Jurnal Melewar 2021

the framework for the text analysis. The scope is based on
prior research associated with Swales CARS Model and from
there, two research questions are formulated.
b. Unitizing: This phase relates to the defining and ultimately
identiying units of analysis based on the data. Here, the three
criteria of Swales CARS Models which are distinguished as
‘Moves’ are used, namely ‘establishing territory’, ‘establishing
a niche’ and ‘occupying the niche’

c. Sampling: For content analysis, there is a need for sampling
which should become the representatives of the population for
measurement purposes. Here, the materials chosen are on
ESL/ESP/ Education articles, specifically TESL journal
articles and the writers are non native speakers (NNS) of
English with different cultural background.

d. Coding: This phase involves coding the data to provide a
systematic account. For this phase, the process of classifying
in analysing the introductory paragraphs are based on Swales
CARS Model Steps . The steps involve are claiming centrality,
making topic generalisation, reviewing, counter claiming,
indicationg a gap, question raisng, continuing the tradition,
outlining purposes, announcing present research, announcing
findings and indicating a structure.

The framework of investigation is divided into two main parts:
firstly structural models/patterns are established in terms of
the presence/absence of moves/steps and their arrangement
are examined. Tables are formulated and each article is
analysed in detail to indicate the presence of the moves and
steps. Then, a summary of the moves pattern is presented.
Later, each introduction is analysed individually in examining
whether the selected writers apply Swales CARS model in
their introductions. Here, the similarities and differences of
the introductions are interpreted and discussed.

e. Drawing Inferences. The phase relates to the idea and
conclusion drawn from the findings. After examining the texts
based on the unitizing and coding phases as well as Swales
CARS Model, inferences and conclusion are generalised.

f. Validation: The desideratum of any research effort. Here, the
validation is achieved as the data are triangulated by referring

242 J u r n a l M e l e w a rJ uBri lnaanlg aMn e2l 5e /w2a0r2 1B i l a n g a n 2 5 / 2 0 2 1 | 240

to the objectives of the study, Krippendorff (1989) content
analysis research process and Swales CARS Model.

Research Questions

The importance of research article development in academic
communities has stimulated many scientists to conduct research on it,
including the organization structure of research articles; ranging from
the structure of abstracts (Golebiowski, 2008; Samraj, 2005), results
(Bret (1994) and William (1999), as cited in Ozturk, 2007), discussions
(Holmes, 1997, as cited in Jalilifar, 2010) and conclusions (Ruiying &
Allison, 2003). As part of the interest of studies conducted on all
sections of research articles, the introduction section has received
special attention particularly following the introduction of the Swales
model (1990) pioneered the Create a Research Space (CARS) model.
On the basis of the importance, position and function of a research
article introduction, a standard schema is needed in order to write one
successfully. Otherwise, the writers intended purpose may not be
successfully conveyed to the readers and may fail to convince them
and also reviewers as well as the editor that the article proposed
deserves to be published. Henceforth, it is believed that Swales CARS
Model is a good schema to use in writing a journal introduction.
Based on the above research problem, this study attempts to find
answers to the following research questions:

1. To what extent do NNS writers from different cultural
background apply Swales CARS Model in their introductory
paragraphs?

2. Are there any similarities and differences in the application of
Swales’ Moves and Steps in the journal article introductions?

Subjects/ Samples

Six journal articles have been chosen for this study. The articles are
taken from ‘ELT Journal’ of various volumes. In the discussion of the
findings, these articles will be referred to as follows:

J u r n a l JMuer nl ea lw Ma re l Be wi laar nBgial ann g2 a5n/ 2205 2/ 21 0|22141 243

Significance of the Study

Article No of Word Writer’s Title of Article
Country of
sentences count Origin

A1 9 206 Turkey The Functions of

Malaysia Code Switching in

Japan ELT Classrooms

A2 6 138 Taiwan Suggestions for

Spain Teaching Public

Poland Speaking and

Evaluating

Speeches

A3 6 114 Using News Stories
A4 7 141
A5 6 203 in the ESL
A6 8 315
Classroom

Integrating English

into an Elementary

School Life Course

Teaching the Four

Skills in the Primary

EFL Classroom

Using the Internet

in ESL Writing

Instruction

The study is considered significant because it would provide more
information on Swales CARS Model of writing introduction. The
researcher feels that although introductory paragraphs are difficult to
compose, there are no official guidelines on how to write them
effectively. Therefore, it is hoped the study will enlighten and offer
more useful information on the Moves and Steps based on Swales
CARS Model.

It is also hoped that this study can create awareness amongst
academic writers, teachers and students on the writing conventions of
introductory paragraph. It is deemed necessary for these groups to
produce introductions which are structured and organized despite the
differences in their cultural background.

244 J u r n a l M e l e w a rJ uBri lnaanlg aMn e2l 5e /w2a0r2 1B i l a n g a n 2 5 / 2 0 2 1 | 242

Limitations

The study has a few limitations. Firstly, there are only six introductory
paragraphs of journal articles chosen. Thus, under such a
circumstance, the findings may not represent the real characteristics
of introductions written in general. In addition, the chosen articles are
taken from a single source and these journals cover one discipline.
Hence, the study does not signify introductory paragraphs written in
other areas, namely science, technology or even literature.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Definition of Terms
Contrastive Rhetoric

Before Robert Kaplan's landmark article "Cultural thought patterns in
intercultural education" was published in 1966, many people believed
that problems that learners of English had in writing were due to
different ways of thinking. In that article, Kaplan argued against
different thought patterns and suggested instead that writing styles
differ in different languages and the problems of second language
writers can be explained by transfer of an L1 writing style into an L2.
Kaplan's article established the field of contrastive rhetoric -- the
comparative study of writing styles in different languages for the
purpose of facilitating writing in a second language. Kaplan (1997)
claims that Contrastive Rhetoric is partly based on Whorfian
hypotheses of the relationship between language and thought. He
elaborates by asserting that the ‘logic expressed through the
organization of written text is culture-specific; that is , it posits that
speakers of two different languages will organize the same reality in
different ways’ (Kaplan, 1988, 1987) Cited in Miller, 1997: 18. This text
logic is filtered unconsciously by learners of L2 because they:

- are not aware of the way in which their L1 influences the way they
organize text logic.
- are not aware of the way in which an L2 organizes text logic.
- are not aware that there is a difference.

(Kaplan, 1997) Cited in Miller, 1997: 18

Connors (1996) defines contrastive rhetoric in its modern sense as
an area of research in L2 acquisition that identifies problems in
composition encountered by second language learners, and by
referring to the rhetorical strategies of the L1 attempts to explain them

J u r n a l JMuer nl ea lw Ma re l Be wi laar nBgial ann g2 a5n/ 2205 2/ 21 0|22143 245

CARS Model

Swales and Sheave (2001) point out that the genre framework for the
analysis of written texts has been extensively used for teaching or
research purposes (Flowerdew, 2000). The CARS model is one of the
recognized models implemented in the study of introductions. CARS
stands for Create a Research Space, introduced by Swales. This
model consists of the following part:

MOVE 1: MOVE 2: MOVE 3: Occupying
Establishing a
Territory Establishing a the Niche
1:
 STEP Niche  STEP 1A:
Claiming
 STEP 1A: Outlining
Centrality
Counter- Purposes
and/or
Claiming or

or  STEP 1B:

 STEP 1B: Announcing

 STEP 2: Indicating Present

Making Topic a Gap Research

Generalizations or

and/or  STEP 1C:  STEP 2:

 STEP 3: Question- Announcing

Reviewing Raising Principal

Previous or Findings/Results

Research  STEP 1D:

Continuing  STEP 3:
Indicating RA
a Tradition
structure

Figure 1: CARS Model for article introductions
http://butler.cc.tut.fi/~penningt/sem/topCars.html

According to Swales (1990), the recognition given to the CARS model
could be motivated by social needs — ‘the need to establish in the
eyes of the discourse community the relevance of the research itself
(Move 1), the need to situate the actual research in terms of that
significance (Move 2) and the need to show how the niche in the wider
ecosystem will be occupied and defended (Move 3)’ (Swales, 1990:
142).

246 J u r n a l M e l e w a rJ uBri lnaanlg aMn e2l 5e /w2a0r2 1B i l a n g a n 2 5 / 2 0 2 1 | 244

Out of the three steps in Move 1, the first step is obviously most
appealing to the readership by claiming that there are many
investigators active in the area, whereas the other two are more
general and pertain to the current state of knowledge. However, the
third move seems to be the weightiest and therefore, obligatory for
those who are studying how to write RPs (Swales & Feak, 1994: 175).
Move 2 establishes the author’s motivation and the rationale for the
paper, even though, according to Swales (1990: 158), in the sequence
of moves it does not necessarily follow the literature review. Move 3
has several varieties: purposive, where the author indicates his/her
main purposes, or descriptive, where he/she describes the features of
his/her research (Swales & Feak, 1994: 190). In general, RP
introductions could be regarded as “encapsulated problem-solution
texts” (Swales, 1990: 138).

J u r n a l JMuer nl ea lw Ma re l Be wi laar nBgial ann g2 a5n/ 2205 2/ 21 0|22145 247

248 J u r n a l M e l e w a rJ uBri lnaanlg aMn e2l 5e /w2a0r2 1B i l a n g a n 2 5 / 2 0 2 1 | 246

J u r n a l JMuer nl ea lw Ma re l Be wi laar nBgial ann g2 a5n/ 2205 2/ 21 0|22147 249

Table 1 illustrates the structural patterns of the selected introductions.
From the total corpus of six introductions, under ‘Establishing a
Territory’ (Move 1) 66.6% of the writers applied Step 1- ‘Claiming
centrality’ in their introductions. 66.6% used Step 2 - Making topic
generalisation when they wrote the introductions and 50.0% employed
Step 3 which is ‘Reviewing items of previous research’.

For ‘Establishing a Niche’ (Move 2), 50.0% opted to use ‘Counter
claiming’ which is Step 1A. 33.3% applied ‘Indicating a Gap - Step 1B.
16.6% utilised ‘Question Raising – Step 1C and 33.3% of the writers
used ‘Continuing a tradition’ – Step 1D in their introductions.

For ‘Occupying the Niche’ (Move 3), 66.6% used Step 1A which is
‘Outlining purposes’ and 16.6% applied Step 1B - ‘Announcing present
research’. 0 % utilised ‘Announcing Principal Findings’ in their
introductions while 16.6% used ‘Indicating RA structure’ in their
introductions.

Article Summary of Move

1 Move 1 → Move 2→ Move 3

2 Move 1 → Move 2 → Move 3

3 Move 1 → Move 2 → Move 3

4 Move 1 → Move 2 → Move 1

250 J u r n a l M e l e w a rJ uBri lnaanlg aMn e2l 5e /w2a0r2 1B i l a n g a n 2 5 / 2 0 2 1 | 248

5 Move 1 → Move 2 → Move 3

6 Move 1 → Move 3

Table 2: The moves patterns employed by writers

Table 2 reveals that although the majority of the writers did make use
of Swales CARS Moves and Steps, some writers did not apply in the
order of what it was supposed to be. Articles A1, A2, A3 and A5
adhered to the pattern of the moves model. However, article A4 and
A6 disobeyed the moves pattern. The writer for Article A4 started the
introductory paragraph with Move 1, followed by Move 2 which is
acceptable but ended with Move 1. Where as Article A6 began with
Move 1, progressed direct to Move 3 but excluded Move 2 altogether.
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
This study aims to investigate how far the writers have grasped
Swales CARS Model on writing introduction. The study wishes to
examine the similarities and differences of the introduction which are
written from selected NNS writers with different cultural background.
Thus, in the following section, an explanation of each article’s move
pattern will be discussed. The discussion is based on Table 1 and the
journal articles (refer to Appendix).
Analysis of Article 1 (A1)
The writer firstly used claiming centrality and employed Move 1 Step
1 by stating that “code switching is a widely observed phenomenon”.
The writer then reviewed previous research of the code-switching
phenomenon. “Nunan and Carter briefly define the term as ……” He
then continued the tradition “following this definition……” by utilizing
Move 2 in constructing on work that is already done by extending the
area studied. Finally in employing Move 3, he announced the

J u r n a l JMuer nl ea lw Ma re l Be wi laar nBgial ann g2 a5n/ 2205 2/ 21 0|22149 251

present research methodology by using terms such as ‘will be
introduced’, ‘will be explained’ and ‘will be discussed.’ This Turkey
writer has followed Swales’ CARS moves model in writing the
introductory paragraph. He is establishing the field of his argument
and moving on by defining the term completed by previous
researchers. He then occupied the niche by announcing the
methodology of his present research. It is important for him to outline
his introductory paragraph as clearly as possible and in doing so, he
has adhered to Swales’ CARS moves model.

Analysis of Article 2 (A2)

The writer started with Move 1 by claiming centrality, “Giving helpful
feedback on students’ work is an essential commitment in any
teaching-learning situation”. He then proceeded to generalizing the
topic by using “It is clearly related to teachers’ accessibility to
students”. Later, he reviewed the previous research by
acknowledging the fact of providing feedback to students. Move 2 is
employed when he countered claiming by showing the weaknesses.
Here, he used word like ‘daunting task’ and ‘perplexed’. In the final
stage of the introductory paragraph, he employed Move 3 and
occupied the niche by outlining a purpose of his research by stating
“This article highlights…..”. The Malaysian writer has followed Swales’
moves pattern. He is carrying out a study on ‘Suggestions for teaching
Public Speaking and Evaluating Speeches’. He has adhered to the
move pattern successfully in his introductory paragraph, thus his
overall study appears to be very well constructed.

Analysis of Article 3 (A3)

The Japanese writer had started the introductory paragraph by
generalizing the topic Move 1, “The importance of extensive reading
in ESL classroom is well known”. Then he reviewed previous
research by stating, “The reading of extended passages expands
vocabulary, improves writing, and enhances general competence”.
From this general information, the writer then indicated a counter
claiming by opposing a view point, stating “Despite the benefits of
extensive reading…..” In this line, the writer has given the scenario in
Japanese schools where grammar translation method is still used,
thus, extensive reading is difficult to progress. He then raised a
question and moved on to proposing the outline of his study. The
Japanese writer has employed the moves pattern as outlined by
Swales. His article is a study on Using News Stories in the ESL
Classroom. Since the study has been carried out, he has fulfilled all

252 J u r n a l M e l e w a rJ uBri lnaanlg aMn e2l 5e /w2a0r2 1B i l a n g a n 2 5 / 2 0 2 1 | 250

the Swales’ criteria required in his introductory paragraph clearly and
effectively.
Analysis of Article 4 (A4)

The writer had utilisied Move 1 Step 2 that is topic generalization by
stating “English has been taught to the fifth graders in Taiwan since
the fall semester of 2001”. Then he skipped Step 2 and 3 in Move 1
and employed Move 2 counter claiming by pointing out the weakness
using words like ‘unfortunately’ and ‘hampered by’. Towards the end
of his introductory paragraph, the writer claimed centrality - Move 1
by stating, “..intergrating English with other content subjects has been
trendy in the West for years”. In this introductory paragraph, the writer
started with Move 1 and then proceeded to Move 2 and interestingly
employed Move 1 again. The Taiwanese writer violates the moves
pattern outlined by Swales. Looking at this perspective, it can be
argued that he is not familiar or exposed to Swales CARS model and
ended up violating the Moves and Steps. The writer probably assumes
that his audience would continue reading his introduction once the
territory and niche (Move 1 & Move 2) have been established, thus he
omits the need to ‘occupying the niche’ (Move 3) in his introductory
paragraph.

Analysis of Article 5 (A5)

The writer of Article 5 had started off his introduction with Move 1 by
claiming centrality, “The teaching of English as a foreign language
is now one of the most important subjects in most European primary
schools”. The writer then employed Move 2 by indicating a gap by
stating “…the need to establish clear objectives that are different to…”
in previous research. He felt he should continue the tradition “As a
result of this point of view… and decided to establish the development
of the four skills…” He later counter claiming his opposing viewpoint
by using “has not been trouble-free’ and “However”. Finally, he
employed Move 3 by outlining the purpose of his study; “The main
purpose of this paper….” The Spanish writer practices Swales’ moves
pattern. This is perhaps due to his understanding of teachers’
predicament in teaching the four skills who expect pupils to master
them without making the mistakes found in the process of acquiring
the language. Here, the nature of his article gives the impression of an
account of his experience as either a teacher trainer or a teacher with
the phrases “many teachers insist”, “teachers expect their pupils”, “we
still find” and “we hope”. He voices out teachers worries and proposes
to conduct a study to “provide guidelines”. Here, he has followed the
pattern of the moves meticulously.

J u r n a l JMuer nl ea lw Ma re l Be wi laar nBgial ann g2 a5n/ 2205 2/ 21 0|22151 253

Analysis of Article 6 (A6)

In Move 1, the writer generalized the topic by alleging “The advent
of the Internet and the wide spread of technology in our life create new
opportunities for language learning”. The writer then jumped straight
to Move 3 and outlined his purpose “the present paper will try to
explore….” He further elaborated his action in Move 3 by indicating
the structure of the article (Step 3) by giving the necessary
convention which is commonly found in dissertations and theses. He
used “will try to explore”, “will try to analyse”, “will be to consider”, “will
attempt” and “is to propose” throughout his introductory paragraph.
The Polish writer has completely omitted Move 2 in his article. It can
be argued that since he is writing for ‘TESL Journals’, his audiences
are mainly linguists, lecturers, teacher trainers or ESL teachers and
those who are interested in ELT issues. The writer probably assumed
that his audience would be familiar with the issue pertaining to ‘Using
the Internet in ESL Writing Instruction. Thus, it can be disputed that he
believes that Move 2- establishing a niche is not necessary in his
introductory paragraph.

CONCLUSION

In this study, attempts have been made to investigate how far the
writers have grasped Swales CARS Model in writing introduction and
to examine the similarities and differences of the introduction which
are written from selected NNS writers with different cultural
background. The study has discovered that Swales CARS Model is
found in the introductory paragraphs of the six journal articles.
However, it is also found that the moves pattern utilised by writers vary
due to the cultural background, purpose of writing, familiarization of
Swales CARS Model as well as the intended target audience. It can
be suggested that comparative studies can also be conducted. Future
researchers may compare introductions written between native and
non native speakers or comparison can also be made between
introductions written by writers of different gender or age..

The findings in the present study have provided some general
implications. The study offers useful and practical guidelines
concerning the structure of an introductory paragraph of a journal
article. Writers’ rhetorical thinking is also taken into consideration.
Factors such as the purpose of the article, the audience and also the

254 J u r n a l M e l e w a rJ uBri lnaanlg aMn e2l 5e /w2a0r2 1B i l a n g a n 2 5 / 2 0 2 1 | 252

cultural background of the writer should be borne in mind in producing
any academic writing.

Finally, this study does not claim that the writers must use Swales
CARS Model when writing journal article introductions. However, it
can be argued that they need to be aware of the contrastive rhetoric
which arises among texts from different cultural contexts. Such
awareness would determine the message that any research or study
wishes to convey would get across.

REFERENCES

Bernard, H. R., Wutich, A., & Ryan, G. W. (2010). Analyzing qualitative
data: Systematic approaches. SAGE publications.

Bhatia, V.K. (1983) An Applied Discourse Analysis Of English
Legislative Writing Birmingham: The University of Ashton Language
Studies Unit.

Connors, U. (1996) Contrastive Rhetoric Cross Cultural Aspects Of
WSeecbosnidteLsa:nguage Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press..

WhhFO3tt7lrottepp8gwb::.a//es//nbwriitdzuweaetslwtewi:o.r,c.ncsLacu.l.otSu(h2tti.r0ofui0./ce~0tdpu)u.ere/nUwninsriinitnAigngctg/ascadeeemnGmt/eetiorcn/pirWneCt-rarboirtacisnsn.ghec.td.mhEtFlLmrTal mJoeuwrnoarkl 5t4o/4T: e3a6c9h-

Jhattlpil:if//awr,wwA..cs(2u0o1h0io)..edRue/wseriatirncghceanrtteicrl/eintrinotcrnocd.uhctmtioln: sub-disciplinary
vJhatotrpuia:r/tn/iboaunltslAerin.tciccal.eptuspt:l.ifei/d~plienngnuiinsgtitc/sseTmh/teopJCouarrns.ahltmofl Teaching Language
Skills, 2(2), 29-55.

http://iteslj.org/Articles/Sert-CodeSwitching.html

KJGhotretipupr:bpr/n/neitaenelrds,AolWj.rroftf.ir,cgSKl/ceT.hse(r:1ca9hm8nm9iq),u. TeCs.o/LnK.taeWunrot-rPathnu,ab&llyicsLSi.sp.GeIrnaokEsins.gB(.Ehadtrmnso.l)u, wIn,teGr.national

hetntpcy:/c/iltoepseljd.oiargo/TAf erctcoichmlenmsiq/uSuneeisrct/a-ACtniootnedpe(VaSrowal.-it5c1Wh, ipnspg.h..ht4mt0ml3l-407). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press. Retrieved from
hhttttpp::////riteepsoljs.oitrogr/yTA.eurtcpichelennsinq/.Cueedhsuie//Knaa-sIucnr_t-epPgaurpabetlircnsSg/2.ph2et6makling.html

http://iteslj.org/Techniques/BAantzeop-aFroau-r5SWkisll.sh.thmtml l
hMAtpitlpple:l/ir/c,itaeTtsi.oljn(.1o.9rWg9/7aTA)serhtFcicihnulengnsitcqo/tCuinoe:hnsEiae/KnlngrA-aIlinpjsktpheargo-LWraaacnrthigntieungsag.hgUttoemsiPWnl grroNigttereatn.mhtT.melxt: Classroom

http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Bazo-FourSkills.html

http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Krajka-WritingUsingNet.html

J u r n a l JMuer nl ea lw Ma re l Be wi laar nBgial ann g2 a5n/ 2205 2/ 21 0|22153 255

Connors, U. (1996) Contrastive Rhetoric Cross Cultural Aspects Of
Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press..

Flowerdew, L. (2000). Using a Genre-based Framework to Teach
Organizational Structure in Academic Writing. ELT Journal 54/4: 369-
378.

Jalilifar, A. (2010). Research article introduction: sub-disciplinary
variations in applied linguistics The Journal of Teaching Language

Skills, 2(2), 29-55.

Krippendorff, K. (1989). Content analysis. In E. Barnouw, G.
Gerbner, W. Schramm, T. L. Worth, & L. Gross (Eds.), International
encyclopedia of communication (Vol. 1, pp. 403-407). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press. Retrieved from
http://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/226

Miller, T. (1997) Functional Approaches to Written Text: Classroom
Application. Washington: English Language Program.

Ozturk, I. (2007). The textual Organization of research article
introductions in applied linguistics: Variability within a single discipline.
English for Specific Purposes, 26(1), 25–38.

J u r n a l M e l e w a r B i l a n g a n 2 5 / 2 0 2 1 | 253
Rosen, L. J. & Behrens, L. (2003) The Allyn and Bacon Handbook.
New York: Longman.

Ruiying, Y., & Allison, D. (2003) Research articles in applied
linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific
Purposes, 22(4), 365–385.

Swales, J. & Najiar, H. (1987) The writing of research article
introductions, Written Communication , 4, pp. 175-192.

Swales, J. (1990) Genre Analysis: English In Academic And Research
Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Swales, J. & Feak, Ch. (1994) Academic Writing for Graduate
Students: Michigan: University of Michigan Press.

Swales, J. & Feak, Ch (2000) English in Today’s Research World:
Michigan: University of Michigan Press.

Yassin, B. (2014) The Application of Swales Model in Writing a
Research Article Introduction, Studies in English Language and
Education
1(1), 29-41. Retrieved from

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7b36/5655255a150c1dd07661a3d7

53f5651533de.pdf

256 J u r n a l M e l e w a r B i l a n g a n 2 5 / 2 0 2 1