Promotion through claiming centrality in L1 and L2 English Research Article Introductions

Karim Sadeghi, Jalil Abdi


Marketization in all public spheres including academic discourse has led to the increased importance of promotion. One of the promotional tools usually used in Research Articles Introductions (RAIs) is claiming centrality which can be realized through different linguistic and textual resources. In this study, our aim was to explore differences between native and non-native writers in the use of strategies for claiming centrality in RAIs. To this end, a corpus of 50 RAIs (25 L1 and 25 L2 which were written by native English and non-native Iranian writers, respectively) was compiled and analyzed in terms of the strategies used for claiming centrality introduced by Wang and Yang (2015). The introductions were read through closely and the types and orientations of the strategies were identified. Then, the two sub-corpora were compared to highlight differences and/or similarities. The results showed that the mean occurrence of centrality claims in general is nearly the same in both groups of texts while in terms of the specific strategies employed to make such claims there are some differences between them. The findings of this study can serve EAP/ESP practitioners and learners as well as those wishing to publish their research internationally by raising their awareness in this regard and helping them report their research findings more convincingly. 


Claiming Centrality; Introduction; Marketization; Promotion; Research Article

Full Text:



Afros, E., & Schryer, C. (2009). Promotional (meta)discourse in research articles in language and literary studies. English for Specific Purposes, 28, 58-68.

Barrass, R. (2002). Scientists must write: A guide to better writing for scientists, engineers and students (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/Culture/Power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analyzing genre: Language use in professional setting. London & New York: Longman.

Bhatia, V. K. (2004). Worlds of written discourse. London & New York: Continuum.

Bhatia, V. K. (2005). Generic patterns in promotional discourse. In H. Halmari & T. Virtanen (Eds.), Persuasion across genres: A linguistic approach (pp. 213-225). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Bruce, I. (2014). Expressing criticality in the literature review in research article introductions in applied linguistics and psychology. English for Specific Purposes, 36, 85-96

Fairclough, N. (1993). Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse: The universities. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 133-168.

Hanauer, D. I., & Englander, K. (2011). Quantifying the burden of writing research articles in a second language: Data from Mexican scientists. Written Communication, 28, 403–416.

Harwood, N. (2005a). 'I hoped to counteract the memory problem, but I made no impact whatsoever': discussing methods in computing science using I. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 243-267.

Harwood, N. (2005b). 'Nowhere has anyone attempted ... In this article I aim to do just that': A corpus-based study of self-promotional I and we in academic writing across four disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1207-1231.

Hunston, S., & Thomson, G. (Eds.). (2000). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourse. Social interactions in academic writing. Harlow: Pearson Education.

Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091-1112.

Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London & New York: Continuum.

Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity: the discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Lillis, T., & Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic writing in a global context: The politics and practices of publishing in English. London: Routledge.

Lindeberg, A. C. (2004). Promotion and pliteness: Conflicting scholarly rhetoric in three disciplines. Abo, Finland: Abo Akademi University Press.

Loi, C. K. (2010). Research article introductions in Chinese and English: A comparative genre-based study. Jounal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 267-279.

Martin, P., & Perez, I. K. L. (2014). Convincing peers of the value of one's research: A genre analysis of rhetorical promotion in academic texts. English for Specific Purposes, 34, 1-13.

Mautner, G. (2010). Language and the market society: Critical reflections on discourse and dominance. New York, NY: Routledge.

Mautner, G. (2015). Marketization of public discourse. In K. Tracy, C. Ilie, & S. Todd (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction (1st ed., pp. 968-972). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Nwugo, K. N. (1991). Structure of science popularizations: A genre analysis approach to the schema of popularized medical texts. English for Specific Purposes, 10, 111-123.

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Glasgow: Cambridge University Press.

Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: exploration and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wang, W., & Yang, C. (2015). Claiming centrality as promotion in applied linguistics research article introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 162-175.

Wernick, A. (1991). Promotional culture: Advertising, ideology, and symbolic expression. London: Sage.

Yang, A., Zheng, S., & Ge, G. (2015). Epistemic modality in English-medium medical research articles: A systemic functional perspective. English for Specific Purposes, 38, 1-10.

Zobel, J. (2004). Writing for computer science. New York, NY: Springer.



  • There are currently no refbacks.