Introduction

To publish articles in academic journals, authors have to include their abstracts following the given guidelines. The abstract is the first part that readers encounter before reading the whole article (Hyland, 2004). It is a description or factual summary of the much longer report, which is intended to give the readers exact and concise information of the full article (Bhatia, 1993). Unfortunately, the restriction of the word numbers induces the hardship in writing an abstract for the authors (Swales & Feak, 2009). An adequate understanding of knowledge cannot assure the writing skills of the writers. A good abstract communicates the essential ideas of the work. It should include the information about what the writers conducted in the research, how they did it, what they discovered, and what they concluded from the research.

According to Wallwork (2013), an abstract is crucial due to four reasons. First, it determines whether the article is worth having an exclusive review by editors. Second, it is the first part readers read before going deeper into the article. Third, it is the part at which the readers make a judgment for the accompanying article. Fourth, it helps readers to decide whether to read the rest of the article. Moreover, Olson (2014) mentioned that an abstract must be well written. The abstracts should be properly punctuated in complete sentences. Every sentence should contain maximum information with minimal use of minor words and each main word should be precise and informative. More importantly, the first sentence of the abstract needs to be polished to perfection both in content and style to gain the confidence and interest of the readers. Furthermore, since a research article abstract functions as a stand-alone mini text, as a screening device, as a preview, and as an indexing help for writers and editors (Huckin, 2001), it has to be precise, concise, engaging, and also densely packed with information in order to attract readers’ attention (Olson, 2014; Putri & Kurniawan, 2021; Wallwork, 2011). A well-structured abstract allows the readers to grasp the content of the article, determine how relevant it is to their interests, and decide whether to read the entire article.[1] Hence, an abstract must be written in effective patterns clearly and interestingly since it plays a pivotal role in academic writing (Amnuai, Kotuta & Duangprasertchai, 2020; Hafidzoh & Hardjanto, 2019).

Swales and Feak (2009) have proposed a move model of an abstract. A move, a functional term that varies from a phrase to a paragraph, is defined as “a stretch of text that does a particular job” (p. 5). The model consists of five moves where each move has implied questions which are helpful for authors with their abstracts, namely (1) Move 1 Background/ introduction/ situation with the implied question “What do we know about the topic? Why is the topic important?”, (2) Move 2Present research/ purpose with the implied question “What is this study about?”, (3) Move 3Methods/ materials/ subjects/ procedures with the implied question “How was it done?”, (4) Move 4Results/ findings with the implied question “What was discovered?”, and (5) Move 5Discussion/ conclusion/ implications/recommendations with the implied question “What do the findings mean?” (Swales & Feak, 2009: 5).

Move 1Background/ introduction/ situation has a purpose to provide the rationale for the study as well as to attract interest in the topic (Swales & Feak, 2012). In this move, the authors need to provide background information to situate the research. This move can be realized in three ways, namely by (a) providing a general phenomenon or standard practice and summarizing previous studies – background, (b) making topic generalization – introduction, and (c) describing a problem or uncertainty or indicating a gap – situation.

Move 2Present research/ purpose functions to describe the core intention of the study. This move can be realized by, first, announcing the present study or describing the researcher’s action in the study – present research and second, stating the objective(s) or research question(s) of the study – purpose.

Move 3Methods/ materials/ subjects/procedures presents how the study was conducted. Past tense and passive sentences are used in this move (Swales & Feak, 2009). The realization of this move can be differentiated into four ways, namely (a) by describing the methodology of the study regarding research design, data analysis, data collection procedure, instruments, and setting of the research – methods, (b) by providing information about the object of the study or source of the data – materials, (c) by describing the participants or animate object of the study – subjects, and (d) by outlining a step-by-step manner done in the study or providing investigative action in a sequence – procedures.

Move 4Results/ findings functions to present the results of the study. There are some expressions used to indicate the general results, such as overall, in sum, more generally, and in general. Some adverbs, such as specifically, particularly, first...second..., and so on, are used to indicate specific results. In this move, the authors need to report and summarize the results of the study.

Move 5Discussion/ conclusion/ implications/ recommendations is the move in which the authors discuss or conclude the results of the study and/or give implications or recommendations to future researchers. The last move in abstracts can be divided into four different manners, namely (a) by giving general discussion of the results – discussion, (b) by interpreting the results of the study – conclusion, (c) by indicating the contribution or significance of the study – implications, and (d) by giving suggestions or recommendations to future researchers – recommendations.

Swales and Feak’s (2009) five-move model has been developed through in-depth processes which involve numerous cross-disciplinary research articles as the specialized corpora (p. xii). It is also designed with some tasks which lead to greater awareness and understanding of constructing abstracts (p. xiii). In other words, Swales and Feak’s five-move model is trustworthy as the guidance for writing English research article abstracts (RAAs henceforth). Accordingly, this model is used in this study as the framework for analysis.

Many studies have analyzed English RAAs, focusing on their discourse patterns and linguistic characteristics across various disciplines. In the comparative study of RAAs in applied linguistics, Andika, Arsyad, and Harahap (2018) used Swales and Feak’s (2009) five-move model to examine the rhetorical moves and linguistic features of 60 abstracts written by postgraduate students and national and international authors. The results of the study revealed three moves (e.g., purpose, method, and results) as well as linguistic features (e.g., active voice, present tense, simple sentence) were commonly used by three groups of authors. The differences were found in the postgraduate students’ abstracts which dominantly used past tense and hedges and rarely occupied Move 1 (Background/ introduction/ situation).

Similarly, Paydari and Paramasivam (2019) identified the move structures of English RAAs in the field of political science in Iranian journal. They analyzed 120 abstracts by using Hyland’s (2000) five-move model as the framework. The findings of the study indicated that the moves of political science RAAs were different from Hyland’s model in terms of move patterns. The move patterns used by political science authors were the three-move and two-move patterns, indicating the low frequency of Move 1 (Introduction), Move 4 (Product), and Move 5 (Conclusion) in their abstracts due to the lack of genre competence displayed by the authors in implementing those three moves.

Another study, conducted by Hafidzoh and Hardjanto (2019), investigated English RAAs of applied linguistics focusing on the authors of RAAs. They used Pho’s (2013) five-move model as the framework in analyzing 30 English RAAs published in Applied Linguistics journal and Journal of English for Academic Purposes. The results of their study showed that the common move patterns of the abstracts were five-move and four-move patterns. More recently, Tamela (2020) also conducted a comparative study on RAAs published in national and international Scopus-indexed journals. She employed Hyland’s (2000) five-move model to analyze each move of the abstracts. The investigation of move structure in RAAs retrieved from TEFLIN and TESOL Quarterly journals came up with the results that I-P-M-Pr (Introduction-Purpose-Method-Product) and P-M-Pr (Purpose-Method-Product) were the two dominant move patterns found in both journals respectively, indicating that Purpose, Method, and Product were obligatory moves in both journals.

Less research has been conducted on the rhetorical moves of English RAAs using Swales and Feak’s (2009) five-move model as the framework of analysis. Although the previous study conducted by Andika, Arsyad & Harahap (2018) used the move model as the framework to identify the rhetorical moves and linguistic features of English RAAs, they did not explore the realization of each typical label of a move. Thus, this study intends to fill the gap by conducting further investigation on how Swales and Feak’s (2009) five-move model is applied in English RAAs.

The present study aims to examine the English RAAs published in an Indonesian national journal, i.e., LLT Journal, and an international journal, i.e., System Journal by applying Swales and Feak’s (2009) five-move model. This study focuses on investigating the rhetorical move distinctions of English RAAs in the journals.

Methodology

This research employed discourse analysis. Discourse analysis is the study of linguistic structure “beyond the structure” (Schiffrin, Tannen, and Hamilton, 2001, p. 1). It focuses on lexico-grammatical features that indicate the organization of discourse (Biber, Connor, & Upton, 2007). In this study, the researchers analyzed the RAAs by using Swales and Feak’s (2009) five-move model. Subsequently, the rhetorical moves of RA abstracts were compared to find out the differences of each data set.

The corpus data of 120 RAAs published in 2018-2020 were drawn from two journals, namely LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching (LLT Journal, henceforth) and System Journal. The researchers randomly picked 60 RAAs from each journal to make a proportional representation. To make data collection easier, the research articles retrieved from LLT Journal were coded as LJ, while the ones retrieved from System Journal were coded
as SJ.

After all abstracts were collected and coded, they were analyzed by using top-down corpus-based analyses as suggested by Biber, Connor, and Upton (2007). This approach consists of seven steps, namely (1) communicative/functional categories, (2) segmentation, (3) classification, (4) linguistic analysis of each unit, (5) linguistic description, (6) text structure, and (7) discourse organizational tendencies. Ultimately, the general patterns of RAAs structures across all texts in the corpora were presented. To validate the data, the researchers double-checked the classification of each move occurrence and recoded if some mistakes were found.

The move coding was conducted to ease data analysis. The codes were designed with the combination of initial letter and abbreviation of each functional type of each move, which was elaborated as follows: Move 1Background (M1Bg), Move 1Introduction (M1Int), Move 1 Situation (M1Sit), Move 2 Present research (M2Pr), Move 2 Purpose (M2P), Move 3 Methods (M3Meth), Move 3 Materials (M3Mat), Move 3 Subjects (M3Sub), Move 3 Procedures (M3Pro), Move 4 Results/Findings (M4R), Move 5 Discussion (M5Dis), Move 5 Conclusion (M5Con), Move 5 Implications (M5Imp), and Move 5 Recommendations (M5Rec). For Move 4Results/Findings, its typical labels were not differentiated as there was no significant difference between results and findings.

With regard to embedded moves, the researchers used Santos’ (1996) framework in coding the data. For example, <M2P> marks the start of the Move 2 Purpose, while </M2P> marks the end of the Move 2 Purpose. Similarly, <M3Meth> marks the start of the Move 3 Methods and </M3Meth> marks the end of the Move 3 Methods.

Results and Discussion

Differences of Rhetorical Moves of RAAs in both journals

In this study, some rhetorical moves of Swales and Feak’s (2009) five-move model were found in both LLT Journal and System Journal. The frequency of rhetorical move occurrences found in the RA abstracts of both journals is shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Rhetorical move occurrences in RA abstracts

The findings showed that all five moves of Swales and Feak’s (2009) model appeared in the two sets of data. Move 1 appeared 65% in LLT Journal and 58% in System Journal. Move 2 had the highest frequency in both journals with 98% and 95% percentages. The occurrence of Move 3 appeared higher in LLT Journal (95%) than that in System Journal (87%). For Move 4, it had a higher frequency (88%) in System Journal compared to LLT Journal (85%). Move 5 seems to be more rarely occupied by the writers in LLT Journal (57%) compared to System Journal (77%).

Hence, the occurrences of three moves, namely Move 2, Move 3, and Move 4, had a higher frequency than those of Move 1 and Move 5 in both journals. According to Kanoksilapatham (2005), a move is considered obligatory if it occurs in every RA abstract (100%), conventional if it occurs in 60% to 99%, and optional if it occurs lower than 60%. Although the frequency of occurrences of Move 2, Move 3, and Move 4 did not reach 100%, their frequencies were high. Moreover, the high frequency of Move 2, Move 3, and Move 4 was consistent with some previous studies (Ahmed, 2015; Pho, 2013). The high frequency was because the authors considered those three moves were more important than the other moves (Amnuai, 2019; Tamela, 2020). Thus, Move 2, Move 3, and Move 4 were essential and considered as the obligatory moves both in LLT Journal and System Journal. The lower frequency of Move 1 and Move 5 was because Move 1 and Move 5 were not considered as the obligatory moves in RAAs (Ahmed, 2015; Hakim, Arsyad, & Syahrial, 2021). They were considered as the supplementary moves. Therefore, Move 1 was considered conventional in LLT Journal and optional in System Journal, while Move 5 was considered optional in LLT Journal and conventional in System Journal.

To conclude, Move 2, Move 3, and Move 4 were obligatory in the two sets of data. In line with Swales and Feak’s (2009) findings, Move 2 was the most common move of the two journals. Move 1 was conventional and Move 5 was optional in LLT Journal and vice versa in System Journal.

Table 2. Typical rhetorical move occurrences in LLT Journal

RA Abstract Moves in LLT Journal

Based on Table 2, Move 1 was occupied by 16 authors employing M1Bg (41%), 18 authors employing M1Int (46%), and 18 authors employing M1Sit (46%). Although M1Bg had the lowest frequency, the difference was only 2% compared to the other two moves. Consequently, M1Bg, M1Int, and M1Sit were typical. Some examples of the occurrences of Move 1 in LLT Journal are as follows.

<M1Bg>Research has shown that more effective language learners use more and better learning strategies . . . {LJ1/18_S2}

<M1Int> Tableau actually is one of the process drama techniques . . . Tableau is theoretically useful for students to . . . {LJ37/19_S2;S3}

<M1Sit> Although the course has been designed for communicative purpose, some students still are not be able to . . . {LJ6/18_S4}

<M1Sit>However, EFL instructors’ beliefs about . . . are scarcely explored. {LJ45/20_S2}

The occurrence of M1Bg in LJ1/18_S2 showed that the authors reviewed previous studies to situate their present research. The authors used the sentence Research has shown that . . . to specify the important findings of previous study (Swales, 1990). Additionally, the present perfect tense was employed by the authors to indicate the relevance of previous studies with their own study. Therefore, this sample occupied M1Bg by summarizing existing studies (Pho, 2013).

LJ37/19_S2;S3 showed the occurrence of Move 1Introduction. Here, the sentence Tableau actually is one of . . . showed that the authors generalized the topic by defining the topic based on the authors’ judgment. Next, the author described the importance of the topic based on the theory by using the sentence Tableau is theoretically useful for . . . Here, the lexicon is signalized M1Int.

The occurrence of M1Sit (LJ6/20_S5) showed that the researcher described an existing condition that was used as the basis of the present research. The author used the sentence ... some students still are not be able to ... to present the problem or condition faced by the students. The lexicon still indicated that the problem was continuing to happen. However, some authors occupied M1Sit by pointing a gap in the previous study (Swales, 2004). For example, in LJ45/20_S2, the phrase ... are scarcely explored indicated that the research investigating EFL instructors’ beliefs was still limited. The transition signal, however, was used to indicate a problem.

A deeper analysis showed that the most common structure in the occurrence of Move 1 was generalizing the topic (M1Int), followed by indicating a gap (M1Sit). In other words, the authors sequentially occupied M1Int and M1Sit, resulting in the same percentage on M1Int and M1Sit.

Move 2, namely Present research/ Purpose, was occupied by 30 authors employing M2Pr (50%) and 36 authors employing M2P (61%). Both moves were considered typical as the difference was only 11%. The examples of the occurrences of Move 2 are as follows.

<M2Pr> This study explored the language attitude in terms of gender and socio-economic status (SES  . . . {LJ12/18_S1}

<M2P> This study aims to report the utility of Pecha Kucha in promoting students’ speaking skills . . . {LJ6/18_S1}

<M2P> There are 4 research questions addressed in this study, namely (1) . . . (2) . . . (3) . . . and (4) . . . {LJ60/20_S3}

The occurrence of M2Pr (LJ12/18_S1) showed that the authors described the present research. The noun phrase this study was used to refer to the present study (Pho, 2013). In this case, the lexicon explore indicated an action that the present study was going to do. In realizing M2P, the author directly stated the purpose of the present study by using the sentence this study aims to ... (LJ6/18_S1). Here, the lexicon aim was employed to indicate the objective of the study. However, the occurrence of M2P (LJ60/20_S3) showed that the author used the sentence there are 4 research questions addressed in this study to state the research questions. The lexicon namely was employed to outline the research questions in detail. The detail of research questions is another way to indicate the objective of the study. Therefore, LJ6/18_S1 and LJ60/20_S3 were coded as M2P.

Move 3, namely Methods/ Materials/Subjects/Procedures, was used by 51 authors employing M3Meth (89%), 5 authors employing M3Mat (9%), 24 authors employing M3Sub (42%), and 13 authors employing M3Pro (23%). Therefore, M3Meth, M3Pro, and M3Sub were typical, whereas M3Mat was not typical. The following are the examples of the occurrences of Move 3.

<M3Meth> The data were analyzed by using paired sample and independent sample t-test. {LJ15/18_S3}

<M3Sub> The participants were 25 students in one of the EFL classroom in Indonesia. {LJ37/19_S6}

<M3Pro> A total of 256 Indonesian participant . . . answered a two-part questionnaire . . . {LJ19/18_S2(end)}

<M3Mat> The object of the research was 7 years by Lukas Graham. {LJ56/19_S10}

In M3Meth (LJ15/18_S3), the sentence provided information about the data of the study. It was signalized by the phrase the data. The verb phrase were analyzed by using . . . was used to explicitly describe the technique of analyzing the data, namely paired sample and independent sample t-test. The occurrence of M3Sub in LJ37/19_S6 clearly showed that the author described the participants by using the sentence the participants were . . . Subsequently, the active verb answered in LJ19/18_S2(end) implied an action done by the subject. This indicated the occurrence of M3Pro by reporting what the subject of the study did (Pho, 2013). The last example in LJ56/19_S10 indicated the occurrence of M3Mat. Here, the author used the sentence The object of the research was . . . to describe the object of the study, namely the song entitled 7 Years by Lukas Graham. In this case, the object of the study was explicitly stated by the author.

Move 4, namely Results/ Findings, was used by 51 authors. The example of the occurrences of Move 4 is as follows.

<M4R> The results showed that, first, the participants had awareness of languages in their repertoire, namely . . . Second, . . . Thirdly, . . . {LJ43/20_S6;S7;S8}

In LJ43/20_S6;S7;S8, the author tried to report the results of the study from general to specific aspects. It was indicated by the adverb namely (Swales & Feak, 2009). In this example, the occurrence of M4R was realized in three sentences. The phrase the results here clearly indicated that the authors intended to report the results of their investigation. Afterward, the evaluative that clause here was used by the authors to emphasize the findings and thus make it more certain (Hyland & Tse, 2005). The reporting verbs, such as reveal, show, and suggest, were often used as the signals of reporting the findings of the study (Pho, 2013).

Move 5, namely Discussion/ Conclusion/Implications/Recommendations, was used by 1 author employing M5Dis (3%), 12 authors employing M5Con (35%), 19 authors employing M5Imp (56%), and 6 authors employing M5Rec (18%). This indicated that M5Con, M5Imp, and M5Rec were typical. M5Imp was the most commonly-used move by the authors when closing their abstracts. The examples of the occurrences of Move 5 are as follows.

<M5Imp> It is hoped that the research gaps identified in these studies and future research implications provided can shed light on future research in similar areas. {LJ60/20_S8}

<M5Con> It was concluded that the students perceived the importance of the use of correct grammar . . . {LJ36/19_S8}

<M5Rec> Regarding some grammatical mistakes in students’ explanation texts, it is recommended that teacher give explicit teaching and more exercises . . . {LJ36/19_S9}

<M5Dis> . . . having quality teachers who can think and teach in an interdisciplinary manner can be very strategic . . . {LJ38/19_S6}

The three examples, namely LJ60/20_S8, LJ36/19_S8, and LJ36/19_S9, clearly showed the occurrences of M5Imp, M5Con, and M5Rec respectively. It was signalized by the lexicon implications, concluded, and recommended. Regarding M5Dis, it was found that only one author used this move in his abstract. The authors tended to give implications or draw conclusions rather than discussing the results to close their abstracts. That is why M5Dis was not typical.

Further analyses on the rhetorical moves indicated that there were some embedded moves found in this journal. The examples of embedded moves are as follows.

<M2P> <M3Meth>This Classroom Action Research</M3Meth> aimed at investigating . . . </M2P> {LJ7/18_S1}

<M2Pr> This study explored the learners’ perception on the use of direct transmission and scaffolding in the EFL classroom <M3Meth>through a semi-structured interview. </M3Meth> </M2Pr> {LJ28/19_S1}

<M4R> <M3Meth> By employing a researcher-made questionnaire as a primary tool for obtaining data and applying appropriate statistical tools,</M3Meth> the study revealed that the respondents utilized the ideational language metafunction . . . </M4R> {LJ31/19_S4}

In the examples, the embedded move occurred in Move 3. In LJ7/18_S1, the Move 3 Method (M3Meth) This Classroom Action Research was placed within the Move 2 Purpose (M2P). Both moves were overlapped each other within a sentence. It was also similar to LJ28/29_S1. The prepositional phrase through a semi-structured interview refers to M3Meth was placed within the M2Pr “This study explored the learners’ perception on”. However, in LJ31/19_S4, the M3Meth was integrated with M4R. For such cases, the embedded move cannot be really separated from each other. In other words, one sentence expressed two functions simultaneously.

Based on the analysis, it was found that there were two kinds of embedded move, namely Move 3 embedded in Move 2 and Move 3 embedded in Move 4. This resonates Pho’s (2013) findings which suggest that the Describing the methodology (DTM) was the most move embedding either in Presenting the research (PTR) move or Summarizing the findings (STF) move. It occurred due to the flexible nature of the realization of Move 3 (p. 238).

As seen in Table 3, the highest frequency of the move pattern of the abstracts is the five-move model and the four-move model. The five-move model, the pattern of which was M1-M2-M3-M4-M5, appeared 10 times, while the four-move model, the pattern of which was M1-M2-M3-M4, appeared 9 times in the journal. This indicated that LLT Journal strictly followed the five-move model proposed by Swales and Feak (2009). These findings were consistent with Hafidzoh & Hardjanto’s (2019) findings which stated that the five-move model and four-move model were the common discourse patterns of abstracts in applied linguistics. The findings also implied that the authors of LLT Journal tended to use Move 1 for the opening sentence. Therefore, the authors adopted Type A, starting with a real-world phenomenon or with standard practice (Swales & Feak, 2009). Furthermore, the findings on the move pattern also supported the occurrences of rhetorical moves where Move 2, Move 3, and Move 4 were obligatory because those three moves appeared in the four most frequent move patterns. Table 4 shows the model for LLT Journal Research Article Abstracts.

Table 4. A model for LLT Journal research article abstracts

Table 5. Typical rhetorical move occurrences in System Journal

As in Table 5, Move 1 was occupied by 18 authors employing M1Bg (51%), 15 authors employing M1Int (43%), and 17 authors employing M1Sit (48%). There was no significant difference in the occurrences of M1Bg, M1Int, and M1Sit. This indicated that the authors were familiar with those three moves. Hence, they were typical moves. The examples of the occurrences of Move 1 are as follows.

<M1Bg> Traditionally, in the educational sphere, more importance has been given to text rather than to other semiotic modes . . . In medicine, the visual becomes vital . . . {SJ12/18_S2;S3}

<M1Int> Metadiscourse markers refer to aspects of text organisation or indicate . . . {SJ33/19_S1}

<M1Sit> Although various studies on . . . have provided insights into aspects of their identity, agency, and emotions, a paucity of research exists that elucidates the evolving beliefs of post-tertiary learners . . . {SJ57/20_S1}

The occurrence of M1Bg (SJ12/18_S2;S3) showed that the authors tried to build territory to assure readers that the topic was worth investigating. Here, the sentence more importance has been given to . . . was used to indicate that the field became the main concern. The lexicon vital explicitly showed that the topic was important and it thus promoted the research itself (Hyland, 2004). In M1Int (SJ33/19_S1), the authors generalized the topic by clarifying the definition of certain terms used in the study. Here, the phrase refer to was used to describe the details of specific key terms used in this study (Wannaruk & Amnuai, 2015). Many authors occupied M1Sit after defining specific terms when opening their abstracts. They elaborated the gap that the research would fulfil as in SJ57/20_S1. Here, the sentence a paucity of research exists was used to indicate that the research on beliefs of post-tertiary learners was still limited. The use of negative devices, such as no prior study, only a small, relatively and little, and contradiction connectors, such as however, but, although, and despite, were employed by the authors to indicate a gap from previous studies (Amnuai, 2019).

Move 2, namely Present research/ Purpose, was occupied by 49 authors and 17 authors employing M2Pr (86%) and M2P (30%) respectively. Although M2P had a lower frequency than M2Pr, it can be considered as typical because 17 authors occupied M2P, resulting in both M2Pr and M2P being typical. Thus, the authors of System Journal did not lack knowledge in realizing Move 2. The examples of the occurrences of Move 2 are as follows.

<M2Pr> This paper comprises two parts. First, it reports on . . . and . . . {SJ9/18_S1;S2}

<M2P> In essence, our intention is to provide an answer to the question, What factors influence the beliefs of tertiary language learners after they graduate? {SJ57/20_S2}

The occurrence of M2Pr (SJ9/18_S1;S2) showed that the authors outlined the structure of the paper to present the research. It was signalized by the use of the sentence this paper comprises two parts. Following that, the reporting verb reports used to describe the present research. In SJ57/20_S2, the authors directly mentioned the research question of the study. Here, the phrase our intention seemed to be an indirect way of saying the aim. Since the research question also implied the objective of the study, SJ57/20_S2 was coded as M2P.

Move 3, namely Methods/ Materials/ Subject/Procedure, was occupied by 38 authors employing M3Meth (73%), 3 authors employing M3Mat (6%), 8 authors employing M3Sub (15%), and 19 authors M3Pro (36%). This showed that only a few authors mentioned the object or subject of the study. As a result, M3Mat and M3Sub were not typical while M3Meth and M3Pro were typical. One possible explanation for the low frequency of M3Mat is that the authors considered that M3Meth, M3Sub, and M3Pro were more important than M3Mat. The examples of the occurrences of Move 3 are as follows.

<M3Meth> As the first part of a larger study, measures of the big five personality traits . . . and two types of stressors . . . were gathered via eMoodie . . .{SJ29/19_S4}

<M3Pro> The noun modifiers in Biber et al.’s (2011) index were then extracted with a computational program . . . {SJ38/19_S3)

<M3Sub> Twenty college CFL students at three proficiency levels participated in two rounds of interviews . . . {SJ47/20_S2}

<M3Mat> Data for the present study is drawn from Language LINC, a corpus of telecollaborative eTandem interactions. {SJ8/18_P2/S1}

The occurrence of M3Meth (SJ29/19_S4) showed that the authors tried to describe the data collection technique. The phrase were gathered via was employed to describe the tools used to collect the data of the study. In SJ38/19_S3, the verb phrase were then extracted indicated an action done in the study. Here, the subject referring to the research object, which in this case The noun modifiers, was followed by what was done to the object of the study. Most sentences of this typical move were signalized by the use of past tense. It was because this move described the action that had been done in the study (Pho, 2013). Thus, SJ38/19_S3 occupied M3Pro. For M3Sub, the occurrence can be seen in SJ47/20_S2. Here, the lexicon participated clearly signalized the subject of the study. Regarding M3Mat (SJ8/18_P2/S1), the sentence Data for the present study is drawn from . . . indicated the source of data which at the same time was the object of the study.

The authors of System Journal seemed to be more detailed in presenting the results of their research. The example on the occurrence of Move 4 is as follows.

<M4R> Results showed high gains for . . . Equal gains between trained and untrained items demonstrated that participants had indeed inferred grammar rules . . . {SJ58/20_S6;S7}

The example shows that the authors directly reported the results of the study. It was signalized by the sentence results showed. Moreover, the presence of the noun phrase, Equal gains between trained and untrained items ... , which occurred before the reporting verb demonstrated, indicated the specific result. Hence, SJ58/20_S6;S7 occupied M4R.

Move 5, namely Discussion/ Conclusion/Implications/Recommendations, was occupied by 11 authors employing M5Dis (24%), 13 authors employing M5Con (28%), 23 authors employing M5Imp (50%), and 12 authors employing M5Rec (26%). The high occurrence of M5Imp indicated that most authors closed their abstract by giving implications or contributions of the study, while the frequency of M5Dis, M5Con, and M5Rec indicated that some authors were aware of the realization of Move 5. For that reason, M5Imp, M5Dis, M5Con, and M5Rec were typical in System Journal. The following are some examples of the occurrences of Move 5.

<M5Imp> Pedagogical implications for high school EFL textbook writers, program managers, and teachers are discussed. {SJ55/20_S7}

<M5Con> In sum, this study confirms that storybooks and subtitled videos are appropriate materials to engage students with reading . . . {SJ24/19_S7}

<M5Rec> In addition, we advise that L2 article patterns might appear grammatical . . . We also suggest further topics for research in L2 acquisition of the noun phrase.{SJ11/18_S9;S10}

<M5Dis> These results are discussed in relation to the relevant previous literature and should continue the discussion on . . . {SJ42/20_S7}

The occurrence of M5Imp (SJ55/20_S7) clearly shows that the authors drew implications of the study, indicated by the phrase pedagogical implications. Furthermore, the phrase are discussed here makes the sentence a passive voice. It makes the information become more objective, academic, and less personal (Amnuai, Kotuta, & Duangprasertchai, 2020; Malmir, Khany, & Aliakbari, 2019). In SJ24/19_S7, the sentence In sum, this study confirms that was used to conclude the results of the study. Here, the phrase in sum was used to summarize the results and the lexicon confirms was used to state that something was proved true. Simply, the sentence implied that it was true that storybooks and subtitled videos were appropriate materials to engage students, showing the occurrence of M5Con. The sentence we advise that . . . and we also suggest . . . in SJ11/18_S9;S10 signalizes the occurrence of M5Rec, indicating suggestions for future research in the same field. The last example shows that the occurrence of M5D was signalized by the sentence These results are discussed. It clearly indicated that discussion was carried out by comparing the results with previous studies.

The following are some examples of the embedded moves found in System Journal.

<M2Pr> This article presents <M3Meth> an interview-based case study </M3Meth> of a language teacher agency from social justice, queer, and ecological perspectives. </M2Pr> {SJ17/18_S1}

<M3Meth> We use Pantić’s (2015) model of teacher agency for social justice <M2P>to investigate four aspects (i.e., “sense of purpose,” “competence,” “autonomy,” “reflexivity”) of Jackson's agency, a queer language teacher. </M2P></M3Meth> {SJ17/18_S2}

<M4R> <M3Meth> The narrative analysis of one teacher's interview accounts </M3Meth> demonstrates how this teacher circumnavigated the constraints of a native-speaker ideology by making use of the affordances of the notion of plurilingualism, as defined by the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, as a conceptual resource to rearticulate an identity as a different kind French language teacher. </M4R> {SJ20/18_S2)}

The occurrence of M2Pr and M3Meth in SJ17/18_S indicated that Move 3 was embedded in Move 2. The lexicon presents indicated what the study was about, while the phrase an interview-based case study signalized the use of Move 3. To be specific, the author added the information about the type of study while presenting what the present study was about. Conversely, the occurrence of M3Meth and M2P in SJ17/18_S2 indicated that Move 2 was embedded in Move 3. Here, the author first described the framework of the study by using the sentence we use . . ., then stating the purpose of the study by using the phrase to investigate . . . The next finding was Move 3 embedded in Move 4. In this case, the reporting verb demonstrates, which stands as the main verb, was used to report the results of the study. The noun phrase The narrative analysis of one teacher's interview accounts indicated the methodology of the study. Therefore, the author mentioned the method of the study while at the same time reporting the results of the study. One possible explanation for the embedded move was due to the condense nature of the abstract (Pho, 2013).

Table 6. The most frequent move pattern in System Journal

Regarding the move sequences, as in Table 6, the five most frequent move pattern in System Journal was the four-move model, five-move model and three-move model. The four-move model with M2-M3-M4-M5 pattern was the most frequent because it occurred in 11 RAAs. This implied that some authors in System Journal considered Move 1Background/ Introduction/Situation to be less important. The second place was the five-move model with M1-M2-M3-M4-M5 pattern. This showed that eight authors strictly followed Swales and Feak’s five-move model. The model for System Journal is shown in Table 7.

Table 7. A model for System Journal research article abstracts