Document Type : Research Paper


1 Shahid CHamran University of Ahvaz

2 دانشگاه


Motivated by the need to explore the introductory sections of textbooks, the present study attempted to scrutinize three realizations of academic introductions, namely, Preface, Introduction, and Foreword in terms of their functions and potential generic structures in light of Swales’s (1990) views of genre. Moreover, the study aimed to investigate genre-mixing as an interdiscursivity element across the above-mentioned texts (Bhatia, 1993). In so doing, a heuristic analysis was adopted to achieve a less biased view of the nature of the variations of introduction and to proceed systematically in developing a potential generic model. Seventy five text samples were extracted to identify the variations in exploiting the moves across the datasets under study. The findings of the study revealed almost similar schematic frameworks for the three manifestations of introductions. Moreover, examining meta-discursive and rhetorical devices across the datasets indicated the ways in which book introduction writers successfully appropriate genre resources and mix a promotional with an informative purpose.


Abdollahzadeh, E., & Salarvand, H. (2013). Book prefaces in basic, applied, and social sciences: A genre-based study. Journal of World Applied Sciences, 28(11), 1618-1626.
Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bhatia, V. (1993).  Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. New York: Longman.
Bhatia, V. (1997). Genre mixing in academic introductions. Journal of English for Specific Purposes, 16(3), 181-195.
Bhatia, V. (2002). Applied genre analysis: A multi-perspective model. Ibérica, 4, 3-19.
Bhatia, V. (2004). Worlds of written discourse: A genre-based view. London: Continuum.
Bunton, D. (2002). Generic moves in PhD thesis introductions. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 57–75). London: Longman.
Cameron, D. (2001). Working with spoken discourse. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Cheng, W. (2009). Income/interest/net: Using internal criteria to determine the aboutness of a text. In Aijmer, K. (Ed.), Corpora and language teaching (pp. 157-177). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20, 37–46.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analyses for the behavioral sciences (2nd Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dudley-Evans, T. (1986). Genre analysis: An investigation of the introduction and discussion sections of MSc dissertations. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Talking about text: Studies presented to David Brazil on his retirement (pp. 128-145). Birmangham: ELR.
Dudley-Evans, A. & Henderson, W. (1990). The organization of article introductions: evidence of change in economics writing. In A. Dudley-Evans, & W. Henderson (Eds.), The language of economics: The analysis of economics discourse (pp. 67-78). London: Modern English Publications in association with the British Council.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and text: Linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 3, 193-217.
Gamaroff, R. (2000). Rater reliability in language assessment: The bugs of all bears. System, 28,31-35.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold.
Hopkins, A., & Dudley-Evans, T. (1988). A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes, 7(2), 113–22.
Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (2000). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory course books. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 3–26.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Pearson.
Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research article. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 207-226.
Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091–1112.
Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Hyon, S. (1996). Genre in three traditions: Implications for ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 693-722.
Jalilifar, A. (2008). Generic and linguistic analysis of English and Persian blurbs. Greek Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24, 79-106.
Jalilifar, A. (2010). Research article introductions: Sub-disciplinary variations in applied linguistics. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 2(2), 29-55.
Kuhi, D. (2008). An analysis of move structure of textbook prefaces. Asian ESP Journal, 7, 63-78.
Kuo, C. (1999).The use of personal pronouns: Role relationships in scientific journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 121-138.
Lindeberg, A. (2004). Promotion and politeness: Conflicting scholarly rhetoric in three disciplines. Turku: Abo Akademi University Press.
Martin, J. (2000). Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 142–177). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Martin, J., Christie, F., & Rothery, J. (1987). Social processes in education: A reply to Sawyer and Watson (and others). In I. Reid (Ed.), The place of genre in learning: Current debates (pp.35-45). Geelong, Australia: Deakin University Press.
Nwogu, K. (1997). The medical research paper: Structure and functions. English for Specific Purposes, 16(2), 119-38.
Ozturk, I. (2007). The textual organization of research article introductions in applied linguistics: Variability within a single discipline. English for Specific Purposes, 26(1), 25-38.
Paltridge, B. (1997). Genre, frames, and writing in research setting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Samraj, B. (2008). A discourse analysis of master’s thesis across disciplines with a focus on introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 55-67.
Shohamy, E., Gordon, C., & Kraemer, R. (1992). The effect of raters background and training on the reliability of direct writing tests. Modern Language Journal, 76, 27-33.
Sorayyaei Azar, A. (2012). The self-promotion of academic textbooks in the preface section: A genre analysis. Journal of the Spanish Association of Anglo-American Studies, 34(2), 147-165.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Swales, J. (1981). Aspects of article introductions. Birmingham, England: Language Studies Unit, University of Aston.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. (1995).The role of the textbook in ESP writing research. English for Specific Purposes, 14(1), 3-18.
Swales, J. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tang, R., & John, S. (1999). The “I” in identity: Exploring writer identity in student academic writing through the first person pronoun. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 523-539.
Thompson, S. (1994). Frameworks and contexts: A genre-based approach to analyzing lecture introductions. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 86-171.
Zepetnek, S. T. D. (2010). Towards a taxonomy of the preface in English, French, and German. Neohelicon, 37(1), 75-90.