miscelánea 72 (2025): pp. 69-91 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834
69
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF RHETORICAL
STRUCTURES IN ENGLISH L1 AND L2
UNDERGRADUATE DISSERTATION
INTRODUCTIONS
ANÁLISIS COMPARATIVO DE LAS ESTRUCTURAS
RETÓRICAS EN LAS INTRODUCCIONES DE
TRABAJOS DE FIN DE GRADO EN INGLÉS L1 Y L2
<https://doi.org/10.26754/ojs_misc/mj.202511384>
ISABEL PIZARRO
Universidad de Valladolid
isabel.pizarro@uva.es
<https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3152-5841>
LEONOR PÉREZ RUIZ
Universidad de Valladolid
leonor.perez@uva.es
<https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2750-4447>
Abstract
Undergraduate dissertations (UDs) are the final academic piece of work
undertaken by undergraduate students and their purpose is to evaluate mastery of
the skills acquired throughout the curriculum. They include an introduction that,
among other rhetorical functions, sets the general style of the entire dissertation,
presents the research context and objectives, and seeks to persuade the evaluation
committee of its quality and, thus, its relevance in the academic context. Based
on Swales’s model (1990, 2004) for the analysis of research article introductions,
we examine the rhetorical structure of UD introductions written by native and
non-native speakers of English to establish whether there are differences in the
rhetorical structure and the order of its moves and steps. The data analysed were
retrieved from a comparable corpus of 40 introductions. Results indicate that non-
native English speakers write shorter introductions with fewer steps and with a
more linear rhetorical structure than their counterparts, and both groups fail to
state the value of their research. Findings indicate that students require additional
guidance in the writing of this academic genre.
Isabel Pizarro and Leonor Pérez Ruiz
miscelánea 72 (2025): pp. 69-91 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834
70
Keywords: academic writing, undergraduate dissertation introduction, rhetorical
structure, native English speakers, non-native English speakers.
Resumen
Los Trabajos Fin de Grado (TFG) son el trabajo académico final que realizan los
estudiantes de grado y cuyo propósito es evaluar si se han alcanzado las competencias
de la titulación. Incluyen una introducción que, entre otras funciones retóricas,
establece el estilo general del documento, presenta el contexto y los objetivos de la
investigación realizada, e intenta convencer al comité de evaluación de su calidad y,
por tanto, de su relevancia en el contexto académico. Basándonos en el modelo de
Swales (1990, 2004) para el análisis de introducciones de artículos de investigación,
examinamos la estructura retórica de introducciones de los TFG escritas por
hablantes nativos y no nativos de inglés para establecer si existen diferencias en la
estructura retórica y el orden de sus movimientos y pasos. Los datos analizados se
extrajeron de un corpus comparable de 40 introducciones. Los resultados indican
que los hablantes no nativos escriben introducciones más breves, con menos pasos
y con una estructura retórica más lineal que sus homólogos nativos de lengua
inglesa, y ambos grupos omiten indicar la importancia de su investigación. Las
conclusiones indican que los estudiantes necesitan orientación académica adicional
para la redacción de este género académico.
Palabras clave: escritura académica, introducción del TFG, estructura retórica,
hablantes nativos de inglés, hablantes no nativos de inglés.
1. Introduction
Success in higher education depends on the ability to write effective texts that
conform to academic conventions. The undergraduate dissertation1 (UD) is a
crucial element in students’ academic life, being the final requirement to obtain
their university degree and marking the transition to professional life (Lillo-
Fuentes and Venegas 2020: 4-5). Writing UDs is particularly demanding, especially
for students in non-Anglophone universities that require UDs to be written in
English, as is the case in some Spanish universities, particularly within the degree in
English studies — an interdisciplinary area of study that encompasses the English
language, its literature, linguistics, teaching and cultural contexts.
The introduction of the UD (UDI) is a key section, setting the context and rationale
for the research and guiding the reader through the dissertation. Its purpose is to
establish the research background, define the scope and outline the structure of
A Comparative Analysis of Rhetorical Structures in English L1 and L2
miscelánea 72 (2025): pp. 69-91 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834
71
the work. For examiners, the UDI often shapes their first impression of the quality
of the dissertation, serving as a presentation of the research carried out (Fitriyah
2020). Effective UDIs require genre knowledge, that is, an understanding of
the conventions, structure and rhetorical strategies expected in academic writing
(Tardy 2009; Driscoll et al. 2020).
The Create a Research Space (CARS) model (Swales 1990, 2004) was developed
to analyse research article (RA) introductions. It is widely recognised as a valuable
tool for understanding how writers establish a research territory, identify a niche
and present their study. Although UDIs differ from RA introductions in authorship
(novice vs. expert), audience (lecturers vs. academic peers) and purpose (academic
assessment vs. scholarly research contribution), the two genres share similar
rhetorical goals and organisational demands, making CARS a suitable approach for
examining how undergraduates engage with academic conventions. Besides, there
is a general consensus that the CARS model is a valid analytical tool (Hirano 2009:
240). It is important to note that the application of the CARS model in this study
is descriptive rather than prescriptive, following Swales’s original intent (1990,
2004) to characterise actual rhetorical practices instead of imposing prescriptive
norms; thus, the introductions of Research Articles (RAIs) have been used as a
point of reference for the closely related UDIs, without functioning as a rigid
prescriptive standard.
Furthermore, comparing Spanish UDIs written in English with those of Anglophone
students is essential to understanding both linguistic and cultural influences on
academic writing. As English-medium instruction expands in non-Anglophone
contexts, identifying challenges faced by writers for whom English is a foreign or
additional language (L2) can inform targeted teaching strategies and support.
This study aims to compare the rhetorical structure of UDIs written by Spanish
speakers of English (English L2) and US English speakers (English L1), using a
corpus-based approach guided by Swales’s (1990, 2004) CARS model. It also
seeks to identify differences in the sequencing of rhetorical moves and steps and to
explore the influence of linguistic and cultural factors on these patterns.
To address these aims, we briefly review the CARS model and relevant literature,
describe our corpus and methodology, present our analysis of English L1 and L2
UDIs and discuss the pedagogical implications of our findings.
2. Literature Review
Swales’s (1990, 2004) CARS model has been extensively adapted to examine the
rhetorical structure of different academic genres and sub-genres that share core
Isabel Pizarro and Leonor Pérez Ruiz
miscelánea 72 (2025): pp. 69-91 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834
72
rhetorical functions. Variations of this model result from the diverse data used
in empirical and theoretical research (Árvay and Tankó 2004). Thus, numerous
investigations have replicated or refined Swales’s original proposal in various
communicative events, including master’s theses (Samraj 2002; Maher and
Milligan 2019), PhD dissertations (Jara 2013; Soler-Monreal 2015; Kawase 2018),
monographs (Álvarez and Velasco 2016) and RAIs within various disciplines like
linguistics (Sheldon 2011; Lin 2014; Rahman et al. 2017), other humanities fields
(Shim 2005; Acosta 2006), natural sciences (Samraj 2002; del Saz-Rubio 2011),
social sciences (Soltani and Kuhi 2023), economics (Calle 2008), engineering
(Joseph et al. 2014) or even variation across disciplines (Swales and Najjar 1987).
These studies often cover one or a combination of disciplines, languages and
particular linguistic features.
The question of whether the structure of non-English academic texts mirrors
that of English L1 texts was raised by Sheldon (2011), among others, who found
that English L1 writers target the international community, Spanish L1 writers
address a smaller local audience, while L2 speakers of English seek acceptance
in the international community. The challenges faced by Spanish scholars when
writing in English for an international audience (Mur-Dueñas and Lorés 2009;
Pérez-Llantada et al. 2011) and the difficulties experienced by L2 students when
writing academic genres (Bunton 2002; Cheung 2012) have also been analysed.
A number of these and other academic texts, authored by novice L1 and L2 writers,
are part of the Undergraduate Macro-Genre Graduation Project (UMGGP)
(Venegas et al. 2016). They share an academic register, target specialised
audiences and are evaluative instruments for degree accreditation (Thompson
2013; Lee and Casal 2014). Previous cross-linguistic research on UMGGP texts,
including evaluative texts written by graduate students, shows how L2 students’
writing often differ from the Swales format. These variations reveal the lack of a
standardised form and significant alterations in sections and organisation. Uymaz
(2017) examined English L2 master’s thesis introductions in literature and English
language teaching written by Turkish students, finding that they commonly omit
essential sections like the problem statement, the significance of the study or the
literature review; additionally, these introductions fail to identify a gap in previous
knowledge.
Similar results have been found in related cross-cultural studies of Spanish/English
L1/L2 academic written production. Lee and Casal (2014) investigated the
results and discussion sections of engineering master’s theses written by English
L1 and Spanish L1 students, revealing that variation in the use of metadiscoursal
resources is influenced by the writers’ distinct lingua-cultural contexts. Gil-Salom
et al. (2008) examined Spanish L1 PhD introductions (PhDIs) in computing,
A Comparative Analysis of Rhetorical Structures in English L1 and L2
miscelánea 72 (2025): pp. 69-91 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834
73
demonstrating a greater number of steps and sub-steps in different cyclical patterns
than those found in English PhDIs. They suggested that complex patterns arise
from the characteristics of the specific field and the candidates’ need to demonstrate
familiarity. Also, Soler-Monreal et al. (2011) conducted a cross-linguistic study
comparing the use of rhetorical strategies by English L1 and Spanish L1 doctoral
candidates. They observed that English introductions to PhD theses tend to be
more complex in structure, typically following the M1-M2-M3 model, whereas
Spanish introductions do not always include M2. This indicates that English-
speaking candidates prioritise identifying a research gap before presenting their
own work, while Spanish candidates emphasise describing their field of study.
Providing a consistent and precise account of the main characteristics of UDs is
complicated by the fact that requirements vary not only across countries but also
among departments within the same university. In general, however, a UD follows
a structure broadly aligned with the conventions of academic research writing.
They are generally expected to demonstrate original research, critical thinking and
effective scholarly communication.
Although UDs are important in the university curriculum, research on this genre
is relatively scarce in the literature and mainly monolingual. One reason may be
the lack of comparable corpora of English L1 and L2 UDs, or the absence of prior
descriptions of L1 UDs suitable for contrasting with L2 writing features. Flores
and Quiñonez (2021) analysed the rhetorical structure of Spanish L1 UDIs in
mechanical engineering, revealing significant deviations in the use of steps from
conventional PhDIs, which Arias (2018) attributed to the applied nature of the
field. Velasco and Álvarez (2019) analysed Spanish L1 UD abstracts across scientific
and humanities disciplines, noting that the latter tend to focus on descriptive
and contextual information, rather than on methodology, results or discussion.
Finally, Venegas et al. (2016) proposed a rhetorical model for UDs based on a
multi-discipline Spanish corpus, observing a consistent rhetorical structure in
introductions across disciplines.
3. Materials and Methodology
3.1. Materials: Corpus Description
Our study is based on a small specialised corpus of UDs compiled within the
framework of a research project aimed at analysing and comparing the rhetorical
structure used by English L1 and Spanish L2 speakers of English in their UDs.
It is an academic, genre-specific, monolingual, comparable, synchronic and topic-
specific corpus, as it includes UDs written in English by L1 and L2 speakers
Isabel Pizarro and Leonor Pérez Ruiz
miscelánea 72 (2025): pp. 69-91 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834
74
between 2015 and 2020. Its texts cover various fields related to English studies,
namely applied linguistics and grammar, literature, cultural studies and the study
of English as a foreign language (EFL). They have been evenly selected, with 50%
corresponding to literature and cultural studies fields and 50% corresponding to
applied linguistics, grammar and EFL, thereby reducing the risk of bias in the
rhetorical patterns observed. All the UDs are rhetorically structured, containing
at least an introduction, a body and a conclusion. They were uploaded to an open
repository and are related to the aforementioned disciplines; as such, they are
written under similar conditions and are therefore comparable (Moreno 2008: 35).
Based on the stated criteria, 100 texts were randomly selected from US and
Spanish universities that offer free access to full-text dissertations. The inclusion
of dissertations from US universities in the corpus was primarily motivated by the
predominance and global influence of American English in academic publishing
and higher education. The selected US universities include the University of
Arizona, the Ohio State University, the University of Michigan, the College of
William & Mary, Texas A&M University, the University of Utah, the University
of Florida, Brown University, the University of Vermont and Brandeis University;
and the Spanish universities are Universidad de Valladolid, Universidad de
Salamanca, Universidad de Oviedo, Universidad de Granada, Universidad de
Zaragoza, Universidad de la Rioja, Universidad de la Coruña, Universidad de la
Laguna, Universidad de Málaga and Universidad de Alicante.
To avoid source bias, a maximum of three UDs were downloaded from each
university repository, specifically the first three that met the inclusion criteria
specified above. Finally, due to the nature of the genre studied, this is a multi-
author corpus. Since we were unable to contact the authors, we used the
students’ names and affiliations to infer their first language, thereby maximising
the likelihood of including native speakers in both groups. Thus, following
Luzón (2018), we only included UDs authored by students with Anglophone
names in the L1 English subcorpus and by students with Spanish names in the
English L2 subcorpus. We assumed that the US students were native English
speakers and that the Spanish students were proficient in EFL, as expected
upon completing a degree in English studies. It was not considered necessary
to anonymise the corpus, as all the texts included in the two subcorpora are
publicly available through institutional repositories and written for academic
assessment. No personal or sensitive data were included, and the analysis focused
on rhetorical patterns, not on individual authors. This follows standard practice
in corpus-based discourse studies.
Once the texts were downloaded, we manually deleted the sections that would
introduce noise into our analysis, i.e. reference lists, annexes, acknowledgements
A Comparative Analysis of Rhetorical Structures in English L1 and L2
miscelánea 72 (2025): pp. 69-91 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834
75
and any information related to the evaluation committees. Then, the introductory
sections were extracted after having been identified by means of their own
transparent headings, that is, Introduction. Therefore, the corpus unit for this
specific study is the text corresponding to the UDIs. The comparable corpus
is composed of two subcorpora: (1) English L1 texts, and (2) English L2 texts
written by Spanish speakers, each comprising a total of 50 texts and 72479 and
34962 words, respectively.
Although it is a small corpus, the choice of texts and number of words meet the
criteria for qualitative and quantitative representativeness for the task at hand.
The quantitative representativeness was calculated a posteriori using the ReCor
computer application (Seghiri 2014). Quantitative representativeness refers to the
process of ensuring that a corpus’s minimum size is sufficient for representation by
establishing a threshold with an algorithm (N-Cor) (Seghiri 2017). ReCor analyses
each subcorpus and generates two representativeness graphs. To produce these
graphs, ReCor was run independently on the two UDI subcorpora. According to
the ReCor data (Figures 1 and 2), the L1 subcorpus achieves representativeness
with approximately 13 texts and 17000 words, while the L2 does so with 8 texts
and 8000 words. In each figure, Graph A (Estudio gráfico A) shows the number
of documents (nº de documentos) on the x-axis, and Graph B (Estudio gráfico B)
shows the number of tokens (tokens), while both y-axes display lexical variation
across the corpus. Blue lines reflect alphabetical order (orden alfábetico) and red
lines indicate arandom order (orden aleatorio).
Figure 1. Representativeness: L1 (ReCor data)
Isabel Pizarro and Leonor Pérez Ruiz
miscelánea 72 (2025): pp. 69-91 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834
76
Figure 2. Representativeness: L2 (ReCor data)
Given ReCor results and the labour-intensive nature of manual rhetorical analyses,
we decided to use 20 samples from each UDI subcorpus, which meets the
representativeness requirements set by ReCor. Furthermore, a set of 20 random
samples is a common standard for contrastive rhetorical studies. Table 1 presents
quantitative information for both subcorpora.
Subcorpora No. of
texts
UD
words
UD
min.-max.
UDI
words
UDI
min.-max.
UDI/UD
ratio
English L1 20 247525 4016-27554 19958 264-2198 0.08
English L2 20 170956 2785-18665 10253 208-977 0.06
Total 40 418481 30211 0.07
Table 1. Corpus quantitative data
3.2. Methodology
We applied Swales’s (1990, 2004) CARS model due to its robustness in analysing
academic genres like UDs, focusing on rhetorical moves central to academic
discourse. The model’s structure —contextualising research, justifying relevance
and articulating contributions— aligns with the communicative aims of UDs,
even in narrower pedagogical contexts such as undergraduate writing. The
model also facilitates cross-cultural analysis, revealing how structural deviations
in undergraduate texts may reflect developmental stages or cultural influences.
This offers pedagogical insights for guiding novice writers. We modified CARS
A Comparative Analysis of Rhetorical Structures in English L1 and L2
miscelánea 72 (2025): pp. 69-91 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834
77
model Move 1 (M1) to better reflect the specifics of UDIs and their field of study,
since different disciplines adopt distinct conventions for writing introductions.
Most studies propose move structures that tend to accommodate the scientific or
technical disciplines, which differ from those used in the humanities (Rahman et
al. 2017: 71). Furthermore, although there are similarities in the macrostructure
of UDIs and RAIs, they are different genres, produced and delivered in different
contexts, and with different tenors due to the authors’ expertise and writer-reader
relationships (Parkinson 2017). Also, UD writers are novice researchers writing
for their university lecturers, whereas RA writers are experts writing for their peers.
First, a manual top-down pilot analysis was carried out on a randomly selected
corpus sample of five texts to establish the rhetorical structure of the UDIs. The
texts were annotated using a move-based labelling protocol, and subsequently
shared and cross-checked by both researchers via a cloud-based folder. Then, both
researchers independently tagged the corpus, manually identifying its moves and
steps. The results were compared to reach inter-coder agreement. As functional
elements may lack distinct boundaries such as punctuation, this was a complex
and labour-intensive task with occasionally divergent results. In instances where
a segment of text could potentially be categorised under two distinct steps, it
was assigned to the step that demonstrated greater dominance or comprised a
higher number of sentences. When discrepancies arose between coders, a language
informant was consulted to review the case and reach a consensus, thereby
establishing inter-rater reliability (Kanoksilapatham 2005; Biber et al. 2007),
which refers to the measures taken to ensure a high level of agreement between
the researchers responsible for tagging the corpus.
Once the comparable corpus was tagged, we retrieved data from it. First, we
created separate subcorpora for each move to obtain frequency data on the number
of moves and steps used by English L1 and L2 speakers. Then, we analysed the
frequencies of the different rhetorical components. Finally, the sequence of moves
was analysed by manually transcribing the tags in their order of appearance within
each corpus file. We grouped the results and compared them with the prototypical
M1-M2-M3 CARS linear sequence to determine the preferred order and possible
move patterns in the L1 and L2 subcorpora.
4. Results and Discussion
Our analysis shows the complexities and distinctive rhetorical strategies used
by English L1 and L2 writers. We first present the results of our pilot analysis,
followed by a discussion of the sequence of moves, and conclude with a detailed
contrastive analysis subdivided into the three rhetorical moves.
Isabel Pizarro and Leonor Pérez Ruiz
miscelánea 72 (2025): pp. 69-91 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834
78
4.1. Pilot Analysis
The pilot analysis, grounded in a rigorous application of the CARS framework, revealed
a complex structure comprising three principal moves and 18 steps (see Table 2).
Moves Steps
M1 Establishing a
territory
S1 Claiming centrality and/or
S2 Making topic generalisation(s) and/or
S3 Reviewing items of previous research
S4 Contextualising - Personal experience/opinion
S5 Contextualising - Statement without evidence
M2 Establishing the niche
S1A Counter claiming in the previous research or raising a
question about it
S1B Indicating a gap
S1C Question raising
S1D Adding to what is known
S2 Presenting positive justification
S3 Implicit inconsistencies preluding a gap
M3 Occupying the niche
S1 Announcing present research descriptively and/or
purposively
S2 Presenting RQs or hypotheses
S3 Definitional clarifications
S4 Summarising methods
S5 Announcing principal outcomes
S6 Stating the value of the present research
S7 Outlining the structure of the paper
Table 2. UDI rhetorical structure (English studies)
We added two steps to M1 because we observed that, while students employed
Swales’s steps to establish their territory, they also contextualised their work by
reflecting on personal experiences when selecting the topic (S4), and by making a
statement that was not specifically supported by previous research (S5), as shown
in the examples below:
Excerpt 1. M1-S4. The main reason why I have chosen this topic is because
multimodality was studied on a subject named English Language VII in the last
course of English Studies at the University of Alicante, and it really caught my
attention since it was very useful for me and I could improve my communication in
oral presentations. L2#015
Excerpt 2. M1-S5. […] T.S. Eliot’s works, deemed outlandish at first publication, are
now revered for joining an unprecedented knowledge of canon and tradition with
divergent lyrical form. Through the radical ways in which these writers approached
their work, they were able to destabilise the form of the traditional novel and create
within literature the senses of questioning and self-awareness that seized the West in
the early 20th century. L1#021
A Comparative Analysis of Rhetorical Structures in English L1 and L2
miscelánea 72 (2025): pp. 69-91 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834
79
4.2. Sequence of Moves
This section compares the overall number and distribution of rhetorical moves
across the two subcorpora. The English L1 subcorpus exhibited a more complex
rhetorical structure, with a higher total number of moves (135) compared to the
L2 subcorpus (117) (Table 3). This complexity aligns with previous research on
PhDs, where Soler-Monreal et al. (2011) found a larger disparity in their analysis
of PhDIs in English and Spanish, with 145 moves in the English L1 dataset and
50 in the English L2 texts. This confirms that native-English-speaking writers tend
to elaborate more extensively and employ a broader range of rhetorical strategies.
Move L1 subcorpus no. (%) L2 subcorpus no. (%)
M1 47/135 (35) 45/117 (39)
M2 25/135 (19) 13/117 (11)
M3 63/135 (47) 59/117 (51)
Total 135 (100) 117 (100)
Table 3. Move occurrences: L1 and L2 subcorpora
M1 and M3 show high frequencies in both the L1 and L2 subcorpora, with M3
being the most common in both. These findings are consistent with previous
studies focusing on novice L1 and L2 academic writing (Sheldon 2011; Soler-
Monreal et al. 2011; Uymaz 2017). This highlights a shared recognition of the
need to establish context and describe the research undertaken, corroborating
established cross-linguistic patterns in academic writing.
The number of moves per text varies significantly, ranging from 4 to 12 in English
L1 UDIs and from 3 to 11 in L2 texts. Again, Soler-Monreal et al. (2011) found
greater variation in their corpus, with the English L1 introductions ranging from
3 to 26 and the Spanish L1 from 2 to 9. This suggests that students acknowledge
the importance of providing ample data and effectively articulating the specifics of
their investigations.
As Table 4 shows, both subcorpora consistently employ M1 and M3 (100%),
demonstrating students’ recognition of the importance of providing sufficient
data to support their research and describing the investigation undertaken in line
with other cross-linguistic studies (Soler-Monreal 2015). M2 is present at lower
frequencies, with English L1 speakers using it in 70% of the UDIs, compared to
35% for English L2 writers. This marked disparity in the frequency and realisation
of M2 —particularly its underrepresentation among L2 writers— reveals a critical
challenge for novice academic writers operating in a second language. L2 students
often bypass the niche-establishing move, transitioning directly from background
Isabel Pizarro and Leonor Pérez Ruiz
miscelánea 72 (2025): pp. 69-91 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834
80
to research description. This suggests both a transfer of L1 rhetorical habits and a
lack of familiarity or confidence in engaging with prior literature.
Move English L1 no. (%) English L2 no. (%)
M1 20/20 (100) 20/20 (100)
M2 14/20 (70) 7/20 (35)
M3 20/20 (100) 20/20 (100)
Table 4. Move frequencies: L1 and L2 subcorpora
These findings contradict the model proposed by Venegas et al. (2016) for UDIs,
which claims that M2 is prototypical for both linguistics and literature UDs. The
absence of M2 in our corpus is likely related to novice writers’ difficulty in identifying
weaknesses in previous literature and posing questions that require answers. Although
the literature on UDIs emphasises the necessity of M2, M2 is more prevalent in
English texts than in other languages (Frederickson and Swales 1994). This M2
omission among Spanish learners of English suggests a transfer of L1 patterns
into L2 writing. Furthermore, in non-competitive research communities, where
students aim to meet the expectations of their supervisors and committee members
(Soler-Monreal et al. 2011), M2 is often deemed unnecessary (Kwan 2006). The
introduction should include specific moves that ensure a smooth transition of ideas
throughout the section and serve the important purpose of engaging readers’
interest (Suryani et al. 2015). However, deviations exist in the sequencing of moves
among students compared to proficient users of academic English.
Following del Saz-Rubio (2011), Table 5 presents the move structures in the
English L1 and L2 subcorpora, providing further insight into students’ rhetorical
awareness. Approximately 25% of the L1 samples strictly follow the canonical M1-
M2-M3 sequence, reflecting a conventional approach, while this pattern is absent
in the L2 subcorpus, where no examples of the strict prototypical CARS model
are found. However, contrastive studies examining novice writing across various
disciplines yielded different results. For instance, Soler-Monreal et al. (2011) found
that 30% of the Spanish L1 introductions followed Swales’s archetypical model,
while none of the English L1 PhDIs did. Additionally, Ono’s (2017: 485) study
on literature PhDIs written by English L1 and Japanese L1 candidates reported
that although the M1-M2-M3 rhetorical structure was preferred, it often varied
depending on the subject matter, regardless of the language.
This deviation from the prototypical model could be attributed to the same factors that
Hirano found in her research, namely “cross-linguistic/cross-cultural reasons” (2009:
244). Furthermore, considering that we are analysing texts written by undergraduates,
it is possible that their supervisors did not require adherence to this structure.
A Comparative Analysis of Rhetorical Structures in English L1 and L2
miscelánea 72 (2025): pp. 69-91 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834
81
English L1 subcorpus English L2 subcorpus
Move sequence No.
texts % Move sequence No.
texts %
Preferred
CARS model M1-M2-M3 5 25 M1-M2-M3 0 0
CARS linear
structure
without M2
M1-M3 5 25 M1-M3 9 45
CARS linear
structure
with cyclicity
M1-M2-M1-M3 2 10 M1-M2-M1-M3 1 5
M1-M2-M1-M2-M3 1 5 M1-M2-M1-M2-M1-M3 1 5
M1-M3-M2-M3 1 5
CARS linear
structure
with cyclicity,
without M2
M1-M3-M1-M3 1 5.0 M1-M3-M1-M3 3 15.0
No specific
pattern with
cyclicity
M1-M3- M2-M1- M2-
M1- M3 1 5.0 M1-M2-M1-M3-M1-M2-
M3-M1-M3 1 5.0
M1-M3- M1-M3- M2-
M3 1 5.0 M2-M1-M2-M1-M2-M3 1 5.0
M1-M2-M3-M2-M3 1 5.0 M3-M1-M3 1 5.0
M1-M2-M1-M3-
M2-M3 1 5.0 M3-M1-M2-M3 1 5.0
M3-M1-M2-M1-M3 1 5.0 M3-M2-M1-M3-M2-M3 1
M1-M2-M3-M2-M3-
M1-M2-M3 1 5.0
Total 20 100 20 100
Table 5. Move sequences: L1 and L2 subcorpora
A closer look at Table 5 reveals a significant correspondence between the UDIs
and the general CARS progression in a linear sequence, with 50% of L1 and 45% of
L2 samples adhering either to the strict linear structure M1-M2-M3 or to a variant
that preserves the sequential order but omits M2, i.e. the M1-M3 sequence.
Most English L1 (95%) and English L2 (80%) students begin their UDIs with M1,
indicating adherence to the conventional practice of establishing the research field
under discussion. Additionally, all introductions conclude with M3, reflecting that
these novice writers recognise the importance of concluding their introductions
with a description of the research being conducted. These findings align with
those obtained by Bunton (2002) and Soler-Monreal et al. (2011) for PhDIs, and
with those of Lin (2014) for RAIs.
Isabel Pizarro and Leonor Pérez Ruiz
miscelánea 72 (2025): pp. 69-91 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834
82
The remaining CARS structures (15% L1 and 15% L2) follow a cycling
configuration, as defined by Lin (2014) and Swales (1990). Most introductions
are cyclical (50% L1 and 55% L2), which is generally consistent with previous
findings by Futász (2006), Lin (2014), Kawase (2018) and Soler-Monreal et al.
(2011) on RAIs in literature and linguistics, linguistics PhDIs and related areas.
Cyclicity involves the repetition of one (2/L1, 4/L2), two (5/L1, 6/L2) or three
moves (3/L1, 1/L2). As in Lin’s (2014) work, two-move repetition is the most
frequent pattern, with M1-M3 cyclicity occurring most often (3/L1, 5/L2),
followed by M1-M2 (1/L1, 2/L2) and M1-M2-M3 (3/L1, 0/L2). Our results
differ from those of Bunton (2002), who observed that M1-M2 was the most
common sequence and M1-M2-M3 the least common, and with Swales’s (1990)
findings, who linked cyclicity mainly to M1 and M2.
Several factors can explain move recurrence. Swales (1990: 158) suggests
that the probability of a cycling configuration increases with the length of the
introduction; additionally, certain disciplines, particularly the social sciences,
tend to exhibit more cyclicity. Soler-Monreal et al. (2011: 6) propose that
students may use cyclicity to demonstrate their reading and research efforts
to their supervisors and committee members. Jara (2013: 84), in his study of
PhDIs, suggests that these phenomena may arise from the absence of restrictions
in the introductory section, the need for a detailed explanation of the research
problem, or, what seems more applicable in our case, the inexperience of students
as academic writers.
Structures with no specific pattern represent 30% of both subcorpora, with none
exceeding 5%. Furthermore, these patterns range from three-move to nine-move
patterns, with recycling configurations.
4.3. Move Analysis
This section provides a detailed analysis of the three moves, focusing on a
comparative study between English L1 and L2 subcorpora.
4.3.1. Establishing a Research Territory (M1)
Although M1 was present in all samples from both subcorpora, we observed
differences in the use of its constituent steps when comparing the English L1 and
L2 subcorpora. We modified this move by adding two steps to Swales’s original
model (S4 and S5, see Table 2). Table 6 shows the M1 results with the percentages
of occurrences of each step.
In the L1 subcorpus, we found a recurrent use of S3-Reviewing items of previous
research (75%), which indicates that most native-English-speaking writers chose
to refer to previous studies to anchor their own research. Over 50% of UDs
A Comparative Analysis of Rhetorical Structures in English L1 and L2
miscelánea 72 (2025): pp. 69-91 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834
83
use S2-Making topic generalisation (55%), while 50% contextualise the topics
with statements lacking supporting evidence (S5). The remaining steps are less
frequently used.
In the L2 subcorpus, students use M1 to open the UD introduction section, with
S2-Making topic generalisation being their preferred step (50%). It is noteworthy
that one of the added steps, S5 (Contextualising - Statement without evidence),
appears in 45% of dissertations. Whenever L2 students use S5, they do not
review the previous research (S3); thus, they make claims unsupported by specific
research, probably due to a limited familiarity with academic conventions or
difficulty accessing documented sources.
Subcorpora M1-S1 No. (%) M1-S2 No. (%) M1-S3 No. (%) M1-S4 No. (%) M1-S5 No. (%)
English L1 6/20 (30) 11/20 (55) 15/20 (75) 5/20 (25) 10/20 (50)
English L2 5/20 (25) 10/20 (50) 7/20 (35) 3/20 (15) 9/20 (45)
Table 6. M1 steps: Contrastive analysis
The most relevant difference between the L1 and L2 subcorpora is observed in S3,
which indicates a lower importance of this step among L2 undergraduates (35%)
compared to L1 students (75%). This seems to be caused by the added difficulty
of researching and reading in a second language, even for advanced learners of
English, compared to English L1 speakers. Both English L1 and L2 students
use S2 and S5 at similar frequencies. The presence of S5, indicating a lack of
citation of other authors’ work, suggests that students in both groups have not yet
fully mastered citation conventions and are still novice writers rather than expert
scholars. The added steps (S4, S5) appear with comparable frequencies across both
subcorpora.
4.3.2. Establishing the Niche (M2)
English L1 writers used five distinct steps to establish the niche of their
introductions (Table 7). Of the 14 UDs that include M2, nine (64%) chose to give
a positive justification for the selected topic (S2), with the second most common
option being the raising of a question (S1-C, 43%), followed by indicating a gap
in research or knowledge (S1-B) and counterclaiming previous research (S1-A),
which were used in 29% of UDs.
We have already noted that most UDIs written by English L2 learners omit
M2, which serves to connect the broader research area (M1) with the specific
focus of their study (M3). Only 35% of these texts include M2, primarily by
indicating a gap (S1B, 86%). This may be because students perceive this step
as the simplest way to establish a niche, given that it apparently requires less
Isabel Pizarro and Leonor Pérez Ruiz
miscelánea 72 (2025): pp. 69-91 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834
84
authority and experience than other steps that demand comprehensive knowledge
of previous literature (S1A, S1C, S1D, S3) and confidence in the argumentative
strategies (S1A, S2, S3). Notably, there is an absence of S2-Presenting positive
justification and S3-Implicit inconsistencies preluding gap, as these steps require
sound arguments (S2) and thorough familiarity with previous research (S3). The
absence of M2 should not be interpreted as a flaw, but rather as a genre-specific
adaptation reflecting the UDI function as an academic evaluation instead of a
contribution to a competitive research community, that is, it constitutes a specific
characteristic of UDIs.
Subcorpora M2
no. (%)
M2-S1 A
no. (%)
M2-S1 B
no. (%)
M2-S1 C
no. (%)
M2-S1 D
no. (%)
M2-S2
no. (%)
M2-S3
no. (%)
English L1 14/20 (70) 4/20 (20) 4/20 (20) 6/20 (30) 2/20 (10) 9/20 (45)
English L1 4/14 (29) 4/14 (29) 6/14 (43) 2/14 (14) 9/14 (64)
English L2 7/20 (35) 1/20 (5) 6/20 (30) 1/20 (5)
English L2 1/7 (14) 6/7 (86) 1/7 (14)
Table 7. M2 Steps: Contrastive analysis
Note. M2 is used in 14 L1 files and 7 L2 files.
The contrastive analysis reveals that S3-Implicit inconsistencies preluding gap was
not used in any introduction, as its inherent difficulty poses a challenge for novice
writers regardless of whether they are L1 or L2 users of English. In contrast, the
preferred strategy in the L1 corpus was S2, with 64% of the L1 introductions
establishing a niche by providing a positive justification for the chosen line of
study. Interestingly, this strategy was not used in any L2 introduction. Within M2,
a relevant percentage (86%) of English L2 students employed the S1B-Indicating
a gap strategy, while the use of other steps was rare or non-existent. Although the
reasons for this pattern are not entirely clear, it may be suggested that L2 writers
adopt this approach to avoid “direct confrontation with a particular researcher”
and pursue “a more secure and potentially practical endeavour” (Árvay and Tankó
2004: 85).
4.3.3. Occupying the Niche (M3)
M3 rhetorical structure includes seven steps to narrate how to occupy the niche,
which English L1 undergraduates used to varying extents (see Table 8). Most of
them chose to present a research question or hypothesis (S2, 75%) and summarise
their methods (S4, 65%), with a similarly high percentage introducing the research
(S1, 65%). Fewer included paper structure details (S7, 40%) or defined terms for
A Comparative Analysis of Rhetorical Structures in English L1 and L2
miscelánea 72 (2025): pp. 69-91 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834
85
reader clarification (S3, 30%), while only a small number discussed main outcomes
(S5, 20%) or emphasised the importance of their research (S6, 20%). Álvarez et al.
(2016) agree that the primary difficulties in M3 arise from insufficient information
on the study’s approach, expected results and limitations.
Subcorpora M3-S1
no. (%)
M3-S2
no. (%)
M3-S3
no. (%)
M3-S4
no. (%)
M3-S5
no. (%)
M3-S6
no. (%)
M3-S7
no. (%)
English L1 13/20 (65) 15/20 (75) 6 /20 (30) 13/20 (65) 4/20 (25) 4/20 (20) 8/20 (40)
English L2 17/20 (85) 5 /20(25) 3/20 (15) 10/20 (50) 2/20 (10) 2/20 (10) 12/20 (60)
Table 8. M3 steps: Contrastive analysis
In the L2 subcorpus, 85% of students preferred to announce their research
descriptively and/or purposively (S1). This high frequency results from the fact
that this is the simplest way to present their research in a context, as most writers
omitted M2. The next most common steps were S7-Outlining the structure of the
paper (60%) and S4-Summarising methods (50%). Explicit hypotheses or research
questions (S2, 25%) and clarifying definitions of the concepts used (S3, 15%)
were infrequent, reflecting the limited inclusion of these elements by English L2
writers. Surprisingly, both announcing principal outcomes (S5) and stating the
value of the present research (S6) were rare (10%), which may be attributed to a
lack of understanding regarding the expectations for UDIs, the low importance
given by students to appraising their work, or the absence of a final reflection
that would allow students to summarise key findings and positively evaluate their
research.
The most unexpected finding in the comparison between the L1 and L2
subcorpora is the low frequency of steps S6 and S5. This finding suggests that
students tend to avoid engaging in complex discussions or self-evaluations
highlighting salient aspects of their own work. Instead, they prefer alternative
strategies, such as describing their work (S1), formulating a hypothesis or
research questions (S2) or discussing the methods used (S4). Both subcorpora
showed a clear preference for these steps, although with certain differences.
English L1 undergraduates preferred S2, while English L2 undergraduates
tended to use S1. A possible explanation for the low frequencies of S6 and S5
is that the writers are students rather than established authors accustomed to
promoting their own work. Finally, it should be noted that English L2 students
used step S7-Outlining the structure of the paper more frequently (60%) than
their L1 counterparts (45%), likely because this step is quite standard in terms of
content and language, making it easier to write.
Isabel Pizarro and Leonor Pérez Ruiz
miscelánea 72 (2025): pp. 69-91 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834
86
5. Conclusion
Using Swales’s (1990, 2004) CARS model, this study conducted a contrastive
analysis of UDIs written by English L1 and L2 speakers to determine whether
there are differences in their rhetorical structure patterns in comparison to the
established RAI standards, since this is the genre described in the literature that
comes closest to the one under analysis.
Regarding the rhetorical structure of the UDIs, our findings shed light on how
English L1 and L2 undergraduates structure their texts. Although most UDIs
conform to Swales’s move and step model for RAIs, their sequence and distribution
vary considerably between the two subcorpora:
- Complexity and sequence. UDIs written by L1 students show a more
complex organisation of the information presented, exhibiting a close affinity
with the M1-M2-M3 sequence of the CARS model. In contrast, this model
is not reflected in English L2 UDIs, which may be due to cross-linguistic
and/or cross-cultural factors (Hirano 2009), or simply not being required
by supervisors.
- Adherence to general structure. Nearly 50% of the texts in both subcorpora
follow the general linear sequence, although with some deviations (M1-
M2-M3 or M1-M3) and/or cyclicity. This recurrence of moves can be
attributed to the inexperience of these untrained writers.
- Omission of M2. M2 is frequently omitted, especially in L2 UDIs. This
tendency may be linked to the nature of the genre: UDs belong to non-
competitive research communities (Soler-Monreal et al. 2011), where
students may not feel compelled to identify research gaps.
- Step-specific preferences. When we examined each move independently, we
found that in M1, English L1 writers prefer to anchor their research with
references to previous studies, whereas English L2 writers tend to make
unsupported generalisations. In M2, about 70% of L1 writers use this
move to provide positive justifications, while only 35% of L2 students do
so, often opting instead to indicate a knowledge gap and avoiding direct
references to other scholars or explicit explanations of their choices. Finally,
when stating where their research fits in (M3), English L1 writers commonly
present research questions or hypotheses, while L2 writers describe their own
research without formulating specific research questions or hypotheses. In
neither group did the students specify their main findings or evaluate their
study.
The main implication of these findings is that novice writers, especially L2
learners, need further extensive supervised reading and explicit instruction in
A Comparative Analysis of Rhetorical Structures in English L1 and L2
miscelánea 72 (2025): pp. 69-91 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834
87
writing UDs, particularly their introductions and the rhetorical patterning of
these texts. Although formal rhetorical knowledge may be considered simplistic
genre knowledge, as opposed to nuanced genre knowledge (Driscoll et al. 2020),
it remains fundamental for acquiring the other three dimensions of genre
knowledge (Tardy 2009). Without such guidance, students might adopt the
simplest approach to demonstrate to their supervisors and evaluation committee
members that they can complete their UDs, resulting in UDIs that do not fully
conform to the rhetorical standards of the genre. This view aligns with John’s
(2011: 65) recommendations for genre-based writing instruction, advocating
that L2 students should start with genre analysis, understanding structure,
relationships and contexts before moving on to critique. Developing specific
teaching materials for L2 UD writing would contribute to improving academic
guidance in this task.
Another important point concerns the need to distinguish between a non-
standard yet acceptable use of the rhetorical structure of UDIs and a “local use”
characteristic of English L2 writers. This issue was raised by Lee and Chen (2009)
when discussing whether novice writers should use their “local flavour” or adopt
“expert-like writing”. We agree with them that academic writing should aim for
“international intelligibility and maximum acceptability” (Lee and Chen 2009:
292). Accordingly, the L1-L2 variations identified in our description of the
rhetorical structure of UDIs may be considered acceptable, provided they do not
compromise the intelligibility and acceptability of UDs in their respective discourse
communities. These differences underscore the importance of developing genre
awareness in academic writing instruction, recognising genres as flexible and
evolving, rather than fixed and prescriptive.
Our research faces certain methodological limitations. In corpus-based
studies, representativeness and availability are always challenges, and the use
of larger corpora would allow for more fine-grained analyses and more reliable
extrapolation. Additionally, cultural and other contextual factors play an
important role in shaping how rhetorical structures are used across different
linguistic communities. Moreover, the inherent diversity among L2 learners
poses a challenge to the generalisation of findings. Future research could
further explore field variation within English studies UDIs to deepen the
understanding of rhetorical structures in undergraduate dissertations. Similarly,
comparing Spanish UDIs written in English with those written in Spanish by
students of Hispanic studies would offer another valuable area of research. All
these questions indicate the need for further research on this topic, as well as
other linguistic aspects, such as grammatical, phraseological and lexical features
of UDIs.
Isabel Pizarro and Leonor Pérez Ruiz
miscelánea 72 (2025): pp. 69-91 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834
88
Author Contributions
This article is the result of a joint effort by both authors. All stages of the study
—design, theoretical framework, qualitative analysis, drafting and revision of
the manuscript— were carried out in collaboration. The only tasks undertaken
individually were the compilation and initial annotation of the subcorpora: Isabel
Pizarro Sánchez was responsible for the English L2 subcorpus, while Leonor
Pérez-Ruiz compiled and annotated the English L1 subcorpus. Subsequently,
the annotations were collaboratively reviewed and discussed to achieve interrater
reliability.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation
[PID2020-114064RB-I00] (Isabel Pizarro Sánchez). Leonor Pérez-Ruiz declares
no specific funding for this research.
Notes
1. While undergraduate students in Spain are required to complete an undergraduate
dissertation (Trabajo Fin de Grado, TFG) as an integral component of their degree programme, in the
United States, such a requirement is often associated specifically with graduating with honours. This
culminating project is variously termed across US higher education institutions: it is referred to as an
honors thesis at the University of Arizona and the University of Utah, undergraduate thesis at the Ohio
State University, thesis at the University of Michigan, and honors project at the College of William &
Mary, to name a few.
Works cited
AcostA, Otilia. 2006. “Análisis de introducciones de artículos de investigación publicados en la
Revista Núcleo 1985-2003”. Núcleo 18 (23): 9-30.
álvArez, Manuela and Erlantz velAsco. 2016. “Primeros pasos en la construcción de conocimiento
nuevo por estudiantes universitarios de grado: la introducción de monografías”. RAEL: Revista
Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada 15 (1): 109-128.
AriAs, Fidias. 2018. “Metodología para la valoración de resultados en Trabajos Finales de Grado
(TFG) de áreas tecnológicas”. REDU. Revista de Docencia Universitaria 6 (2): 177-191. <http://dx.doi.
org/10.4995/redu.2018.10189>.
A Comparative Analysis of Rhetorical Structures in English L1 and L2
miscelánea 72 (2025): pp. 69-91 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834
89
árvAy, Anett and Ggyula tAnkó. 2004. “A Contrastive Analysis of English and Hungarian Theoretical
Research Article Introductions”. International Review of Applied Linguistics 42 (1): 71-100.
BiBer, Douglas, Ulla connor and Thomas upton. (eds.) 2007. Discourse on the Move: Using Corpus
Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure. John Benjamins. <https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.28>.
Bunton, David. 2002. “Generic Moves in Ph.D. Thesis Introductions”. In Flowerdew, John (ed.)
Academic Discourse. Longman: 57-75.
cAlle, Cristina. 2008. “Estructura retórica en las introducciones de textos económicos”. In Monroy,
Rafael and Aquilino Sánchez (eds.) 25 años de lingüística en España. Hitos y retos. Universidad de
Murcia: 479-487.
cheung, Yin. 2012. “Understanding the Writing of Thesis Introductions: An Exploratory Study”.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 46: 744-749. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
sbspro.2012.05.191>.
del sAz-ruBio, Milagros. 2011. “A Pragmatic Approach to the Macro-Structure and Metadiscoursal
Features of Research Article Introductions in the Field of Agricultural Sciences”. English for Specific
Purposes 30 (4): 258-271. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.03.002>.
driscoll, Dana, Joseph pAszek, Gwen gorzelsky, Carol hAyes and Edmund Jones. 2020. “Genre
Knowledge and Writing Development: Results from the Writing Transfer Project”. Written
Communication 37 (1): 69-103. <https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088319882313>.
FitriyAh, Ulil. 2020. “Rhetorical Moves in Thesis Introduction Written by English Major Students”.
Paradigm: Journal of Language and Literary Studies 3 (2): 119-132. <http://dx.doi.org/10.18860/
prdg.v3i2.10229>.
Flores, María Dolores and José Quiñonez. 2021. “Trabajos de fin de grado de ingeniería: estructura,
estilo y movidas retóricas”. Revista Educación en Ingeniería 16 (31): 79-88. <https://doi.org/10.26507/
rei.v16n31.1163>.
Frederickson, Kristin and John swAles. 1994. “Competition and Discourse Community: Introductions
from Nysvenska Studier”. In Gunnarsson, Britt-Louise, Perr Linell and Bengt Nordberg (eds.) Text
and Talk in Professional Contexts. ASLA: 9-22.
Futász, Réka. 2006. “Analysis of Theoretical Research Article Introductions Written by Undergraduate
Students: A Genre-Based Approach”. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 53 (2): 97-116. <http://dx.doi.
org/10.1556/ALing.53.2006.2-3.1>.
gil-sAlom, Luz, Carmen soler-monreAl and María cArBonell-olivAres. 2008. “The Move-Step
Structure of the Introductory Sections of Spanish PhD Theses”. Revista Española de Lingüística
Aplicada 21: 85-106.
hirAno, Eliana. 2009. “Research Article Introductions in English for Specific Purposes: A Comparison
Between Brazilian Portuguese and English”. English for Specific Purposes 28 (4): 240-250. <http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2009.02.001>.
JArA, Iván. 2013. “Descripción funcional de introducciones de tesis doctorales en las disciplinas de
química y lingüística”. Onomázein 28: 72-87. <https://doi.org/10.7764/onomazein.28.05>.
Johns, Ann. 2011. “The Future of Genre in L2 Writing: Fundamental, but Contested, Instructional
Decisions”. Journal of Second Language Writing 20 (1): 56-68. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jslw.2010.12.003>.
Joseph, Renu, Jason lim and Arifah nor. 2014. “Communicative Moves in Forestry Research
Introductions: Implications for the Design of Learning Materials”. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences 134: 53-69. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.224>.
kAnoksilApAthAm, Budsaba. 2005. “Rhetorical Structure of Biochemistry Research Articles”. English
for Specific Purposes 24 (3): 269-292. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2004.08.003>.
Isabel Pizarro and Leonor Pérez Ruiz
miscelánea 72 (2025): pp. 69-91 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834
90
kAwAse, Tomoyuki. 2018. “Rhetorical Structure of the Introductions of Applied Linguistics PhD
Theses”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 31: 18-27. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jeap.2017.12.005>.
kwAn, Becky. 2006. “The Schematic Structure of Literature Reviews in Doctoral Theses of Applied
Linguistics”. English for Specific Purposes 25 (1): 30-55. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
esp.2005.06.001>.
lee, David and Sylvia chen. 2009. “Making a Bigger Deal of Smaller Words: Function Words and
Other Key Items in Research Writing by Chinese Learners”. Journal of Second Language Writing
18 (4): 281-296. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2009.05.004>.
lee, Joseph and Elliott cAsAl. 2014. “Metadiscourse in Results and Discussion Chapters: A Cross-
Linguistic Analysis of English and Spanish Thesis Writers in Engineering”. System 46: 39-54.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.07.009>.
lillo-Fuentes, Fernando and René venegAs. 2020. “Relación entre calidad de escritura y rasgos
lingüístico-discursivos en las introducciones de los trabajos finales de grado de ingeniería civil
informática”. Linguamática 12 (1): 3-13.
lin, Ling. 2014. “Innovations in Structuring Article Introductions: The Case of Applied Linguistics”.
Ibérica 28: 129-153.
luzón, María José. 2018. “Variation in Academic Writing Practices: The Case of Reporting Verbs
in English-Medium Research Articles”. Ibérica 36: 171-194.
mAher, Paschal and Simon milligAn. 2019. “Teaching Master Thesis Writing to Engineers: Insights
from Corpus and Genre Analysis of Introductions”. English for Specific Purposes 55: 40-55.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2019.05.001>.
moreno, Ana. 2008. “The Importance of Comparable Corpora in Cross-Cultural Studies”. In
Connor, Ulla, Ed Nagelhout and William Rozycki (eds.) Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to
Intercultural Rhetoric. John Benjamins: 25-41. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pbns.169.04mor>.
mur-dueñAs, Pilar and Rosa lorés. 2009. “Responding to Spanish Academics’ Needs to Write in
English: From Research to the Implementation of Academic Writing Workshops”. In Caballero,
Rosario and María Jesús Pinar (eds.) Modos y formas de comunicación. Universidad Castilla-La
Mancha: 501-510.
ono, Masumi. 2017. “Move-Step Structures of Literature Ph. D. Theses in the Japanese and UK
Higher Education”. Journal of Writing Research 8 (3): 469-491.
pArkinson, Jean. 2017. “The Student Laboratory Report Genre: A Genre Analysis”. English for
Specific Purposes 45: 1-13. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2016.08.001>.
pérez-llAntAdA, Carmen, Ramon plo and Gibson Ferguson. 2011. “You Don’t Say What You Know,
Only What You Can: The Perception and Practices of Senior Spanish Academics Regarding
Research Dissemination in English”. English for Specific Purposes 30: 18-30. <http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.esp.2010.05.001>.
rAhmAn, Mizanur, Saadiyah dArus and Zaini Amir. 2017. “Rhetorical Structure of Introduction in
Applied Linguistics Research Articles”. Educare 9 (2): 69-84.
sAmrAJ, Betty. 2002. “Introductions in Research Articles: Variations Across Disciplines”. English
for Specific Purposes 21 (1): 1-17. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00023-5>.
seghiri, Miriam. 2014. “Too Big or Not Too Big: Establishing the Minimum Size for a Legal Ad Hoc
Corpus”.HERMES - Journal of Language and Communication in Business 27 (53): 85-98. <https://
doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v27i53.20981>.
seghiri, Miriam. 2017. “Metodología de elaboración de un glosario bilingüe y bidireccional
A Comparative Analysis of Rhetorical Structures in English L1 and L2
miscelánea 72 (2025): pp. 69-91 ISSN: 1137-6368 e-ISSN: 2386-4834
91
(inglés-español/español-inglés) basado en corpus para la traducción de manuales de
instrucciones de televisores”. Babel 63 (1): 43-64. <https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.63.1.04seg>.
sheldon, Elena. 2011. “Rhetorical Differences in RA Introductions Written by English L1 and L2
and Castilian Spanish L1 Writers”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 10 (4): 238-251.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.08.004>.
shim, Eunsook. 2005. “Introductions in Research Papers: Genre Analysis of Academic Writing”.
English Teaching 60 (4): 399-422.
soler-monreAl, Carmen. 2015. “Announcing One’s Work in PhD Theses in Computer Science: A
Comparison of Move 3 in Literature Reviews Written in English L1, English L2 and Spanish L1”.
English for Specific Purposes 40: 27-41. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2015.07.004>.
soler-monreAl, Carmen, María cArBonell-olivAres and Luz gil-sAlom. 2011. “A Contrastive Study
of the Rhetorical Organization of English and Spanish PhD Thesis Introductions”. English for
Specific Purposes 30 (1): 4-17. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2010.04.005>.
soltAni, Kimia and Davud kuhi. 2023. “Contributing Factors to Move Recycling in Research
Articles: Perceptions of Social Science Researchers and Genre Analysts”. ESP Today 11 (1): 160-
181. <http://dx.doi.org/10.18485/esptoday.2023.11.1.8>.
suryAni, Ina, Yaacob AizAn and Noor Aziz. 2015. “Introduction Sections of Research Articles with
High and Low Citation Indices”. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities 23 (4):
1139-1152.
swAles, John. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge U.P.
swAles, John. 2004. Research Genres. Cambridge U.P. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9781139524827>.
swAles, John and Hazem nAJJAr. 1987. “The Writing of Research Article Introductions”. Written
Communication 4 (2): 175-191.
tArdy, Christine. 2009. Building Genre Knowledge. Parlor Press.
thompson, Paul. 2013. “Thesis and Dissertation Writing”. In Paltridge, Brian and Sue Starfield
(eds.) The Handbook of English for Specific Purposes. Wiley-Blackwell: 283-299. <http://dx.doi.
org/10.1002/9781118339855.ch15>.
uymAz, Eren. 2017. “An Investigation of the Similarities and Differences between English
Literature and English Language Teaching Master’s Theses in Terms of Swales’ Cars Model”.
People 3 (2): 552-562. <http://dx.doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2017.32.552562>.
velAsco, Erlantz and Manuela álvArez. 2019. “El resumen de trabajos fin de grado: diferencias
discursivas según áreas disciplinares”. Traslaciones 6 (11): 160-177.
venegAs, René, Sofía zAmorA and Amparo gAldAmes. 2016. “Hacia un modelo retórico-discursivo
del macrogénero Trabajo Final de Grado en Licenciatura”. Revista Signos 49: 247-279. <http://
dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342016000400012>.
Received: 24/02/2025
Accepted: 28/07/2025
Accepted: 11/07/2025
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.