Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (2010) 280e294

www.elsevier.com/locate/jeap

Commenting on research results in applied linguistics and

education: A comparative genre-based investigation
Jason Miin-Hwa Lim*
Centre for the Promotion of Knowledge and Language Learning, Malaysian University of Sabah, 88999 Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia

Abstract

As university students are frequently given the tasks of writing research reports to fulfil their respective programme require-
ments, teaching novice writers to present the results of their reports understandably constitutes an essential component of English
lessons at tertiary level. While past research has shown that results are consistently commented on in the Discussion section in
various disciplines, the degrees to which they are allowed in the Results section may vary across different disciplines and across
research reports based on different research methods. Without a detailed investigation into such disciplinary and methodological
differences, instructors and supervisors would find it difficult to inform novice writers about the permissibility and necessity to
incorporate comments of different categories in the Results section. This mixed-method genre-based study used quantitative and
qualitative techniques to (i) identify the extent to which disciplinary and methodological differences have a bearing on the
frequencies of comments in the Results sections of research papers in applied linguistics and education, and (ii) investigate the
various categories of comments in relation to their prominent linguistic mechanisms. The findings of this study can also help
instructors design relevant teaching materials that illustrate how experienced writers link their comments with major categories of
research results.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Genre analysis; English for research purposes; Teaching materials

1. Introduction

Notwithstanding the fact that research reports are an important genre for students at institutions of higher learning
across the globe, university students often encounter problems comprehending the forms and functions of various
sections of the research report (Swales, 2004). Despite the availability of samples of research articles and dissertations
that can be examined by them, novice writers may not find these forms and functions of writing obvious and readily
comprehensible (Basturkmen, 2009). The Results section, in particular, is difficult to handle even though it is
considered a crucial portion that drives the paper and should therefore be written first (Cargill & OConnor, 2006, p.
210). More specifically, commenting on research results is challenging to learners, and supervisors often find it
difficult to offer constructive feedback on how research results need to be discussed and commented on (Basturkmen
& Bitchener, 2005).

* Tel.: 60 16 8298305.
E-mail addresses: miinhwal@umich.edu, drjasonlim@gmail.com.

1475-1585/$ - see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2010.10.001
 J.M.-H. Lim / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (2010) 280e294 281

To ascertain whether a genre-based investigation into comments in the Results section is warranted, we may have
to consider (i) the real-world needs of writers to incorporate comments in the Results section (placed immediately
after the Method section), and (ii) several aspects pertaining to factors (affecting the inclusion of comments) which
need further investigation. First, our real-world experience in supervising and examining postgraduate dissertations
has revealed that report writers often find it unavoidable to include certain comments (particularly comparison of
present and past research findings) as a strategy to immediately justify the significance of their findings in their
Results sections. These Results sections often appear under different headings without involving the word
Discussion (i.e., unlike Results and Discussion). Second, some supervisors and examiners often have differing
views on the extent to which the inclusion of comments is to be tolerated or needed in the Results section and
a detailed investigation may disclose certain research circumstances under which comments may be incorporated in
the section concerned. A preliminary survey of the journal papers has shown that comments are frequent in some
Results sections and at times completely absent in others; nonetheless it is unclear whether methodological
differences (i.e., variations in the types of research methods, including quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method
approaches employed in the studies concerned) actually have a bearing on the vast differences in the frequencies of
comments in the different Results sections (RSs) in the same discipline. The present genre-based study has therefore
been designed to help us resolve an issue concerning whether the necessity to incorporate comments is partly related to
disciplinary differences (i.e., variations due to the differences in the academic communities concerned) and/or
methodological differences explained above. Even though it is widely known that results are generally reported in the
Results section (e.g., Brett, 1994; Williams, 1999) and commented on in the Discussion and/or Conclusion section/s
(e.g., Holmes, 1997; Hopkins & Dudley-Evans, 1988; Yang & Allison, 2003), it would be interesting to ascertain
whether the occurrences of comments in the Results section are actually dependent on the discipline concerned or
the research methods used.
To understand the context in which the present study was conducted, we will first review some literature on cross-
disciplinary and inter-disciplinary research. While cross-disciplinary studies focus on identifying differences across
disciplines, inter-disciplinarity is occasionally considered as borrowing information from other disciplines and it
is often thought of as a process of creating a new field of knowledge that is inextricably linked to its disciplinary
roots (Swales & Feak, 2000, p. 176). Inter-disciplinary research may require students to search beyond disciplinary
boundaries for insights into selecting a topic, reassuring a topics originality, formulating research questions not
usually asked in their own field/s, choosing from a range of methodologies, and resolving problems beyond the scope
of a single discipline (Swales & Feak, 2000). Studying cross-disciplinary differences, however, may enlighten
researchers on the current restrictions of multiple disciplines before they embark on some innovative inter-disciplinary
studies.
The need to study disciplinary differences has been demonstrated in some previous studies. For instance,
researchers in biology, physics, electrical engineering and mechanical engineering have been found to avoid using
within-sentence and block quotations while those in sociology and applied linguistics use them frequently (Hyland,
1999). Likewise, while philosophers prefer a more informal and interactive style in research reporting, statisticians
avoid using features that show personal involvement or emotion, such as first person pronouns and direct questions
(Chang & Swales, 1999). Identifying and comprehending disciplinary differences may therefore minimize instruc-
tors mistakes in over-emphasizing the importance of certain rhetorical features while teaching novice writers in
a discipline that avoids using the features concerned.
In relation to the aforementioned need to study disciplinary differences, we may consider some past research
involving the inclusion of comments in different disciplines. Thompson (1993) found that Results sections in
biochemistry are not purely expository but may contain comments such as statements citing agreement with pre-
established studies (38%) and calls for further research (19%). Brett (1994) reported that comments constituted 30%
of the categories in his corpus of sociological RSs, while Williams (1999) reported that comments were found in half
(50%) of his sample of medical RSs. In addition, comparison of finding(s) with literature, a form of comments, also
appeared in 50% of Posteguillos (1999) sample of computing RSs, while Yang and Allison (2003) reported that there
was an average of 5.6 occurrences per Results section (i.e., 33 occurrences in 20 RSs) in their corpus of research
papers in applied linguistics (AL).
At first glance, these past studies suggest that comments are reasonably prevalent in sociological, medical,
computing, and applied linguistics RSs, yet further research may be conducted for two reasons. First, it would be
interesting to take into account the effects of methodological variations on the frequencies of comments in the
282 J.M.-H. Lim / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (2010) 280e294

Results sections included in a corpus. Additional data can be obtained to show whether variations in the frequencies
of comments in a discipline are largely due to the differences in the types of research methods used as well. Second,
inferential statistics may be employed to compare the degrees to which comments in the RSs are optional across
disciplines. This means that we are uncertain as to whether the degrees to which the inclusion of comments is
permitted in the RSs actually vary significantly across disciplines.
There is no denying that applied linguistics and education are two disciplines which may occasionally overlap with
each other, yet a comparison of these two fields would be interesting for three reasons. First, some applied linguistics
articles, particularly those related to linguistic analyses, may not directly deal with the teaching and learning processes
emphasized in educational research papers. Likewise, educational research papers may be (i) more frequently aimed at
policy makers (in educational management) as their target audience, and (ii) unrelated to language (as they may be
associated with the teaching and/or learning of science, mathematics and other non-language subjects). Second,
education and applied linguistics have been considered as different disciplines in past research, such as Phos (2008,
2009) investigations into authorial stance, linguistic realizations, and article abstracts. Third, a comparative analysis of
the RSs in the two disciplines can be conducted to (i) obtain relevant data that may inform writers about the
expectations of these two largely different (and yet occasionally overlapping) disciplines, and (ii) minimize our
unjustifiable assumptions resulting from overgeneralizations of the expectations and requirements concerned.
Another domain that merits a more in-depth study appears to be the linguistic mechanisms that need to be high-
lighted in existing studies on comments presented in the Results section. Our experience in supervising dissertation
writing in English Language Studies (ELS), the Teaching of English as a Second Language (TESL) and education, in
particular, has revealed that some problems may arise when novice writers are not able to (i) distinguish comments
from findings using the salient linguistic mechanisms while reading reports, and (ii) present comments on their results
by employing appropriate language resources.

2. Objectives and research questions

This genre-based study seeks to (i) identify the effects of disciplinary and methodological differences on the
occurrences of comments (using a mainly quantitative approach), and (ii) investigate the various categories of
comments in relation to their prominent linguistic mechanisms employed to accomplish the writers major
communicative intentions (using a qualitative approach). It aims to answer two research questions as follows:

(1) What are the similarities and/or differences between researchers in applied linguistics and those in education
with respect to the frequencies with which they provide comments on their findings in the Results sections of
quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method research papers?
(2) What linguistic mechanisms do researchers in applied linguistics and education use to make comments on their
findings in their Results sections?

Answers to the aforementioned questions may enlighten second language learners on (i) the extent to which they
should include comments in their respective academic fields, and (ii) what language mechanisms can be used to give
comments on their findings wherever appropriate. The language data would also be useful for the preparation of
teaching materials in lessons aimed at helping learners write relevant comments that meet the expectations of the
research community.

3. Research methods

3.1. Data collection procedure

The researcher selected 30 RSs from two academic disciplines, namely applied linguistics and education. For each
discipline, three high-impact internationally refereed journals were selected. Using the purposive sampling technique,
both corpora contain the same number of applied linguistics (AL) research reports (NL 15) and educational research
reports (NE 15), and each corpus has five articles representing each of the three journals concerned. In each set of
empirical data-driven articles obtained from a journal, the researcher included two quantitative research reports, two
qualitative papers, and one mixed-method research report. The criteria used in differentiating quantitative research
 J.M.-H. Lim / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (2010) 280e294 283

from qualitative and mixed-method studies were based on the characteristics expounded by Gay, Mills, and Airasian
(2009) and Creswell (2008). Quantitative studies adopt a deductive approach, focus on objective reality which is to be
discovered, establish causeeeffect relationships, identify hypotheses to test, emphasize selection of participants at
random, seek data in the form of numeric scores or values, and use instruments such as rigidly-structured ques-
tionnaires/documents, and closed-ended interviews/observations. Qualitative studies, however, adopt an inductive
approach, focus on interpreting participants perspectives, describe and explicate relationships, allow a specific focus
to emerge while the research progresses, emphasize the purposeful selection of participants or samples based on
researchers articulateness and experience in the research circumstances, seek textual data through transcriptions of
open-ended interviews or answers to open-ended questions in questionnaires, researchers field notes in open-ended
observations, or visual/audio data derived from recorded materials. In addition, a mixed-method study (Chen, 2008,
p. 1015; Halvorsen, Lee, & Andrade, 2009, p. 181) refers to research that has combined the aforementioned quan-
titative and qualitative approaches and/or techniques in their investigations, and understandably incorporated both
quantitative and qualitative data in their research reports.
The selection of the Results sections in this study was based on an approach adopted by Brett (1994) who
considered sections under different headings (including Results, Findings Analysis and Results, and Data
Analysis) in his corpus as Results sections so long as detailed results were presented in them. [Notice that Yang and
Allison (2003) included sections under the heading Results and Discussion in the Results category rather than the
Discussion category, but this study adopted a more cautious approach by using Bretts (1994) more stringent method
of categorization in which sections under the heading Results and Discussion were excluded.] All the Results
sections in this corpus (i) are placed immediately after the Method section, (ii) contain detailed results/findings, (iii)
do not include the word Discussion in its heading, and (iv) are followed by the Discussion and/or Conclusion
sections. [Note: The Conclusion section has been considered by past researchers (Holmes, 1997; Hopkins & Dudley-
Evans, 1988; Peacock, 2002) as part of the Discussion section in past studies.] In terms of research limitations, the
findings obtained in this study would be generalizable to only Results sections exhibiting the aforementioned features.

3.2. Data analysis procedure

This study has employed Swales (1990; 2004) seminal move-step analysis that examines texts using a contextual
procedure that emphasizes communicative purposes recognized by expert members of an academic discourse
community. Using his method of analysis, a genre can be analyzed in terms of distinct units in a hierarchically
organized framework whereby a section is divided into rhetorical moves that are subsequently broken down into
constituent steps. Likewise, this study first attempted to distinguish the commentary move (considered collectively in
this study as a move that comprises several commentary steps) from other co-occurring rhetorical categories,
particularly those in the presentation move (i.e., a generic move stating the results of a study) and the metatextual
move (i.e., a generic move that mainly introduces readers to the results being presented). Demonstrating the
immediate co-texts with which a commentary move appears, Fig. 1 illustrates how a commentary move (signalling
a higher degree of tentativity) has been distinguished from its presentation move that expresses a relatively higher
degree of certainty.
Occurrences of each commentary step were marked in each text so that its frequency could be identified. Typo-
graphical features, division of sections and subsections, and linguistic features were used to distinguish one move
from another (Connor, Davis, & de Rycker, 1995; Connor & Mauranen, 1999; Mauranen, 1993; Nwogu, 1997). The
number of occurrences of each step was calculated with reference to the number of times it appears without being
interrupted by any other step. Hence, a step constituting a segment might consist of a main clause or even several
sentences insofar as its occurrence was not interrupted by any other rhetorical step. In cases where another step (made
up of at least a matrix clause) was inserted, the commentary steps appearing immediately before and after it were
considered as two separate occurrences of the same step.
A second rater, an English lecturer holding a Masters degree in TESL and having published an international
refereed paper on genre analysis, was subsequently hired to conduct a move-step analysis independently by specifying
the functional labels for the four steps using the detailed guidelines mentioned above. The two raters found a total of
105 segments (units in the corpus) that were initially considered as commentary steps. These steps were labeled
independently by the raters, and an interrater reliability analysis (IRA) (matching of the two raters choices) was
conducted using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 17.0 to calculate the kappa statistic K,
284 J.M.-H. Lim / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (2010) 280e294

Presenting research results Commenting on research results

We found important tendencies differentiating
the more and less successful students regardless
of location. Whatever the cultural background,
the more complex and nuanced the extractions
and manipulations the students tended to engage
in, the more successful they were.
The principals report that while in cases of the
purely legal their tendency is to comply with
the written letter of the law, their attitude
towards the legal-political is scornful, and
suspicious. They declare openly that they do
not intend to comply with this category of
legislation and feel free to circumvent, if not
deliberately sabotage, policy that accompanies
them.
Three students wrote calculations on their
worksheets that were difficult to interpret, but
the 14 others abandoned iterative addition of
the smaller term in favour of more effective
procedures: either iterative addition of the larger
term or attempted multiplications written in lines
or in columns.
This observation is amply corroborated
in the study skills literature (e.g.
Entwistle, 1984, 1987; Kember & Gow,
1994; Marton, 1976; Marton and Saljo,
1976; Nist, Simpson, Olejnik, & Mealey,
1991; Peterson, 1992(R6: 56)
Such a disposition can explain why
these policies will probably not be
implemented. (R26: 45)
Our interpretation is that the
regulations linked to sociomathematical
norms in each whole-class discussion laid
the ground work for those in subsequent
discussions and that it was this dynamic
and cumulative process (R23: 263)

Fig. 1. Shifts from presentation moves to commentary moves.

which measured the degree of agreement between the two raters. A kappa statistic of 0.865 was obtained, thus
indicating that the interrater agreement was outstanding. [Kappa statistics from 0.60 to 0.79 are considered substantial,
and those at or above 0.80 outstanding (Landis & Koch, 1977).] A detailed discussion was conducted on the functions
of the segments upon which disagreement arose, and only 97 segments were confirmed by both raters as commentary
steps.
The occurrences of commentary steps in the two corpora were subsequently analyzed in relation to (i) the disci-
plines concerned, and (ii) the types of research methods with reference to the numbers of occurrences and central
tendencies of the rhetorical categories. The ManneWhitney U-Tests were used to compare (i) the two corpora in terms
of the numbers of occurrences, and (ii) the quantitative and qualitative articles with reference to the frequencies of the
steps in each corpus and subsequently in both corpora. [The ManneWhitney U-tests were employed because (i) non-
parametric tests were needed when the numbers of occurrences were not normally distributed in this study (Norusis,
2008), (ii) the selection of the samples was purposeful rather than random, and (iii) the aforementioned comparisons
involved an independent nominal/categorical variable (involving disciplines or research methods) and a dependent
ratio variable (i.e., frequency of each commentary step) which could have a true zero value (Carver & Nash, 2009;
Creswell, 2008; Muijs, 2004).] In the methodological non-parametric comparison of the articles in both disci-
plines, the KruskaleWallis H-tests were used because three independent samples (i.e., quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed-method papers) were compared [as suggested by Carver and Nash (2009) and Gay et al. (2009)]. The Pearson
moment correlation coefficient was then obtained to indicate the strength of the relationship between the frequencies
of the commentary steps and the lengths (i.e., numbers of words) of the Results sections.
Subsequently, the salient lexico-grammatical choices employed to perform the functions were analyzed with
reference to sentence structures, clause elements, categories of phrases, and parts of speech if they appeared as
prominent features of the move. The analysis of salient linguistic choices was conducted on the basis of (i) linguistic
descriptions provided by Greenbaum and Quirk (1992), and Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, and Svartvik (1985), and (ii)
lexico-grammatical descriptions as illustrated by Lim (2006, 2008) and Thomas and Hawes (1994) for the research
genre.

4. Results

Four commentary steps that have been identified in this investigation are Step 1 (i.e., giving reasons for the
findings), Step 2 (i.e., expressing views on the findings), Step 3 (i.e., comparing findings with literature), and Step
4 (i.e., making recommendations for future research). Table 1 shows that a total of 97 occurrences of these comment
 J.M.-H. Lim / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (2010) 280e294 285

Table 1
Frequencies and central tendencies of commentary steps in the ALRSs and ERSs.
Journal Article Type of research Heading for the Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Steps
no. procedure Results section 1e4
Results sections (RSs) in applied linguistics
TESOL quarterly RS 1 Qualitative Findings 1 0 0 0 1
RS 2 Qualitative Results 2 0 0 0 2
RS 3 Quantitative Results 4 2 2 2 10
RS 4 Quantitative Results 0 0 0 0 0
RS 5 Mixed-method Findings 0 1 1 0 2
English for Specific Purposes RS 6 Qualitative Findings 5 5 8 1 19
RS 7 Mixed-method Analysis of Data 11 0 1 0 12
RS 8 Quantitative Findings 2 1 0 0 3
RS 9 Qualitative Results 2 0 1 0 3
RS 10 Quantitative Results 0 2 0 0 2
Applied linguistics RS 11 Mixed-method The Findings 3 6 4 0 13
RS 12 Qualitative Findings 1 3 8 0 12
RS 13 Quantitative Results 0 0 0 0 0
RS 14 Quantitative Results 0 0 0 0 0
RS 15 Qualitative Findings 0 1 2 0 3
No. of AL papers containing the step/s 9 8 8 2 12
Frequency in quantitative ALRSs 6 5 2 2 15
Frequency in qualitative ALRSs 11 9 19 1 40
Frequency in mixed-method ALRSs 14 7 6 0 27
Frequency in ALRSs 31 21 27 3 82
Mean frequency in ALRSs 2.07 1.40 1.80 0.20 5.47
SD 2.939 1.920 2.757 0.561 6.034
Results sections in education
Educational Research RS 16 Quantitative Results 0 0 0 0 0
RS 17 Qualitative Teachers stories 0 0 0 0 0
RS 18 Quantitative Results 1 0 0 0 1
RS 19 Qualitative Results 0 0 0 0 0
RS 20 Mixed-method Results 2 0 2 0 4
International journal of Rs 21 Quantitative Results 0 0 0 0 0
educational research Rs 22 Quantitative Results 0 0 1 0 1
RS 23 Qualitative Results 0 2 0 0 2
Rs 24 Qualitative Results 2 0 2 0 4
Rs 25 Mixed-method Results 0 0 1 0 1
Studies in Educational Evaluation RS 26 Qualitative Findings 1 1 0 0 2
Rs 27 Qualitative Results 0 0 0 0 0
Rs 28 Mixed-method Results 0 0 0 0 0
Rs 29 Quantitative Results 0 0 0 0 0
RS 30 Quantitative Results 0 0 0 0 0
No. of educational papers containing the step/s 4 2 4 0 7
Frequency in quantitative ERSs 1 0 1 0 2
Frequency in qualitative ERSs 3 3 2 0 8
Frequency in mixed-method ERSs 2 0 3 0 5
Frequency in ERSs 6 3 6 0 15
Mean frequency in ERSs 0.40 0.20 0.40 0.00 1.00
SD 0.737 0.561 0.737 0.000 1.414
Results sections in both disciplines
Total no. of papers containing the step/s 13 10 12 2 19
Frequency in quantitative RSs 7 5 3 2 17
Frequency in qualitative RSs 14 12 21 1 48
Frequency in mixed-method RSs 16 7 9 0 32
Frequency in RSs 37 24 33 3 97
Mean frequency in RSs 1.23 0.80 1.10 0.10 3.23
SD 2.269 1.518 2.107 0.403 4.869
286 J.M.-H. Lim / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (2010) 280e294

Table 2
P-values indicating effects of disciplinary and quantitativeequalitative variations on the occurrences of commentary steps.
Rhetorical Discipline (Applied linguistics/education) Type of research procedure (quantitative/qualitative)
category
ManneWhitney U statistic (U) p-value Applied linguistics Education Applied linguistics and education
U p-value U p-value U p-value
Step 1 66.000 0.032 11.000 0.241 14.500 0.461 49.500 0.145
Step 2 65.000 0.019 16.000 0.731 12.000 0.140 58.500 0.352
Step 3 77.500 0.100 8.500 0.088 17.500 0.902 51.500 0.140
Step 4 97.500 0.150 17.500 0.902 18.000 1.000 71.500 0.952
Steps 1e4 53.500 0.012 8.500 0.122 12.000 0.282 41.000 0.062

categories have been identified in the two corpora. Interestingly, 84.5% (82/97) of the occurrences of comments have
been found in the corpus of applied linguistics Results sections (ALRSs) whereas merely 15.5% (15/97) of the
comments appear in the educational corpus. According to the results of the ManneWhitney U-test shown in Table 2,
the asymptotic value for the occurrences of the four commentary steps across the two disciplines was 0.012 (which is
far less than 0.05), thus showing that a significant difference across disciplines exists in the overall occurrences of
commentary steps in the RSs.
Of the 82 occurrences of comments in ALRSs, 48.8% (40/82) have been found in qualitative research papers which
merely constitute 40% of all the AL research reports. Nonetheless, as the p-value for the quantitativeequalitative
comparison of ALRSs (as shown in Table 2) is 0.122 (p > 0.05), the quantitativeequalitative difference in the
occurrence of commentary steps is still not significant. Similarly, 53.3% (8/15) of the occurrences of comments in the
educational Results sections (ERSs) appear in qualitative RSs. On the whole, 49.5% (48/97) of the occurrences of
comments are found in the qualitative RSs in the two corpora whereas merely 17.5% (17/97) of such occurrences
appear in the quantitative RSs. Given that the p-value for the quantitativeequalitative comparison of all steps in ERSs
(as indicated in Table 2) is 0.282 (p > 0.05), the quantitativeequalitative difference is also not significant. This means
that there is no significant quantitativeequalitative difference in the writers tendencies to include comments in both
applied linguistics and education even though the difference due to disciplinary variation is significant.
In terms of lengths, the numbers of words of the ALRSs range from 240 to 5664 words (mean 3173) while those
of ERSs range between 622 and 3460 words (mean 1725). As the two-tailed p-value (based on a ManneWhitney
U-test) is 0.026 (i.e., p < 0.05), we have found a significant disciplinary difference between the lengths of ALRSs and
those of ERSs, thus suggesting a need to ascertain whether the higher frequencies of comments in applied linguistics
might be attributable to their generally longer Results sections. In relation to this, the Pearson moment coefficient of
0.639 (i.e., 0.6 < r < 0.8) was obtained for the correlation between the overall frequencies of the four commentary
steps and the numbers of words in the corpora, thus confirming that the frequencies of commentary steps are
moderately dependent on the lengths of the Results sections.
With regard to the KruskaleWallis H-Test results (see Table 3), all p-values obtained for the comparisons of
occurrences across three research methods are higher than 0.05, thus showing that there is no significant frequency
difference ascribable to methodological variations. This is an important finding illustrating that methodological
variations do not significantly affect the writers tendencies to include comments in both disciplines. Overall, 12 out of
the 15 ALRSs incorporate at least one form of comments, and all the three ALRSs that are void of comments are papers

Table 3
P-values indicating effects of methodological variations on the occurrences of commentary steps.
Rhetorical Discipline (at df 2)
category Applied linguistics Education Applied linguistics and education
KruskaleWallis Chi Square (H) p-value H p-value H p-value
Step 1 2.026 0.363 0.714 0.700 2.536 0.281
Step 2 0.449 0.799 3.214 0.200 0.819 0.664
Step 3 4.315 0.116 2.823 0.244 5.933 0.051
Step 4 0.548 0.760 0.000 1.000 0.520 0.771
Steps 1e4 3.897 0.143 1.738 0.419 5.190 0.075
 J.M.-H. Lim / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (2010) 280e294 287

based on quantitative research methods, two of which were published in Applied Linguistics. In addition, 8 out of the 15
ERSs are void of comments and they comprise those using quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method approaches. Half
of these comment-stripped educational papers, however, are based on quantitative research methods.

4.1. Step 1: explaining the finding/s

In articles on both applied linguistics and education, findings may be supported by explaining why a certain
behavioural pattern or phenomenon has occurred. This step is far more prevalent in the ALRSs, as 9 out of 15 of them
include it while only 4 out of 15 of the ERSs incorporate it. Notably 83.8% (31/37) of the occurrences of this step are
found in the ALRSs whereas merely 16.2% (6/37) of them appear in the ERSs. The p-value for the cross-disciplinary
comparison of occurrences for Step 1 (using the ManneWhitney U-test) is 0.032, thus indicating that applied linguists
are far more likely than educational researchers to include reasons or explanations as comments on their findings in
their RSs. 80.6% (25/31) of the occurrences in the ALRSs and the 83.3% (5/6) of those in the ERSs have been found in
the qualitative and mixed-method RSs. Explaining the finding/s is distinctly more prevalent in the AL corpus. This
step is exemplified as follows:

(1) Note that this attitude is not necessarily as nave as it might sound at first since it mirrors exactly the kind of
civil service requirements. (R6: 65)
(2) Differences in the modification of adjectives are hard to detect with any degree of conviction, given the small
number of occurrence. (R8: 377)
(3) Because business genres aimed at preparing students for real-world tasks, they provided opportunities for
students to assume corresponding social roles.(R9: 123)

This step is characterized by reason adverbials (e.g., since it mirrors exactly the kind of civil service
requirements., etc.) that generally begin with reason conjunctions (e.g., since or because).
The matrix-subordinate clause structures (as shown in Table 4) appear to underscore a situation or condition before
providing a reason. Such structures are common only in the ALRSs. The preceding independent clause either (i)
reports an observed phenomenon, or (ii) alerts the readers that certain reason/s are to be given. Reasons are more
explicitly stated as comments in this structure given that the matrix clauses are ensued by reason adverbial clauses or
nominal that-clauses. Experienced writers often link a fronted noun phrase delineating a consequential situation or
resulting phenomenon [e.g., their (un)tentative realization, their realization as such, the expectation of compli-
ance, etc.] with a phrasal combination indicating a subsequent cause or source (e.g., is related to, is a reflection of,
derives from, etc.) as shown below:

(4) On the other hand, it could be argued, as we do here, that their (un)tentative realization is related to cultural
differences in the assumed expectations of compliance by the speaker, and that their realization as such is
a reflection of those cultural expectations. (R11: 15)

Table 4
Matrix-subordinate clause structures indicating reasons in step 1.
Matrix clause (Independent clause referring Subordinate reason clause (Reason adverbial clause or that-clause
to a situation or condition) providing a reason for the finding)
The data turned up several reasons Why the less successful students did not go beyond simple information
processing besides reluctance to make the effort or lack of
metacognitive sophistication. (R6: 57)
Note that this attitude is not necessarily as Since it mirrors exactly the kind of civil service requirements that are
nave as it might sound at first the gateways to many of the jobs these students aimed at, even
professional ones such as teaching. (R6: 65)
There is another reason That students retained simple information processing when they might
conceivably have been capable of planned information management.
This consisted of a subtle metacognitive deception. (R6: 58)
The project was required Because most of our students go into jobs that are of somewhat
technical nature. (R9: 123)
288 J.M.-H. Lim / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (2010) 280e294

(5) It would also seem that the expectation of compliance derives from what the informants deem are the rights
and obligations of a given role relationship.(R11: 19)

Table 5 also shows that the predicator ensuing the subject usually contains a probability indicator, and a sentence-
final adverbial that indicates a cause or reason. Such a recurring pattern, however, occurs only in the ALRSs (and not
the ERSs), thus suggesting that experienced writers in applied linguistics are more likely to use the SPA structure
containing a probability indicator in the sentence-predicator position.

4.2. Step 2: evaluating the findings

This is a form of evaluative comment based on the writers personal judgment or interpretation of their findings
using descriptive statements, and it does not constitute a reason for the occurrence of a situation or phenomenon
described in the results. It is more common in the ALRSs, given that 8 out of the 15 ALRSs incorporate this step while
only 2 out of the 15 ERSs include it. In terms of frequencies, 87.5% (21/24) of the occurrences of this step are found in
the ALRSs. The p-value obtained in the ManneWhitney U-test for the cross-disciplinary comparison of occurrences
for Step 2 is 0.019 (as shown in Table 2), thus revealing that applied linguists are also more inclined than educational
researchers to express their views as comments in their RSs.
Writers of AL research papers often use gradable adjectives indicating varying degrees of expediency or prevalence
(e.g., significant, useful, limiting, unusual, etc.) to post-modify a noun phrase denoting a learning method,
approach, or strategy after the use of linking verbs (e.g., is, seemed) as shown below:

(6) Nevertheless this approach is ultimately limiting. It suggests that they lacked the clear sense of the separation
of learning.(R6: 65)
(7) Certain rhetorical modes seemed to be especially useful for a particular type of assignment. (R9: 129)
(8) Example 9, considering its proportion of language re-usedwhich goes beyond what might be described as
metalanguagedseems somewhat unusual. (R15: 457)

The use of pre-modifying emphasizers or intensifiers (Greenbaum & Quirk, 1992: 178e179) in adjective
phrases (e.g., ultimately limiting, especially useful, somewhat unusual, etc.) is also a prominent feature of this
step.
Writers evaluation of findings is noticeable in both corpora when noun phrases are pre-modified by evaluative
adjectives (e.g., a crucial factor, a striking divergence, a practical difference, dynamic and cumulative process,
new taken-as-shared practices, etc.) as shown below:

(9) This finding highlights the importance of lexical density. fine-tuned knowledge of the remaining words in
the context is still a crucial factor in the successful inferencing of unknown words. (R3: 653)
(10) In short, there appeared to be a striking divergence in the oral performances of these learners over the 20
months. (R5: 768)

Table 5
SPA structures with adverbials indicating the cause affecting a situation or variable in step 1.
Subject (Noun phrase denoting an Predicator (Verb phrase with a Adverbial (Prepositional phrase stating
observed phenomenon or situation, probability indicator and with the cause of a situation or variable)
and with optional adverbial/s in some cases) optional adverbial/s in some cases)
Learners success seemed also to be related to the physical form of the words and how
they looked. (R3: 653)
The problem with these words may be related to their misleading nature and confusion
with similar-looking words. (R3: 653)
The scores again may be attributed to the extent students found the self-regulation
variables helpful in their writing process. (R7: 276)
The improvement is also likely to be due to the use of four self-regulation
variables.(R7: 281)
 J.M.-H. Lim / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (2010) 280e294 289

(11) These seemingly small but significant differences in means do, therefore, conceal a practical difference.
(R11: 12)
(12) Our interpretation is that the regulations linked to sociomathematical norms in each whole-class discussion
laid the ground work for those in subsequent discussions and that it was this dynamic and cumulative process
that ultimately produced new taken-as-shared practices as well as transformations of individual problem-
solving activity. (R23: 263)

All of these descriptive expressions contain pre-modifying adjectives indicating significance and prominence (e.g.,
crucial, striking, etc.), which vividly convey the writers views on the extent to which a variable (e.g., inferencing
of unknown words, oral performance, etc.) can be considered distinctive or important.

4.3. Step 3: comparing findings with literature

When new findings are compared with statements, views or results reported in literature, a form of comment is
made based on the writers own understanding of the linkages between past and current research results. Writers of
ALRSs and ERSs attempt to put their findings in the context of previous research by using previously published and/or
well-known statements to (i) generate interest of readers (in the discourse community) to view his/her findings with
reasonable deference, and (ii) gain the potential readers acceptance of their findings as part of the contribution to the
field of research.
While 8 out of the 15 ALRSs incorporate this step, only 4 out of the 15 ERSs include it. The higher incidence
in ALRSs may be attributed to the applied linguists greater tendency to use previous findings or past
researchers views and statements to support their new findings. The p-value of 0.100 obtained in the Man-
neWhitney U-test for the cross-disciplinary comparison for Step 3 is not significant (see Table 2), thus showing
that there is no significant cross-disciplinary difference in writers tendencies to incorporate comparisons of
findings with literature.
The non-integral citations (involving cross-references occasionally) are used in cases where writers opt to highlight
the importance of their findings without leaving out any acknowledgement of past researchers contributions as
illustrated below:

(13) This finding suggests that the words appearance and their similarity with other unrelated words may be
a major source of problems in inferring word meanings from context (see also Bensoussan & Laufer, 1984;
Laufer & Sim, 1985).(R3: 178)
(14) Although the case analysis assignment, connected with the case method widely used in business education,
represented more of a pedagogical genre (Johns, 1997), it is nevertheless intended to give business students
a feel for what it is like to work in a large corporation and be faced with making a business decision
(Wheelen & Hunger, 1986: 29). (R9: 123)
(15) Such values have been associated with positive politeness (cf. Brown and Levinson 1978, 1987) or the need
for interdependence. (R11: 16)

Non-integral citations are used when the writers prefer to cite previous researchers names only in parentheses after
linking their results with (i) past research findings or interpretations (e.g., the words appearance and their similarity
with other unrelated words may be a major source of problems., etc.), (ii) previous researchers viewpoint state-
ments which did not constitute findings (e.g., intended to give business students., etc.), or (iii) merely terms used
by previous researchers (e.g., pedagogical genres, positive politeness, etc.).
In cases where writers consider it useful to give a more prominent role to past researchers contributions, integral
citations are employed. Although none of the integral citations appear in the quantitative RSs in both corpora, they do
appear in the qualitative or mixed-method RSs. Integral citations are exemplified as follows:

(16) This intuitively surprising finding is similar to Blocks observation of the similarity of native and non-native
developmental readers. (R6: 61)
(17) It is worth noting that these perceptions are in accord with much of the recent literature (see review,
above).(R20: 179)
290 J.M.-H. Lim / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (2010) 280e294

The integral citations, presented using phrasal combinations expressing consistency, are generally (i) preceded by
noun phrases denoting findings (e.g., this intuitively surprising finding, etc.), and (ii) ensued by noun phrases
indicating other researchers observation, assertions, or statements in previous publications.
In cases where active predicators are consistency verbs (see Table 6), they are usually preceded by noun phrases
denoting new results. Alternatively, in cases where epistemic verbs (e.g., showed) or verbs of argument (e.g., have
also argued) are used as active predicators, they are generally ensued by nominal that-clauses indicating a similar
finding obtained in both past and present research. Writers also use the present simple or present perfect (e.g., shows,
has shown etc.) in order to emphasize recency or present relevance (even in cases where the quoted research findings
were published more than half a decade beforehand).

4.4. Step 4: making recommendations for future research

While the three steps mentioned above appear in most ALRSs and some ERSs, it is interesting to note that this step
is generally not included in both corpora. It is the least common comment category in both corpora, given that only 2
out of the 15 ALRSs incorporate it while none of the ERSs include it. The p-value for the cross-disciplinary
comparison is 0.150, thus indicating no significant cross-disciplinary difference in the writers tendencies to include
recommendations for future research. This rare step is exemplified below:

(18) This question can be addressed in future research using more-in-depth case studies of individual learners
(see Huckin & Bloch, 1993; Parry, 1991, 1993) (R3: 660)
(19) Further research will be needed to settle this issue. (R6: 66)

This step is characterized by the use of (i) noun phrases denoting problems indicated with deictic signals (e.g., this
question, this issue, etc.), and (ii) verb phrases denoting prospective needs (e.g., can be addressed, will be needed,
etc.) that have future references. These recommendations in ALRSs are made based on the limitations and inadequacy
demonstrated in research methods. Writers may first justify their analysis procedure by giving a reason for not
analyzing individual variations and their consequences in language learning before recommending that the uncertainty
be resolved in future research. Both recommendations for future research and practical applications are comparatively
rare in ALRSs, and even completely absent in ERSs. This may be partly ascribed to educational researchers pref-
erence to make such recommendations only in the final sections pertaining to discussion of results, conclusions and
implications of the educational research. In contrast, some applied linguists, have deemed it necessary to touch on the
possibility of doing related future research and to discuss the significance of their findings even in the Results sections.
Table 6
Active SPO/A structures with predicators indicating degrees of consistency between present findings and previous researchers contributions in
step 3.
Subject (Noun phrases referring to past/present Predicator (Consistency/argument/ Object/Adverbial (Nominal
research with optional adverbial/s italicised) epistemic verb phrase) that-clause or prepositional phrase)
These works support the view that study skills are effective only
to the extent that they promote active
engagement. (R6: 56)
These results contrast with some other findings on US students
assumptions about knowledge. (R6: 65)
Angelova and Riazantseva (1999) have argued that the source of heavy dependence on
professional authority may lie in political
history. (R6: 66)
For example, Alexander and showed a majority maintained a fact-centred
Dochys (1994) survey of students orientation. (R6: 65)
at a conservative religious
A close analysis of the language shows that there is no one-to-one relationship between
employed throughout the situations modality and assumed expectations of compliance
in English and Spanish in terms of Turnbull and Sazton (1997) discussed
in section 2. (R11: 20)
Also, earlier research on has shown that it takes time to create a solid
collaborative learning atmosphere.(R25: 130)
 J.M.-H. Lim / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (2010) 280e294 291

5. Discussion and implications for reading and writing instruction

In regard to the frequencies of comments in the RSs, the findings presented above have revealed interesting differences
across disciplines and important similarities across different methodologies. Of the four commentary steps that have been
included in the ALRSs [i.e., (i) explaining the finding/s, (ii) evaluating the findings, (iii) comparing findings with
literature, and (iv) making recommendations for future research], only the first three are prevalent in the corpus concerned.
Overall, ERSs rarely include comments, and 53% of the ERSs are comment-stripped, thus showing that educational
Results sections resemble those in Williams (1999) sample of medical research reports, in which 50% are void of comments.
Nonetheless, 84.5% of the comments in this study have been found in the ALRSs, 80% of which incorporate at least one type
of comment. Interestingly, the average frequency of 5.47 per ALRS in this study also corroborates the result reported by Yang
and Allison (2003), in which 5.6 occurrences of comments per Results section were recorded for applied linguistics.
More specifically, in terms of comparisons of findings with literature, the results obtained in this investigation
distinctly show that RSs in applied linguistics closely resemble those in computing RAs. The finding is justifiable in
that 53.3% of the ALRSs incorporate Step 3 whereas 50% of Posteguillos (1999) sample of computing RSs also
included such comparisons. Unlike the AL and computing RAs in which at least half have compared their findings
with past research, merely 26.7% of the educational RSs in this corpus incorporate comparisons of their results with
those reported in literature.
Apart from the aforementioned findings that have been compared with those reported in previous research, this
study has provided important additional information concerning both disciplinary and methodological variations.
Given that the p-value for overall cross-disciplinary comparison in this study is far less than 0.05, it is not far-fetched
to conclude that educational research reporters have a greater tendency to avoid comments in the RSs. It is, however,
necessary to point out that both methodological differences (across three research types/methods) and quantitati-
veequalitative differences for each commentary step are not significant, thus showing that differences in research
methods do not significantly affect the writers tendencies to incorporate or exclude comments in both disciplines.
Unlike the ALRSs, the comment-stripped ERSs are not restricted to quantitative RSs as they also include qualitative
and mixed-method RSs. Hence, the necessity to include comments may be more dependent on the research
community (or the targeted audience) involved rather than the research methods employed.
On the basis of the findings reported above, further research may be conducted to ascertain whether the lower
incidence of comments in ERSs is ascribable to influence from practices in hard sciences and education researchers
greater dependence on particular style manuals. In ALRSs, in particular, the relative prominence of the first three steps
largely resembles what has been reported by Basturkmen (2009) for the discussion of results in language teaching.
Future studies may therefore focus on how the frequencies of these commentary steps in the subsequent Discussion
section may vary in accordance with methodological and disciplinary differences. Further research may also inves-
tigate researchers awareness of disciplinary differences, focusing on the drawing and redrawing of the disciplinary
boundaries between applied linguistics and education.
With respect to pedagogical implications, it appears vital to encourage novice writers in applied linguistics to
consider the need to write relevant comments, particularly steps 1 through 3, in their RSs given that most of the RSs in
the discipline incorporate them. Novice researchers in education, in contrast, might be discouraged from incorporating
excessive evaluative comments (step 2) in their RSs as most of the experienced writers rarely include their personal
views in their RSs. Step 3 is also more likely to be relevant for applied linguists presenting their results while
educational researchers in general do not include views on their findings in their RSs (but might opt to do so only in the
subsequent Discussion and/or Conclusion sections).
The results of this genre-based study may also help EAP instructors and dissertation supervisors design relevant
teaching materials that illustrate how experienced writers present their comments using different language mecha-
nisms. Relevant schematic strategies can be introduced to second language writers in an instructors attempt to
sensitize learners to the expectations of an academic research community, and further establish a readingewriting
interface that helps them develop the skills needed to stifle potential criticisms against the acceptability of their
findings. In reading instruction, the schemata about a genre actually allow learners to create an appropriate rhetorical
context in which to present their ideas (Hudson, 2007, p. 205). Hence, using exercises that familiarize learners with
both the structures and language choices in the Results section as illustrated in this paper may also equip learners with
the ability to comprehend authentic texts that will help them gain insights into when and how comments are presented
and how language is generally employed.
292 J.M.-H. Lim / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (2010) 280e294

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the Malaysian University of Sabah for a research grant (coded A-010-10-ER/U052) needed to
conduct this study. I am also indebted to Professor Emeritus John Swales for giving me constructive and insightful
comments on this paper during my Fulbright research stint at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

Appendix
Journal articles used in obtaining the sample of ALRSs and ERSs.

R1 Kamhi-Stein, L.D. (2003). Reading in two languages: How attitudes toward home language and beliefs about reading affect
the behaviours of unprepared L2 college readers. TESOL Quarterly, 37(1), 35e71.
R2 Ko, J., Schallert, D.L. & Walters, K. (2003). Rethinking scaffolding: Examining negotiation of meaning in an ESL storytelling task.
TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 303e324.
R3 Nassaji, H. (2003). L2 vocabulary learning from context: Strategies, knowledge sources, and their relationship with success
in L2 lexical inferencing. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 645e670.
R4 Liu, J. (2004). Effects of comic strips on L2 learners reading comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 38(2), 225e242.
R5 Lamb, M. (2007). The impact of School on EFL learning motivation: An Indonesian case study. TESOL Quarterly, 41(4), 757e780.
R6 Newman, M., Trenchs-Parera, M., & Pujol, M. (2002). Core academic literacy principles versus culture-specific practices: A multi-case
study of academic achievement. English for Specific Purposes, 22(1), 45e71.
R7 Ching, L.C. (2002). Strategy and self-regulation instruction as contributors to improving students cognitive model in an ESL program.
English for Specific Purposes, 21(3), 261e289.
R8 Hewings, M., & Hewings, A. (2002). It is interesting to note that.: A comparative study of anticipatory it in student and
published writing. English for Specific Purposes, 21(4), 367e383.
R9 Zhu, W. (2002). Writing in business courses: An analysis of assignment types, their characteristics, and required skills.
English for Specific Purposes, 23(2), 111e135.
R10 Fuertes-Olivera, P.A., & Gomez-Martnez, S. (2004). Empirical assessment of some learning factors affecting Spanish students
of business English. English for Specific Purposes, 23(2), 163e180.
R11 Reiter, R.M., Rainey, I., & Fulcher, G. (2005). A comparative study of certainty and conventional indirectness: Evidence from
British English and Peninsular Spanish. Applied Linguistics, 26(1), 1e31.
R12: Cekaite, A.& Aronsson, K. (2005). Language play, a collaborative resource in childrens L2 learning.
Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 169e191.
R13 Ellis, R. (2006). Modelling learning difficulty and second language proficiency: The differential contributions
of implicit and explicit knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 431e463.
R14 Webb, S. (2007). The effect of repetition on vocabulary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 28(1), 46e65.
R15 Flowerdew, J., & Li, Y. (2007). Language Re-use among Chinese apprentice scientists writing for publication.
Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 440e465.
R16 Yumuk, A. (2002). Letting go of control to the learners: The role of the Internet in promoting a more autonomous
view of learning in an academic translation course. Educational Research, 44(2), 141e156.
R17 Eldar, E., Nabel, N., Schechter, C., & Mazin, K. (2003). Anatomy of success and failure: The story of three novice teachers.
Educational Research, 45(1), 29e48.
R18 Colley, A., & Comber, C. (2003). Age and gender differences in computer use and attitudes among secondary school students:
What has changed? Educational Research, 45(2), 155e165.
R19 Edwards, A. & Ruthven, K. (2003). Young peoples perceptions of the mathematics involved in everyday activities.
Educational Research, 45(3), 249e260.
R20 Summers, M., Corney, G., & Childs, A. (2004). Student teachers conceptions of sustainable development: the starting-points
of geographers and scientists. Educational Research, 46(2), 163e182.
R21 Bouffard, T., Roy, M., & Vezeau, V. (2005). Self-perceptions, temperament, socioemotional adjustment and the perceptions
of parental support of chronically underachieving children. International Journal of Educational Research, 43(4e5), 215e235.
R22 Garca-Sanchez, J.-N. & de Caso-Fuertes, A.-M. (2005). Comparison of the effects on writing attitudes and writing self-efficacy
of three different training programs in students with learning disabilities. International Journal of Educational Research,
43(4e5), 272e289.
R23 Lopez, L.M., & Allal, L. (2007). Sociomathematical norms and the regulation of problem solving in classroom microcultures.
International Journal of Educational Research, 46(5), 252e265.
R24 Miell, D., & Littleton, D. (2008). Musical collaboration outside school: Processes of negotiation in band rehearsals.
International Journal of Educational Research 47(1), 41e49.
R25 Jarvela, S., Jarvenoja, H., & Veermans, M. (2008). Understanding the dynamics of motivation
in socially shared learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 47(2), 122e135.
R26 Gibton, D. (2004). Minding the gap: Principals Graphic Mindscapes on educational policy and law-based reform:
A qualitative technique for evaluation and policy analysis. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 30(1), 37e59.
 J.M.-H. Lim / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (2010) 280e294 293

R27 Grammatikopoulos, V., Hassandra, M., Koustelios, A., & Theodorakis, Y. (2005). Evaluating the Olympic education program:
A qualitative approach. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 31(4), 347e357.
R28 Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Sheffield, D. (2006). A quantitative and qualitative study of changes in the use of learning outcomes
and distractions by students and tutors during a biology poster assessment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32(3), 262e287.
R29 Gulikers, J.T.M., Bastiaens, T.J., Kirschner, & Kester, Lim (2006). Relations between student perceptions of assessment:
Authenticity, study approaches and learning outcome. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32(4), 381e400.
R30 Hailikari, T., Nevgi A., & Lindblom-Ylanne, S. (2007). Exploring alternative ways of assessing prior knowledge, its components
and their relation to student achievement: A mathematics based case study. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 33(3e4), 320e337.

References

Alexander, P. A., & Dochy, F. J. (1994). Adults views about knowing and believing. In R. Garner, & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Beliefs about text and
instruction with text (pp. 224e244). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Angelova, M., & Riazantseva, A. (1999). If you dont tell me, how can I know? A case study of four international students learning to write in the
US way. Written Communication, 16(4), 491e525.
Basturkmen, H. (2009). Commenting on results in published research articles and masters dissertations in language teaching. Journal of English
for Academic Purposes, 8(4), 241e251.
Basturkmen, H., & Bitchener, J. (2005). The text and beyond: exploring the expectations of the academic community for the discussion of results
section in masters theses. New Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 1e19.
Brett, P. (1994). A genre analysis of the results section of sociology articles. English for Specific Purposes, 13, 47e59.
Cargill, M., & OConnor, P. (2006). Developing Chinese scientists skills for publishing in English: evaluating collaborating-colleague workshops
based on genre analysis. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(3), 207e221.
Carver, R. H., & Nash, J. G. (2009). Doing data analysis with SPSS version 16. Belmont: Cengage Learning.
Chang, Y.-Y., & Swales, J. (1999). Informal elements in English academic writing: threats or opportunities for advanced non-native speakers? In
C. Candlin, & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 145e167) London: Longman.
Chen, Y.-L. (2008). A mixed-method study of EFL teachers Internet use in language instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(4),
1015e1028.
Connor, U., Davis, K., & de Rycker, T. (1995). Correctness and clarity in applying for overseas jobs: a cross-cultural analysis of U.S. and Flemish
applications. Text, 15(4), 457e475.
Connor, U., & Mauranen, A. (1999). Linguistic analysis of grant proposals. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 47e62.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Singapore: Pearson
Prentice Hall.
Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2009). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (9th ed.). London: Pearson
Education Ltd.
Greenbaum, S., & Quirk, R. (1992). A students grammar of the English language. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Halvorsen, A.-L., Lee, V. E., & Andrade, F. H. (2009). A mixed-method study of teachers attitudes about teaching in urban and low-income
schools. Urban Education, 44(2), 181e224.
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(4), 321e337.
Hopkins, A., & Dudley-Evans, T. (1988). A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific
Purposes, 7(2), 113e121.
Hudson, T. (2007). Teaching second language writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hyland, K. (1999). Academic attribution: citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 20, 341e367.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159e174.
Lim, J. M. H. (2006). Method sections of management research articles: a pedagogically motivated qualitative study. English for Specific
Purposes, 25(3), 282e309.
Lim, J. M. H. (2008). Analysing recommendations for future research: an investigation into a hybrid sub-genre. In R. Wilkinson, & V. Zegers
(Eds.), Realizing content and language integration in higher education (pp. 131e154). Maastricht: Maastricht University.
Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural differences in academic rhetoric. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Langu.
Muijs, D. (2004). Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS. London: Sage Publications.
Norusis, M. J. (2008). SPSS 16.0 guide to data analysis. Chicago: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Nwogu, K. N. (1997). The medical research paper: structure and functions. English for Specific Purpose, 16(2), 119e138.
Peacock, M. (2002). Communicative moves in the discussion section of research articles. System, 30(4), 479e497.
Pho, P. D. (2008). Research article abstracts in applied linguistics and educational technology: a study of linguistic realizations of rhetorical
structure and authorial stance. Discourse Studies, 10(2), 231e250.
Pho, P. D. (2009). An evaluation of three different approaches to the analysis of research article abstracts. Monash University Linguistics Papers,
6(2), 11e26.
Posteguillo, S. (1999). The schematic structure of computer science research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 139e160.
294 J.M.-H. Lim / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (2010) 280e294

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman Group
Limited.
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.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2000). English in todays research world: A writing guide. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Turnbull, W., & Saxton, K. (1997). Modal expressions as facework in refusals to comply with requests: I think I should say no right now.
Journal of Pragmatics, 27(2), 145e181.
Thomas, S., & Hawes, T. P. (1994). Reporting verbs in medical journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 129e148.
Thompson, D. K. (1993). Arguing for experimental facts in science: a study of research article results sections in biochemistry. Written
Communication, 10(1), 106e128.
Williams, I. A. (1999). Results sections of medical research articles: analysis of rhetorical categories for pedagogical purposes. English for
Specific Purposes, 18(4), 347e366.
Yang, R., & Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes, 22(4),
365e385.

Dr. Jason Miin-Hwa Lim is an Associate Professor of English at the Malaysian University of Sabah. His recent international refereed publi-
cations include papers on ELT and ESP in System (UK), Asian Journal of English Language Teaching (Hong Kong), English for Specific Purposes
(USA), Asian EFL Journal (British Virgin Islands), Grammar in the Language Classroom (Singapore), Researching Content and Language
Integration in Higher Education (Holland), and The Open Applied Linguistics Journal (Bentham Science Publishers). He was also a Fulbright
Research Scholar at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor in 2009 and 2010.