CONCLUSIONS IN LINGUISTICS AND APPLIED LINGUISTICS RESEARCH ARTICLES

Abstract

The present work is a contrastive study where we analyse the conclusions of
a corpus of 36 Linguistics and Applied Linguistics research articles written
in Spanish and Slovene, both by native speakers, as well as research articles
written in Spanish by Slovene investigators. We focus on the structure of this
section following the moves and steps established by Yang and Allison (2003)
and Moritz, Meurer and Dellagnelo (2008), as well as the principles used for
this kind of analysis settled by the field of intercultural rhetoric (Connor and
Moreno, 2005, Moreno, 2008, Connor 2011). The results of our investigation
reveal that there are important differences concerning conclusions in research
articles between the two languages, which should be taken into account when
teaching Spanish as an academic language.

Full text

ACADEMIC WRITING FROM CROSS-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES
104
G S A  D H Z
 4
Conclusions in
linguistics and
applied linguistics
research articles
written in Spanish
asa foreign language:
Anintercultural
rhetoric study
Gemma Santiago Alonso and David Heredero Zorzo
Academic writing from cross-cultural perspectives - FINAL.indd 104 15.4.2020 10:36:28

CONCLUSIONS IN LINGUISTICS AND APPLIED LINGUISTICS RESEARCH ARTICLES
105
ACADEMIC WRITING FROM CROSS-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES
Abstract
e present work is a contrastive study where we analyse the conclusions of
a corpus of 36 Linguistics and Applied Linguistics research articles written
in Spanish and Slovene, both by native speakers, as well as research articles
written in Spanish by Slovene investigators. We focus on the structure of this
section following the moves and steps established by Yang and Allison (2003)
and Moritz, Meurer and Dellagnelo (2008), as well as the principles used for
this kind of analysis settled by the eld of intercultural rhetoric (Connor and
Moreno, 2005, Moreno, 2008, Connor 2011). e results of our investigation
reveal that there are important dierences concerning conclusions in research
articles between the two languages, which should be taken into account when
teaching Spanish as an academic language.
Keywords: intercultural rhetoric, academic writing, corpus study, rhetorical
moves, conclusion in research articles.
Izvleček
V pričujočem prispevku je predstavljena kontrastivna študija, v kateri analizi-
ramo sklepne razdelke v korpusu 36 znanstvenih člankov s področij jezikoslov-
ja in uporabnega jezikoslovja, ki so jih v španščini in slovenščini napisali rojeni
govorci, pa tudi člankov, ki so jih v španščini napisali slovenski raziskovalci.
Struktura sklepnega razdelka je razčlenjena po potezah in korakih, kot so jih
denirali Yang in Allison (2003) ter Moritz, Meurer in Dellagnelo (2008),
ter v skladu z načeli analize, uveljavljene na področju kontrastivne retorike
(Connor in Moreno, 2005, Moreno, 2008, Connor 2011). Rezultati raziskave
pokažejo pomembne razlike med jezikoma v sklepnih razdelkih znanstvenih
člankov, ki bi jih bilo treba upoštevati pri pouku španščine kot akademskega
jezika.
Ključne besede: medkulturna retorika, akademsko pisanje, korpusna študija,
retorične poteze, sklep znanstvenega članka
Academic writing from cross-cultural perspectives - FINAL.indd 105 15.4.2020 10:36:28

Gemma Santiago Alonso and David Heredero Zorzo
106
ACADEMIC WRITING FROM CROSS-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES
1 INTRODUCTION
In the last few decades, a large number of studies (Cassany and Morales 2008;
Gnutzmann and Oldenburg 1991; Holmes 1997; Hyland 1996; Pérez Ruiz
2001; Swales 1990, 2004) has paid extensive attention to the delimitation of
the structure and construction of research articles (henceforth RAs), in order
to stimulate an ever more global form of scientific-academic communication.
The aforementioned investigations are oriented to identify prototypical rhe-
torical moves that constitute the different sections of RAs (Introduction, Re-
sults and Discussion, Conclusion and Summary).1 However, we cannot ignore
that most of the previous studies are framed within an Anglo-Saxon context,
whose impact on the global scene has highlighted the importance of the socio-
cultural context within academic-scientific writing2 (Santiago and Heredero
2018, 272).
Our aim in the present paper is the analysis of the rhetorical conventions in the
conclusions section of RAs written in Spanish by Slovene researchers, compar-
ing them with those made by Slovene and Spanish researchers in their native
languages. Our work is framed in the same line as other investigations (inter
alia: Amnuai and Wannaruk 2013; Aslam and Mehmood 2014; Ciapuscio and
Otañi 2002; Fuentes Cortés 2013; Moritz, Meurer and Dellagnelo 2008; Reza
Adel and Ghorbani Moghadam 2015; Tabatabaei and Azimi 2015; Yang and
Allison 2003). All the investigations mentioned above are focused on English
as a native language tongue in contrast to English used by non-native speakers.
Nevertheless, in our case, although we understand that English is the reference
language needed to have visibility in the international scientific community,
we believe more studies of intercultural rhetoric focused on other languages
are needed, such as Spanish, which it is also increasingly present in the sci-
entific world.3 Hence, in our research we have been particularly interested in
those studies that include Spanish in their corpus, although it is true that they
exclusively use texts by authors for whom Spanish is their mother tongue to
observe if there are transfers of rhetorical patterns into English.4 With regard
1 is fact points to the existence of prototypical formalities that the scientic articles have to incorporate to satisfy a series
of expectations necessary for their subsequent publication in scientic journals.
2 Connor (2011); Connor and Moreno (2005); Moreno (2008); Mur Dueñas (2018) and Kubota and Lehner (2004) among
others.
3 According to the annual report of the Instituto Cervantes for 2018, the growth in the number of Spanish-language texts
from Spanish-speaking countries in the world’s scientic production was 127.96% for the period 2003-2011. In addition,
except for the period 2000-2003, such participation in the world’s scientic production has been growing steadily since
1996. Despite the fact that the presence of Spanish as a scientic communication instrument remains scarce on a global
scale, the Spanish language, with 103,773 records in 2017, is the third most common language in which journals (not only
scientic) are published.
4 We refer, among others, to: Moreno (1997), who analyses the use of causal metatext; Ciapuscio and Otañi (2002), which
analyses the cultural-rhetorical characteristics in the conclusions of RAs written in English, German and Spanish; Vázquez
Academic writing from cross-cultural perspectives - FINAL.indd 106 15.4.2020 10:36:28

CONCLUSIONS IN LINGUISTICS AND APPLIED LINGUISTICS RESEARCH ARTICLES
107
ACADEMIC WRITING FROM CROSS-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES
to contrastive rhetorical research focused on the Slovene language, Pisanski Pe-
terlin’s work on the text-organizing metatext (2005, 2007) and the inclusion of
previews and reviews in the text (2002) needs to be mentioned. However, there
exist only two investigations (Heredero, Pihler and Santiago 2017; Santiago
and Heredero 2018) that have worked with Spanish and Slovene, both focused
on differences and similarities of the introductions of Linguistic and Applied
Linguistic research articles written in Spanish by Slovene researchers, compar-
ing them with those written in their native languages by Spanish and Slovene
researchers. Taking into account all the above, this article attempts to solve this
gap and to contribute to the identification and establishment of rhetorical and
cultural conclusion patterns, as well as the literature on the distance between
both languages, and we consider the results could be useful for future pedagogic
purposes for academic writing in Spanish as a foreign language.
In our analysis, the framework of intercultural rhetoric has been considered (see
Connor 2011; Connor and Moreno 2005) to establish whether there is a trans-
fer of rhetorical patterns from the mother tongue to the foreign language (in
our case, from Slovene to Spanish), using a parallel corpus for this. Regarding
the comparability and equivalence of the corpus within intercultural rhetoric,
we have based our work here on the contextual factors established by Moreno
(2008).
With respect to methodology, a corpus composed of 36 RAs has been designed,
of which 12 have been written in Spanish by native speaker experts, 12 in
Slovene by native speaker experts and 12 in Spanish by Slovene experts. For
the classification and analysis of the rhetorical moves of the corpus, on the
basis of the pioneering works of Swales (1990, 2004) and Gnutzmann and
Oldenburg (1991), we have taken into account the model in Yang and Allison
(2003) (where Results, Discussion, Conclusion and Pedagogic Implications are
included), adding two more steps from the model in Moritz, Meurer and Del-
lagnelo (2008).
In summary, this research investigates how conclusions of RAs produced in Span-
ish by Slovene researchers, and Slovene and Spanish researchers in their native
languages, are structurally organized with respect to the moves and steps of the
proposed conclusion model. After describing our corpus data and our method of
analysis, we present the results and discussion of our research, finishing with a
conclusion that summarizes the main findings and takes into account the peda-
gogical implications of this investigation.
(2010), which deals with the use of modal verbs; Fuentes Cortés (2013), who studies the Conclusions section in the disci-
pline of history; or Mur Dueñas (2018), focused on the use of metadiscourse features in Business Management RAs written
in English and in Spanish.
Academic writing from cross-cultural perspectives - FINAL.indd 107 15.4.2020 10:36:28

Gemma Santiago Alonso and David Heredero Zorzo
108
ACADEMIC WRITING FROM CROSS-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES
2 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Data selection
This is a corpus-based study using three subcorpora, created for the purposes of
our investigation, one including RAs written in Spanish by Spanish investigators
(Corpus ESP), one with RAs written in Slovene by Slovene experts (Corpus SLO)
and one including RAs written in Spanish by Slovene researchers (Corpus ELE).
Each corpus contains 12 RAs, adding up to a total of 36 for the whole corpus.
We are aware that 12 is a small number of examples, but it should be taken into
account that there are not many RAs written in Spanish by Slovene experts. Be-
sides that, similar previous studies (such as Moritz, Meurer and Dellagnelo 2008
or Mur Dueñas 2010) were carried on with as many RAs as in our investiga-
tion. This same corpus was also used in a previous investigation (Santiago and
Heredero 2018) analysing Introductions.
In order to create a corpus as comparable as possible, we followed the criteria
established by Moreno (2008). Therefore, besides the genre of RA we limited the
topic of the texts to Linguistics and Applied Linguistics. The length of the articles
goes from 3,750 words to 10,000, and all of them were published between 2010
and 2016. This also explains the small number of texts and authors included in
the corpora, since there were not many RAs written in Spanish by Slovene inves-
tigators during this period of time. Finally, the research articles for Corpus ESP
and Corpus SLO were taken from three different journals, while for Corpus ELE
we needed to take them from five journals because of the small number of this
kind of RAs, as already noted. However, the main criteria for selecting the articles
was that the journals were indexed in the following bases: MLA, ERIH Plus and/
or Scopus.5
2.2 Data analysis
Regarding the classification and analysis of the conclusions of each research ar-
ticle included in the corpora, we followed the model of moves and steps estab-
lished by Yang and Allison (2003). The mentioned research analysed all rhetorical
choices among the various sections, from Results to Conclusions (i.e. Results,
Results and Discussion, Discussion, Conclusion or Pedagogic Implications sec-
tions). Nevertheless, we have only taken into account the structure of the Con-
clusion section due to our interest in the fact that this summarizes “the research
5 For full details of each research article included in the corpora, check the Appendix.
Academic writing from cross-cultural perspectives - FINAL.indd 108 15.4.2020 10:36:28

CONCLUSIONS IN LINGUISTICS AND APPLIED LINGUISTICS RESEARCH ARTICLES
109
ACADEMIC WRITING FROM CROSS-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES
by highlighting the findings, evaluating and pointing out possible lines of future
research as well as suggesting implications for teaching and learning” (Yang and
Allison 2003, 380). However, we found that some important steps were missing
in this model for the purposes of our investigation. Thus, we decided to add a few
modifications that were present in the model proposed by Moritz, Meurer and
Dellagnelo (2008), itself based on Gnutzmann and Oldenburg 1991. As result of
this combination, the model that we used in our analysis was as follows:
Move 1. Summarizing the study
Move 2. Evaluating the study
Step 1. Indicating significance/advantage
Step 2. Indicating limitations
Step 3. Evaluating methodology
Move 3. Deductions from the research
Step 1. Making reference to previous research6
Step 2. Recommending further research
Step 3. Drawing pedagogic implications/applications7
Figure 1. Moves and steps in conclusion sections based on Yang and Allison
(2003), Moritz, Meurer and Dellagnelo (2008) and Gnutzmann and Olden-
burg (1991)
Following this model of moves and steps, each RA included in the corpora was
manually analysed twice by each of the investigators, since our goal was “to iden-
tify the rhetorical steps in a genre and the most salient signals leading to their in-
terpretation” (Moreno and Swales, 2018, 42). There was a period of two months
between the two analyses, so that the validity and reliability of the results were
higher. Regarding Corpus SLO, since it is written in a foreign language for both
of the investigators, an extra investigator, a native speaker of Slovene, analysed
it. The level of analysis was usually the sentence, but we took into account even
smaller units if we considered that they were realizing a certain step, since “we
were aware that a segment of text might have more than one function” (Yang and
Allison 2003, 371). We restricted the analysis to the presence of certain structures
that realize a move or a step. Examples of every fulfilled move and step for each
of the corpus are presented below, with the structures realizing the step shown
in bold:
6 Step added from Moritz, Meurer and Dellagnelo (2008) and Gnutzmann and Oldenburg (1991).
7 Step modied from Moritz, Meurer and Dellagnelo (2008) and Gnutzmann and Oldenburg (1991).
Academic writing from cross-cultural perspectives - FINAL.indd 109 15.4.2020 10:36:28

Gemma Santiago Alonso and David Heredero Zorzo
110
ACADEMIC WRITING FROM CROSS-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES
Move 1. Summarizing the study
“Se ha llevado a cabo un análisis lingüístico de nombres de marca espa-
ñoles.” (ESP 01, 86)
“El presente trabajo ha presentado la teoría de la cooperación e implica-
turas conversacionales de Grice [...]” (ELE 06, 84)
“V naši raziskavi [...] smo preverili, kako se polprofesionalni prevajalci
znajdejo pri [...]” (SLO 05, 60)
Move 2. Evaluating the study
Step 1. Indicating significance/advantage
“La acumulación de evidencias de la validez que se ha descrito hasta aquí
viene a demostrar que [...]” (ESP 11, 108)
“El análisis del léxico disponible de los estudiantes eslovenos pone de
relieve el grado de convergencia [...]” (ELE 09, 75)
“Ugotavljamo, da čeprav se starši [...]” (SLO 02, 202)
Step 2. Indicating limitations
“Algunas limitaciones que presenta este estudio pueden hallarse en la
población sobre la que [...]” (ESP 02, 26)
“Además, el hecho de que la lengua española ofrezca tantas posibilidades
de expresión no facilita la tarea de delimitar conceptos y funciones sin-
tácticas” (ELE 10, 159)
“Vzorec je sicer premajhen, da bi lahko delal posplošitve, saj je le 4 CIU-
TI anketirancev navedlo, da se ukvarja s tolmačenjem.” (SLO 04, 19)
Step 3. Evaluating methodology
“Asimismo, y con vistas a obtener unos datos más completos que puedan
servir para […] al análisis cuantiativo se añadirá otro de corte cualita-
tivo” (ESP 10, 149)
“[…] los problemas que pueden tener los jueces a la hora de tomar la
decisión sobre los puntos de corte […] [lo] hemos experimentado en
nuestro proceso de calibración.” (ELE 04, 320)
“Model je nastal na podlagi dolgoletnih prevajalskih izkušenj avtorice
in njenega raziskovalnega dela […]” (SLO 06, 122)
Academic writing from cross-cultural perspectives - FINAL.indd 110 15.4.2020 10:36:28

CONCLUSIONS IN LINGUISTICS AND APPLIED LINGUISTICS RESEARCH ARTICLES
111
ACADEMIC WRITING FROM CROSS-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES
Move 3. Deductions from the research
Step 1. Making reference to previous research
“En Ruiz (2014) y Ruiz (en prensa) se ofrece una completa presentación
de este modelo […]” (ESP 03, 49)
“Con esto se confirman las características de los prototipos según Kleiber
(1995) […]” (ELE 08, 161)
“Različnih izrazov sloganov ter njihovih variant in modifikacij ne najdemo
samo v časopisnih naslovih, kot to obravnavata Korošec (1978) ter Ka-
lin Golobova (2008) […]” (SLO 08, 17)
Step 2. Recommending further research
“Con respecto a la fraseología también debería ser objeto de futuros es-
tudios el papel que desempeña […]” (ESP 05, 107)
“Sería interesante investigar la recepción de la literatura traducida entre
los lectores eslovenos […]” (ELE 07, 64)
“Vsekakor bi v zvezi z manjšalnostjo potrebovali več kvantitativnih in
statističnih analiz, zasnovanih na […]” (SLO 07, 112)
Step 3. Drawing pedagogic implications/applications
“Con la descripción detallada de la sección 3, se ha posibilitado que una
persona conocedora de la estructura de una PL pueda interpretarlas sin
necesidad […]” (ESP 06, 68)
“De este modo, esta investigación revela las palabras más disponibles entre
los españoles y que los estudiantes eslovenos desconocen y que deben ser
enseñadas en la clase de ELE en Eslovenia.” (ELE 12, 17)
“[…] je nujno, da se dejstva, da slovenščina v prevodih ni enaka slovenščini
v izvirniki, zavedamo, in da ga upoštevamo tako pri pouku prevajanja
kot pri pouku materinščine.” (SLO 10, 40)
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In Table 1 it can be noticed that both the interval and average length of the ar-
ticles are similar in the corpora, despite Corpus ESP being the longest, followed
by Corpus ELE and then Corpus SLO. Even so, although Corpus SLO is the
shortest, it does not have a relevant influence in Corpus ELE. Referring to Con-
clusions, these are much longer in Corpus ESP or ELE (in addition to having a
much wider range) than in Corpus SLO: in Corpus ELE or ESP Conclusions
Academic writing from cross-cultural perspectives - FINAL.indd 111 15.4.2020 10:36:28

Gemma Santiago Alonso and David Heredero Zorzo
112
ACADEMIC WRITING FROM CROSS-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES
account for an average of 6.96% or 6.31% of the total length of the articles,
respectively, with 5.11% for Corpus SLO. In any case, in terms of RAs and Con-
clusion size, we can conclude that Slovene specialists in Spanish prefer to make
more extensive Conclusions than their colleagues in their native language, which
we interpret as a rhetorical influence from Spanish.
Table 1: Length of the RAs and the Conclusions
CORPUS ESP CORPUS ELE CORPUS SLO
RAs number N=12 N=12 N=12
Interval number of words in
the RAs 4,803–9,794 3,771–9,541 5,252–8,122
Average number of words in
the RAs 6,869.25 6,477.16 6,280.58
Interval number of words in
the Conclusion 206–1,172 146–1216 102–587
Average number of words in the
Conclusion
434.08
(6.31%)
451.33
(6.96%)
321.41
(5.11%)
With respect to Table 2, it illustrates the results and distribution of moves and steps
for the Conclusion sections in relation to the presence of rhetorical moves in each
of the RAs, i.e., it shows percentage of RAs in which moves and steps were used as
well as total percentage of all moves together with the total number. The first thing
that attracts our attention is that although Table 1 showed that Conclusion sections
were much longer in Corpus ESP, Corpus ELE is the one that has the least moves
(58.33%) and steps (34.52%), considering total moves and steps. Likewise, the total
number of steps in Corpus ESP is higher than in Corpus SLO or Corpus ELE, what
indicates that Spanish authors are more used to the moves and steps of the Conclu-
sion section, or at least their rhetorical strategies are closer to Anglo-Saxon standards.
Table 2: Results and distribution of moves and steps
CORPUS ESP CORPUS ELE CORPUS SLO
Move 1
Summarizing the study 5 (41.6%) 1 (8.3%) 4 (33.3%)
Move 2
Evaluating the study 12 (100%) 11 (91.6%) 12 (100%)
Move 3
Deductions from the research 11 (91.6%) 9 (75%) 12 (100%)
Total number of moves 28 (77.77%) 21 (58.33%) 28 (77.77%)
Average number of steps in RAs 4.08 2.5 3.416
Total number of steps 49 (58.33%) 29 (34.52%) 41 (48.8%)
Academic writing from cross-cultural perspectives - FINAL.indd 112 15.4.2020 10:36:28

CONCLUSIONS IN LINGUISTICS AND APPLIED LINGUISTICS RESEARCH ARTICLES
113
ACADEMIC WRITING FROM CROSS-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES
On the other side, Move 1 (Summarizing the study) is the least favoured move in
all corpora: Corpus ESP (41.6%), SLO (33.3%) or ELE (8.3%). Its function is
“to provide a brief account of the main points from the perspective of the overall
study” (Yang and Allison 2003, 382) and it does not have any steps. Our results
coincide with Moritz, Meurer and Dellagnelo (2008) or Amnuai and Wannaruk
(2013), and we can interpret this as the writer´s reluctance to repeat what has
been already included in the RA summary. However, this shared finding is lim-
ited to the mentioned studies (all three in the field of Applied Linguistic). In
other fields (i.e. Natural and Social Sciences), the results have been completely
different (Aslam and Mehmood 2014 or Tabatabaei and Azimi 2015), and the
use of this pattern is more settled.
Table 3: Results and distribution of steps from move 2
MOVE 2
Evaluating the study
CORPUS ESP CORPUS ELE CORPUS SLO
Step 2.1
Indicating signicance/
advantage
12 (100%) 10 (83.3%) 12 (100%)
Step 2.2
Indicating limitations 4 (33.3%) 2 (16.6%) 2 (16.6%)
Step 2.3
Evaluating methodology 5 (41.6%) 1 (8.3%) 4 (33.3%)
Total number of steps 21 13 18
Unlike Move 1, Move 2 (Evaluating the study) is the rhetorical move with the
most frequency, as we can observe in Table 3. Its objective is to evaluate the over-
all study. The analysis distinguishes between three steps. The first step, Indicating
significance/advantage (Step 2.1), is the most favoured in all corpora, given that
one of the goals of any research is to point out its strengths and highlight its find-
ings. These results seem to confirm previous investigations in contrastive rhetoric
(inter alia: Amnuai and Wannaruk 2013; Aslam and Mehmood 2014; Ciapuscio
and Otañi 2002; Fuentes Cortés 2013; Moritz, Meurer and Dellagnelo 2008;
Reza Adel and Ghorbani Moghadam 2015; Tabatabaei and Azimi 2015; Yang
and Allison 2003). The second and the third steps, Indicating limitations (Step
2.2) and Evaluating methodology (Step 2.3), are more problematic due to the
low frequency (especially in Corpus ELE, with only two and one occurrences,
respectively). Surprisingly, if we just focus on the total steps of move 2, corpus
ELE is the one with the least frequency (13 steps) compared to corpus ESP (21
steps) and corpus SLO (18 steps). It is striking that although corpus ELE has
the longest Conclusions, there is no correlation with the number of moves and
Academic writing from cross-cultural perspectives - FINAL.indd 113 15.4.2020 10:36:28

Gemma Santiago Alonso and David Heredero Zorzo
114
ACADEMIC WRITING FROM CROSS-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES
steps included, which it could imply that Slovene authors who write in Spanish
do not use these rhetorical patterns as much in their RAs. Nevertheless, we have
to consider the number of different authors as a problem when establishing the
corpora: Corpus ESP has 18 different authors, SLO 12, while corpus ELE has
only seven, due to the lack of Slovene authors8 who publish in Spanish. In view
of this context, the disparity concerning Corpus ELE is understandable, albeit a
research limitation of the present investigation. On the other hand, a previous
investigation focusing on Introduction sections carried out with the same corpora
as in the present research (Santiago and Heredero 2018, 278–79), revealed that
step 3.4 (Summarising methods) had a higher frequency in Corpus ELE (91.6%)
and Corpus SLO (75%) in contrast to Corpus ESP (50%). If we compare this
with the results obtained in the step 2.3 (Evaluating methodology) of the Conclu-
sion section, where Corpus ELE had the lowest frequency (8.3%) followed by
Corpus SLO (33.3%), we find an inverse relationship that we could interpret as
a reluctance by the Slovene authors to refer back to methodology.
However, our results do not differ from Yang and Allison 2003, Amnuai and Wan-
naruk 2013, Aslam and Mehmood 2014 or Reza Adel and Ghorbani Moghadam
2015, which suggests that this reluctance should be taken into account in teaching/
learning academic writing, as well as by future investigators, since authors should
distinguish methodology presentation from methodology evaluation. There are
enough studies that have already verified the adequacy and pedagogic utility of
Yang and Allison’s model, and steps like 2.2 or 2.3 are indispensable to achieve
investigations capable of questioning their own validity and/or reliability.
Table 4: Results and distribution of steps from move 3
MOVE 3
Deductions from the
research
CORPUS ESP CORPUS ELE CORPUS SLO
Step 3.1
Making reference to previous
research
6 (50%) 6 (50%) 7 (58.3%)
Step 3.2
Recommending further
research
6 (50%) 5 (41.6%) 4 (33.3%)
Step 3.3
Drawing pedagogic
implications/applications
11 (91.6%) 4 (33.3%) 8 (66.6%)
Total number of steps 23 15 19
8 e population of Slovenia is estimated at 2.08 million, according to the Statistical Oce of the Republic of Slovenia
(https://www.stat.si/StatWeb/en, 26.2.2019).
Academic writing from cross-cultural perspectives - FINAL.indd 114 15.4.2020 10:36:28

CONCLUSIONS IN LINGUISTICS AND APPLIED LINGUISTICS RESEARCH ARTICLES
115
ACADEMIC WRITING FROM CROSS-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES
With regard to move 3 (Deductions from the research), the results reveal a high
frequency in all corpora (SLO with 19, ESP with 23 and ELE with 15), as shown
in Table 4. This is understandable, since authors use this move to elaborate sug-
gestions from their research results in order to “solve the problems identified by
the research, pointing out the line of further study or drawing pedagogic implica-
tions” (Yang and Allison 2003, 383). Nonetheless, taking into consideration the
total number of steps, Corpus ELE has the least steps of all (ESP has 23 steps,
SLO 19 and ELE 15), which agrees with what we already mentioned for move 2.
Three steps build move 3. The results in step 3.1 (Making reference to previous re-
search) do not show large differences among corpora (Corpus SLO 7 steps, ESP and
ELE 6), although the percentage is just around 50%. However, we could explain
the low number by the fact that some authors prefer to make such references in
other sections of the paper, such as the Results section. Anyway, we consider it
relevant to compare a study’s results with those of other investigations in the Con-
clusion section, as a way to highlight the significance of the work, framing it within
international research lines as another of the possible findings from the research.
Something similar to the results for step 3.1 occurs with 3.2 (Recommending
further research) in all corpora (ESP 6 steps, ELE 5 and SLO 4). Once again,
this demonstrates a partial implantation of the Anglo-Saxon model in these aca-
demic cultures, a fact that is extrapolated to the whole model analysed in this
work. Nonetheless, our case is comparable with previous investigations (such as
Amnuai and Wannaruk 2013, Aslam and Mehmood 2014 or Reza Adel and
Ghorbani Moghadam 2015), which considered this step optional.
Finally, step 3.3 (Drawing pedagogic implications/applications) was partially modi-
fied on the basis of the Moritz, Meurer and Dellagnelo model (2008) and Gnutz-
mann and Oldenburg (1991), adding ‘applications’ to the Yang and Allison
model (2003). The goal of this step is to “allow authors to state the pedagogical
significance of the study or indicate necessity for pedagogic changes” (Amnuai
and Wannaruk 2013, 7). For this step Corpus ESP has 11 out of 12 occurrences,
representing 91.6%, in contrast with SLO (8 out of 12, 66.6%) or ELE (4 out of
12, 33.3%). This last step reveals cultural and rhetorical specific variations: while
Spanish authors evaluate this step as almost indispensable, the Slovene ones con-
sider it nonessential (as well as Persian authors in Tabatabaei and Azimi 2015 and
Reza Adel and Ghorbani Moghadam 2015, Pakistani researchers in Aslam and
Mehmood 2014, or Thai investigators in Amnuai and Wannaruk 2013). This
fact reveals again that Spanish authors of RAs are more familiar with these rhe-
torical patterns than Slovene authors, although we cannot forget the very small
number of Slovene authors publishing in Spanish, a fact that is responsible for
the disparity concerning Corpus ELE and a research limitation of the present
investigation, as mentioned before.
Academic writing from cross-cultural perspectives - FINAL.indd 115 15.4.2020 10:36:28

Gemma Santiago Alonso and David Heredero Zorzo
116
ACADEMIC WRITING FROM CROSS-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES
4 CONCLUSION
The main purpose of the present study was to identify the rhetorical organiza-
tion of the Conclusion sections of RAs written in Spanish and Slovene by native
speakers, as well as RAs written in Spanish by Slovene authors. For the analysis
of the different patterns of the Conclusion section, we followed the model stab-
lished by Yang and Allison (2003), Moritz, Meurer and Dellagnelo (2008) and
Gnutzmann and Oldenburg (1991), as well as the principles used for this kind of
analysis settled by the field of intercultural rhetoric (Connor and Moreno, 2005;
Moreno, 2008; Connor 2011; Moreno and Swales 2018).
The empirical data was based on comparable corpora compiled ad hoc for our re-
search aim. However, we are aware of some limitations, especially the low number
of RAs in the corpora and especially the low number of Slovene authors in the
corpus ELE, due to the scarcity of Slovene authors writing in Spanish, all of which
makes our study difficult to generalize. For this reason, further investigations are
necessary to replicate and confirm the results presented here. Even so, we agree with
Tabatabaei and Azimi (2015) regarding further investigations. These authors sug-
gested there is a need to analyse all sections included within RAs in order to establish
“the structural relation of each section to other sections”, and thus be able to “de-
termine how sections are related to each other” (Tabatabaei and Azimi 2015, 378).
In defiance of all its limitations, this study confirmed previous research based on
the field of intercultural rhetoric (cf. Amnuai and Wannaruk 2013; Aslam and
Mehmood 2014; Moritz, Meurer and Dellagnelo 2008; Reza Adel and Ghorbani
Moghadam 2015; Tabatabaei and Azimi 2015; Yang and Allison 2003). Despite
evidence of the adequacy and the pedagogic utility of Yang and Allison model,
our results also present an unbalanced distribution of rhetoric patterns, which
shows that writers still maintain their differences during the process of writing
their concluding sections.
Nonetheless, there were some very notable differences in the frequency of moves
and steps in the three corpora of this analysis. Spanish writers proved to be more
familiar with these rhetorical patterns, since corpus ESP had the most number of
steps, followed by corpus SLO and corpus ELE (it is notable that corpus ELE has
the lowest number of steps, although it has the longest conclusions). We cannot
forget as a possible reason for this the influence of the journals’ and reviewers’
policies and views on the articles published in individual journals, since some edi-
tors/reviewers might demand a certain structure, while others are perhaps more
flexible. However, all corpora (ESP, SLO and ELE) showed steps 2.2 (Indicating
limitations), 2.3 (Evaluating methodology) and move 1 (Summarizing the study)
were the least favoured. These results may persuade Spanish and Slovene authors
Academic writing from cross-cultural perspectives - FINAL.indd 116 15.4.2020 10:36:29

CONCLUSIONS IN LINGUISTICS AND APPLIED LINGUISTICS RESEARCH ARTICLES
117
ACADEMIC WRITING FROM CROSS-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES
of the importance of Conclusion section when writing RAs, considering it is an
essential part of the research in which writers can show the importance, signifi-
cance and benefits of their findings, although we cannot forget the fact that all
these articles were indeed published and thus successfully passed the editorial
procedure. Therefore, we think it would be useful for writers to be more familiar
the different patterns in the rhetorical organization of the Conclusion section.
This fact underlines the need for specific investigations to focus on the teaching/
learning of rhetorical patterns within the context of Academic Writing classes.
References
Amnuai, Wirada and Anchalee Wannaruk. 2013. “Investigating Move Structure
of English Applied Linguistics Research Article Discussions Published in In-
ternational and Thai Journals”. English Language Teaching 5 (2): 1−13.
Aslam, Insaf and Asim Mehmood. 2014. “Genre Analysis of Conclusion Sec-
tions of Pakistani Research Articles in Natural and Social Sciences”. Journal of
Natural Sciences Research 4 (22): 106−12.
Cassany, Daniel and Óscar Morales. 2008. “Leer y escribir en la universidad:
Hacia la lectura y la escritura crítica de géneros científicos”. Revista Memoralia
5: 69−82.
Ciapuscio, Guiomar E. and Isabel Otañi. 2002. “Las conclusiones de los artículos
de investigación desde una perspectiva contrastiva”. R.I.L.L. 15: 117−33.
Connor, Ulla. 2011. Intercultural Rhetoric in the Writing Classroom. Michigan:
Universidad de Michigan.
Connor, Ulla and Ana Isabel Moreno. 2005. “Tertium comparationis: A vital com-
ponent in contrastive research methodology”. In Directions in Applied Linguis-
tics: Essays in Honour of Robert B. Kaplan, edited by Paul Bruthiaux, Dwight
Atkinson, William Eggington, 153−64. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Fuentes Cortés, Miguel. 2013. “Las conclusiones de los artículos de investigación
en historia”. Literatura y Lingüística 28: 215−32.
Gnutzmann, Claus and Hermann Oldenburg. 1991. “Contrastive Text Linguis-
tics in LSP Research: Theoretical Considerations and some Preliminary Find-
ings”. In Subject oriented Texts: Language for Special Purposes and Text Theory,
edited by Hartmut Schröder, 101−36. New York/Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Heredero Zorzo, David, Barbara Pihler Ciglič and Gemma Santiago Alonso.
2017. “Retórica intercultural y discurso académico: análisis contrastivo de las
introducciones en los artículos de investigación escritas en español por inves-
tigadores eslovenos”. Vestnik za tuje jezike 9: 83−106.
Holmes, Richard. 1997. “Genre Analysis, and the Social Sciences: An Investiga-
tion of the Structure of Research ArticleDiscussion Sections in Three Disci-
plines”.English for Specific Purposes16 (4): 321−37.
Academic writing from cross-cultural perspectives - FINAL.indd 117 15.4.2020 10:36:29

Gemma Santiago Alonso and David Heredero Zorzo
118
ACADEMIC WRITING FROM CROSS-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES
Hyland, Ken. 1996. “Writing without conviction? Helping in scientific research
articles”. Applied Linguistics 17 (4): 433−54.
Instituto Cervantes. 2018. “El español en la ciencia y la cultura”. In El español:
una lengua viva. Informe 2018, edited by Instituto Cervantes, 49–51. Madrid:
Instituto Cervantes.
Kubota, Ryuko and Al Lehner. 2004. “Toward Critical Contrastive Rhetoric”.
Journal of Second Language Writing 13: 7−27.
Moreno, Ana Isabel. 1997. “Genre Constraints across Languages: Causal Meta-
text in Spanish and English RAs”. English for Specific Purposes 16 (3): 161−79.
Moreno, Ana Isabel. 2008. “The Importance of Comparable Corpora in Cross-
Cultural Studies”. In Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric,
edited by Ulla Connor, Ed Nagelhout and William Rozycki, 25−41. Philadel-
phia: John Benjamins.
Moreno, Ana Isabel and John Swales. 2018 “Strengthening Move Analysis Meth-
odology towards Bridging the Function-Form Gap”. English for Specific Pur-
poses 50: 40−63.
Moritz, Maria Ester, José Luiz Meurer and Adriana Kuerten Dellagnelo. 2008.
“Conclusions as Components of Research Articles across Portuguese as a Na-
tive Language, English as a Native Language and English as a Foreign Lan-
guage: a Contrastive Genre Study”. The Specialist 29: 233−53.
Mur Dueñas, Pilar. 2018. “Promotional Strategies in Academic Writing: State-
ments of Contribution in Spanish and ELF Research Articles”. In Persuasion
in Public Discourse, edited by Jana Pelclová and Wei-Lun Lu, 259−78. Am-
sterdam: John Benjamins.
Pérez Ruiz, Leonor. 2001. “Análisis retórico contrastivo: el resumen lingüístico y
médico en inglés y español.” PhD diss., University of Valladolid.
Pisanski Peterlin, Agnes. 2002. “Analiza nekaterih metabesedilnih elementov v
slovenskih znanstvenih člankih v dveh časovnih obdobjih”. Slavistična revija
50 (2): 183−97.
Pisanski Peterlin, Agnes. 2005. “Text-Organising Metatext in Research Articles:
an English-Slovene Contrastive Analysis”. English for Specific Purposes 24 (2):
307−19.
Pisanski Peterlin, Agnes. 2007. “Grammatical Forms of Text-Organising Metatext:
A Slovene English Contrastive Analysis”. Slovene Linguistic Studies 6: 251−65.
Reza Adel, Seyyed Mohammad and Rokhsareh Ghorbani Moghadam. 2015. “A
Comparison of Moves in Conclusion Sections of Research Articles in Psychol-
ogy, Persian Literature and Applied Linguistics”. Teaching English Language 9
(2): 167−91.
Santiago Alonso, Gemma and David Heredero Zorzo. 2018. “Las introducciones
de artículos de investigación de lingüística y lingüística aplicada escritas por
eslovenos y sus aplicaciones didácticas para la clase de español con fines aca-
démicos”. Colindancias, 9: 271−91.
Academic writing from cross-cultural perspectives - FINAL.indd 118 15.4.2020 10:36:29

CONCLUSIONS IN LINGUISTICS AND APPLIED LINGUISTICS RESEARCH ARTICLES
119
ACADEMIC WRITING FROM CROSS-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES
Swales, John. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic Research Settings. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge UP.
Swales, John. 2004. Research Genres: Exploration and Applications. Cambridge:
Cambridge UP.
Tabatabaei, Omid and Leila Azimi. 2015. “Rhetorical Conventions in the Con-
clusion Genre: Comparing English and Persian Research Articles in the Field
of Social Studies”. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 16 (6): 372−79.
Vázquez, Ignacio. 2010. “A Contrastive Analysis of the Use of Modal Verbs in the
Expression of Epistemic Stance in Business Management Research Articles in
English and Spanish”. Ibérica 19: 77−96.
Yang, Ruiying and Desmond Allison. 2003. “Research articles in applied linguistics:
moving from results to conclusions”. English for Specific Purposes 22: 365−85.
Appendix
Corpus ESP
(ESP 01) Jordá-Albiñana, Begoña, Ampuero-Canellas, Olga, González-Del-Río,
Jimena and Magal-Royo, Teresa. 2010. “Análisis lingüístico de los nombres de
marca españoles”. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas 5: 77−88.
(ESP 02) Falero Parra, Francisco Javier. 2016. “La ansiedad ante las destrezas
orales en la clase de español lengua extranjera: una propuesta blended-learning
con sinohablantes”. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas 11: 19−33.
(ESP 03) Ruiz Campillo, José Plácido. 2017. “El verbo como espacio. Seis nuevos
temas de gramática del español”. Revista Nebrija de Lingüística Aplicada a la
Enseñanza de Lenguas 22: 31−51.
(ESP 04) Ortego Antón, María Teresa and Fernández Nistal, Purificación. 2015.
“Aproximación a las unidades con significado en el campo de la informática
adquirido por extensión metafórica en los diccionarios generales de inglés y
español”. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas 10: 44−54.
(ESP 05) Recio Ariza, María Ángeles. 2013. “El enfoque cognitivista en la frase-
ología”. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas 8: 103−09.
(ESP 06) Bernardos Galindo, María del Socorro, Jiménez Briones, Rocío and
Pérez Cabello de Alba, María Beatriz. 2011. “Una aplicación informática para
la gestión de las plantillas léxicas del modelo léxico construccional”. Revista de
Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas 6: 53−69.
(ESP 07) Elena, Pilar. 2011. “Bases para la comprensión organizativa del texto”.
Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas 6: 125−37.
(ESP 08) Sánchez Rufat, Anna. 2016. “Las funciones diagnóstica y evaluativa del
análisis contrastivo de la interlengua del español basado en corpus”. Linred
13: 1−14.
Academic writing from cross-cultural perspectives - FINAL.indd 119 15.4.2020 10:36:29

Gemma Santiago Alonso and David Heredero Zorzo
120
ACADEMIC WRITING FROM CROSS-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES
(ESP 09) Penadés Martínez, Inmaculada. 2015. “Las colocaciones del tipo verbo
más locución verbal: implicaciones teóricas y aplicadas”. Linred 12: 1−13.
(ESP 10) Quevedo−Atienza, Ángeles. 2017. “El español con fines académicos:
progreso de un estudio sobre necesidades lingüísticas de estudiantes en pro-
gramas de movilidad”. Revista Nebrija de Lingüística Aplicada a la Enseñanza
de Lenguas 22: 144−50.
(ESP 11) Llorían González, Susana. 2018. “La evaluación de la habilidad co-
municativa específica en contextos académicos: la comprensión de las clases
magistrales”. Revista Nebrija de Lingüística Aplicada a la Enseñanza de Lenguas
24: 93−11.
(ESP 12) Jiménez, Antonio Luis. 2017. “Jerarquía de aprendizaje: un caso prác-
tico con «por» y «para»”. Revista Nebrija de Lingüística Aplicada a la Enseñanza
de Lenguas 22: 1−15.
Corpus ELE
(ELE 01) Seljak Adimora, Katja. 2012. “Los valores del pretérito perfecto
compuesto y del pretérito perfecto simple en Inquieta Compañía de Carlos
Fuentes”. Vestnik za tuje jezike 4: 33−42.
(ELE 02) Trenc, Andreja. 2012. “Construcciones impersonales con se en español
y su tratamiento didáctico desde una perspectiva de focus on form o la atención
a la forma”. Vestnik za tuje jezike 4: 207−26.
(ELE 03) Pihler Ciglič, Barbara. 2014. “Los marcadores verbales de modalidad
epistémica y su papel en el desarrollo de las competencias comunicativas”.
Linguistica 54: 381−95.
(ELE 04) Šifrar Kalan, Marjana and Andreja Trenc. 2014. “La calibración de la
comprensión lectora dentro del examen nacional de ELE según el MCER:
algunas cuestiones de evaluación”. Linguistica 54: 309−23.
(ELE 05) Pihler, Barbara. 2010. “Paradigmas verbales en el discurso lírico de
Machado, Jiménez y Aleixandre: el criterio de la actualidad”. Verba Hispanica
18: 175−86.
(ELE 06) Trenc, Andreja. 2014. “Las máximas conversacionales desde un en-
foque cognitivo: algunos casos del discurso indirecto en castellano”. Verba
Hispanica 22: 71−87.
(ELE 07) Kastelic Vukadinović, Uršula. 2016. “Las palabras culturales en las tra-
ducciones al esloveno de las obras de Juan Rulfo y Carlos Fuentes”. Verba
Hispanica 24: 53−69.
(ELE 08) Šifrar Kalan, Marjana. 2016. “La universalidad de los prototipos
semánticos en el léxico disponible de español”. Verba Hispanica 24: 147−65.
(ELE 09) Šifrar Kalan, Marjana. 2014. “Disponibilidad léxica en diferentes nive-
les de español/lengua extranjera”. Studia romanica posnaniensa 41(1): 63−85.
Academic writing from cross-cultural perspectives - FINAL.indd 120 15.4.2020 10:36:29

CONCLUSIONS IN LINGUISTICS AND APPLIED LINGUISTICS RESEARCH ARTICLES
121
ACADEMIC WRITING FROM CROSS-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES
(ELE 10) Veselko, Vita. 2017. “Sobre la oración subordinada en función de atrib-
uto”. Verba Hispanica 25: 147−64.
(ELE 11) Skubic, Mitja. 2013. “Tempora si fuerint nubila”. Verba Hispanica 21:
117−28.
(ELE 12) Šifrar Kalan, Marjana. 2012. “Análisis comparativo de la disponibilidad
léxica en español como lengua extranjera (ELE) y lengua materna (ELM)”.
marcoELE 15: 1−19.
Corpus SLO
(SLO 01) Lah, Meta. 2015. “«Med prakso sem spoznal, da sem študij dobro
izbral» − Evalvacija pedagoške prakse prve generacije študentov bolonjskega
študija francoščine”. Vestnik za tuje jezike 7: 289−04.
(SLO 02) Premrl, Darja. 2012. “Stališča staršev na Notranjskem in poglavitni mo-
tivacijski dejavniki za vključitev otrok v programe zgodnjega učenja tujega jezika
pred otrokovim devetim letom starosti”. Vestnik za tuje jezike 4: 189−05.
(SLO 03) Paternoster, Alenka. 2011. “Slovenska imena bitij in zemljepisna imena
v turističnih vodnikih in virih informativne narave, prevedenih v francoščino”.
Vestnik za tuje jezike 3: 7−22.
(SLO 04) Pokorn, Nike K. 2016. “Nič več obljubljena dežela: dinamični premiki
na slovenskem prevajalskem trgu in področju izobraževanja prevajalcev”. Vest-
nik za tuje jezike 8: 9−21.
(SLO 05) Rieger, Mladen. 2014. “Prevod na pogled (prima vista) – Od pop-
estritve klasičnega pouka prevajanja do Lakmusovega papirja za prevajalske
probleme”. Vestnik za tuje jezike 6: 49−62.
(SLO 06) Kocbek, Alenka. 2017. “Deset smernic za prevajanje pravnih besedil”.
Vestnik za tuje jezike 9: 107−24.
(SLO 07) Sicherl, Eva. 2016. “Primeri slovenskih manjšalnic z vidika evalvativne
morfologije”. Jezik in slovstvo 61−2: 101−15.
(SLO 08) Polajnar, Janja. 2013. “Neprodani in trdni. Ja, seveda, potem pa svizec...
Osamosvajanje oglasnih sloganov v slovenskem jeziku”. Jezik in slovstvo 58
(3): 3−19.
(SLO 09) Tratar, Olga. 2014. “Pomenske spremembe pridevnika priden od 16.
stoletja do danes”. Jezik in slovstvo 59 (4): 27−46.
(SLO 10) Pisanski Peterlin, Agnes. 2015. “So prevedena poljudnoznanstvena
besedila v slovenščini drugačna od izvirnih? Korpusna študija na primeru
izražanja epistemske naklonskosti”. Slavistična revija 63 (1): 29−43.
(SLO 11) Kržišnik, Erika. 2010. “Idiomatska beseda ali frazeološka enota”.
Slavistična revija 58 (1): 83−94.
(SLO 12) Bizjak Končar, Aleksandra. 2017. “Dialoške značilnosti pridižnega be-
sedila – jezikoslovni vidik”. Slavistična revija 65 (3): 517−36.
Academic writing from cross-cultural perspectives - FINAL.indd 121 15.4.2020 10:36:29