (Flowerdew, 2003), the use of reporting verbs
(Thompson & Ye, 1991), and so on. Another line of research has focused on the structural
organisation of academic texts. Different types of academic work ranging from textbooks
(Hyland, 2000; Moore, 2002) to conference papers (Rowley-Jolivet, 2002) have been the
subject of detailed analysis. Most of the attention, however, has been devoted to the
research article (RA). Researchers have examined the structural organisation of different
sections of RAs including abstracts (Hyland, 2000; Samraj, 2005), results (Brett, 1994;
Williams, 1999), discussions (Holmes, 1997), and discussions and conclusions (Yang &
Allison, 2003). Despite an interest in almost all sections of the RA, introductions have
received special attention particularly following the introduction of Swales’ (1990) pio-
neering CARS (Create a Research Space) model.
According to the CARS model, research articles contain three obligatory moves: (1)
establishing a territory; (2) establishing a niche; and (3) occupying the niche. Each of these
moves is realised by a number of obligatory and optional steps (Swales, 1990, p. 80).
Swales (1990) suggests that the CARS model can account for the structural organisation
of RA introductions irrespective of discipline.
Subsequent studies, however, have indicated that the structure of RA introductions
may vary in significant ways across disciplines. For instance, in his analysis of political sci-
ence and sociology RAs for general patterns of organisation, Holmes1 (1997) observes that
the introductions are untitled (i.e. do not contain the heading ‘introduction’) but most of
them (18 out of 20) are followed by a titled section. In his words, ‘‘with one exception, this
was an extensive section that dealt with theoretical background, previous research and
general topical information in varying proportions’’ (p. 327). He calls this titled section
‘‘background’’, and suggests that ‘‘the presence of such lengthy Background sections
can perhaps be considered a distinctive feature of RAs in the social sciences as opposed
to those in the natural sciences’’ (Holmes, 1997, p. 328).
Crookes’s (1986) study, aimed at replicating Swales’ (1981) earlier work, has also
revealed that in contrast to ‘hard’ sciences, social science RA introductions occasionally
contain topic-specific subheadings. Swales (1990) does not mention the possibility of the
existence of such a lengthy background section within RA introductions. If the CARS
model (see Section 2 below) is examined closely, we notice that items of previous research
are reviewed at Move 1, Step 3, which is then followed by Move 2 and Move 3. Move 3 is
the final move of the introduction.
If the findings reported above are interpreted in terms of the CARS model, in particu-
lar, the existence of a ‘background’ section after Move 3, which is generally titled (i.e. indi-
cated by subheadings), it may be suggested that RA introductions in the social sciences
deviate markedly from the CARS model.
Similarly, Anthony (1999), whose purpose was to test the CARS model, finds that
authors in the field of software engineering provide ‘‘definitions of important terms and
examples to illustrate difficult concepts’’ (p. 43). He observes that these occur extensively
after Move 1 and claims that ‘‘there is no step in the CARS model under which to classify
these statements’’ (p. 43). Moreover, he finds that in Move 3 authors in software engineer-

1
It should be noted, however, that Holmes’ study was concerned with the structure of the discussion sections of
social science RAs.
 I. Ozturk / English for Specific Purposes 26 (2007) 25–38 27

ing provide an evaluation of their research, ‘‘which included statements about the value of
the research and how it extends previous results’’ (p. 42).
Samraj (2002) has also identified deviations from the CARS model. She suggests that
RA introductions in the fields of Wildlife Behaviour and Conservation Biology contain
features that cannot be accounted for in terms of the CARS model. She finds that Wildlife
Behaviour introductions contain ‘‘a background move dealing with features about the spe-
cies studied’’ (p. 3). Her study also reveals that ‘‘the review of literature is not just limited
to Move 1 and, in fact, can be found in all three moves’’ (p. 7) both in Wildlife Behaviour
and Conservation Biology.
However, this review of research on the CARS model should not be taken to mean that
the model is inadequate to account for the structure of RA introductions. As pointed out
by Anthony (1999), it has been revised several times, and ‘‘as such, the model can be con-
sidered one of the strongest descriptions of text structure to date’’ (p. 39).
Recently, Swales has again modified the CARS model in Swales (2004). In this revision,
the number of steps in Move 1 has been reduced to one (‘‘topic generalization of increasing
specificity’’) (Swales, 2004, p. 230). Review of the literature is now not restricted to Move 1
Step 3, but it is suggested that it occurs ‘‘throughout the introduction and indeed through-
out the article as a whole’’ (p. 227). As far as Move 2 is concerned, the four options in the
1990 model have been reduced to two, and now there is a new optional step (Step 2) called
‘‘presenting positive justification’’ (p. 230). Finally, in Move 3, relabelled ‘‘presenting the
present work’’, the number of steps has been raised to seven with one obligatory, three
optional and three ‘‘PISF (probable in some fields)’’ steps (p. 232). (For a full account
of the revised CARS model, see Swales, 2004, pp. 230–232).
It seems that the 2004 version of the CARS model successfully accounts for most of the
limitations mentioned above, particularly those raised by Anthony (1999) and Samraj
(2002). As far as the limitations observed by Samraj (2002) are concerned, the introduction
of an optional step (Step 2), ‘‘presenting positive justification’’, in Move 2 accounts for her
first criticism, and Swales’ (2004) suggestion that review of literature does not only occur
throughout the introduction but can occur throughout the article as a whole accounts for
her second criticism. Most of the limitations observed by Anthony (1999) are accounted
for by the introduction of an optional step (Step 3) called ‘‘definitional clarification’’
and a PISF step (Step 6) labelled ‘‘stating the value of the present research’’ in Move 3
(see Swales, 2004, p. 232). However, the issue of the possibility of subheadings after Move
3 does not seem to have attracted Swales’ attention. I will return to this below.
Research has further demonstrated that there is variation not only across different dis-
ciplines but also between related disciplines, a somewhat discouraging finding for academic
writing pedagogy. Samraj (2002), for example, has found variation in the structure of RA
introductions in Wildlife Behaviour and Conservation Biology, two related fields. Her find-
ings illustrate that the moves, and the steps used to realise these moves, vary across the two
disciplines. Such variation across different disciplines and related disciplines does not seem
to be limited to the structure of RA introductions only; a number of studies reveal that
there is variation in the organisation of RA abstracts, as well (Hyland, 2000; Samraj,
2005). This raises the question of whether there is variation even between the subdisciplines
of a particular field. To my knowledge no study has specifically addressed this question.
Hence the present study aims to investigate whether there are differences between the struc-
tural organisation of RA introductions in second language acquisition research and second
language writing research, two subdisciplines of applied linguistics.
28 I. Ozturk / English for Specific Purposes 26 (2007) 25–38

2. Data and method of analysis

The corpus used in the present study consisted of 20 research article introductions from
two established journals in the field of applied linguistics – Studies in Second Language
Acquisition (SSLA) and the Journal of Second Language Writing (JSLW). The former
has published work carried out in the field of second language acquisition research since
1978, and the latter in second language writing research since 1992.
The corpus was restricted to empirical studies. Theoretical articles and articles pub-
lished in special issues were excluded from the scope of the present study. The restriction
was motivated by the observation that the overall organisation (i.e. rhetorical structure) of
an article may vary in accordance with its type (Crookes, 1986).
The 2001 issues of each journal were selected. Excluding a special issue, 10 articles in
SSLA were empirical. However, only half of that number was found in the 2001 issues
of the JSLW; therefore, the articles in the 2002 issues were also included to match the num-
ber obtained from SSLA. Information about the number of words, the number of authors
and the institutional affiliation of the authors is provided in Tables 1 and 2, below. Native
speaker status was not taken as a variable in the present study. However, the majority of
the (primary) authors were affiliated with institutions located in the United States and
Canada.
In the analysis of the introductions in the corpus, Swales’ (1990) CARS model was
employed. The model proposes that RA introductions contain three moves. They often
begin with a move where the writer establishes the topic of the article. In the second move,
writers create a research space (i.e. niche), which is then filled (i.e. occupied) in the third
move. Each move can be realised in a number of ways, called ‘steps’, as illustrated in
Fig. 1.
In the present study, the analysis focused on the section between the abstract and the
first subheading in the introduction of each article. This decision was motivated by the
characteristics of the model of analysis. As discussed in Section 1, Swales (1990) does
not mention the possibility that RA introductions might contain subheadings.
As the purpose of the present study was to investigate the overall (i.e. macro) structure
of RA introductions, the analysis was restricted to the organisation of moves. Using
Swales’ (1990) description, each sentence in an introduction was given a move and a step

Table 1
Details of the SSLA corpus
RA Number of words Number of authors Institutional locationa
SSLA1 1206 1 Turkey
SSLA2 588 1 Japan
SSLA3 1080 1 Canada
SSLA4 586 1 USA
SSLA5 577 1 USA
SSLA6 426 6 Denmark
SSLA7 2097 2 Canada
SSLA8 605 2 USA
SSLA9 2429 2 USA
SSLA10 1953 3 Canada
Average 1220
a
The institutional affiliation of the primary author is provided.
 I. Ozturk / English for Specific Purposes 26 (2007) 25–38 29

Table 2
Details of the JSLW corpus
RA Number of words Number of authors Institutional locationa
JSLW1 700 2 USA
JSLW2 1224 1 Canada
JSLW3 1419 1 USA
JSLW4 327 2 Canada
JSLW5 145 2 China
JSLW6 1771 1 Puerto Rico
JSLW7 767 1 USA
JSLW8 511 1 USA
JSLW9 465 2 Japan
JSLW10 245 1 Hong Kong
Average 757
a
The institutional affiliation of the primary author is provided.

Move 1: Establishing a territory

Step 1 Claiming centrality and/or
Step 2 Making topic generalisation(s) and/or
Step 3 Reviewing items of previous research

Move 2: Establishing a niche

Step 1A Counter-claiming or
Step 1B Indicating a gap or
Step 1C Question-raising or
Step 1D Continuing a tradition

Move 3: Occupying the niche:

Step 1A Outlining purposes or
Step 1B Announcing present research
Step 2 Announcing principal findings
Step 3 Indicating RA structure
Fig. 1. Swales’ CARS model. (Swales, 1990: 80).

label (e.g. Move1, Step 1). In most cases, the sentence as the unit of coding was quite suc-
cessful. However, in a very limited number of cases a sentence contained two moves. In
such cases, following Crookes (1986) and Holmes (1997), it was assigned to the move
and step that appeared to be more salient. This is exemplified below.
In broad terms, all research on L2 writing can be classified as studies in either cog-
nate or non-cognate languages, but no study to my knowledge has specifically inves-
tigated the effect of language family on L2 writing processes (JSLW6, p. 10,
paragraph 4).
In this case, after making a topic generalization (Move 1, Step 2), the writer indicates a
gap (Move 2, Step 1B). Here, Move 2, Step1B seems more salient. Hence the sentence as a
whole was assigned to Move 2, Step 1B.
30 I. Ozturk / English for Specific Purposes 26 (2007) 25–38

The analysis was carried out mainly by the researcher. However, for considerations of
reliability a subset was analysed by a second rater, who specialises in second language
acquisition research.

3. Results

First, I present the results regarding the move structure of RA introductions in the sec-
ond language acquisition corpus. The results provided in Table 3 point to the existence of
five different patterns of move structure. Of these, M1-M2-M3 was the predominant pat-
tern. Expressed in quantitative terms 60% (6 out of 10) of RA introductions in the corpus
contained the three moves and the moves were arranged in the order predicted by the
CARS model.
The move structure of 4 introductions (i.e. SSLA1, SSLA3, SSLA9 and SSLA10) dif-
fered from the pattern above. Nonetheless, the introduction in SSLA9, whose move struc-
ture was M1-M2-M3-M1, was also very close to the structure proposed by the CARS
model. With the exception of the final move, where the author provides more detailed
background about the research issues investigated in the study, the first three moves fit
the model.
These results suggest that the majority of researchers in second language acquisition
research tend to employ the move structure M1-M2-M3, which is to say they first establish
the territory (i.e. research topic) in M1, then establish the niche in M2, and end their RA
introductions by occupying the niche in M3.
With respect to the results concerning the move structure of RA introductions in the
JSLW corpus, the findings indicate that here there is a greater deviation from the move
structure proposed by the CARS model. According to the results provided in Table 4, five
different patterns of move structure emerge.
The results showed that only 1 out of 10 RA introductions (i.e. JSLW5) in the corpus
fitted the CARS model. Forty percent (4 out of 10) of the introductions in the JSLW cor-
pus had the move structure M1-M2-M1-M3. In this group of RA introductions there was
an intervening M1 between M2 and M3 where the authors made topic generalisations and/
or cited some work from the literature. Were the intervening Move 1 absent, these intro-
ductions would accord with the CARS model.
One RA introduction (i.e. JSLW7) in the JSLW corpus had the move structure M1-M2-
M1-M3-M1. Hence it was similar to the above group of RA introductions, but differed

Table 3
Move structure of RA introductions in the SSLA corpus
RA Moves Number of move units
SSLA1 1-2-3-1-3 5
SSLA2 1-2-3 3
SSLA3 3-1-3-1-2-1-2-1-3 9
SSLA4 1-2-3 3
SSLA5 1-2-3 3
SSLA6 1-2-3 3
SSLA7 1-2-3 3
SSLA8 1-2-3 3
SSLA9 1-2-3-1 4
SSLA10 1-3-1-3-1-2-1-3-1-3-1-3 12
 I. Ozturk / English for Specific Purposes 26 (2007) 25–38 31

Table 4
Move structure of RA introductions in the JSLW corpus
RA Moves Number of move units
JSLW1 1-2-1-3 4
JSLW2 3-1-3-1-2-3 6
JSLW3 1-2-1-3 4
JSLW4 1-3 2
JSLW5 1-2-3 3
JSLW6 1-2-1-3 4
JSLW7 1-2-1-3-1 5
JSLW8 1-3 2
JSLW9 1-3 2
JSLW10 1-2-1-3 4

from them in that after M3 it contained another M1 where the author reviewed some rel-
evant work from the literature.
Another single case in the corpus was the introduction in JSLW2, which began with an
M3 and had the move structure M3-M1-M3-M1-M2-M3. It contained the moves pro-
posed by the CARS model, but had a peculiar organisation of the moves. It began with
an M3, where the author announced her research in general terms (M3, S1B), followed
by the introduction of the research site and reference to a relevant study (hence, M1). Hav-
ing done that, the writer outlined the purpose of the study (M3, S1A), and this was fol-
lowed by the review of literature and some topic generalisations (M1). Then the author
identified a gap (M2), and this was followed by the research question (M3).
The remaining 30% (3 out of 10) of the RA introductions in the JSLW corpus did not
accord with the CARS model, in that they did not contain an M2. They included only two
moves (M1-M3). Overall, it appears that in the JSLW corpus there is no generally agreed
pattern in the organisation of RA introductions. It seems that the move structures M1-
M2-M1-M3 (40%) and M1-M3 (30%) have gained prominence.
I will now turn to a comparison of the two subdisciplines of applied linguistics in terms
of move structure. The results concerning the differences in the structural organisations of
RA introductions in the SSLA corpus and the JSLW corpus are provided in Table 5.

Table 5
Frequency of the patterns of move structure in the corpus
Move structure SLA SLW
N % N %
1-2-3 6 60 1 10
1-2-3-1 1 10 – –
1-2-3-1-3 1 10 – –
3-1-3-1-2-1-2-1-3 1 10 – –
1-3-1-3-1-2-1-3-1-3-1-3 1 10
1-2-1-3 – – 4 40
1-2-1-3-1 – – 1 10
1-3 – – 3 30
3-1-3-1-2-3 – – 1 10
Total 10 100 10 100
SLA, second language acquisition.
SLW, second language writing.
32 I. Ozturk / English for Specific Purposes 26 (2007) 25–38

The results show that the move structure M1-M2-M3 occurs in both corpora, but the
frequency of occurrence is 60% in the former, and 10% in the latter. In the SSLA corpus
the remaining three patterns of move structure were used only once. On the other hand, in
the JSLW corpus two patterns of move structure accounted for 70% of the corpus. These
were M1-M2-M1-M3 (40%) and M1-M3 (30%). The remaining two patterns were used
only once.

4. Discussion

In view of the results reported above, it can be tentatively suggested that there are dif-
ferences in the structural organisation of RA introductions in second language acquisition
research and second language writing research, two subdisciplines of applied linguistics.
This appears to be an important finding in that it is between the subdisciplines of a par-
ticular field where one would expect the least variability in the structural organisation of
RA introductions.
The findings of the present study can be regarded as a follow-up of previous studies.
Previous research has not only found interdisciplinary variation (Holmes, 1997) but also
variation across related disciplines (Samraj, 2002). Holmes (1997) has found variation
across the hard sciences and the social sciences, and Samraj (2002) between ‘‘wildlife
behaviour’’ and ‘‘conservation biology’’, which she regards as components of the environ-
mental sciences. The study reported here differs from previous studies in one important
aspect: it points to the existence of variability within a single discipline.
It seems that variation in the structural organisation of RA introductions cannot be
explained in terms of an interdisciplinary or a subdisciplinary analysis. Crookes (1986),
whose analysis was based on Swales’ (1981) earlier model, has suggested that the pattern
proposed by Swales occurs in shorter RA introductions, but that in longer ones ‘‘a variety
of alternatives is possible’’ (p. 65). That is to say, the M1-M2-M3 pattern is expected to
occur in shorter introductions. The SSLA corpus provides only partial support for Croo-
kes’ observation. The average number of words per RA introduction in the SSLA corpus
was 1220. In 5 out of 6 RA introductions that fitted the CARS model the number of words
ranged between 586 and 605, but one introduction (SSLA8) contained 2097 words. In the
remaining RA introductions, which had more complex structures in terms of the number
of moves, the number of words ranged between 1206 and 2429 (see Tables 1 and 3).
However, the RA introductions in the JSLW corpus cast doubts on such a relationship.
In this corpus there existed introductions shorter than the ones in the SSLA corpus, but
the move structure was not M1-M2-M3. In fact, one of the shortest introductions in
the corpus (JSLW10), consisting of just 245 words, had a complex structure (M1-M2-
M1-M3) (see Tables 2 and 4). In view of this, it is difficult to establish a firm link between
the move structure and the length of a RA introduction. Further research with a much
larger corpus is likely to enlighten the issue.
One way to proceed at this point is to explore the notions of ‘established’ and ‘emerg-
ing’ fields. Following Samraj (2005, p. 144), in this study the term ‘emerging’ is used to
refer to ‘‘fields of inquiry that borrow from more than one parent discipline’’. By taking
Hyland’s (1999) study as a point of departure we can suggest that in established fields
of inquiry writers see themselves ‘‘as inhabiting a relatively discrete and clearly identifiable
area of study and their research as proceeding along a well defined path’’ (p. 352).
Therefore, in established fields of inquiry ‘‘writers can presuppose a certain amount of
 I. Ozturk / English for Specific Purposes 26 (2007) 25–38 33

background’’ (p. 352), which would result in less use of M1s (esp. M1S2 and M1S3) in the
RA introductions. They can also presuppose ‘‘procedural expertise’’, which in turn would
result in using similar structural organisation in their RAs (p. 353). This might be the rea-
son why writers in the hard sciences mostly employ the M1-M2-M3 move structure in their
RA introductions (Swales, 1990).
In less established, or emerging, fields of inquiry, on the other hand, ‘‘problem areas
and topics are generally more diffuse and range over wider academic and historical terri-
tory, and there is less assurance that questions can be answered by following a single path’’
(Hyland, 1999, p. 354).
In view of the above discussion, it can be suggested the M1-M2-M3 move structure
commonly employed in the hard sciences is apparently predominant in second language
acquisition research, as it is considered an ‘established’ area of study in the sense that it
occupies a relatively discrete and clearly defined area of study within applied linguistics.
Indeed, the editorial policy of SSLA, from which the corpus used in the present study
was compiled, provides support for such an argument. It reads,
Studies in Second Language Acquisition is a refereed journal devoted to the problems
and issues in second and foreign language acquisition of any language. Theoretically
based articles reporting research studies are preferred.
This suggests that in second language acquisition research the area of study is perceived as
clearly defined – the acquisition of a second/foreign language.
Second language writing research, on the other hand, can be regarded as an ‘emerging’
field of inquiry within applied linguistics. In this area of study the patterns of move structure
identified (see Table 5) were marked by an extensive use of ‘‘topic generalisation’’ (i.e.
M1S2) and ‘‘literature review’’ (i.e. M1S3). Also, in contrast to second language acquisition
research where the M1-M2-M3 move structure seemed to predominate, in second language
writing research two different move structures were almost equally predominant in the orga-
nisation of RA introductions (M1-M2-M1-M3, 40%; M1-M3, 30%). The reasons for such a
patterning might be explained by referring to the editorial policy of the JSLW. It reads,
The Journal of Second Language Writing is devoted to publishing theoretically
grounded research and discussions of central issues in second and foreign language
writing and writing instruction. Some areas of interest are personal characteristics
and attitudes of L2 writers, L2 writers’ composing processes, features of L2 writers’
texts, readers’ responses to L2 writing, assessment/evaluation of L2 writing, contexts
(cultural, social, political, institutional) for L2 writing, and any other topic clearly
relevant to L2 writing and/or writing instruction.
The quotation suggests that research issues in second language writing are quite diverse.
They range from the psychology of writing to writing pedagogy. Indeed, in a review of the
first 10 years of the JSLW, Kapper (2002, p. 87) states,
contributions to Journal of Second Language Writing continue to be interdisciplinary
and have covered a wide range of topics. Some of the issues discussed most fre-
quently include: assessment, peer feedback, teacher feedback, writing prompts, audi-
ence, voice, computer-based text analysis, contrastive rhetoric, computers and the
writing process, ideology, genre, second language writing processes, plagiarism,
and placement.
34 I. Ozturk / English for Specific Purposes 26 (2007) 25–38

The interdisciplinary nature of the discipline and the diversity of topics might be the rea-
son why researchers working within second language writing feel the need to provide more
theoretical background in order to familiarise the readers from related or parent disci-
plines about the issues investigated. Hence, they make extensive use of topic generalisa-
tions and reviews of literature. For instance, in the following introduction between
Move 2 and Move 3 the authors make topic generalizations (M1, S2) and review a previ-
ous study (M1, S3).
One issue about which there is little existing evidence is the level of explicitness that is
required for error feedback to help students. (Move 2)
Specifically, when teachers mark student errors, do they need to indicate . . . (Move 2)
For pedagogical purposes, this is an important question . . . (Move 1, Step 2)
More significantly, there is much greater chance that the teacher will mislabel an
error . . . (Move 1, Step 2)
In a previous study (Ferris et al., 2000), we noted that our subjects . . . (Move 1, Step 3)
However, . . . only a small proportion (about 10%) of our larger sample of over 5700
marked errors. (Move 1, Step 3)
Thus we decided to investigate further in a controlled experiment . . . (Move 3)
(JSLW 1: 162-163)
In another introduction we only find review of a previous study (M1, Step 3) between
Move 2 and Move 3.
However, what exactly is meant by coherence? (Move 2)
Should coherence be explicitly taught, if so, how? (Move2)
Smagorinsky and Smith (1988) say that . . . (Move1, Step 3)
This classroom inquiry is an attempt . . . (Move 3) (JSLW 10: 136.)
Posteguillo (1999) and Anthony (1999) also report that cycles of Move 2 and Move 1
are frequently used in Computer Science RA introductions. Anthony’s (1999) specialist
informants have stated that they make use of topic generalisations and reviews of litera-
ture because they assume that ‘‘many readers would be unfamiliar with much of the ter-
minology and background necessary to understand the research’’ (p. 43).
On the other hand, in second language acquisition research, as exemplified below, with
the exception of two introductions (SSLA 3 and SSLA 10), after Move 2 the writers
directly proceeded to Move 3.
Whether the difficulty of focusing on form and meaning hold to the same degree in
the written mode still needs to be examined. (Move 2)
This study, a partial replication of . . . (Move 3) (SSLA 4: 346–347)
If L2 learners . . ., the question that arises is how they find out . . . (Move2)
If L2 learners . . . how do they eventually recover from these errors? (Move 2)
This study is concerned with how L2 learners come to know . . . (Move 3) (SSLA 5:
172)
This might be taken to mean that writers in second language acquisition, in contrast to
those working within second language writing, assume a certain amount of background
and knowledge of terminology by the reader as they consider their area of study well de-
fined, and hence established. In summary, it can be suggested that the more established a
 I. Ozturk / English for Specific Purposes 26 (2007) 25–38 35

discipline is the greater convergence is likely to occur in the structural organisation of RA

introductions.
It should be noted, however, that this is an exploratory study, and that the size of the
corpus is quite small, being limited to 10 RA introductions from each subfield. The ques-
tion of whether there is a correlation between the emerging-established field distinction
and the organization of RA introductions requires further research with a much larger
corpus.

5. Conclusion

The aim of the present study was to explore the degree of variability in the organisation
of RA introductions within a single field of inquiry. The generalisations made here are
based on articles appearing in a single prestigious journal in each subdiscipline of applied
linguistics. At first glance this may seem to be a limitation, but it illustrates that articles
with a variety of move structure can be published in a single journal. In other words, jour-
nal editors do not seem to prescribe a particular structural organisation to authors. Still, a
study using a corpus consisting of articles dealing with the same subject matter from var-
ious journals in the field might be fruitfully conducted.
The findings of the present study have pointed to the existence of variation across the
two subdisciplines of applied linguistics, second language acquisition and second language
writing research. The study has found interesting differences between the two subdisci-
plines, but a larger corpus is needed to determine how far the findings can be generalised.
Further research focusing on variation between the subdisciplines of a particular field
might yield new insights into the phenomenon of intradisciplinary variation not only in
the structural organisation of RA introductions but other sections of the research article
as well. In particular, studies investigating interdisciplinary and intradisciplinary variation
in terms of the concepts of ‘‘established’’ and ‘‘emerging’’ fields of inquiry might be prof-
itably conducted.
This study was restricted to the organisation of moves irrespective of the steps within
each move. A further study focusing on the organisation of the steps within each move
might provide significant insights into the local organisation of RA introductions across
disciplines.
A few words must also be said about the CARS model. The model was useful as a
descriptive reference, but it was not sufficiently accurate to account for the data used in
this study. According to Swales (1990) most introductions end with Move 3, which can
be realised in three steps. He claims that ‘‘if Step 3 occurs, it is always the end of the intro-
duction’’ (1990: 161), but research has indicated occasional use of subheadings within the
introductions in social sciences. Similarly, in the present study, in the majority of RA
introductions (60% in the SSLA corpus and 80% in the JSLW corpus) Move 3 was fol-
lowed by topic-specific subheadings. These subheadings provided either a detailed theoret-
ical or conceptual background about the phenomena investigated, or a detailed review of
literature on each research question or hypothesis.
In his recent book, Swales (2004, p. 232) offers a more hedged statement than the one
quoted above by saying that ‘‘a further step [Step 7, in the revised CARS model] that is
nearly always a final element in Move 3 is to outline (or ‘‘roadmap’’) the structure of
the paper’’ (italics mine). Despite this, it seems that he either does not envisage subhead-
ings in RA introductions or he considers their occurrence idiosyncratic. However, the
36 I. Ozturk / English for Specific Purposes 26 (2007) 25–38

considerably high percentage of subheadings in the RA introductions in the corpus used in

the present study suggests that the issue requires further research.
The findings of the present study may have some implications for EAP writing peda-
gogy. In teaching students how to organise their RA introductions attention should be
paid not only to patterns prevalent in the wider discipline, but also to the patterns
employed in a particular subdiscipline.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their helpful and insightful comments on
the earlier draft of this paper.

Appendix A. Articles in corpus

A.1. The SSLA Corpus

SSLA1. Haznedar, B. (2001). The acquisition of the IP system in child L2 English.

SSLA, 23, 1–39.
SSLA2. Wolter, B. (2001). Comparing the L1 and L2 mental lexicon. SSLA, 23, 41–69.
SSLA3. Helms-Park, R. (2001). Evidence of lexical transfer in learner syntax. SSLA,
23, 71–102.
SSLA4. Wong, W. (2001). Modality and attention to meaning and form in the input.
SSLA, 23, 345–368.
SSLA5. Montrul, S. (2001). Agentive verbs of manner of motion in Spanish and Eng-
lish as second languages. SSLA, 23, 171–206.
SSLA6. Glahn, E., Hakansson, G., Hammarberg, B., Holmen, A., Hvenekilde, A., &
Lund, K. (2001). Processability in Scandinavian second language acquisition. SSLA,
23, 389–416.
SSLA7. Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (2001). Modelling perceptions of the accen-
tedness and comprehensibility of L2 speech. SSLA, 23, 451–468.
SSLA8. Upton, T. A., & Lee-Thompson, L. C. (2001). The role of the first language in
second language reading. SSLA, 23, 469–495.
SSLA9. Flege, J. E., & Liu, S. (2001). The effect of experience on adults’ acquisition of a
second language. SSLA, 23, 527–552.
SSLA10. MacIntyre, P., Baker, S. C., Clement, R., & Conrod, S. (2001). Willingness to
communicate, social support, and language-learning orientations of immersion stu-
dents. SSLA,23, 369–388.

A.2. The JSLW Corpus

JSLW1. Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes. How
explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161–184.
JSLW2. Fazio, L. L. (2001). The effect of corrections and commentaries on the journal
writing accuracy of minority- and majority-language students. Journal of Second Lan-
guage Writing, 10, 235–249.
 I. Ozturk / English for Specific Purposes 26 (2007) 25–38 37

JSLW3. Zhu, W. (2001). Interaction and feedback in mixed peer response groups. Jour-
nal of Second Language Writing, 10, 251–276.
JSLW4. Qi, D. S., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage
second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 277–303.
JSLW5. Wang, W., & Wen, Q. (2002). L1 use in the L2 composing process: An explor-
atory study of 16 Chinese EFL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 225–
246.
JSLW6. Woodall, B. R. (2002). Language-switching: Using the first language while
writing in a second language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 7–28.
JSLW7. Reynolds, D. W. (2002). Learning to make things happen in different ways:
Causality in the writing of middle-grade English language learners. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 11, 311–328.
JSLW8. Bloch, J. (2002). Student/teacher interaction via email: The social context of
internet discourse. Journal of Second Language Writing,11, 117–134.
JSLW9. Kobayashi, H., & Rinnert, C. (2002). High school student perceptions of first
language literacy instruction: Implications for second language writing. Journal of Sec-
ond Language Writing, 11, 91–116.
JSLW10. Lee, I. (2002). Teaching coherence to ESL students: A classroom inquiry.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 135–159.

References

Anthony, L. (1999). Writing research article introductions in software engineering: how accurate is a standard
model? IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 42, 38–46.
Brett, P. (1994). A genre analysis of the results section of sociology articles. English for Specific Purposes, 13,
47–59.
Burrough-Boenisch, J. (2003). Examining present tense conventions in scientific writing in the light of reader
reactions to three Dutch-authored discussions. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 5–24.
Crookes, G. (1986). Towards a validated analysis of scientific text structure. Applied Linguistics, 7, 57–70.
Flowerdew, J. (2003). Signalling nouns in discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 329–346.
Hinkel, E. (2004). Tense, aspect and the passive voice in L1 and L2 academic texts. Language Teaching Research,
8, 5–29.
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.
Hyland, K. (1999). Academic attribution: citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied
Linguistics, 20, 341–367.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interaction in academic writing. London: Pearson.
Kapper, J. (2002). The first 10 years of the Journal of Second Language Writing: an updated retrospective.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(2), 87–89.
Moore, T. (2002). Knowledge and agency: a study of ‘metaphenomenal discourse’ in textbooks from three
disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 347–366.
Posteguillo, S. (1999). The schematic structure of Computer Science research articles. English for Specific
Purposes, 18, 139–160.
Rowley-Jolivet, E. (2002). Visual discourse in scientific conference papers: a genre-based study. English for
Specific Purposes, 21, 19–40.
Yang, R., & Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: moving from results to conclusions.
English for Specific Purposes, 22, 365–385.
Samraj, B. (2002). Introductions in research articles: variations across disciplines. English for Specific Purposes,
21, 1–17.
Samraj, B. (2005). An exploration of genre set: research article abstracts and introductions in two disciplines.
English for Specific Purposes, 24, 141–156.
38 I. Ozturk / English for Specific Purposes 26 (2007) 25–38

Soler, V. (2002). Analyzing adjectives in scientific discourse: an exploratory study with implications for Spanish
speakers at advanced university level. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 145–165.
Swales, J. M. (1981). Aspects of article introductions. Aston ESP research report # 1. Birmingham: University of
Aston.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Exploration and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, G., & Ye, Y. (1991). Evaluation in the reporting verbs in academic papers. Applied Linguistics, 12,
365–381.
Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific
Purposes, 20, 83–102.
Williams, I. A. (1999). Results sections of medical research articles: analysis of rhetorical categories for
pedagogical purposes. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 347–366.

Ismet Ozturk is an Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics at Uludag University. He has a PhD in Applied
Linguistics from the University of Kent at Canterbury (England). His research interests include discourse
analysis, academic writing and pragmatics. He has published a number of articles on discourse analysis.