See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/363856946

Writing Abstracts for Research Articles: Towards a Framework for Move

Structure of Abstracts

Article in World Journal of English Language · September 2022

DOI: 10.5430/wjel.v12n6p492

CITATIONS READS

6 1,282

3 authors, including:

Abu Bakar Razali Arshad Abd Samad

Universiti Putra Malaysia Universiti Putra Malaysia
104 PUBLICATIONS 918 CITATIONS 56 PUBLICATIONS 328 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Abu Bakar Razali on 04 October 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

http://wjel.sciedupress.com World Journal of English Language Vol. 12, No. 6; 2022

Writing Abstracts for Research Articles: Towards a Framework for Move

Structure of Abstracts
Ho Yoong Wei1, Abu Bakar Razali1, & Arshad Abd Samad2
1
Faculty of Educational Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM)
2
School of Education, Taylor’s University, Malaysia
Correspondence: Abu Bakar Razali, Department of Language and Humanities Education, Faculty of Educational
Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM), Malaysia.

Received: June 7, 2022 Accepted: August 22, 2022 Online Published: September 19, 2022
doi:10.5430/wjel.v12n6p492 URL: https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v12n6p492

Abstract
The abstract as a sub-genre of the research article has been explored in many studies, particularly with regards to its
rhetorical move structure. However, these studies have mainly focused on the macro-structures of abstracts in terms
of the main moves present based on pre-existing models by Swales (1990), Dos Santos (1996), and Hyland (2000).
Studies analyzing the micro-structures of abstracts in which the sub-categories under each main category are lacking.
This study identifies the main moves of abstracts, the steps and sub-steps within each move to propose a
comprehensive framework for abstract structure. Using a move based analysis, 100 research article abstracts in the
field of social science and humanities were analyzed at the sentence level, where each sentence was coded and
assigned a move. Based on the analysis, five main moves consisting of 12 steps and 25 sub-steps were identified. The
frequency of occurrence revealed that Move 2: Introducing Study and Move 4: Presenting Findings were
conventional, while Move 1: Situating Research, Move 3: Describing Methodology, and Move 5: Describing
Implication and Recommendation were optional. This study has implications for research on the genre analysis of
abstracts as well as the teaching of abstract structure in the academic setting.
Keywords: abstract, move, move-based analysis, steps, sub-steps, structure
1. Introduction
The research article is an essential genre in academia, primarily as a means of disseminating specific knowledge
among different discourse communities in order to further contribute to the wealth of research in various disciplines.
Careful attention should then be given towards the publication of research articles so that high quality articles that
meet the standard of reputable journals are produced. In writing a research article, there are indeed many aspects to
consider, each of which plays a distinct role in communicating information in relation to the research conducted,
such as the study’s methodology or findings. Another important aspect that may often be overlooked is the abstract of
a research article.
The research article abstract typically appears at the beginning of the article and plays an important role in providing
readers with an overview of the article’s contents. Since the abstract is the readers’ first encounter with the article, a
well written abstract is crucial in giving a good initial impression to readers so as to compel them to read further into
the article. Well written abstracts provide the necessary information about the article in a concise manner, and should
accurately represent the contents of the article (Lorés, 2004); this helps readers save time by promptly determining
whether the article contains what they are looking for and so decide to continue reading or not (Dos Santos, 1996).
In writing an abstract, while appropriate academic writing conventions, language, and registers should be considered,
the organization of the abstract in terms of its rhetorical structure should first be understood in order that a
preliminary groundwork may be laid so as to ensure coherence when writing. To that end, many studies looking at
the abstract as a genre and analyzing its rhetorical structures have been conducted (e.g., Tseng, 2011; Can, Karabacak,
& Qin, 2016; Suntara & Usaha, 2013). A number of models have been proposed as a result of these studies, two of
the more prominent ones being those suggested by Dos Santos (1996) and Hyland (2000). Both these models consist
of a five-move structure, but with slight variations in the naming of each move. Many other subsequent studies have
since then used these models as a basis for analyzing abstracts of articles written in various disciplines
Published by Sciedu Press 492 ISSN 1925-0703 E-ISSN 1925-0711
http://wjel.sciedupress.com World Journal of English Language Vol. 12, No. 6; 2022

(Kanoksilapatham, 2013; Pho, 2008; Saeeaw & Tangkiengsirisin, 2014; Cross & Oppenheim, 2006; Amnuai, 2019).
While much research have been done to further shed light on the rhetorical structure of abstracts across different
disciplines, a majority of these studies have only analyzed the macro-structure of abstracts in terms of their major
moves, rather than look in detail at the micro-structures present within each move (Tseng, 2011; Darabad, 2016;
Doró, 2013). Also, most of these studies have analyzed abstracts using pre-existing models in which the major moves
have already been defined, such as Swales’ model (e.g., Khansari, Chan, S. H., Chan, M. Y., & Tan, 2016), Dos
Santos’ model (e.g., Tseng, 2011; Pho, 2008), and Hyland’s model (e.g., Darabad, 2016; Saeeaw & Tangkiengsirisin,
2014).
Having considered these points, this study was carried out with the aim of identifying the micro-structures present
within abstracts so as to further extend the work of previous authors by suggesting a more detailed and
comprehensive framework for the rhetorical structure of abstracts. It is thus the hope of this study that a more
extensive and deeper understanding surrounding the abstract as a genre would be developed.
2. Abstract as a Genre of Academic Writing
Research into the analysis of abstracts as a genre began with the work of Swales (1990), who looked specifically at
the introduction section of research articles in order to describe the communicative functions present through the use
of a move analysis. Swales (2004) defines a move as a “discoursal or rhetorical unit that performs a coherent
communicative function in a written or spoken discourse” (p. 228-229), and within each move are steps (Swales,
1990), which are smaller rhetorical elements that make up the particular move. Based on the analysis of introduction
sections of research articles, Swales (1990) proposed the CARS (Create a Research Space) model, where he
identified three main moves: (1) establishing a territory, (2) establishing a niche, and (3) occupying the niche. Swales
also established a number of steps for each move; for instance, under Move 1, claiming centrality, making topic
generalizations, and reviewing items of previous research are three steps that function to establish a territory.
The work of Swales (1990) has since sparked interest in studies exploring the rhetorical structure of research articles
and, later on, further extended to research article abstracts with the use of move analysis. For instance, Bhatia (1993)
suggested a four-move structure for abstracts on the basis that an abstract should provide information about the
research in terms of what the author did, how the author did it, what the author found, and what the author concluded;
the moves proposed by Bhatia were thus reflective of these aspects. These moves were (1) introducing purpose, (2)
describing methodology, (3) summarizing results, and (4) presenting conclusions (pp. 78-79). Other prominent
authors in later years however, such as Dos Santos (1996) and Hyland (2000), proposed a five-move model for the
rhetorical structure of abstracts by adding on another move preceding the move which introduces the purpose of the
study. This first move would function to establish context of the study by setting the scene through topic
generalizations. In Dos Santos’ (1996) model, the five moves are (1) situating the research, (2) presenting the
research, (3) describing the methodology, (4) summarizing the findings, and (5) discussing the research. Similarly,
Hyland’s (2000) five-move model (i.e., introduction, purpose, method, product, and conclusion) reflects the same
functions as the moves in Santos’ model, although Hyland uses the label “product” as an alternative for “findings”.
Dos Santos’ (1996) model however, compared to Bhatia (1993) and Hyland’s (2000) models where only the major
moves are identified, reflect Swales’ (1990) CARS model in that a number of sub-moves (called steps in Swales’
model) under the major moves are established, such as Move 1 (situating the research) consisting of sub-moves 1A:
stating current knowledge, 1B: citing previous research, 1C: extending previous research, and 2: stating a problem;
not all moves in Dos Santos’ model have sub-moves though.
Using these pre-existing models as frameworks for abstract organization, many studies have utilized the move
analysis in order to thoroughly examine not only the rhetorical structure of abstracts, but also the linguistic
realizations for each move. Such analyses have been done for research article abstracts across various disciplines,
such as civil engineering (Kanoksilapatham, 2013), applied linguistics (Tseng, 2011), educational technology (Pho,
2008), environmental science (Saeeaw & Tangkiengsirisin, 2014), linguistics (Khansari et al., 2016), literature (Doró,
2013), protozoology (Cross & Oppenheim, 2006), and accounting (Amnuai, 2019). These studies sought to
determine the move structure specific to certain disciplines. With reference to the pre-existing models, it was
generally found that not all abstracts contained the five moves, and that certain moves were more conventional than
others based on calculations of frequencies of occurrence for each move in the abstracts analyzed. Various studies
determined conventionality of moves by having a 60% cut-off point, as proposed by Kanoksilapatham (2005) and
Pho (2008), whereby the occurrence of a move in more than 60% of abstracts in a corpus would indicate the move to
be conventional. Based on the studies conducted, it was generally found that moves involving the purpose, method,
and findings were conventional and the background move optional (Tseng, 2011; Can et al., 2016; Khansari et al.,
Published by Sciedu Press 493 ISSN 1925-0703 E-ISSN 1925-0711
http://wjel.sciedupress.com World Journal of English Language Vol. 12, No. 6; 2022

2016; Kanoksilapatham, 2013); the conventionality of the discussion move, however, showed variation. For instance,
Tseng (2011) and Kanoksilapatham (2013) found the discussion move in linguistics and civil engineering abstracts to
be conventional as the percentage of move occurrence was slightly over the cut-off point (75% and 66.7%
respectively), but nowhere near as high as the frequencies of other conventional moves. Doró(2013), however, found
the discussion move in both linguistics and literature abstracts to be the least used among the five moves, and not the
background move, contrary to other studies.
Another important point to note is that despite the general consensus concerning the conventionality of moves, even
within the conventional moves, different studies report varying frequencies of occurrence. Can et al. (2016) found in
applied linguistics abstracts that the method move was most frequently used (present in all abstracts) while Khansari
et al. (2016) found that the purpose move had the highest frequency in linguistics abstracts. On the other hand,
Kanoksilapatham (2013), Cross and Oppenheim (2006), and Melander, Swales, and Fredrickson (2011) found that
in civil engineering, protozoology, and biology abstracts respectively, both the method and findings moves were
more frequently used. It seems that in the abstracts of articles in the science fields, these two moves are more focused
on; this is also a finding by Viera (2019), when comparing between the move structure of abstracts in the humanities
and science fields. It can be inferred that with regards to move frequency, disciplinary variation exists, whereby
certain moves are given greater emphasis and play more prominent roles in abstracts of certain disciplines. Doró
(2013) adds that even within the same discipline, arriving at a final conclusion regarding move structure is
challenging. There is however a general consensus, based on many studies, that the background move is optional in
abstracts, regardless of discipline (Pho, 2008; Darabad, 2016; Saeeaw & Tangkiengsirisin, 2014; Suntara & Usaha,
2013). A majority of the studies exploring abstract move structure constructed their corpuses centering on abstracts
of published research articles, but a study conducted by Lon, Tan, and Abdullah (2012) looked instead at computer
and communication system engineering abstracts selected from among students’ final term papers. Interestingly, the
study found that the background, purpose, and method moves had the highest frequency of occurrence, with the
purpose move being the highest, and that most abstracts omitted the findings and discussion moves. This finding was
dissimilar to many other studies. Lon et al. (2012) goes on to suggest that overall, the lack of text organization in
students’ abstracts demonstrated their preference for a more direct approach when writing, in which the main goal
was merely to give an introductory line so as to inform concerning what the study was about. Furthermore, the lack
of the findings and discussion moves indicates that students may lack the ability to synthesize a meaningful
discussion.
Besides disciplinary variation, studies have also been done to compare between move structures of abstracts written
by those who use English as the first language (English as L1) and abstracts written by those who use English as the
second/foreign language (ESL/EFL). An interesting finding is that while the more generally conventional moves (i.e.,
purpose, method, findings moves) are used frequently among both English as L1 and ESL/EFL writers, English as
L1 writers tend to use the background and discussion moves in their abstracts more often than ESL/EFL writers do
(Al-Khasawneh, 2017; Amnuai, 2019). These studies seem to suggest that, compared to ESL/EFL writers,
international authors regard background and significance of study as important aspects to be included in their
abstracts (Amnuai, 2019). This finding however may not be generalizable to all ESL/EFL speaking groups, seeing as
the cultures and languages of ESL/EFL speakers vary widely. For instance, a study by Martı́n (2003) looking at
English and Spanish journals in the discipline of experimental phonetics and psychology showed that although the
frequency of the discussion move tended to be higher in English written abstracts, overall, there was not a significant
difference between the two datasets, while the findings move tended to be omitted in Spanish written abstracts when
compared to the English abstracts. Behnam and Golpour’s (2014) study also mirrors Martı́n’s (2003) findings in that
the presence of the background and discussion moves in both English and Persian journal article abstracts in the
discipline of applied linguistics showed no significant difference in occurrence; however, when compared with
mathematics abstracts, language use did influence occurrence of moves such that Persian abstracts had a higher
frequency of both findings and discussion moves than in the English abstracts, which is contrary to what other
studies report. These findings indicate the variation in abstract move structure that exists even within different groups
of NNE writers. Besides that, it is also interesting to note that within certain fields, cultural differences might
influence the abstract structure writing more so than in other fields, such as seen in Melander et al.’s (2011) study,
who reports that abstracts in both Swedish and English journal articles were mainly homogenous in structure in
biology, but not so when it came to linguistics abstracts, which displayed greater variation in structure when
comparing between the two cultures. Based on these findings, it can be inferred that cultural backgrounds, discourse
practices, intellectual styles, academic writing instruction, the context of publication, and the relationship between
the author and discourse community are factors that come into play that may influence the structure of abstract
Published by Sciedu Press 494 ISSN 1925-0703 E-ISSN 1925-0711
http://wjel.sciedupress.com World Journal of English Language Vol. 12, No. 6; 2022

writing (Viera, 2019; Martı́n, 2003). To illustrate this point, Melander et al. (2011), found that Swedish writers wrote
in a way such that their abstracts had a slightly detached status from the article itself as compared to American
writers, which may be, as Melander et al. suggest, due to the view Swedes have towards abstracts as being
independent units rather than part of the article, as opposed to the view of the American writers that abstracts are an
integral part of the article, and thus a more overt use of persuasive strategies are made in consideration of publishing
efforts. Additionally, Behnam and Golpour (2014) reports that Persian authors preferred an indirect way of writing
abstracts, which may hinder the promotion function of abstracts, whereas English writers consider these aspects, as
they have to deal with the challenging rivalry in the wider international discourse community in order to stand out.
Besides analyzing the rhetorical structure of abstracts, many studies have also identified the linguistic realizations of
moves in terms of verb tense (Tseng, 2011; Darabad, 2016), voice (Kanoksilapatham, 2013; Darabad, 2016),
authorial stance (Pho, 2008), and metadiscourse (Lon et al., 2012). From these studies, certain linguistic features
proved to be more prominent in certain moves; for example, that the background, purpose, and discussion moves
were mostly written in the present tense, while the past tense was more dominant in the method and findings moves
(Tseng, 2011; Saeeaw & Tangkiengsirisin, 2014). The use of present tense, such as in the background move, helps to
indicate the current state in a field, or to generalize a topic (Kanoksilapatham, 2013), while the use of past tense in
the method move is because writers retell the story of their research project and the methodology that has already
been employed in the study; by doing so, writers are also able to stay objective (Dos Santos, 1996; Suntara & Usaha,
2013). With regards to the findings on moves, Dos Santos (1996) adds that writers may use past tense such that a
narrower claim may be made by referencing the writer’s own research, causing the reporting to be more objective.
Some authors however, may prefer to use the present tense when reporting findings, giving the impression of a
generalization of the findings beyond the study (Suntara & Usaha, 2013). Besides verb tense, some moves also tend
to display formulaic-like patterns, along with particular lexical items which help in signaling the move. This has been
clearly observed in the purpose move, in which reporting verbs preceded by determiners and nouns indicating
inquiry types are used such as this study investigates, or the article reports (Santos, 1996; Kanoksilapatham, 2013;
Suntara & Usaha, 2013). In the findings on moves on the other hand, usage of evaluative terms such as important,
significant, difference to describe findings can be seen (Cross & Oppenheim, 2006; Dos Santos 1996); whereas the
use of modal verbs (e.g., can, may, could) as hedging devices is more often found in the discussion move (Pho, 2008).
In addition, authorial stance may also be used by authors in which the first person pronoun is used (e.g., I, we) in
certain moves such as in the purpose move (Pho, 2008); the use of personal pronouns in certain moves could indicate
that researchers become more argumentative and assertive in their stance on reporting (Saeeaw & Tangkiengsirisin,
2014). As with move structure, studies have also found linguistic variation to be present in abstract writing across
disciplines (Darabad, 2016; Saeeaw & Tangkiengsirisin, 2014) and across cultures/languages (Amnuai, 2019; Martı́n,
2003).
While most of these studies have explored the move structure of abstracts within specific disciplines, almost all of
them have done so with complete reference to either Dos Santos (1996), Hyland (2000), or Swales’ (1990) model,
using these authors’ frameworks as a basis for their analysis, although there are studies that do not fully utilize these
frameworks, of which are few. Kanoksilapatham’s (2013) study is one of them, where Swales’ (1990) model is used
merely as a starting point by which to identify and categorize the main moves present in civil engineering abstracts.
However, this study primarily identifies the macro-structures i.e., main moves present, with brief descriptions for
each move. Another study by Khansari et al., (2016) also partially utilized the moves and steps in Swales’ model,
particularly to categorize the introduction move. The identification and categorization of other moves however, was
based on a composite framework consisting of separate models adopted from various studies; each of which looked
at distinct sections of the research article and not the abstract.
At present, attempts at re-defining the rhetorical move structure of abstracts and refining the categorization of moves
have been largely overlooked. Hence, this study seeks to analyze both the macro- and micro- structures in order to
specifically identify the categories and sub-categories present in research article abstracts. In this study, abstracts
from research articles in fields of social science and humanities were selected, particularly in four disciplines:
education, linguistics and language, sociology and political science, and communication. Not many studies have
explored the general abstract structure of articles from the wider context of the social science field from across a
variety of disciplines; instead, most studies have tended to look specifically at one particular discipline (or disciplines,
for the purposes of making cross-comparisons), such as those that have been described previously. Moreover, aside
from the specific disciplines of linguistics and applied linguistics (Tseng, 2011; Khansari et al., 2016; Can et al.,
2016; Doró, 2013), other than Viera (2019), who looked at the disciplines of education and sociology, very few
studies have explored other disciplines within the field of social science and humanities. It is not the purpose of this
Published by Sciedu Press 495 ISSN 1925-0703 E-ISSN 1925-0711
http://wjel.sciedupress.com World Journal of English Language Vol. 12, No. 6; 2022

study however, to investigate the differences in abstract structure across these four disciplines, but rather propose a
framework that generally encompasses these disciplines within the same field i.e., social science and humanities.
3. Research Methodology
A total of 100 research article abstracts constituted the corpus for the study, all of which were extracted from articles
published across 10 peer-reviewed and indexed journals, and the articles selected were published from 2015 to 2019
in four disciplines within the field of social sciences and humanities. The corpus of this study is displayed in Table 1.
Table 1. Names of journals and number of research articles selected according to discipline
Discipline Journal / Number of Research Articles Selected
 American Educational Research Journal (AER) / 10
 Journal of Teacher Education (JTE) / 10
Education
 Review of Educational Research (RER) / 10
 TESOL Quarterly (TQ) / 10
 International Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL) / 10
Linguistics and Language
 Journal of College Reading and Learning (JCRL) / 10
 Asian Journal of Social Psychology (AJSP) / 10
Sociology and Political Science
 Sociological Quarterly (SQ) / 10
 Journal of Applied Communication Research (JACR) / 10
Communication
 Journal of Intercultural Communication Research (JICR) /10
In order to identify the rhetorical moves present in the abstracts, Dos Santos’ (1996) framework of five-moves (M1:
Situating the research, M2: Presenting the research, M3: Describing the methodology, M4: Summarizing the findings,
and M5: Discussing the research) was used as the starting point for categorization. The unit of analysis was a
sentence, following the analyses done in many previous similar studies (e.g., Suntara & Usaha, 2013; Tseng, 2011;
Can et al., 2016). However, many of these studies also looked at the clauses and phrases within sentences, as it was
discovered that a single sentence may contain more than one move, such as a sentence having the occurrence of both
the purpose and method moves, which has been commonly found (Khansari et al., 2016; Dos Santos, 1996; Can et al.,
2016; Cross & Oppenheim, 2006). This overlapping of moves is known as move embedding (Dos Santos, 1996). In
this study, a different approach is taken; for the sake of consistency in the analysis of all abstracts, the unit of coding
will strictly be at the sentence level, where each sentence will be categorized as a single move, and if the sentence
contains embedded moves, the sentence will be categorized based on the more dominant move. Studies that have
reported instances of move embedding in sentences have shown that the embedded move usually plays a secondary
role, and that the amounts of information provided is usually brief, causing the data presented under the embedded
move to be short (Suntara & Usaha, 2013; Dos Santos, 1996); thus, categorizing the occurrence of an embedded
move in a similar manner as with a complete move that is present within a distinct and separate sentence seems to be
inconsistent, as the embedded move plays a more minor role and is overshadowed by the dominant move in the
sentence compared to the complete move in a sentence by itself. To address this issue, the researchers categorize
sentences with embedded moves as separate and distinct sub-categories i.e., as sub-steps. There may be instances
however, although not commonly found in previous studies, that both the moves in a sentence having dual moves are
equally dominant. In such cases, only then will the sentence be categorized as having two moves.
The sentences in the abstracts were first analyzed and categorized into moves, then subsequently within each move,
sentences were categorized into finer sub-categories known as steps, then within each step, into sub-steps. The
coding of sentences into their respective moves, steps, and sub-steps were done based on a combination of the
top-down and bottom-up approaches, where both the content and linguistic features of the sentences in the abstracts
were considered. Using both these approaches helps mitigate the subjectivity in evaluation due to the absence of
clear rules for categorization, such as if only the top-down approach was used, which has been the subject of
criticism in the work by Swales (1990). Furthermore, subjectivity in manual coding of sentences was minimized
through inter-rater checking by the researcher, a senior lecturer, and a professor, as suggested by Kanoksilapatham
(2005) and Pho (2008). Finally, to determine the conventionality of each move, a 60% cut-off point was used. The
frequency of occurrence of each move across the 100 abstracts was calculated, and if the move occurred in more than
60% of the abstracts, the move would be deemed as conventional, but optional if the move frequency was below
60%.
4. Findings and Discussion
Based on the analysis, a five-move structure similar to that of Dos Santos’ (1996) framework was identified to be
present in the abstracts, although there were some differences in the naming of moves, and in particular, the
categorization of Move 4 and Move 5.
Published by Sciedu Press 496 ISSN 1925-0703 E-ISSN 1925-0711
http://wjel.sciedupress.com World Journal of English Language Vol. 12, No. 6; 2022

The five moves identified were named as M1: Situating Research, M2: Introducing Study, M3: Describing
Methodology, M4: Presenting Findings, and M5: Presenting Implication and Recommendation. When compared with
Dos Santos’ model, Move 1 and Move 3 retain the same labelling, while instead of naming Move 2 as presenting the
research, it was decided that introducing study was more apt, seeing as the re-labelling of this move not only carried
a similar meaning, but was more specific in indicating the function of the move. Move 4 and Move 5 on the other
hand, were categorized differently.
When it came to Move 4 (presenting findings), it was felt that including both the findings and the
discussion/interpretation of findings under this move, rather than as separate moves, was more appropriate, as both
these aspects were seen to be closely related and linked together; even in many research articles, both the findings
and discussion are presented together in a section, and when they are presented in separate sections, still the
discussion section closely refers to the findings. There was slight difficulty at times however, in identifying whether
a sentence was reporting or discussing findings, which some researchers have also commented on (Khansari et al.,
2016; Martı́n, 2003). Hence, due to the close relation of the findings and discussion, grouping them under one move
was deemed appropriate in this study. The final move i.e., Move 5, would then function to describe aspects, such as
implications and recommendations, both of which play a role in extending the findings of the study to relevant areas
and beyond the study itself. The main difference between the framework proposed in this study and other
pre-existing models is with regards to the placing of the discussion/interpretation of findings from under Move 5 to
Move 4.
In the following section, specific findings for each of the five moves are described in more detail in terms of their
steps and sub-steps, with selected sentences extracted from abstracts used to illustrate each sub-category. Due to
space limitations in this report, only one or two sentences are given as examples for each sub-category. The
abbreviated name of the journal and year from which each research article abstract is taken from is stated at the end
of each sentence. The complete framework with all its moves, steps, and sub-steps can also be found in Appendix A.
Following these findings, based on a cut-off point of 60%, the conventionality of each move will be described in
terms of frequency of occurrence.
4.1 Move 1: Situating Research
The first move that was identified to be present in the abstract was M1: Situating Research. Sentences that were
categorized under M1 were those that did not directly mention about the study conducted, such as its purpose,
procedures and findings. These sentences instead described subject matter/topics/situations, issues, and research gaps
through different steps. The main function of M1 is to provide a background which introduces the study; this is
achieved by bringing to attention certain knowledge surrounding an area in which the study is interested to explore.
Additionally, M1 is used to engage prior knowledge and help readers familiarize themselves with a particular subject
matter related to the study.
Three steps were found under this move: S1: Establishing Context, S2: Addressing Issue and S3: Addressing Gap.
All three steps function to situate the research in different ways.
S1 establishes context by describing general situations or explaining topics related to the area of study.
(1) Studies on student teaching continue to suggest that preservice teachers’ feelings of dissonance are
related to disparate views of teaching and learning between universities and schools.
[JTE-70(4)-2019]
(2) Students’ strategic processing is foundational to reading and success and can inform reading and
instruction in postsecondary education. [JCRL-49(1)-2018]
Sentence (1) highlights the association between two variables with the phrase “are related to”, while sentence (2)
explains the topic of “students’ strategic processing”, both of which provide general information. S1 is perhaps the
most commonly used step as it allows authors to simply and directly describe a situation or topic in a general way.
S2 (Addressing Issue) is similar to S1 in that it can be used to establish context. However, it does so by highlighting
and describing a problem instead. There are two sub-steps under S2: (a) describing issue, and (b) describing response
to issue. Authors may not always employ both sub-steps when addressing an issue. Overall, Sub-step (a) is more
commonly used.
(3) Courtroom language is renowned for being strategic and a powerful means of manipulation, which
may explain why criminal cases can sometimes result in a wrongful conviction. [IJAL-28(3)-2018]

Published by Sciedu Press 497 ISSN 1925-0703 E-ISSN 1925-0711

http://wjel.sciedupress.com World Journal of English Language Vol. 12, No. 6; 2022

(4) Full-service community schools aim to reduce educational inequality by addressing the multifaceted
needs of low-income children and youth. [AERJ-54(1)-2017]
Sentence (3) is an example of Sub-step (a), describing the issue of how courtroom language leads to wrongful
conviction, while sentence (4) makes use of Sub-step (b) to show the response of full-service community schools in
addressing the issue of educational inequality.
The third step commonly found under M1 is S3: Addressing Gap. In comparison to S2 (Addressing Issue), S3 is
more commonly used by authors in their abstracts. This may be due to how the main goal of any study is to fill a
certain gap in research, practice, or policy that has been identified prior to the study. The gap can be addressed
through three different sub-steps: (a) stating lack of attention, (b) making comparisons, and (c) describing
uncertainty.
(5) However, studies that evaluate rigorously the effects of DBDM on student achievement are scarce.
[JTE-69(3)-2019]
(6) Prior meta-analyses have evaluated school-based intervention effects; however, no systematic
review meta-analysis has evaluated the effectiveness of interventions implemented in classrooms
with students with ADHD. [RER-89(4)-2019]
(7) However, in a context where LL is often criticized for profusion of errors or substandard expressions,
it is doubtful whether the LL still holds pedagogical appeals for language teachers.
[IJAL-30(1)-2019]
Sub-step (a) is used in sentence (5), where the phrase “are scarce” indicates lack of attention given to studies on the
effects of DBDM. Sentence (6) however makes use of Sub-step (b), in which a comparison between prior and current
studies is made to show what is lacking. In sentence (7), sub-step (c) is employed, where the phrase “it is doubtful
whether” shows uncertainty towards a particular area of study.
4.2 Move 2: Introducing Study
The second move present in the abstracts is introducing the study. Sentences categorized under M2 describe what the
study is about and what it sets out to do. These sentences were identified through the use of phrases, such as “this
study …” or “this article …” in the sentences; these phrases are then followed by specific actions taken in the study
(e.g., investigates, documents, assesses). Sentences that are constructed based on these phrases were categorized as
S1: Describing the Study. Additionally, there were sentences that did not contain such phrases but were still
categorized under M2, as these sentences also do introduce the study by describing certain aspects of the study; such
sentences were labelled as S2: Describing Other Aspects of the Study.
Under S1 (Describing the Study), three sub-steps were identified: (a) describing action directly, (b) giving context to
study, and (c) explaining purpose of study. Sub-step (a) is most commonly used by authors in which sentences clearly
describe what the study does, while sub-steps (b) and (c) build upon/extend sub-step (a) either by providing
additional information about the study, or by giving the study a more purposive direction.
(8) This study investigates the potential benefits for incidental vocabulary acquisition of implementing a
particular sequence of input–output– input activities. [TQ-53(1)-2018]
(9) Drawing insights from the social identity perspective, this article examines the relationships
between social context, interpersonal networks, and identity dynamics of a mujahid based on a
single case of terrorist recidivism in Indonesia. [AJSP-23(1)-2018]
(10) This study aimed to investigate how Grade 1–2 English language learners (ELLs) differ in their
performance on a writing test in two test modes: paper and online. [TQ-53(2)-2019]
Sentence (8) is an example of sub-step (a), indicated by the phrase “this study investigates”, while sentence (9)
employs sub-step (b), in which additional context is given with regards to the approach taken, as seen in the phrase
“drawing insights from the social identify perspective”. Sentence (10) however, makes use of sub-step (c) by giving a
sense of direction and goal to the study through the use of the phrase “aimed to”.
In S2 (Describing Other Aspects of the Study), two sub-steps were found: (a) describing approach and (b) stating
scope. While aspects, such as approach and scope (e.g., sample, area of study), can be mentioned as additional
context when describing the study, such as in S1b, authors may at times choose to highlight these aspects in a
separate sentence. Compared to S1 however, S2 is not as commonly used when introducing the study.

Published by Sciedu Press 498 ISSN 1925-0703 E-ISSN 1925-0711

http://wjel.sciedupress.com World Journal of English Language Vol. 12, No. 6; 2022

(11) It draws upon both general and discipline-specific research in three promising areas for reading
instruction: metacognition, modeling via “thinkalouds,” and background knowledge.
[JCRL-49(2)-2019]
(12) One hundred and seventeen group design studies yielding 592 effect sizes constituted the current
sample. [RER-89(2)-2019]
In the above sentences, sub-step (a) is used in sentence (11) to indicate the approach taken by describing the
underlying influences of the study, while sub-step (b) is employed in sentence (12), in which information about the
sample size is provided.
4.3 Move 3: Describing Methodology
The third move found in the analysis of abstracts was describing methodology. Sentences which fall under this move
function to inform readers about how the study was conducted; this would include aspects, such as the data collection
and data analysis processes as well as the procedures carried out in the study. Specific content-based words/phrases
indicating the instruments used, the techniques applied, and the actions taken throughout the study were considered
when grouping sentences under M3. The three main steps identified in M3 are thus S1: Describing Data Collection,
S2: Describing Data Analysis and S3: Describing Procedure.
In S1, two different sub-steps are used to describe data collection: (a) describing sources of data, and (b) elaborating
on data collected. In sub-step (a), how the data was collected, such as the instruments used, are described, whereas in
sub-step (b), further details about the data collected are provided.
(13) A total of 151 third-year students and 133 lecturers in a teacher-training college answered separate
questionnaires consisting of open- and closed-ended questions. [JCRL-48(2)-2018]
(14) One hundred thirty-six school teachers completed a self-report questionnaire measuring
diversity-related burnout and self-efficacy, approaches toward cultural diversity, attitudes toward
multiculturalism, and demographics. [JTE-69(4)-2017]
Sentence (13) above is an example of sub-step (a), which indicates that questionnaires were used to collect data,
while sentence (14) uses sub-step (b) by providing further information about what was measured in the questionnaire
administered.
S2 (Describing Data Analysis) is somewhat similar to S1 when it comes to the sub-steps identified, where one
sub-step describes the process and the other gives a further elaboration. These two sub-steps are (a) describing
process of data analysis, and (b) elaborating on data analysis.
(15) The data obtained from 833 learners in high schools and universities was analyzed using structural
equation modelling (SEM) and multi-group structural equation modelling (MSEM).
[IJAL-30(2)-2019]
(16) Students’ writings were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively in terms of task completion, fluency,
and complexity. [TQ-53(2)-2019]
Sub-step (a) is used in sentence (15), where the specific technique applied is stated to show how the analysis was
done, whereas in sentence (16), an elaboration is given concerning what the analysis is looking at.
Besides data collection and data analysis, sentences indicating specific actions taken in the study are also categorized
under S3 (Describing Procedure) and can be broken down further into two sub-steps depending on the party who
does the action; these sub-steps are (a) describing participant action, and (b) describing researcher action.
(17) More specifically, learners of English as a foreign language (EFL; n = 32) were asked to watch a
TED Talk video, orally sum up its content in English, and then watch the video once more.
[TQ-53(1)-2018]
(18) A one-page essay was elicited from an ESL learner enrolled in an intensive English program and
was manipulated to incorporate error patterns often observed among Chinese- and
Spanish-speaking learners. [TQ-51(2)-2017]
For instance, sub-step (a) is taken such as in sentence (17), where the participants are specified and the actions taken
by them are stated. When it comes to sub-step (b) as demonstrated in sentence (18) however, sentences are usually
written in the passive voice so that the researcher as the subject is not explicitly mentioned, but readers presuppose
that the actions are indeed taken by the researcher.

Published by Sciedu Press 499 ISSN 1925-0703 E-ISSN 1925-0711

http://wjel.sciedupress.com World Journal of English Language Vol. 12, No. 6; 2022

4.4 Move 4: Presenting Findings

The fourth move identified was presenting findings. Sentences were categorized as M4 when words indicating
findings were present, such as “findings”, “results”, and “analysis”, along with verbs that signal the presentation of
those findings, such as “indicate”, “reveal”, “show”, “identify”, and “suggest”. In the analysis however, there were
sentences that did not explicitly make use of these words, but were also categorized as M4 on the basis that these
sentences appeared directly after M3 (Describing Methodology) in the abstract. It was thus deduced that, based on
the general structure of abstracts (and the organization of research articles), sentences following the methodology
would describe findings.
Since M4 is used to present what was found in the study, it was decided that both the findings and the
interpretation/discussion of said findings would fall under this move. This categorization is indeed different when
compared to previous abstract structure models, however, the main justification for this categorization is that in the
research article, the findings and discussion section is closely tied together due to how the discussion segment
discusses the findings so as to offer a further elaboration and explanation of the findings. Thus, both the findings and
discussion can be seen as two important aspects of presenting findings, both of which were categorized as separate
steps, which are S1: Reporting Findings and S2: Discussing Findings.
In S1, findings are reported directly without any interpretations given, such as in the sentences below:
(19) Mediation analyses revealed a strong relationship between teaching practice and student learning.
[AERJ-56(4)-2018]
(20) The findings show that convergence strategy is more dominant than divergence strategy and local
wisdom found in Buneng is designed to maintain harmony between village members rather than
voicing distinction amongst plural identities occupying the same public sphere. [JICR-48(4)-2019]
(21) Schooling was described as providing upward mobility but conflicting with education at home,
which was seen as fostering traditional values. [JICR-48(4)-2019]
Sentences (19) and (20) explicitly indicate reporting of findings through the use of the phrases “mediation analyses
revealed” and “the findings show that” when compared to sentence (21), in which the reporting of findings are
inferred from the phrase “schooling was described as”, indicating results based on data collected from participants
either through surveys/questionnaires or interviews (based on M3).
In S2, the findings reported are further discussed. Three sub-steps were identified: (a) stating
theories/hypotheses/concepts used, (b) stating focus of discussion, and (c) describing interpretation. Sub-step (a) is
used for stating certain concepts, theories, or perspectives used for interpreting findings, sub-step (b) is used when
authors decide to indicate the topics of discussion rather than give specific points, and sub-step (c) is used to give
specific interpretations arrived at based on the findings.
(22) These findings are interpreted with reference to Swain’s (1995) output hypothesis, Laufer and
Hulstijn’s (2001) involvement load hypothesis, and Nation and Webb’s (2011) technique feature
analysis. [TQ-53(1)-2018]
(23) The collaborative and non-collaborative functions served by these linguistic features are discussed.
[TQ-5391)-2019]
(24) These orientations suggest that how members discursively construct the relationship between policy
and practice is subject to interpretations that impact policy implementation. [JACR-47(4)-2019]
(25) This context prevents bystanders from reporting what they have observed and places those with a
lack of social support at a significant disadvantage when dealing with negative behavior.
[SQ-60(3)-2019]
Sub-step (a) is used in sentence (22), where the theories used to interpret findings (theories are underlined) are stated,
while sub-step (b) is applied in sentence (23), in which only the topics of discussion (topics are underlined) are
provided.
Sentences (24) and (25) make use of sub-step (c), both of which provide a conclusion of sorts arrived at from the
findings, but are written in different ways; in sentence (24), the phrase “suggest that” indicates a proposition, which
is then followed by the interpretation of findings (interpretation is underlined), whereas no such phrase is used in
sentence (25), instead, the phrase “this context” may imply a direct continuation from the previous sentence which
reports a finding.
Published by Sciedu Press 500 ISSN 1925-0703 E-ISSN 1925-0711
 http://wjel.sciedupress.com World Journal of English Language Vol. 12, No. 6; 2022

4.5 Move 5: Presenting Implication and Recommendation

The final move identified from the analysis of abstracts was presenting implication and recommendation. Compared
to the pre-existing models which included the discussion of findings under M5, in this study however, it was decided
that categorizing only the implications and recommendations under M5 was appropriate, since these two aspects
differ from the discussion of findings in that they extend the findings beyond the study itself by highlighting any
impacts and/or contributions as well as provide practical suggestions. These two aspects were thus categorized into
two steps: S1: Describing Implication and S2: Making Recommendation.
Sentences were identified as S1 when the word “implication” appeared in the sentences. However, there were also
sentences in which the word was not used, but indicated implication through the use of phrases that showed impact,
significance, or contribution of findings. Under S1, three sub-steps were identified: (a) addressing stakeholders, (b)
highlighting areas of implications, and (c) stating implications.
(26) Our findings serve as a cautionary note to researchers who intend to administer the PANAS in
future studies as well as to researchers interpreting the results of past studies involving respondents
from Asian countries. [AJSP-23(1)-2019]
(27) Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed. [RER-5391)-2019]
(28) Implications for teacher preparation are discussed. [JTE-70(4)-2018]
(29) These results provide novel empirical insights on the role of religious identity in interreligious
conflicts in the South Asian context, especially Indonesia. [AJSP-23(3)-2019]
In sentences (26) and (29), implications are indicated through the use of phrases that show significance or
contribution of findings (phrases in bold) as compared to sentences (27) and (28) in which the word “implication”
appears. Sub-step (a) is used in sentence (26) by pointing out the particular stakeholders (stakeholders are
underlined); sub-step (b) is employed in sentences (27) and (28) in which the general areas (i.e., theory and practice)
and specific areas (i.e., teacher preparation) are highlighted without further elaboration by providing specific points;
and sub-step (c) is present in sentence (29), in which specific points relating to implications are stated.
Sentences identified as S2 generally had the word “recommendation” present in the sentences. There were however
sentences that did not, but words/phrases indicating recommendation, such as the use of modal verbs (e.g., should)
and phrases suggesting a call to action such as “need to” were used. Similar to the sub-steps under S1, S2 was also
broken down into three sub-steps: (a) addressing stakeholders, (b) highlighting areas of recommendation, and (c)
stating recommendation.
(30) Recommendations are made for practitioners interested in designing and delivering diversity
training online in an interactive learning environment. [JTE-70(4)-2019]
(31) We conclude with recommendations for theory, research, programs, and policy for STEM identity
development among young women, informed by a social identity perspective. [RER-88(4)-2018]
(32) Future research should focus on possible interventions with teachers on the ways in which
approaches to cultural diversity are developed, negotiated, and adopted. [JTE-69(4)-2017]
Sentence (30) uses sub-step (a), in which the stakeholders are addressed (i.e., practitioners), while sub-step (b) is
seen to be employed in sentence (31) where the areas of recommendation are highlighted (areas are underlined).
Both sub-steps (a) and (b) do not provide specific recommendations as compared to in sub-step (c), such as is used in
sentence (32) where the recommendation is stated (recommendation is underlined).
4.6 Conventionality of Moves
Based on a 60% cut-off point, from the 100 abstracts analyzed, if a move occurs in more than 60% of the abstracts, it
is deemed as a conventional move, whereas the move is deemed as optional if it occurs in less than 60% of the
abstracts. The frequencies of occurrences of moves and their conventionalities are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Frequency of occurrence of moves and conventionality
Frequency of
Move Conventionality
occurrence
Move 1: Situating Research 51/100 (51%) optional
Move 2: Introducing Study 93/100 (93%) conventional
Move 3: Describing Methodology 50/100 (50%) optional
Move 4: Presenting Findings 92/100 (92%) conventional
Move 5: Describing Implication and Recommendation 56/100 (56%) optional
Published by Sciedu Press 501 ISSN 1925-0703 E-ISSN 1925-0711
http://wjel.sciedupress.com World Journal of English Language Vol. 12, No. 6; 2022

The findings of this study somewhat mirror that of other studies, but certain differences can be seen. As with almost
all other studies referenced in the literature review (e.g., Tseng, 2011; Can et al., 2016; Kanoksilapatham, 2013),
Move 1 was found to be optional, while Move 2 was found to be conventional, with Move 2 having the highest
frequency of occurrence, which is similar to the findings of Khansari et al. (2016).
Interestingly, Move 3 was found to be optional, contrary to the findings of many studies. However, such a contrast
may not in actuality exist as found in the study, but may likely be due to how the moves were categorized in the first
place. Since the majority of studies referenced considered Move 3 to occur even when embedded with other moves,
it makes sense that the frequency of occurrence of the move would be higher in those studies, as compared to how
this study only considered the move to occur if it was the more dominant move that was typically present in a
separate sentence.
Similarly, due to the way in which moves were categorized in this study, a direct comparison to other studies cannot
be made for Move 4 and Move 5, since all other studies group the discussion of findings as part of Move 5 and not
Move 4. Even then, despite these differences in categorization, the conventionality of Move 4 across most abstracts
is similar to the findings of the majority of studies cited. Move 5 on the other hand, was found to be optional, a
finding which is also reflected in a number of studies (e.g., Pho, 2008; Doró, 2013).
5. Conclusion
This study began with the aim of developing a comprehensive framework for the rhetorical structure of abstracts by
analyzing 100 research article abstracts from four disciplines within the field of social science and humanities. From
the analysis, a five-move structure, consisting of a total of 12 steps and 25 sub-steps to realize the five moves, was
identified (the complete framework can be found in Appendix A). Additionally, by using a 60% cut-off point to
determine conventionality of moves, Move 2 and Move 4 were found to be conventional, while Move 1, Move 3, and
Move 5 were deemed optional.
The findings of this study contribute to the field of the genre analysis of research article abstracts by extending the
pre-existing frameworks for abstract structure via the refining of the categorization of moves into the more detailed
sub-categories of steps and sub-steps present within each move. Moreover, the study contributes to the literature on
abstract genre analysis by offering an alternative for the categorization of moves, such as the categorization for Move
4 and Move 5, where the discussion of findings is part of Move 4 rather than Move 5; also, in the categorization of
sentences having dual/embedded moves as separate and distinct sub-categories, rather than as two major moves.
This study has implications for research, particularly in the way move analysis is carried out in determining the
micro-structures present within each move. Besides that, there are also implications for practice, such as how abstract
structure can be effectively taught in academic settings e.g., academic writing classes. To that end, the framework
presented in this study can be used as an instructional tool to help novice writers in their understanding about abstract
structure in their efforts to write high quality abstracts for journal article publication. Novice writers who may be
new to academic writing, such as undergraduate and perhaps even post-graduate students intending to write their
own theses, dissertations, or academic reports, may be able to use the framework proposed as a guide to better
abstract writing, especially if they intend to have their work published in peer-reviewed indexed journals.
Finally, further research can be done, looking specifically at other aspects such as the conventionality of
steps/sub-steps within each move, as seeing that even within a conventional move, certain steps/sub-steps may more
often be found. Future research can also explore disciplinary variation that may exists in abstract micro-structure
(rather than only macro-structure) in order to identify which steps and sub-steps are more prevalent in specific
disciplines. In addition, this study can be further extended in the analyzing and the identification of the steps and
sub-steps present in abstracts of other fields and disciplines apart from that of the social science and humanities field.
Lastly, this study did not cover in detail the linguistic realizations/features for each sub-step, such as the grammatical
constructions, which future studies can consider.
References
Al-Khasawneh, F. M. (2017). A genre analysis of research article abstracts written by native and non-native speakers
of English. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 4(1), 1-13.
Amnuai, W. (2019). Analyses of rhetorical moves and linguistic realizations in accounting research article abstracts
published in international and Thai-based journals. Sage Open, 9(1), 2158244018822384.
Behnam, B., & Golpour, F. (2014). A genre analysis of English and Iranian research articles abstracts in applied
linguistics and mathematics. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 3(5), 173-179.
Published by Sciedu Press 502 ISSN 1925-0703 E-ISSN 1925-0711
http://wjel.sciedupress.com World Journal of English Language Vol. 12, No. 6; 2022

Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analyzing genre: Language use in professional setting. London: Longman.
Can, S., Karabacak, E., & Qin, J. (2016). Structure of moves in research article abstracts in applied linguistics.
Publications, 4(3), 23.
Cross, C., & Oppenheim, C. (2006). A genre analysis of scientific abstracts. Journal of documentation, 62(4),
428-446.
Darabad, A. M. (2016). Move analysis of research article abstracts: A cross-disciplinary study. International Journal
of Linguistics, 8(2), 125-140.
Doró, K. (2013). The rhetoric structure of research article abstracts in English studies journals. Prague Journal of
English Studies, 2(1), 119-139.
Dos Santos, M. B. (1996). The textual organization of research paper abstracts in applied linguistics. Text & Talk,
16(4), 481-500.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Harlow, England: Longman.
Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005). Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. English for specific purposes,
24(3), 269-292.
Kanoksilapatham, B. (2013). Generic Characterisation of Civil Engineering Research Article Abstracts. 3L:
Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 19(3).
Khansari, D., Chan, S. H., Chan, M. Y., & Tan, H. (2016). Regularities and irregularities in rhetorical move structure
of linguistics abstracts in research articles. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature®, 22(1).
Lon, C. E., Tan, H., & Abdullah, A. N. (2012). Conveying communicative intent: Moves and metadiscourse in
abstract writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 1(7), 56-65.
Lorés, R. (2004). On RA abstracts: from rhetorical structure to thematic organisation. English for specific purposes,
23(3), 280-302.
Martı́n, P. M. (2003). A genre analysis of English and Spanish research paper abstracts in experimental social
sciences. English for specific purposes, 22(1), 25-43.
Melander, B., Swales, J. M., & Fredrickson, K. M. (2011). Journal abstracts from three academic fields in the United
States and Sweden: National or disciplinary proclivities?. In Culture and styles of academic discourse (pp.
251-272). De Gruyter Mouton.
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), 231-250.
Saeeaw, S., & Tangkiengsirisin, S. (2014). Rhetorical Variation across Research Article Abstracts in Environmental
Science and Applied Linguistics. English Language Teaching, 7(8), 81-93.
Suntara, W., & Usaha, S. (2013). Research Article Abstracts in Two Related Disciplines: Rhetorical Variation
between Linguistics and Applied Linguistics. English Language Teaching, 6(2), 84-99.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge University Press.
Tseng, F. P. (2011). Analyses of move structure and verb tense of research article abstracts in applied linguistics
journals. International journal of English linguistics, 1(2), 27.
Viera, R. T. (2019). Rhetorical Move Structure in Abstracts of Research Articles Published in Ecuadorian and
American English-Speaking Contexts. Arab World English Journal, 10(4), 74-87.

Published by Sciedu Press 503 ISSN 1925-0703 E-ISSN 1925-0711

 http://wjel.sciedupress.com World Journal of English Language Vol. 12, No. 6; 2022

Appendix A
Move structure of abstracts in the field of Social Science and Humanities
Moves (M) Steps (S) Sub-steps
S1: Establishing Context
a. Describing Issue
S2: Addressing Issue
b. Describing Response to Issue
M1: Situating Research
a. Stating Lack of Attention
S3: Addressing Gap b. Making Comparisons
c. Describing Uncertainty
a. Describing Action Directly
S1: Describing Study
b. Giving Context to Study
M2: Introducing Study
S2: Describing Other Aspects of a. Describing Approach
Study b. Stating Scope
a. Describing Sources of Data
S1: Describing Data Collection
b. Elaborating on Data Collected
a. Describing Process of Data Analysis
M3: Describing Methodology S2: Describing Data Analysis
b. Elaborating on Data Analysis
a. Describing Participant Action
S3: Describing Procedure
b. Describing Researcher Action
S1: Reporting Findings
a. Stating Theories/Hypotheses/
M4: Presenting Findings Concepts
S2: Discussing Findings
b. Stating Focus of Discussion
c. Describing Interpretations
a. Addressing Stakeholders
S1: Describing Implication b. Highlighting Areas of Implications
c. Stating Implications
M5: Presenting Implication and
a. Addressing Stakeholders
Recommendation
b. Highlighting Areas of
S2: Making Recommendation
Recommendations
c. Stating Recommendations

Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Published by Sciedu Press 504 ISSN 1925-0703 E-ISSN 1925-0711

View publication stats