M. Affandi Arianto / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 12 No. 2 (2025) 153 Online version available in : http://arbitrer.fib.unand.ac.id | 2339-1162 (Print) | 2550-1011 (Online) | JURNAL ARBITRER Submission Track A B S T R A C T Received: March 25, 2025 Final Revision: May 01, 2025 Accepted: May 05, 2025 Available Online: June 25, 2025 Following English rhetorical conventions in English academic texts, especially by non-native English authors, does not necessarily mean disregarding some rhetorical practices of their national language. Although investigating English RAs has largely been focused on how the textual structure of the section is written in English by native English speakers and non-native English speakers, there has a limited empirical attention so far related to the investigation of rhetorical differences between RA introductions written in English and those written in Indonesian. After a thorough genre-based investigation of 60 RAs published from 2019 to 2023 using the modified CARS model (Swales, 1990, 2004), this study has revealed that the use of each rhetorical style, including moves, steps, and patterns, in English and Indonesian RA introductions is different. The result indicates that although the moves and steps display a close affinity with the CARS model, we found higher use of Move 1, i.e., establishing a territory, in the language teaching RA introductions written in Indonesian than in English. On top of that, while international authors (IAs) established their niches adequately, Indonesian authors (Eng-FL) established their niches inadequately, seemingly due to the influence of their national language (Indonesian). Moreover, the Indonesian language not only affects the frequency of occurrence of the moves and steps but also contributes to the pattern deviations found in the English RA introductions written by the Indonesian authors. This study provides pedagogical implications for academic writing and insights for Indonesian authors to write English articles using English rhetorical styles. Keywords cross-cultural investigation, contrastive rhetoric, genre- based investigation, glocalization, research article introduction Correspondence *E-mail: affandia@fbs.unp.ac.id Article Deviation or Glocalization? Rhetorical Differences in Research Article Introductions Written by International, English FL, and Indonesian L1 Authors M. Affandi Arianto1*, Maulluddul Haq2, Jufrizal3, Dwi Bayu Saputra4, and Dewi Syafrina5 1,2,3,5Universitas Negeri Padang, Padang, Indonesia 4Universitas Bengkulu, Bengkulu, Indonesia Under License of Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International.DOI: https://doi.org/10.25077/ar.12.2.153-173.2025 INTRODUCTION The increasing demand for international publication in the world of academia undoubtedly has encouraged researchers to share their knowledge more widely, increase visibility, navigate professional futures, push research performance, find career opportunities, and achieve a professorship (Abramo et al., 2023; Frandsen et al., 2022; Hashim et al., 2024; Hyland, 2016; Hyland, 2023; Olsen et al., 2005; Rorstad & Aksnes, 2015; Sasvari et al., 2022; Sheldon, 2011). Those who have experience in conducting research, writing their research reports in the form of research articles (RAs), and publishing them in international journals might be more motivated and confident to write various RAs (Irawati, 2022); however, non-native English speakers and novice authors who write RAs in English, publishing English RAs, especially in international journals indexed by reputable databases (i.e., Scopus or Web of Science) is an intimidating, daunting, difficult, and pressured task (Hyland, 2016; Hyland, 2023; Irawan et al., 2023; Khélifi & Al-Amri, 2018). A series of workshops to support publications M. Affandi Arianto / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 12 No. 2 (2025) 154 become routine activities in Indonesian universities to boost authors’ comprehension of how to write a concise English RA (Arono & Arsyad, 2019; Jasrial et al., 2019; Jasrial et al., 2021; Madnani et al., 2018; Nasihin et al., 2021; Perris & Corcoran, 2014; Yonezawa, 2015). While strategies and guidance provided by the mentors from such activities have been beneficial in assisting authors to meet expectations of the editorial teams of international journals (Hyland, 2003; Marchetti & O’Dell, 2015), Indonesian authors, particularly in field of social sciences and humanities, still have not fully recognized the styles and patterns of the introductory section of an English RA (Adnan, 2009; Adnan, 2014, Arianto et al., 2021; Arono & Arsyad, 2019). To tackle this challenge, they need to acquire genre knowledge to make their introductions more convincing (Pratiwi & Kurniawan, 2021; Swales, 1990), and this is a privileged room for applied linguists, who focus on genre analysis, to discover the characteristics (i.e., moves and steps) of English RA introductions in the field of social sciences. The introduction section plays a key role in an RA since it shows how authors invite, influence, and provoke the readers on the research topics being discussed. Authors must show their credibility to determine and define their position as a researcher, especially after reviewing previous literature about topics related to their research areas (Arianto & Basthomi, 2021; Arianto et al., 2021; Amnuai, 2021; Basthomi et al., 2021). Besides, they are required to state the significance of conducting the research (Hyland & Jian, 2020; Lim, 2012). Swales (1990) has formulated a conventional structure of an English RA, namely Creating a Research Space (CARS), and this model has been carried out by several researchers. Farnia and Barati (2017) investigated the introduction section written by native English authors and Iranian authors. They found that native English authors used more strategies in organizing their RA introductions than Iranian authors did. Rahman et al. (2017) also found that native English authors in reputable international journals in the field of applied linguistics followed the rhetorical structure of the RA introduction conceptualized by Swales (1990). Not only in the field of applied linguistics, Muangsamai (2018) confirmed that native English authors in other fields such as biotechnology, medicine, and environmental studies also followed the framework. From the results of the previous studies, we can see that the compatibility of Swales’ (1990) framework to investigate English RA introductions is unquestionable, and previous scholars also considered following the CARS model in investigating the introduction section in several disciplines. However, it cannot be taken as a general view that the framework (Swales, 1990) is necessarily the only one applied in all fields, for example, the field of language teaching. Arianto (2021) modified and combined the Swales’ CARS frameworks, i.e., the old version model (Swales, 1990) and the revised version (Swales, 2004), in the English language teaching RA introductions, one of the sub-fields in applied linguistics. He modified the framework because he thought that the CARS framework may be suited for some disciplines and could be modified as needed. Even Swales (1990) accommodated the suggestions provided by Anthony (1999) and Samraj (2004) and revised his CARS framework to apply to other disciplines. Therefore, Arianto (2021) made necessary revisions related to Move 2 and added several steps in the step of indicating research gaps by taking into account the insight from Afshar et al. (2018) and Lim (2012), so that it is well-suited to his samples related to English language teaching. He argued that the Swales’ frameworks (1990, 2004) should be updated, and researchers focusing on genre analysis are expected to find new strategies that can be added to the Swales’ theoretical frameworks. Hence, inspired by the previous study, an important question is whether the modified framework of Swales (See Fig. 1) can be used to analyze the RA introductions, specifically in the field of language teaching. In our case, we used the modified framework to analyze RA introduction in some language teaching, such as English language teaching and Indonesian language teaching. It is expected that the modified framework that had been used to analyze ELT RA introduction can also be used to be used in analyzing another language teaching. Echoing the significance of publishing RAs in high-impact journals, such as Scopus- indexed journals, adhering to English rhetorical conventions, and considering the appropriate moves and patterns of RA introductions in the journals will guide and assist authors in writing. Geng et al. (2023) investigated the rhetorical moves of the introductory sections of linguistic RAs from M. Affandi Arianto / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 12 No. 2 (2025) 155 Scopus and non-Scopus journals. Although they found that Move 1 and Move 2 appear more in the group of Scopus authors, we still need to question what the distribution of these moves looks like in their introduction. In other words, there is a need for further investigations related to move patterns. They did not focus intensively on the rhetorical patterns of the sections. Moves and patterns are the aspects that must be considered by authors in organizing their texts. Several studies in the field of applied linguistics (e.g., Amnuai & Wannaruk, 2013; Farnia & Barati, 2017; Kafes, 2018; Lin, 2014; Rahman et al., 2017; Rochma, 2020) have explored move patterns in academic writing, but they have not delved into the variety of patterns compared to established English rhetorical conventions, such as Swales’ CARS Model. Attempts to compare these patterns to existing models have yielded inconclusive results, potentially due to the diverse subfields within applied linguistics and random data collection methods leading to contradictory findings. Therefore, our study attempts to investigate the similarities and differences in move patterns and steps in RA introductions in English and Indonesian, specifically focusing on language teaching. Previous researchers have conducted genre analysis focusing on the organization of the specific section, i.e., introduction, by delineating its moves and steps (Abdolmalaki et al., 2019; Arsyad & Adila, 2018; Arsyad et al., 2020; Chen & Li, 2019; Deveci, 2020; Farnia & Barati, 2017; Saricaoglu et al., 2021). However, the majority of the studies used Swales’ (1990) framework as the conventional indicator to identify the general moves and steps in the English RA introductions (Afshar et al., 2018; Amnuai & Wannaruk, 2013; Deveci, 2020; Farnia & Barati, 2017) without any further developments. Consequently, the specific sub-step in the move of establishing a niche (Move 2), namely indicating research gap(s), was not investigated in detail. We believe that taking into account the frameworks of Arianto (2021), Chen and Li (2019), Kwan et al. (2012), and Lim (2012), the identification of the rhetorical moves and steps in the RA introductions can be done more specifically and more deeply. Moreover, the previous studies limit their focus only to comparing a specific move in the introduction section (e.g., Arianto et al., 2023; Ankomah & Afful, 2019; Wang & Yang, 2015), and they did not see the connection between moves which can potentially provide a wider description about how international authors organize their English RA introductions. Besides, the previous scholars only focused on applied linguistics (i.e., Amnuai & Wannaruk, 2013; Lin, 2014) without considering the sub-disciplines in applied linguistics, which suggests that every sub-discipline has specific characteristics of rhetorical styles (Khani & Tazik, 2010). Besides, we also assume that the rhetorical structures of RA introductions in English are different from those written in the Indonesian language (Arsyad & Wardhana, 2014) because the culture included in the English RA introductions gives color to authors’ writing (Hyland, 2003; Shukri, 2014). Thus, the investigation of cross-language moves, steps, and patterns in RA introductions, which is still lacking in the existing literature, is also worth conducting. This study also focuses on providing information about the adherence or contravention in organizing moves in RA introductions by asking the question of whether all authors, in the corpus of our study, follow the English rhetorical patterns (Swales, 1990, 2004), or some patterns deviate from the standard. This study is expected to make a major contribution to research on genre analysis by comparing the rhetorical structures in RA introductions written by international authors who write English RA introductions (IAs), Indonesian authors who write English RA introductions (Eng- FL), and Indonesian authors who write Indonesian RA introductions (Indo-L1) a sub-field of applied linguistics, namely language teaching. The objectives of this study are twofold: to describe the similarities and differences in terms of moves and steps in the RA introductions written by the three groups of authors, and to investigate their move patterns, which adhere to or contravene the Swales’ CARS model. II. METHODS The RA introductions analyzed in this study were obtained from 60 RAs written by international and Indonesian authors in language teaching. 40 English RAs were published in international journals written by international authors (n=20, IA) and Indonesian authors (n=20, English-FL), and the other 20 RAs were published in national journals M. Affandi Arianto / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 12 No. 2 (2025) 156 We analyzed the data following some steps. First, the frameworks of CARS (Swales 1990, 2004) were used in this study to analyze the rhetorical moves presented in the three groups of authors. Taking into account the insights from Afshar et al. (2018), Arianto (2021), and Chinaprayoon (2017), several sub-steps were added to the framework (See Table 1). fying the rhetorical moves, Swales’ (1990, 2004) CARS model was taken as a point for analyzing the patterns. The models have clearly conceptualized the common rhetorical patterns in the introductory section (Amnuai & Wannaruk, 2013; Lin, 2014). In this study, the framework, which focused on rhetorical patterns (Swales, 1990, 2004), was used to analyze the RA introductions written by the three groups of authors. The framework was validated by experts and tested in some RA introductions. To ensure reliability, another coder was invited to analyze several data samples (n=10). Then, we re-analyzed the data. The idea of Kanoksilapatham (2005) was used to justify and classify the frequency of each move. If a certain move appeared in every RA introduction (100%), it was categorized as “obligatory”. If the occurrence ranged from 60-99%, it was classified as “conventional”. If it was below 60%, it was “optional”. written by Indonesian authors in the Indonesian language (Indonesian-L1). International authors (IA) in this case are those who are from outside Indonesia and have published English RAs in Scopus-Indexed journals. Indonesian authors (English-FL) are those who are native speakers of Indonesian, and they have published English RAs in Scopus-Indexed journals. Meanwhile, Indonesian-L1 authors are those who are native speakers of Indonesian, and they had Indonesian RAs in SINTA-indexed journals. In collecting the data, a certain set of criteria was used. For the groups of IA and English-FL, the articles were downloaded from peer-reviewed open-access journals. The journals were indexed by one of the most reputable databases, namely Scopus. Meanwhile, for the Indonesian-L1 group, the RAs were obtained from peer-reviewed Indonesian journals, which were also indexed by the popular index in Indonesia, namely SINTA (Science and Technology Index), which was under the control of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology. For the data obtained from SINTA- indexed journals, we only focused on the RAs published in SINTA quartiles 3, 4, 5, and 6. We did not include SINTA 1 and 2 journals because they are commonly indexed by Scopus and the majority of RAs are written in English. In addition, we only included the RAs published in the range of 2019- 2022. Table 1. The modified CARS framework to analyze the data Moves Steps Establishing a territory Claiming centrality Making topic generalization Reviewing items of previous research Establishing a niche Indicating a research gap Stating the absence from previous studies Indicating the insufficient research Highlighting the limitations of previous studies Contrasting and conflicting previous research findings Highlighting unsolved problems Adding to what is known Presenting positive justification Showing interest to conduct the study Occupying the niche Announcing present work descriptively and/or purposefully Presenting research questions (RQs) or hypotheses Definitional clarifications Summarizing methods Announcing principal outcomes Stating the value of the present research Outlining the structure of the paper M. Affandi Arianto / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 12 No. 2 (2025) 157 III. RESULTS This study aims to identify and compare the moves and steps used by the three groups of authors, IA, English-FL, and Indonesian-L1, as well as the patterns they used. The frequency of occurrence of moves and steps, and the comparisons of move patterns of the three data sets are shown in each subheading below. The explanations and exemplifications of each move/step are also shown, and each example is equipped with code at the end of the sentence, for example, IA-01 refers to the first article in English from international authors, EngFL-01 refers to the first article in English from non-native English (Indonesian) authors, and IndoL1-01 refers to the first article in Indonesian language from native Indonesian authors. The linguistic markers indicating moves/steps are printed in bold. The rhetorical moves of language teaching RA introductions across three groups of authors Move 1: Establishing a territory This move can be realized by claiming centrality, making topic generalizations, or reviewing items of previous research. Authors need to introduce the topics of their research using this move and ensure that their topics are important, useful, worth conducting, and challenging. Based on Table 2, move 1 was considered an obligatory move by IA, English-FL, and Indonesian-L1 groups (100%). Table 2 displays a comparative analysis of the three steps in establishing a territory across the three author groups. The results indicated that international authors predominantly utilized the claiming centrality step to establish and promote their research topics. In contrast, the authors from English-FL and Indonesian-L1 groups more frequently introduced claiming centrality only after establishing research context through either topic generalizations or literature reviews. This pattern suggests that claiming centrality may not function as the most commonly used step in the RA introductions written by Indonesian authors, regardless of whether they were writing in English or Indonesian. Move 1 Step 1: Claiming centrality In this step, the authors focus on highlighting the importance of the research they have conducted. As seen in Table 2, across the three steps, claiming centrality was mostly used by the international and Indonesian L1 authors. Another important piece of information from the data is that for Indonesian-L1 authors, making topic generalizations was the step that was mostly used in their Indonesian RA introductions. The application of this step in the three corpora can be seen in the following excerpts. (1) Large-scale studies of English corpora have found that … more or less frequent in academic prose compared to conversational, fictional, and media registers (Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad and Finegan 1999). (IA-01) (2) For people in non-English speaking countries, like Indonesian youth, this language competence paves ways for the global world (Sayer, 2018). (EngFL-01) (3) Mata kuliah “Translation” merupakan mata kuliah wajib yang hadir di hampir seluruh program studi Sastra Inggris dan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris di universitas-universitas terkemuka di Indonesia. #Translation course is a compulsory subject in almost all English Literature and English Education study programs at leading universities in Indonesia#. (IndoL1-01) Excerpt 1 shows that the international authors attracted the readers’ attention by showing the popularity of the topic. By using the phrase large- scale study, the authors showed the readers that the topic of English corpora was a popular topic to study. Besides, claiming centrality can be demonstrated by stating the importance of the research being conducted. As seen in excerpt 2, the Indonesian authors promoted their research topic, i.e., English language competence, by pointing out the importance of their topic. In contrast to excerpts 1 and 2, where the authors claimed their research topics by referring to the research Table 2. Frequency of occurrence of move 1 and its steps in IA, English FL, and Indonesian L1 corpora Moves Steps IA English FL Indonesian L1 Freq (%) Freq (%) Freq (%) Establishing a territory Claiming centrality 140 (44.44) 122 (31.77) 172 (22.54) Making topic generalizations 72 (22.85) 123 (32.03) 410 (53.73) Reviewing items of previous research 103 (32.69) 139 (36.19) 181 (23.72) Total 315 (100) 384 (100) 763 (100) M. Affandi Arianto / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 12 No. 2 (2025) 158 development, the Indonesian author in excerpt 3 showed the popularity of translation by referring to the observed phenomenon (real world). Move 1 Step 2: Making topic generalizations This step functions to show the current state of knowledge and how authors relate their topics to the state of knowledge (Farnia & Barati, 2017). As illustrated in Table 2, the authors from the IA group employed this step less than the English FL group. The examples of sentences indicating making topic generalizations can be seen in the excerpts below. (4) Writing is commonly characterized a complex activity, involving simultaneous management of cognitive, motivational, and linguistic processes. (IA-10) (5) It is a common phenomenon that students nowadays cannot separate from their mobile phones. (EngFL-08) (6) Karya tulis ilmiah merupakan karya tulis yang disusun atau dikembangkan berdasarkan prosedur ilmiah. #Academic writing is the form of writing which is organized or developed based on scientific procedures#. (IndoL1-02) Excerpt 4 illustrates that the authors employed the step of making topic generalizations by using the adverb commonly to show the general characteristics of writing. Similarly, the Indonesian authors from the English FL group also employed this step by describing the recent phenomenon regarding the relationship between smartphones and students. On the other hand, the authors from the Indonesian L1 group employed this step by defining the topic (i.e., academic writing) in general. Move 1 Step 3: Reviewing items of previous research This step is used by authors to contextualize the research topics with the studies that have been done by previous scholars. The applications of reviewing items of previous research are exemplified in the excerpts below. (7) For example, Carrington and Skelton (2003) submit that government policies … about the salience of ‘role models’ in socialization’ (p.253), rather than solid empirical results. (IA-07) (8) On the other hand, Ruegg (2015), investigating the students of the English program in Japan, proves a similar finding to Park (2018), probing feedback in a Korean university. (EngFL-04) (9) Safnil (2001) meneliti struktur retorika bagian pendahuluan AJP yang ditulis … sebagaimana dalam model ‘Creating a Research Space’ (CARS). #Safnil (2001) examined the rhetorical structure of Indonesian research article introductions written by … as in the ‘Creating a Research Space’ model’ (CARS)#. (IndoL1-03) The three excerpts above illustrate that the authors used the step of reviewing items of previous research in the process of reviewing previous studies. In excerpt 7, the authors strengthened their arguments by referring to the claims of previous researchers. Meanwhile, the authors in excerpt 8 reviewed the findings of research conducted by previous researchers. On the other hand, in the Indonesian RA introduction (Excerpt 9), the authors showed a more detailed report, including the research objective and the results of research conducted by the previous researcher. From the three data above, it can be concluded that the step of reviewing items of previous research has functions to strengthen claims, show previous research findings, and report what previous researchers have done in their research. Move 2: Establishing a niche Move 2 is important in the introduction section Table 3. Frequency of occurrence of move 2 and its steps in IA, English FL, and Indonesian L1 corpora. Move 2 Steps IA English FL Indonesian L1 Freq (%) Freq (%) Freq (%) Establishing a niche Indicating research gap(s): Stating the absence from previous studies 14 (27.45) 7 (30.43) 7 (35) Indicating the insufficient research 11 (21.56) 12 (52.17) 2 (10) Highlighting the limitations of previous studies 10 (19.60) 0 (0) 1 (5) Contrasting and conflicting with previous research findings 6 (11.76) 4 (17.39) 2 (10) Highlighting unsolved problems 9 (17.64) 0 (0) 6 (30) Adding to what is known 1 (1.96 0 (0) 0 (0) Showing interest in conducting the study 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (10) Total 51 (100) 23 (100) 20 (100) M. Affandi Arianto / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 12 No. 2 (2025) 159 since it shows the positionality of the authors in the research conducted. Based on the analysis, it was found that this move was obligatory, and it appeared in all RA introductions in the three data sets. However, in terms of using the steps in this move, the frequency of occurrence of indicating research gap(s) appeared most often in the IA group. Table 3 also provides detailed differences in using the three steps in establishing a niche move by the three groups of authors. The findings revealed that international authors predominantly established their positionality through research gaps, with five distinct gap-indication strategies identified in their RA introductions. In contrast, both English-FL and Indonesian-L1 authors demonstrated less frequent and less developed use of research gap strategies to substantiate their academic positioning. It is worth noting that although the strategies of adding to what is known and showing interest in conducting the study were still considered by certain authors in the corpus of our study, these steps occurred with less frequency. Move 2 Step 1: Indicating research gap(s) Indicating a research gap is a step used by authors to prove that the study being conducted has novelty. Ways that can be done to indicate research gaps are stating the absence from previous studies, indicating insufficient research, highlighting the limitations of previous studies, contrasting and conflicting with previous research findings, and highlighting unsolved problems (Arianto, 2021; Lim, 2012). The applications of indicating research gap(s) are exemplified in the excerpts below. (10) Yet, as Ortega (2016) argued, using L1 norms as a benchmark for L2 acquisition is problematic because a bilingual speaker does not correspond to two monolingual speakers. (IA-05) (11) Meanwhile, in Indonesia, few studies have been reported in giving a picture of how students are aware of using metacognitive reading strategies. (EngFL-05) (12) Penelitian yang dilakukan Fengjie dkk masih belum meneliti tentang penggunaan kata penghubung, sehingga diperlukan penelitian lebih lanjut tentang objek/fokus tersebut. #Research conducted by Fengjie et al. still has not examined the use of conjunctions, so it needs further research focusing on it#. (IndoL1-04) As shown in excerpt 10, the authors showed their research gap by showing the limitation or weakness of a certain variable (i.e., using L1 norms). The authors used the voice of a previous author (Ortega, 2016) to strengthen the gap. Contrarily, excerpts 11 and 12 illustrate that the authors indicated their research gaps using their voices. In Excerpt 11, the authors used the strategy of indicating insufficient research, while in Excerpt 12, the gap was indicated by stating that there had been no research focusing on examining the use of conjunctions. Move 2 Step 2: Adding to what is known This step functions to establish research niches. Authors can be inspired by what has been done in previous studies, and they may continue the tradition of what has been conducted by previous scholars. As shown in Table 3, this step only appeared once in the international authors corpus, while in the other two corpora, this step was not found. The following excerpt is an example of the use of this step by the authors in their RA introductions. (13) Motivated by Yi and colleagues’ work, I conducted the current study, aiming to bridge the research gap and meanwhile to innovate the TESOL curriculum. (IA- 02) Based on the data analysis, it was found that the step of adding to what is known was only found in the international group’s corpus. In other words, Indonesian authors, either in English FL or Indonesian L1 groups, did not apply this step to indicate their research gaps. As seen in excerpt 13 above, the authors’ research gap was that they were inspired by the research that had been conducted by the previous researchers (i.e., Yi and colleagues). By continuing the research tradition that had been done, their study could contribute to the advancement of knowledge of the TESOL curriculum. Move 2 Step 3: Showing interest in conducting the study Research is done not only because of a gap that needs to be filled but also because of the interest of researchers in investigating certain cases or phenomena. Interest in conducting the study can occur if the authors find the uniqueness of the phenomena, and that they deserve to be studied. The authors also need to provide logical reasons why they are interested in the topics. In terms of frequency of occurrence, the step of showing interest in conducting the study only appeared twice in the group of Indonesian L1 authors. M. Affandi Arianto / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 12 No. 2 (2025) 160 (14) Keadaan tersebut sangat menarik untuk dicermati menjadi suatu penelitian dan menjadi alasan kedua dilaksanakannya penelitian ini. #This situation is very interesting to study, and it becomes the second reason for conducting this study#. (IndoL1-01) Unlike the step of adding to what is known, which was used only by the international authors, the step of showing interest in conducting the study was used only by the native Indonesian authors. It indicates that this step is acceptable to be applied in RAs published by local Indonesian-language journals. Move 3: Occupying the niche This is a move where the authors make an offer to fill the research gap (Farnia and Barati, 2017). Similar to the two previous moves, this move appeared in all articles of the three groups of authors in this study, meaning this move is an obligatory move in English and Indonesian RA introductions. Based on the data analysis, it was found that the frequency of occurrence of the use of move 3 in the IA group was in the vast majority (110 times), trailed behind by the Indonesian L1 (88 times) and English-FL (65 times) groups. Table 4 revealed that the steps of announcing the present work descriptively and summarizing methods were predominantly used by the three groups of authors in their RA introductions. The three groups of authors also articulate the positive implications of the study by explicitly stating the values of their present research. It is also worth noting that as the authors announced the aims of the studies descriptively, they tended to treat the step of presenting research questions as optional. Move 3 Step 1: Announcing present work descriptively and/or purposefully In this step, the authors clearly show the purpose(s) of their research. They may state the purpose(s) using linguistic signals, such as this research aims to…, this study attempts …, this study seeks to …. The applications of this step by the three groups of authors are exemplified in the excerpts below. (15) The aim of the present study, then, is to investigate closely how variability—a developmental phenomenon—potentially engenders change. (IA-02) (16) With the above-mentioned backdrop, the present study sought to compare the rhetorical organization and linguistic realizations of tourism research article abstracts from national and international journals. (EngFL-06) (17) Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mendeskripsikan … selama masa pandemi Covid-19. #This study aims to describe … during the Covid-19 pandemic#. (IndoL1-06) Based on the excerpts, it can be noticed that the three groups (IA, EngFL, and IndoL1) applied the step of announcing the present work descriptively and/ or purposefully to indicate the purposes of their research. Another important information from the findings of this study was that the majority of international and Indonesian authors put this step at the end of their introductions. The use of phrases, such as the present study aims…, this present study sought to…, this study examines…, the aim of the study is…, became linguistic signals to show the readers the purposes of their research. Move 3 Step 2: Presenting research questions (RQs) or hypotheses Authors, in this step, show their research objectives in the form of questions or hypotheses. Table 4. Frequency of occurrence of move 3 and its steps in IA, English FL, and Indonesian L1 corpora. Move 3 Steps IA English FL Indonesian L1 Freq (%) Freq (%) Freq (%) Occupying the niche Announcing present work descriptively and/or purposefully 36 (32.72) 22 (33.84) 34 (38.63) Presenting research questions (RQs) or hypotheses 19 (17.27) 11 (16.92) 9 (10.22) Giving definitional clarifications 6 (5.45) 0 (0) 1 (1.13) Summarizing methods 35 (31.81) 20 (30.76) 22 (25) Announcing principal outcomes 0 (0) 4 (6.15) 0 (0) Stating the value of the present research 10 (9.09) 7 (10.76) 22 (25) Outlining the structure of the paper 4 (3.63) 1 (1.53) 0 (0) Total 110 (100) 65 (100) 88 (100) M. Affandi Arianto / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 12 No. 2 (2025) 161 As shown in Table 4, the use of this step was quite frequent in the IA corpus. Meanwhile, this step was least frequently used by the authors in the Indonesian L1 group. (18) Thus, the present study is designed to address the following research question: How effective is a digital game e-based learning task for the accurate production of English articles by EFL (English as a Foreign Language) learners in comparison to drill and practice exercises? (IA-01) (19) Accordingly, this study tries to answer the following research questions: 1. How is EFL students’ metacognitive reading strategies awareness? 2. How is EFL students’ metacognitive reading strategies use? … (EngFL-05) (20) … rumusan masalah, yaitu Bagaimana tingkat koherensi pada karya ilmiah mahasiswa? #the formulation of the problem is that how is the level of coherence of the students’ academic writing?# (IndoL1-04) As illustrated in the excerpts above, the international authors (IA) and Indonesian authors (EngFL) used the step of presenting research questions (RQs) or hypotheses in the form of points, isolated from the paragraph. Contrarily, the majority of authors in the IndoL1 group applied this step in the last paragraph of their RA introductions. Move 3 Step 3: Definitional clarifications This step is used to describe descriptively and operationally the terminologies authors use in their studies. The applications of this step are exemplified in the excerpts below. (21) While definitions of authorial voice are many (see Stock and Eik-Nes 2016 for an overview), there is consensus (Tardy 2012; Zhao 2013; Canagarajah 2015; Fogal 2017) that authorial voice develops as part of a socially constructed amalgam that writers negotiate as they acculturate to their academic disciplines. (IA-02) (22) Dan, demi alasan kepraktisan, artikel ini akan menggunakan nama umum “Translation” untuk berbagai penamaan mata kuliah yang pada intinya berkaitan dengan penerjemahan. #In addition, for practical reasons, this article uses the common term “Translation” for various naming courses which are essentially related to translation#. (IndoL1-01) Based on the data analysis, it was found that only the authors from the international and Indonesian L1 groups gave definitional clarifications in their RA introductions. Meanwhile, this step did not appear in the English FL group. As shown in excerpts 21 and 22, the authors tried to limit the definitions of certain terminologies in their RAs hoping that the readers would understand and that it made their research more contextual and situational. Move 3 Step 4: Summarizing methods In the introduction section of a research article, the authors can briefly describe the methods used in their research. The following excerpts are examples of the applications of this step by the authors in their RA introductions. (23) The study took place over 21 months, including six total data collection waves: three at-home (Presojourn, Postsojourn-1, and Postsojourn-2) and three abroad, allowing for a comparison across two learning contexts. (IA-06) (24) For this study, researchers comprehensively interconnect theories from Borg’s (2011) teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices to understand teachers’ TPACK framework comprehensively. (EngFL-10) (25) Dalam penelitian ini, peneliti membatasi masalah penelitian pada kohesi gramatikal jenis referensi pronomina persona. #In this study, the researchers limit the research problem to the grammatical cohesion of the personal pronoun reference type#. (IndoL1-06) Excerpt 23 shows that the international authors performed the step of summarizing methods to slightly show the duration of their research, and they stated a brief overview of the data they had collected. Meanwhile, excerpt 24 shows that the authors used Borg’s theory (2011) as a theoretical reference to understand the data they had obtained. In addition, authors can limit the scope of their studies. For instance, the authors in excerpt 25 only focused on examining a certain area, i.e., grammatical cohesion specifically in pronouns. Move 3 Step 5: Announcing principal outcomes Through this step, authors may show the major findings of their studies. The application of this step is exemplified in the excerpt below. (26) The present investigation is going to fill the discrepancies on the previous studies which should have conclusively discussed the effects of DCF and ICF in which the participants of the study have different proficiency levels consisting of high and low levels. (IndoL1-02) Based on Table 4, it was found that only the Indonesian authors who published their articles in international journals (Eng-FL) used the step of announcing principal outcomes. If we look at the excerpt above, the authors tried to convey that the M. Affandi Arianto / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 12 No. 2 (2025) 162 purpose of their research was to fill the gap left by the previous researchers. So, even though the research gap has been mentioned, this step can be used as a reaffirmation of the general goal of conducting the research. Move 3 Step 6: Stating the value of the present research This step functions to show the benefit or significance of the research. The examples of sentences indicating the value of the present research can be seen in the excerpts below. (27) Consequently, this study has the potential to further our understanding of interactions between substantial prior linguistic knowledge … (IA-06) (28) By doing that, this study is expected to provide a textual description that can be used by tourism scholars, especially … (EngFL-06) (29) Hasil penelitian ini diharapkan dapat meningkatkan pentingnya unsur koherensi dalam … pada proposal skripsi mahasiswa. #The results of this study are expected to increase the importance of the element of coherence in … the student thesis proposals#. (IndoL1-04) From the three excerpts above, it can be noticed that all three groups applied the step of stating the value of the present research in their RA introductions. As seen in excerpt 27, the author explained the implications of his research results, i.e., increasing understanding of the interactions between prior linguistic knowledge and contextual influences. Excerpts 28 and 29 indicate that Indonesian authors shared their expectation that their studies would contribute to the body of knowledge. Move 3 Step 7: Outlining the structure of the paper In this step, authors may show the structure of their article. (30) The next section describes the CPH and the distinction between implicit and explicit learning and exemplifies which conditions may enhance language acquisition through explicit learning, even after the CP. (IA-04) (31) While the issues of teacher professional development practices are discussed in the latter part of the paper. (EngFL-03) Based on the data analysis, it was found that only the authors in the Indonesian L1 group did not use the step of outlining the structure of the paper. As seen in excerpt 30, the International authors provided a little explanation of what would be explained in the next section. Likewise, the Indonesian authors in excerpt 31 invited the readers to read a certain part discussing the issues of teacher professional development practices. Move Patterns in the Three Corpora After analyzing the rhetorical moves and steps, which were found in the three corpora (i.e., IA, Eng-FL, and Indo-L1), we found that the three data sets shared some similarities and differences in terms of move patterns. The findings can be seen in the figure and table below. Figure 1 indicates that the patterns of moves in the authors’ RA introductions tended to contradict the conventional patterns (following Swales’ 1990, and 2004 CARS models). It is clearly noticed that the contravening patterns occurred more frequently than the conventional ones. Figure 1. Adhering and contravening move patterns across three groups of authors M. Affandi Arianto / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 12 No. 2 (2025) 163 Table 5 indicates that some rhetorical patterns organized by the authors in the three corpora followed the Swales’ (1990, 2004) CARS model. It is worth noting that the three groups of authors shared similarities in some patterns. Table 5 indicates that the three groups of authors mostly started their RA introduction with move 1 and ended with move 3. For the conventional patterns following Swales’ (1990, 2004) model, it was found that only two English RA introductions (one in IA and one in Eng-FL groups) followed the linear pattern of moves, where the moves were organized sequentially from move 1 to move 3. Aside from the linear pattern, nine move patterns used by the three groups of authors were also considered conforming to the Swales’ (1990, 2004) model. The cyclical pattern of moves also found in this study was shown in move 1, move 2, and move 3, and interestingly, there was only one RA introduction (written by native Indonesian authors) in which the moves were organized in a complete cycle or a full repeated cycle (M1-M2-M3-M1- M2-M3). Although the complete cycle of moves was found only in one RA introduction, it is also worth noting that the remaining types of cyclical moves were used by the three groups of authors. The cyclical pattern focusing on moves 1 and 2 was found in the English RA introductions written by the IA and Eng-FL authors. Another type of cyclical pattern appeared in the Indo-L1 group, in which the authors organized the moves by recurring moves 1 and 3, meaning the authors began with moves 1, 2, and 3, or moves 1 and 2, and repeated moves 1 and 3 without move 2. Despite the three groups of authors following the Swales’ CARS model, according to Table 5, we can indicate that there were nine contravening patterns, that were different from what had been conceptualized by Swales (1990, 2004), found in the three groups of authors. This study found that only one RA began the introduction with move 3, and it was written by the IA authors. Besides, all contravening patterns found in this study are cyclical. They were dominated by the cyclicity of moves 1 and 3, meaning although the three groups of authors cyclically developed Table 5. The frequency of occurrence of move patterns in the three corpora Move patterns IA Eng-FL Indo-L1 Freq % Freq % Freq % Conventional patterns (following Swales’ (1990, 2004) CARS model) 1-2-3 1 5% 1 5% - - 1-2-3-1-2-3 - - - - 1 5% 1-2-1-2-3 - - - - - - 1-2-3-1-3 1 5% - - 2 10% 1-2-3-2-3 2 10% - - - - 1-2-1-3 - - - - 1 5% 1-2-1-2-1-2-3 4 20% 2 10% - - 1-2-1-2-1-2-1-3 2 10% 2 10% - - 1-2-3-1-2-3-1-3 - - - - - - 1-2-1-3-1-3-1-3 1 5% - - - - Contravening patterns (deviating from Swales’ (1990, 2004) CARS model 1-3-2-1-3 2 10% 1 5% 3 15% 1-3-1-3-1-2-3-1-3 1 5% 2 10% 1 5% 1-3-2-3-1-3-1-3 - - 1 5% 1 5% 1-3 2 10% 8 40% 6 30% 3-1-3-1-2-3-1-3 1 5% - - - - 1-3-1-2-1-3 1 5% - - 2 10% 1-2-1-3-1-3 - - - - 2 10% 1-3-1-2-3 - - - - 1 5% 1-2-1-3-2-3-2-3 2 10% 3 15% - - Total 20 100% 20 100% 20 100% M. Affandi Arianto / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 12 No. 2 (2025) 164 their RA introductions, the deviating patterns, mostly, involve move 2 once. Table 5 shows that the contravening patterns occurred in the Indo-L1 authors in a vast majority (80%), trailed behind by the Eng-FL (75%), and IA authors (45%). In other words, the contravening patterns occurred more frequently in the RA introductions written by Eng-FL and Indo-L1 authors. To sum up, this study found that most of the contravening move patterns were found in the Indonesian RA introductions written by native Indonesian authors. Besides, The RA introductions written by the Indo-L1 group were likely to have more deviant patterns than those written by the IA group. Meanwhile, the deviating patterns organized by the IA authors in their English RA introductions also appeared less frequently than those in the Eng-FL corpus. IV. DISCUSSION This study has revealed how moves and steps are used by international authors (IAs) and Indonesian authors (English FL) in their RA introductions in English, and how they are used by Indonesian authors in the Indonesian language (Indonesian L1). Besides, we also have resolved the issue of whether the three groups of authors adhere to and deviate from the standardized rhetorical patterns of RA introduction that have been conceptualized by the CARS model (Swales, 1990, 2004). In this section, our two research findings are discussed and compared with other existing literature. Rhetorical differences and similarities in RA introductions written by the three groups of authors Related to comparing the rhetorical moves of RA introductions across three groups of authors, our study indicated that the authors from the Indonesian L1 group used move 1 most often, and it was similar to what the other groups did in the two other corpora (IA and Eng-FL). This is in line with what has been found by Arsyad and Wardhana (2014) that Indonesian authors, in the fields of social sciences, language studies, literature studies, and law sciences, used the communicative unit in the introductions to establish shared schemata and research areas, and the role of establishing territory is necessary for introducing, recognizing, and contextualizing the research area being conducted (Arianto, 2021; Chinaprayoon, 2016; Farnia & Barati, 2017; Wannaruk & Amnuai, 2016; Rochma 2020). Besides, although move 1 appeared most often in the RA introductions written by the three groups of authors, the implementation of each step was different between one group and the others. As found in this study, the Indonesian L1 group used the step of making topic generalizations more than the step. Meanwhile, in the English RA introductions, claiming centrality should be used higher than the other steps since it elevates the persuasiveness and makes the proposed topics becomes more convincing (Arianto et al., 2023; Wang & Yang, 2015). It indicates that native Indonesian authors tend to put general statements in their RA introductions due to several factors. First, it might be the concept in their thought that using claims that aim to strengthen the research topic in move 1 is not something that should be highlighted. Besides, it might be due to the lack of reading sources so that they tend to only see the phenomena observed, and force them to be put in their research. Regardless of all, it should be noted that we did not evaluate which structure was good because, in a comparative study, we only looked at the characteristics of the rhetorical structures of the three groups of authors. It might be possible that the step of making topic generalizations is the most popular in Indonesian RA introductions, but perhaps, the specific rhetorical structures for writing RA introductions have not yet been developed in Indonesia (Safnil, 2003). There is a need to study the reasons why this step has become most popularly used in Indonesian-language journals, especially in applied linguistics journals. A lack of reading existing studies and theories which are relevant to the topics the authors are interested in or appropriate with the authors’ disciplinarity may impact to lack of criticizing. As a consequence, it influences the quality of reviewing literature and fails to criticize and justify their positions in the study being proposed. Surprisingly, it happens to non-native authors causing the step of reviewing literature to appear inadequately (Farnia & Barati, 2017). In this study, the authors from the English FL group seemed to have an understanding of the importance of reviewing items of previous research, which appeared in 36.19%, and it was almost similar to that of the IA group (32.69%). It indicates that English FL authors are not influenced by the rhetorical culture of writing RA introductions in Indonesian, especially in M. Affandi Arianto / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 12 No. 2 (2025) 165 establishing the research area, by prioritizing the steps of claiming centrality and reviewing items of previous research. Workshops, short training, and genre-based mentoring (Arsyad et al., 2019; Arono & Arsyad, 2019) that they have participated in might have impacts on improving the quality of their RA introductions writing. Concerning the applications of steps in the move of establishing a niche, we found that non-native authors still inadequately used the research gap strategies, both in their English and Indonesian RA introductions. The research gap(s) can be identified if the authors take the step of reviewing items of previous research (Arianto, 2021; Saricaoglu et al., 2021). In establishing a niche, the authors from the IA group relied more on the step of indicating research gap(s) (50 times) than the step of adding to what is known (once). This finding supports the claims of Arianto (2021), Arianto et al., (2021), Arianto and Basthomi (2021), and Rochma (2020) that international authors use indicating research gap(s) most often. Another step, namely presenting positive justification, was not found in the RA introductions of the three groups of authors. This may be due to the development of knowledge and views about RA introduction writing that the steps of presenting positive justifications and adding to what is known do not optimally indicate the credibility of researchers. It is also similar to the other two groups in that the authors also prioritize the use of indicating research gap(s), which functions to show the novelty of the research (Abdolmalaki et al., 2019; Arianto et al., 2021; Arianto & Basthomi, 2021; Chen & Li, 2019; Lim, 2012). However, the frequency of occurrence of the step of indicating research gap(s) by Indonesian authors is still few. The lack of reviewing previous studies impacts the lack of indicating research gap(s) (Arianto, 2021), and it happens to Indonesian L1 authors so that the application of the step of reviewing items of previous research is not optimally used. For English FL authors, it is assumed that the authors need to understand the strategies for indicating research gap(s) in English RA introductions. They may read studies focusing on the investigations of strategies for indicating research gap(s) (e.g., Arianto et al., 2021; Chen & Li, 2019; Lim, 2012). Furthermore, we found the step of showing interest in conducting the study only in the Indonesian L1 group, whereas this step was not found in the other two groups. The lack of strong argumentation and logic for using this step might become a reason why this step is not considered important in English RAs published in international journals. Of course, showing the value of conducting research is very important (Lin, 2014; Shehzad, 2012), but the novelty of the research is not only limited to saying that someone is interested in conducting the research but it should also be followed by argumentative reasons and uniqueness of certain phenomena (Rochma et al., 2020). For move 3, it was found that the three groups used the step of announcing present work descriptively and/or purposefully more than the other steps, namely presenting research questions (RQs) or hypotheses, giving definitional clarifications, summarizing methods, announcing principal outcomes, stating the value of the present research, and outlining the structure of the paper. This finding is in line with the studies conducted by Rochma (2020) Sun and Crosthwaite (2022), and Swales and Feak (2004) that each introduction is obliged to indicate the purpose(s) of the research, especially in the introduction which does not have several subheadings. However, if the section is divided into several subheadings, such as literature review and research questions, it might be possible that more detailed research objectives will be found in the research questions section or the literature review section followed by research questions. It is also very interesting to examine the rhetorical structures of the RA introductions which consist of several subheadings. Another important piece of information from this study is that the second most frequently used step by the three groups was the step of summarizing methods. It indicates that IA, English FL, and Indonesian L1 authors initially give clues in terms of collecting and analyzing data by stating what kinds of data they have obtained and what methods they have used. Additionally, it was found that the Indonesian L1 group used the step of stating the value of the present research more than the authors from the IA and English FL groups. This might be due to the lack of applying move 2, especially in the step of indicating research gap(s), so they try to convince readers by informing the benefits of their research to occupy the niche move. Besides, we also conclude what has been found related M. Affandi Arianto / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 12 No. 2 (2025) 166 to move 3 that the step of announcing principal outcomes is not quite important to be used in the introduction section because the authors mention it when pointing out the research gap(s), meaning indicating research gap(s) can predict the outcomes of research. Furthermore, the step of outlining the structure of the paper not only serves to lead readers’ interest to read other parts of RA but also provides brief information about the structures of the authors’ RA. Rhetorical patterns in RA introductions written by the three groups of authors: Deviation or glocalization? Concerning the pattern investigation, we found that some of the three groups of authors followed the common patterns of an RA introduction proposed by Swales (1990, 2004). As discussed earlier, Swales’ CARS model has classified the six patterns that are mostly used by authors in English RA introductions. Amnuai and Wannaruk (2013) also clarify and confirm what has been conceptualized in the theory. This study also indicates that the majority of non-native English authors undoubtedly still perform the pattern with no gap (M1-M3). Our result showed that Indonesian authors introduced their research topics via claiming centrality and topic generalizations, and then showed the lists of relevant studies conducted by previous authors. However, as they reviewed the studies, they only reported what the previous scholars did, and then jumped into announcing present work purposefully. This study supports the studies conducted by Briones (2012), Kafes (2018), and Farnia & Barati (2017). The omission may be due to the local culture the authors have and anticipation of risk and more face-threatening if they compare what had been done and what they will do by highlighting the limitations of previous studies. Hence, they omitted Move 2, which is claimed as the best strategy for presenting the research novelty and insights (Arianto et al., 2021; Chen & Li, 2019; Lim, 2012; Swales, 1999, 2004; Swales & Feak, 2004). Moreover, our finding indicates that only two RA introductions follow the linear pattern of moves. It happens only in the English RA introductions written by IA and Eng-FL authors. Our finding contradicts Kafes’ (2018) findings that most international authors and native English authors still followed the linear pattern. It may be due to the sample we choose. In our case, the long introductions with no sub-headings still influence the authors to cyclically organize their texts. It conforms to what has been conceptualized by Swales (1990) that writing a long introduction tends to make it cyclical. We also support the claim of Shehzad (2012) and Swales (1990, 2004) who state that there must be potential iteration or cycling of patterns in certain RA introductions. Another important information that should be highlighted is that the linear pattern, we think, is not really popular in this current situation. The linear pattern could be a good way if the researchers to organize their RAs in which the introduction and literature review sections are separated by sub- headings. It does not mean that we provoke others to be more cyclical, and the more cyclical the better the introductory sections can be produced. The linear pattern may also still be followed in writing long introductions if the research gaps the authors offer provide important, usefulness, challenges, uniqueness, and worth conducting that impress the editorial teams of the targeted journals (Arianto et al., 2023; Arianto et al., 2021; Swales, 1990). A sizable body of research that can be accessed in free and open-access journals that provide researchers inspiration also contributes to the advancement of knowledge and could make the authors critically review the previous studies. Therefore, introducing certain variables, proposing certain methods to solve problems, highlighting limitations, and contradicting previous studies to justify current issues may influence the authors to be more cyclical in writing RA introductions. Concerning the contravening patterns that have been found in this study, it indicates that the frequency of occurrence of contravening patterns in the two groups of authors, i.e., Eng-FL and Indo-L1, was more than 50%, and the violated orders also found in almost half of the RA introductions written by IA authors. This finding contrasted with Amnuai and Wannaruk (2013), Lin (2014), and Kafes (2018) who found that most international authors followed the common patterns that have been conceptualized in the CARS model, 85%, 78,2%, and 64% respectively. The domination of contravening patterns found in our study might be due to the sample we and the previous researchers collected. The previous scholars focused on the RA introductions in applied linguistics in general, meaning that several sub-disciplines, such as M. Affandi Arianto / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 12 No. 2 (2025) 167 language testing, language teaching, second language research, translation, and second/ foreign language acquisition, were possibly included in their sample. Meanwhile, our study specifically focused on only one sub-field of applied linguistics, namely language teaching. Our findings highlight new insights that authors of language teaching do not constantly and accurately adhere to the common patterns of English RA introduction. Some of them may have liberal ways of forming their English RA introductions (Wakerkwa, 2025). If further studies focused on any other sub- disciplines in applied linguistics, they may find any other deviation patterns that may be indicated as their specific characteristics. Despite more than half of our research sample indicating deviations from CARS models (1990, 2004), all authors in this study still ended the section with Move 3. It is in line with what has been found by Lin (2014) who also found that most applied linguistic authors close their introductory sections by presenting the present work and indicate the literature content. Moreover, the contravening patterns do not only happen in English RA introductions. Our study also suggests that the rhetorical patterns of Indonesian RA introductions are also different from the common patterns of Swales’ CARS model, and we believe that the pattern characteristics in Indonesian RA introductions are different from English counterparts. Arsyad (2000), who tried to examine the rhetorical patterns in Indonesian RA introduction found that authors from psychology, education, and economy usually order Move 1 to Move 3, and almost all of the authors cyclically order the two moves without considering Move 2, and this can be an evidence that Indonesian RA introductions have very distinctive patterns. Surprisingly, in this current study, we found that native Indonesian language authors have realized the importance of justifying positionality, as seen from no introductions without Move 2. It can be assumed that non-native authors, in this current situation, believe that Move 2 in Indonesian RA introductions is of importance since to distinguish the proposed research from the existing ones, authors have to review what has been done by previous scholars and justify their research through indicating research gaps (Arianto et al., 2021; Deveci, 2020; Lim, 2012; Farnia & Barati, 2017). What we have found in this study can be considered a pattern model that can be followed by those who will write RA introductions in the Indonesian language. Swales’ (1990, 2004) CARS model is still used by previous scholars as a basic framework for identifying rhetorical patterns of Indonesian RA and master thesis introductions (e.g., Wakerswa, 2025; Warsidi, 2024). The framework can be considered useful as a foundation to find out the contravening patterns indicated in the authors’ academic texts. Therefore, we suggest future scholars also look at the contravening patterns that can be possibly found in other sections such as in the abstract, methods, findings, discussion, and conclusion sections. In our study, we used the model to not only indicate the contravening patterns but also to examine whether the contravening patterns found in Eng-FL groups have similarities to what has been found in the Indo-L1 group. Surprisingly, five out of nine contravening patterns in Indonesian RA introductions are also found in those written in English by native Indonesian authors. Even, one of them is also found in the two RA introductions written by international authors. The contravening patterns, which deviate from the CARS model, may also be caused by the cultural norm that is embedded in the rhetorical knowledge of authors. Besides, this might be due to the scientific tradition or practices in a particular discipline (Safnil, 2000). The contravening patterns can also be influenced by the rhetorical experiences and knowledge of authors, meaning as long as the communicative purposes appeared in each move substantially, the authors could organize their RA introductions with varied patterns. Moreover, we can also assume that the contravening rhetorical patterns, which appeared more than the conventional patterns in the Eng-FL group, are related to the issue of glocalization. We can argue that non-native authors have efforts to follow the English rhetorical conventions, but the national cultures they have might not intentionally fuse to their writings. In our context, we can see that the English RA introductions written by Indonesian authors, which also had been published in internationally reputable journals tend to transfer Indonesian rhetoric. Besides, world englishes affects the glocalization in which the speakers from non- English countries use English varieties. The glocalization can also be specified in written M. Affandi Arianto / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 12 No. 2 (2025) 168 discourse in which the authors employ hybrid rhetorical practices in English research articles. We did not specifically choose the sample of English RA introductions written by international authors in this study, but we realize that some authors are from Asia. An author who collaborates with others from different countries, especially those who are from non-anglophone countries, such as Asian authors, may face different styles in writing due to their socio-cultural norms and values. It can be seen from the findings of our study that international authors have similar contravening patterns with what has been found in Eng-FL and Indo-L1 groups. Besides, the variations of rhetorical patterns of RA introductions may also be accepted in international journals whose editors and reviewers are also from non-English speaking countries. Future researchers, who will conduct comparative studies, may consider these issues to see the glocalized patterns in English RA introductions. V. CONCLUSION Non-Anglophone authors, such as Indonesians, may retain their national language as their rhetorical conventions in their English academic texts. Our study has explored the applications of moves, steps, and patterns in the RA introductions in the field of language teaching in English and the Indonesian language. We can conclude that the manifestations of moves and steps of the RA introductions written in English and Indonesian are quite different. Although there are differences in rhetorical structures in Moves 1 and 2, research objectives are clearly explained at the end of the introduction section in the three groups of authors. In terms of rhetorical patterns, a circular and fairly long introduction of the research topic is used by Indonesian L1 authors in their English and Indonesian RA introductions, and most of them show salient deviations from Swales’ CARS model. Moreover, as found from our study, this can prove that the characteristics of language and patterns used by the Indonesian authors in the Indonesian RA introductions, especially the way they organize the communicative purposes, can be considered in writing English RA introductions. The contravening patterns that do not follow the conventional ones can be regarded as guidance since they appeared in the English RA introductions written by groups of authors who published their RAs in internationally reputable journals. Despite the contributions, this study also highlights some practical implications. First, although Indonesian authors (English FL) have adhered to the standards or rules for building their research topics, a deeper examination reveals that English FL and Indonesian L1 authors still need guidance, such as books or related sources, to learn, find, and indicate research gap(s). They should join activities, such as attending workshop activities, short training programs, short courses, and mentoring activities, to increase knowledge of how to review, criticize, and demonstrate the novelty of research through the identification of research gap(s). One thing to consider by English FL authors is that they need to increase the frequency of using the steps of summarizing methods, stating the value of the present research, and outlining the structure of the paper in their English RA introductions. This study also has some limitations. While this study only focused on a specific discipline in applied linguistics, namely language teaching, this study may not capture the diversity of rhetorical styles in other sub-disciplines. Further studies may adopt similar methods to investigate larger data and a more diverse sample. Besides, further studies need to examine whether the authors show deviations from the CARS model in terms of organizing the other sections, such as methods, findings, and discussion sections. Besides, this study did not explicitly examine the linguistic features that characterize interlanguage investigations. Further studies may work on how metadiscourse features may shape writing practices across languages and sub-disciplines. ETHICS STATEMENT Authors have read and followed the ethical requirements for publication in Jurnal Arbitrer and that the current work does not involve human subjects, animal experiments, or any data collected from social media platforms. CREDIT AUTHOR STATEMENT M. Affandi Arianto: writing – original draft, Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology, Formal analysis, data interpretation; Jufrizal: Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Validation, Data curation; Maulluddul Haq: Investigation, Formal analysis, Resources, Reviewing; Dwi Bayu Saputra:Investigation, Validation, Resources, Proofreading; Dewi Syafrina: Investigation, Validation, Resources, Validation, and Proofreading M. Affandi Arianto / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 12 No. 2 (2025) 169 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank Lembaga Penelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat Universitas Negeri Padang for funding this work with the contract number 1441/UN35.15/LT/2023. DECLARATION OF COMPETING INTERESTS The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. REFERENCES Abdolmalaki, S. G., Tan, H., Abdullah, A. N., Sharmini, S., & Geok Imm, L. (2019). Introduction chapter of traditional and article-based theses: A comparison of rhetorical structures and linguistic realisations. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies, 19(1), 116–135. https://doi.org/10.17576/ gema-2019-1901-07 Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Hladchenko, M. (2023). Assessing the effects of publication requirements for professorship on research performance and publishing behaviour of Ukrainian academics. Scientometrics, 128, 4589-4609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04753-y Adnan, Z. (2009). Some potential problems for research articles written by Indonesian academics when submitted to international English language Journals. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 11(1), 107–125. Retrieved from https://www.asian-efl-journal.com/main-editions-new/somepotential- problems-for-research-articles-written-by-indonesian-academics-when-submitted-tointernational- english-language-journals/ Adnan, Z. (2014). Prospects of Indonesian Research Articles (RAs) being considered for publication in ‘center’ journals: A comparative study of rhetorical patterns of RAs in selected humanities and hard science disciplines. In Lyda, A., & Warchal, K (Eds), Occupying niches: Interculturality, cross- culturality and aculturality in academic research (pp. 79–99). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-319-02526-1_6 Afshar, H. S., Doosti, M., & Movassagh, H. (2018). A genre analysis of the introduction section of applied linguistics and chemistry research articles. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL), 21(1), 163–214. Retrieved from https://ijal.khu.ac.ir/article-1-2856-en.html Amnuai, W. (2021). A Comparison of niche establishments in English research article introductions published in international and Thai journals. Discourse and Interaction, 14(2), 24-40 https://doi. org/10.5817/DI2021-2-24 Amnuai, W., & Wannaruk, A. (2013). An analysis of moves in introductions in international and Thai journal research articles. PASAA: A Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 45, 1-30. Ankomah, C., & Afful, J. B. A. (2019). Establishing a niche in research: Rhetorical strategies in undergraduate and postgraduate writings in the department of English, University of Cape Coast. The Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes, 7(3), 359-374. https://doi. org/10.22190/JTESAP1903359А Arianto, M. A., Haq, M., & Jufrizal. (2023). Research article introductions in applied linguistics: A comparative study on the use of appeals. Journal of Language and Education, 9(2), 12-24. https:// doi.org/10.17323/jle.2023.16163 Arianto, M. A. (2021). Authors’ strategies for indicating research gaps in ELT research article introductions in reputable journals. [Dissertation]. Universitas Negeri Malang. Arianto, M. A., & Basthomi, Y. (2021). The authors‟ research gap strategies in ELT research article introductions: Does Scopus journal quartile matter? Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 17(4), 1743-1759. https://doi.org/10.52462/jlls.127 Arianto, M. A., Saukah, A., Basthomi, Y., & Wulyani, A. N. (2021). Previous studies have several limitations…: Indonesian Doctoral Students‟, Indonesian Academics‟, and International Authors‟ M. Affandi Arianto / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 12 No. 2 (2025) 170 Research Gap Strategies in ELT Research Article Abstracts and Introductions. Journal of Language and Education, 7(2), 2544. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2021.11735 Arono., & Arsyad, S. (2019). The effect of genre-based mentoring on rhetorical quality of research article drafts by Indonesian lecturers in social sciences and humanities. International Journal of Instruction, 12(3), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.1233a Arsyad, S., Purwo, B. K., & Adnan, Z. (2020). The argument style in research article discussions to support research findings in language studies. Studies in English Language and Education, 7(2), 290-307. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v7i2.16626 Arsyad, S., Purwo, B. K., Sukamto, K. E., & Adnan, Z. (2019). Factors hindering Indonesian lecturers from publishing articles in reputable international journals. Journal on English as a Foreign Language, 9(1), 42-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.23971/jefl.v9i1.982 Arsyad, S., & Adila, D. (2018). Using local style when writing in English: the citing behaviour of Indonesian authors in English research article introductions. Asian Englishes, 20(2), 170-185. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2017.1327835 Arsyad, S., & Wardhana, D.E.C. (2014). Introduction in Indonesian social sciences and humanities research articles: How Indonesian Justify their research project. Linguistik Indonesia, 32(2), 149- 163. https://doi.org/10.26499/li.v32i2.23 Basthomi, Y., Wulyani, A. N., & Rohmah, Z. (2021). At least, one more step, please: Implications of the gap. In Hardini, T. I., & Wirza, Y (Eds.). Learning Strategies and Learner Autonomy: Pedagogical Struggles and Opportunities through Digital Technologies in Language and Literature Education (A Festschrift for Prof. Nenden Sri Lengkanawati). pp. 268-276. Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI) Press. in press. Briones, R. R. Y. (2012). Move analysis of philosophy research article introductions published in the University of Santo Tomas. Philippines ESL Journal, 9, 56-75. Chen, X., & Li, M. (2019). Chinese learner writers‟ niche establishment in the Literature Review chapter of theses: A diachronic perspective. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 39, 48–58. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.03.006 Chinaprayoon, W. (2016). Move Analysis of Introduction Section in Applied Linguistics Research Articles. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation], Burapha University Deveci, T. (2020). The introduction section of research articles in English and Turkish: The case of educational sciences – a preliminary study. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 119-140. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.710233 Farnia, M., & Barati, S. (2017). Writing introduction sections of research articles in applied linguistics: Cross-linguistics study of native and non-native writers. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 486–494. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v7i2.8357 Frandsen, T. F., Lamptey, R. B., Borteye, E. M., & Teye, V. (2022). Achieving a professorship with proper academic merit: discouraging questionable publishing. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 53(3), 155- 167. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2021-0021 Hashim, S., Ahmed, A., & Jomaa, N. (2024). Investigating stance and engagement markers in Ph.D. theses of Libyan EFL Postgraduates. Kufa Journal of Arts, 1(60), 412–431. https://doi.org/10.36317/ kja/2024/v1.i60.15214 Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press. Hyland, K. (2016). Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 58-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.005 Hyland, K. (2023). Academic publishing and the attention economy. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 64, 101253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2023.101253 Hyland, K., & Jian, F. K. (2020). “This work is antithetical to the spirit of research”: An anatomy of M. Affandi Arianto / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 12 No. 2 (2025) 171 harsh peer reviews. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 46, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jeap.2020.100867 Irawan, D. E., Abraham, J., Ridlo, I. A., Nugraha, H. D., Wekke, I. S., Fuad, A., Rudyawan, A., & Seftyono, C. (2023). Comments on “Ranking researchers: Evidence from Indonesia” by Fry et al. (2023). Research Policy, 52, 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104817 Irawati, L. (2022). Potential factors influencing the rhetorical patterns of research article discussion sections. Studies in English Language and Education, 9(1), 115-131. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele. v9i1.21267 Jasrial, D., Arsyad, S., & Arono. (2019). The effect of genre-based mentoring on linguistic feature quality of research article abstracts by Indonesian lecturers in social sciences and humanities. JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature, 4(2), 146-161. http://dx.doi.org/10.33369/joall. v4i2.7780 Jasrial, D., Arsyad, S., Arono., & Yunita, W. (2021). Writing research article abstracts by using genre- based mentoring method: Viewed from rhetorical moves and tenses usage. Ethical Lingua, 8(2), 474-485. 10.30605/25409190.304 Justham, D. (2006). What is research? Journal of Orthopaedic Nursing, 10, 228-231. Kafes, H. (2018). A Genre Analysis of English and Turkish Research Article Introductions. Novitas- ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 12(1), 66-79. Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005). Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 24(3), 269-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2004.08.003 Khélifi, N., & Al-Amri, A. (2018). Springer workshop on how to get published in a scientific journal: Tips from springer editors. In A. Kallel et al. (eds.), Recent advances in environmental science from the Euro-Mediterranean and surrounding regions, Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation (pp. 45). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70548-4_17 Khani, R., & Tazik, K. (2010). A comparative study of introduction and discussion sections of sub- disciplines of applied linguistics research articles. Journal of Applied Language Studies (JALS), 1 (2), 97-122. Kwan, B. S. C., Chan, H., & Lam, C. (2012). Evaluating prior scholarship in literature reviews of research articles: A comparative study of practices in two research paradigms. English for Specific Purposes, 31(3), 188-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2012.02.003 Lim, J. M.-H. (2012). How do writers establish research niches? A genre-based investigation into management researchers‟ rhetorical steps and linguistic mechanisms. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11, 229–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.05.002 Lin, L. (2014). Innovations in structuring article introductions: The case of applied linguistics. Iberica, 28, 129-154. Madnani, N., Burstein, J., Elliot, N., Klebanov, B. B., Napolitano, D., Andreyev, S., & Schwarts, M. (2018). Writing mentor: Self-regulated writing feedback for struggling writers. Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, pages 113– 117, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA, August 20-26. Marchetti, A., & O’Dell, R. (2015). Writing with mentors. Heinemann. Muangsamai, P. (2018). Analysis of moves, rhetorical patterns and linguistic features in New Scientist articles. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 39(2), 236–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. kjss.2018.03.006 Nasihin, Ahmad., Arsyad, S., Harahap, A., & Wardhana, D. E. C. (2021). The use of genre based approach in training and mentoring for improving argument skills in research articles journal writing for social and humanity authors. Education Quarterly Reviews, 4(4). 167-181. 10.31014/aior.1993.04.04.381 Olsen, T. B., Kyvik, S., & Hovdhaugen, E. (2005). The promotion to full professor-through competition M. Affandi Arianto / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 12 No. 2 (2025) 172 or by individual competence?. Tertiary Education and Management, 11, 299-316. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/13583883.2005.9967153 Perris, K., & Corcoran, J. (2014). Mentorship in graduate student writing for publication. Canadian Journal for New Scholars in Education, 5(3), 1-3. Pratiwi, S. N., & Kurniawan, E. (2021). Rhetorical move and genre knowledge development of English and Indonesian abstracts: a comparative analysis. Studies in English Language and Education, 8(3), 885-900. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v8i3.21038 Rahman, M., Darus, S., & Amir, Z. (2017). Rhetorical Structure of Introduction in Applied Linguistics Research Articles. International Journal for Educational Studies, 9(2), 69-83. Rochma, A. F., Triastuti, A., & Ashadi, A. (2020). Rhetorical styles of introduction in English Language Teaching (ELT) research articles. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 304–314. https:// doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v10i2.28593 Rorstad, K., & Aksnes, D. W. (2015). Publication rate expressed by age, position gender and academic – A large-scale analysis of Norwegian academic staff. Journal of Infometrics, 9, 317-333. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2015.02.003 Safnil. (2000). Rhetorical structure analysis of the Indonesian research articles. [Unpublished thesis], Australian National University Safnil. (2003). The rhetorical style of Indonesian research article introduction: A genre analysis study. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. 12(1), 27-62. Saricaoglu, A., Bilki, Z., & Plakans, L. (2021). Syntactic complexity in learner-generated research paper introductions: Rhetorical functions and level of move/ step realization. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 53, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.101037 Sasvari, P., Bakacsi, G., & Urbanovics, A. (2022). Scientific career tracks and publication performance – relationships discovered in the Hungarian academic promotion system. Heliyon, 8, 1-11. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09159 Shehzad, W. (2012). Introduction of computer science research paper: Divergence from CARS. Kashmir Journal of Language Research. 15(2), 19-39. Sheldon, E. (2011). Rhetorical differences in RA introductions written by English L1 and L2 and Castilian Spanish L1 writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10 (4), 238–251. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.08.004 Shukri, N. A. (2014). Second Language Writing and Culture: Issues and Challenges from the Saudi Learners’ Perspective. Arab World English Journal, 5(3), 190-207. Sun, S., & Crosthwaite, P. (2022). “Establish a niche” via negation: A corpus based study of negation within the Move 2 sections of PhD thesis introductions. Open Linguistics, 8(1), 189-208. https://doi. org/10.1515/opli-2022-0190 Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press. Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genre: Exploration and applications. Cambridge University Press. Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. The University of Michigan Press. Wakerkwa, D. A. P. (2025). Exploring rhetorical approaches in Indonesian master thesis introductions. Journal of English Education Program, 6(1), 24-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.26418/jeep.v6i1.72261 Wang, W & Yang, C. (2015). Claiming centrality as promotion in applied linguistics research article introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 162-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jeap.2015.05.002 Wannaruk, A., & Amnuai, W. (2016). A Comparison of Rhetorical Move Structure of Applied Linguistics M. Affandi Arianto / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 12 No. 2 (2025) 173 Research Articles Published in International and National Thai Journals. RELC Jurnal, 47(2), 193- 211. DOI: 10.1177/0033688215609230 Warsidi. (2024). The rhetorical model of Indonesian research article introductions (RAIs) in the law discipline: problems and opportunities. Journal of Language and Literature, 24(2), 315-327. https:// doi.org/10.24071/joll.v24i2.6455 Yonezawa, A. (2015). Connecting higher education research in Japan with the international academic community. Higher Education Policy, 28, 477-493. https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2015.19