265

English Research Articles Written by Indonesian Academics:

Coping with Common Practices and Rhetorical Diversity

Ani Rakhmawati, The University of New England, Australia

Abstract
This paper discusses English research articles (RAs) written by Indonesian academics in
terms of the generic structure and rhetorical features. The corpus was 50 RAs of applied
linguistics discipline that were published in the accredited journals in Indonesia. The
investigation reveals that the generic feature of English RAs published in the accredited
journals in Indonesia follow the conventional format of English RAs; however, the
common practices of the writing and publishing English RAs in Indonesia suggest that
rhetorical diversity has evolved. It is assumed that the diversity of rhetorical features in
the writing English RAs is influenced by the Indonesian writing tradition and cultural
background. This detailed analysis is essential in order to grasp important differences of
the rhetorical strategies between English RAs written by Indonesian academics and
English RAs for international publication.
Keywords: research article, rhetorical features, rhetorical diversity

Introduction
English is the most important language that has power and effectiveness in dissemination
of research findings (Swales, 1990, 2004). According to Gibbs (1995) valuable work that
is published in unfamiliar languages is often simply lost. As the primary aims of writing
of scientific article should be to have as many people as possible read it, understand it
and be influenced by it (Lindsay , 2011, p.5), the role of English as the main
communicative medium has left little choice for non-English speaking researchers but to
publish in the language that reaches a wider scope of readerships, that is in English.
However, the writing and publishing of English research articles (RAs) in international
mainstream journals has received a lot of consideration as it is regarded as difficult task
for writers of non-native English speaking background to accomplish (Canagarajah,
2010; Moreno, 2008)). There are many requirements in order to meet certain conditions
set by the English academic discourse community. This difficulty has been attributed to
different traditions, norms, first languages and cultural backgrounds that lead to different
practices of writing and publishing research articles in many non-Anglophone countries
(Ahmad, 1997, Bhatia, 2008, Canagarajah, 2002, Cruz, 2008, Fakhri, 2009, Moreno
2010). Furthermore, these different traditions and norms between English and non-
English speaking countries constrain the opportunities of non-English speaking writers to
be involved in worldwide discourse community conversation (Salager-Meyer, 2008).
Previous studies of English RAs written by Indonesian academics reported in Mirahayuni
(2002) reveals that authors of Indonesian RAs are familiar enough with the conventional
generic structure of English RAs based on the IMRD (Introduction-Method-Result-
Discussion) framework (Swales, 1990). Another study conducted by Safnil (2000)
reveals that the structure of RAs in Indonesia is basically similar to the organizational
 266

structure of undergraduate theses that have already been established in the Indonesian
academic environment. In general, the core sections of RAs written by Indonesian
academics does not differ distinctly from those written by English speaking academics
(Basthomi, 2006). However, Mirahayuni (2002) found that there are some unfamiliar
sections used, such as a section of Benefit of the Study and Recommendation that are
not found in English RAs by native speakers. The present study assumed that English
RAs published in the accredited journals in Indonesia have been written following the
conventional IMRD format (Swales, 1990).

Being non-native English writers, Indonesian academics have experienced some

difficulties of writing and publishing English research articles. This appears from the
relatively low number of Indonesian scientists publishing in international journals
compared to other Asian countries, such as Thailand, Japan, and China. This concern has
been expressed by the Indonesian Government, in particular The Directorate of Higher
Education (henceforth called DIKTI). In addition, the low rate of Indonesian publication
might be due to the fact that indexing services, such as the Scientific Citation Index (SCI)
in America, index only English language research. Canagarajah (2010) emphasizes other
challenges of non-English speaking authors appear because wider or international
contribution may be restricted as researchers are limited by the number of journals
available at their endorsement for spreading the information due to the language in which
they write their research reports. From international editors point of view, however, the
influence of the first language practice is assumed to be a factor that may prevent the
acceptance in order to gain international readership (Flowerdew, 2002, Moreno, 2008,
2011).

Under the Republic Indonesia Act no 24/2009 of the status of Flag, Language, and
National Emblem (a.k.a. Undang-undang RI nomor 24 tahun 2009 tentang Bendera,
Bahasa, dan Lambang Negara serta Lagu Kebangsaan), the writing and publishing of
RAs in English becomes the main consideration for Indonesian academics. It is stated in
the verse no 35 sequence 1 (Pasal 35 ayat 1) that the Indonesian language should be used
as the compulsory medium in writing and publishing research articles. However, this
restriction is followed by a condition stated in Pasal 35 ayat 2 that writing and
publication for a specific research purpose can be presented in a local language or in a
foreign language. This recent policy of the function of English as a foreign language in
Indonesia opens more spaces for Indonesian academics to be involved actively in the
world scientific conversations through writing and publishing RAs in English. In
response, more and more journals in Indonesia are recently becoming bilingual journals
to allow an equal opportunity for RAs published in English and in the Indonesian
language.

This current demand has been challenging for the Indonesian academic environment. In
recent times, journals in Indonesia have been publishing research articles in both the
Indonesian language and in English. Most of the accredited journals in Indonesia have
now become bilingual journals where both the Indonesian RAs and English RAs have the
same opportunity to be published. In addition, there are journals that have been designed
as monolingual journals that only publish RAs in English, such as TEFLIN (Journal of
Teaching English a Foreign Language in Indonesia), Indonesian JELT (Journal of
 267

English Language Teaching), and K@ta the biennial journal of English Language
Teaching in Indonesia. This publication of English research articles only is intended to
provide other means for Indonesian academic to express their work, research, and
commitment through English journals.
This paper aims to discuss the common practices and rhetorical diversity of composing
English RAs written by Indonesian academics, which were published in the accredited
journals in Indonesia.

Literature Review
Developing a good English research article requires a certain organizational structure to
ensure that the paper can be read and understood clearly by the targeted readers of a
particular scientific community. The common sections that conventionally appear in
English RAs are known as the Introduction, the Method, the Result, and the Discussion
(shortened as IMRD). This IMRD format, which is derived from authentic English texts
(Swales, 1990), now has been used as the basic organizational structure of RAs written in
English in many non-English speaking countries including Indonesia. Regardless of the
discipline and the model the writers used, there are just three immutable characteristics of
good scientific writing that distinguish it from all other literature, namely: precision,
clarity, and brevity (Lindsay, 2011, p. 4).

As well as the use of IMRD format in structuring RAs, there may be other organizational
features set by journal guidelines to meet the expectations of the target audiences of the
journals. The generic structure of English RAs can be organized in various ways in
different disciplines, such as in social sciences, humanities, and in computer sciences or
information technology. In the discipline of computer sciences and information
technology, the structure of RAs is commonly organized through Abstract, Introduction,
Material and Methods, Results, and Discussion or shortened as the AIMRaD structure
or its variation of the AIRDaM format, where the Method and material is positioned
as the final section (Cargill & O'Connor, 2009). In addition, Lindsay (2011, p. 28) argues
that some scientific journals are now relegating the Material and Methods section to a
sort of appendix at the end of the article and presenting it in smaller font. This change of
structuring RAs suggests that the core section of RAs in different disciplines may vary
considerably. In English RAs written by Indonesian academics, the core sections of the
IMRD format have evolved in a more varied section with subtitles.

In regard to English RAs written by Indonesian academics, it was found that all RAs
begin with an abstract and finish with a reference list. In between, there are sections that
are commonly called Introduction, Method, Result, Discussion, and Conclusion
(IMRDC). It appears that the generic IMRD structure has been broadly followed;
however, it was found that English RAs written by Indonesian academics are presented in
a slightly different style. The investigation of RAs published in some of the accredited
journals in Indonesia reveals that variation in styles among journals is noticeable. This
variation in the surface structure of RAs written in English includes the ways of writing
the abstract and the organization of subtitled sections.
 268

It appears that each of the accredited journals maintain their own journal house-style as
part of the journal tradition. They provide guidelines in order to give general groundwork
that must be followed by contributors. The specific guidelines to contributors include
some details and technical requirements of how to write an article that fits to the journal
style. Indeed, most of the journals accept different kinds of articles for submission, for
example, research reports, conceptual papers, literature reviews, theoretical essays as well
as a book reviews. Accordingly, these diverse contents might influence the way the
sections are labeled as well as the types of subheadings within these sections.
This discursive practice might have been influenced by a demand for publishing RAs
written in English. This demand changed the editorial policy of some journals that now
prefer publication of RAs in English. To answer the challenge, nowadays most of the
accredited journals in Indonesia are becoming bilingual journals, which give more
priority for RAs written in English. Meanwhile, there are some journals that are initiated
as monolingual journals which publish only RAs written in English, such as the journal
of Teaching English as a Foreign Language in Indonesian (TEFLIN Journal), Cultural
and English Language Teaching Journal (CELT), K@ta Biennial Journal, and the
Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching (JELT). In this study, therefore, the
selected sample of English RAs are taken from both monolingual and bilingual journals
which have been certified as accredited journals by The Indonesian Institute of Sciences,
known as LIPI, (Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia) and the DIKTI.

The common practices of writing and publishing English RAs in Indonesia

The writing and publishing of English RAs in Indonesia is considered relatively a new
tradition. Although most of the accredited journals have started publishing English RAs,
the majority of the target readers are Indonesia academics. This condition might influence
the editing process of the rhetorical variety use and the authors preference that is familiar
to the Indonesian discourse community. As reported in (Basthomi, 2007), the
editors/reviewers tend to be modest in that they have restricted their imagined readers to
be those in the confines of the Indonesian setting and, subsequently, have not thus far
inculcated the Indonesian writers of English research articles to entertain on the need to
orient their English RAs to the larger context of international audiences.
The first evidence of variation in English RAs written by Indonesian academics is found
in the Abstract section. In terms of physical appearance, all the English RAs are preceded
by abstract followed by key words. However, the abstracts were written in three different
ways, i.e. in Indonesian, in English, or both in Indonesian and in English. This practice is,
in fact, explicitly written in some of the bilingual journals guidelines (e.g. Bahasa dan
Seni, Humaniora, Linguitsik Indonesia, and Kajian Linguistik dan Sastra). For instance,
the guidelines of some journals state that if the RAs are written in English, the abstract
must be in Indonesian, or both in Indonesian and English. This regulation is basically to
facilitate the Indonesian readers that may have difficulty understanding English texts. It
is supposed that if RAs are written in English, the Indonesian reader still can grasp the
general content provided by an abstract written in Indonesian. In the case of monolingual
journals that only publish RAs in English like TEFLIN Journal, JELT, and K@ta,
however, the abstract is written only in English. This practice might be motivated by the
 269

fact that readers of those journals mostly belong to the English teaching discourse
community and their associations.
The abstract section becomes one of the sections of RAs that have been given specific
attention by most of the accredited journals, that is, by setting a limit to the number of the
words, for example, no more than 200 words (as specified in Jurnal Ilmu Pendididkan,
Kajian Linguistik dan Sastra, and TEFLIN Journal), 50 75 words in Humaniora, 75
150 words in Bahasa dan Seni, while Linguistik Indonesia has settled with more and
less 150 words. In sum, all English RAs employ the abstract section but have three
variations, those written in English and Indonesian only or both in English and
Indonesian.
Following the abstract, the majority of the accredited journals in Indonesia arranges the
Introduction of RAs in two ways: presented with or without the explicit label of
Introduction. This evidence was found in several journals, i.e. TEFLIN Journal, Jurnal
Ilmu Pedidikan, Bahasa dan Seni, and Humaniora. As written in the journals guidelines,
those journals require the writers not to use an explicit subheading for the introductory
section; instead, they are required to directly present the introduction after the Abstract.
On the other hand, other journals, such as Linguitsik Indonesia, and Kajian Linguitik dan
Sastra, require authors to write an explicit title of the introduction. However, none of the
accredited journals provide specific information on how the Introduction must be written;
i.e. the journals do not specify what certain communicative purpose should be
accomplished or a certain model to which the authors should conform.
Several guidelines provide details about what should be included in the Introduction
section. As stated in TEFLIN Journal, for example, the introduction should be written
without heading, and must contain review of related literature and research purposes. The
other journals, for instance Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan, require that the Introduction section
should provide particular elements, such as background of the study, a little bit (sedikit)
of literature review, and aims of the study; while the journal of Bahasa dan Seni requires
review of the most important and relevant theoretical concepts and aims of the study to
be presented in the Introduction section. Some other journals have similar instructions,
but among the accredited journals, Journal of Linguistik Indonesia has the most limited
information in its journal guidelines, which simply explains about the RAs division, the
length of article, how to write the abstract and how to write citations. Besides these two
variations, the introduction section is sometimes replaced with another label,
Background and Background of the Study.
The variation also appears in presenting the Method section. In the accredited journals in
Indonesia, the method section is labeled almost uniformly as Method. This section is
usually written in a very brief and straightforward manner in one or two paragraphs.
However, in the end of the Method section, some RAs provide extra subtitles to particular
constituents of the Method, e.g. the Data, Research procedure, Questionnaire,
Observation, or the Interview procedure. As seen in D-ERA/RDI, for example, an article
published in Linguistik Indonesia (August 2006), the authors altered the method section
into three subsections, namely: The Aims of the study, The data, and Contrastive
Rhetoric.
 270

Although some authors state that the articles are based on research, many of RAs have
been presented with different labeling conventions using other terms that might be
considered to accommodate more specific content focus of the section, e.g. Aims of the
study, Data, Sample, and Research Procedure. Such variations might have been practiced
as a flexible house-style, for example, in Humaniora and Linguistik Indonesia. The use of
various titles within the method section shows that uniformity of the sections title may
not receive specific attention from both the writer and editorial member who is
responsible for the editing of the article.
This variation is continued to the end of the RAs sections, such as in the result and
discussion sections. The results section and the method section of RAs seem to be
generally regarded as a relatively unproblematic part of RA development (Holmes, 1997,
Lindsay, 2011). The result section describes the factual findings of the research
conducted and the description is quite individual in regard to the focus of study. In
Indonesia, however, it is probable that the results and the discussion sections are
presented side-by-side or together into one section called Results and Discussion
because the findings need to be discussed and interpreted immediately.
The Result section is regarded as a central section of RAs in the IMRD model; however,
in the accredited journals in Indonesia, this section is mostly presented together under the
Results and Discussion section. It was found that many of these combined sections then
were divided again with the subtitle Result or Findings before commencing to the
Discussion section. The Result section of English RAs published in Indonesia when used
as a freestanding title is labeled as Findings such as found in Linguistik Indonesia,
however, the Result when it comes together with the discussion becomes the Findings
and Discussion, which is frequently used as the preferred label in other accredited
journals such as TEFLIN Journal and Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan.
Besides applying the IMRD convention, the Discussion section of some journals has been
divided into subsections based on the focus of research findings. This practice can be
found in the majority of the accredited journals, such as, Kajian Linguistik dan Sastra,
Linguistik Indonesia, and Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan. Several RAs present a lengthy
interpretation of the research findings that amounts to more than 65% of the whole
articles. While the Discussion is considered very important section, several RAs in
journal of Linguistik Indonesia have been presented without the discussion or the closing
section; instead, they moved directly from presentation of the result section to the
reference list. This evidence shows that several RAs were not carefully edited or double
checked before they were published.

The final sections of RAs written by Indonesian authors were the Conclusion, but
variations in the heading as well as the content exist in some RAs. Although evidence is
rare, some RAs finalize their structure heading with Closing remarks instead of the
Conclusion, but this section usually contains the conclusions and suggestions. This
evidence is the most common practice found in the Indonesian RAs that labels the final
sections as the Conclusion and Suggestion. In native English RAs, however, the
recommendation, if any, will be put as one of the rhetorical feature in the Discussion
section. Swales (1990, p. 173) maintained that because of the highly competitive research
grant, the authors might not willingly share any recommendation for future research.
 271

However in Indonesia, research is expected to contribute some kind of practical outcome

that can be implemented by the Indonesian government or community. Therefore, the
inclusion of suggestion and implication in the final section of RAs is urged. Thus, instead
of IMRD format, English RAs publishes in accredited journals in Indonesia are organized
as I-M-(R&D)-C&S format and its extra sub-titles variation.

Rhetorical Diversity of English RAs written by Indonesian academics

Swales (1990) has been advised that the reference of previous research should be
integrated as specific rhetorical feature in the introduction section. However, many
English RAs written by Indonesian academics organized a separate sub-section of
Literature Review and its variations with content-based sub-headings following the
Introduction section. The Literature Review is usually placed at the end of the
Introduction section after the Introduction is completed. It was mainly found in journals
of Linguistik Indonesia and Humaniora, but occasionally also appears in Bahasa dan
Seni. For example, it is seen in article The Rhetoric of Article Abstract: A sweep through
the literature and preliminary study published in the journal Bahasa dan Seni in 2006.
This article has a distinct feature as it has five sub-titles after the Introduction is
completed. These sub-titles are rewritten below:
Abstract
Introduction (without title)
Of Guidelines for Abstract Writing
Some Unsettled Questions
Some More Conclusive Aspects
Some Remaining Issues
Of Abstract Writing By Indonesians: A Case
The Data: The First Sentences of Abstracts
Findings and Discussion
Concluding Remarks
References

As seen above, apparently, this article does not strictly follow the IMRD format.
Although it is based on research, the article has been organized following a different
structure from the conventional IMRD research article format, such as The Data instead
of Method and Concluding Remarks instead of Conclusion. In between the Introduction
and Method sections, this article provides five subsections following the introduction
section more explicitly presented by focusing on the content-based subtitles, including a
literature review that is covered in the section Of Guidelines for Abstract Writing.
This practice of giving more explicit subtitles following the introduction, however, does
not change the basic structure of the whole RA organization convention. A further
reading of each of the five subsections shows a comparable communicative function of
Moves and Steps of the CARS model of the Introduction section suggested by Swales
(1990, p. 137), which includes the similarity of one or two communicative purposes:
Of Guidelines for Abstract Writing
Making topic generalization (Step 2/Move I)
 272

Reviewing items of previous research (Step 3/Move I)

Some Unsettled Questions
Question raising (Step 1C/Move II)
Some More Conclusive Aspects
Claiming centrality (Step 1/M1)
Some Remaining Issues
Indicating a gap (Step
Of Abstract Writing By Indonesians: A Case
Announcing present research (Step 1B/M3)
All of the subsections have the same communicative functions intended in a conventional
English RA introduction identified by Swales (1990). Furthermore, this difference in
what is made explicit in sub-titles pertains to the rhetorical features of the introduction
itself that can guide readers to have easier comprehensive understanding of specific
information. Therefore, this subtitling technique might possibly assist readers more focus
with the RA structure and rhetorical features. It is important to note that this uncommon
RA format is an exceptional case but such a kind of variety in RA section headings are
found in several journals, especially in Humaniora and Linguistik Indonesia, where the
IMRD format is not followed in a strict manner.
In English RAs written by native speakers, Swales (1990) identified four core sections
that are well known as the IMRD format of RAs organization. Thus, sections other than
the Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion, might be considered as a dissonance
of the conventional format. Whilst some authors tried to consistently follow the IMRD
format, the majority of English RAs published in Indonesia end up with the Conclusion
and completed with Suggestions. This specific practice actually encourages the
Indonesian discourse community because the community has high expectations of its
academics in general to provide recommendations of every research finding to be
implemented to solve problems faced by Indonesian.
These additional sections that have been used by Indonesian academics in writing English
RAs might be transferred from their writing tradition in the first language as well as from
the Indonesian spoken convention, e.g. if there is an opening section, there be closing
words of wishing and suggestions to mark the finished presentation. In some international
English journals, however, the Conclusion and Implications that has been inserted as a
section following the Discussion is suspected as a frustrated response to so many
authors who try to discuss their works without concluding anything (Lindsay, 2011, p.
41). Furthermore, Lindsay argues that these journals that have an obligatory section for
Conclusion pose a problem to good writers because good writers will already have the
conclusion as an integral part of their discussion.
However, in a country like Indonesia, multiple practices of organizing RAs in scientific
journals might be considered as part of the condition of the Indonesian people who
naturally live in the unity of diversity. Although they have competence in performing
English writing, as many of the authors have doctoral degrees from overseas, the
Indonesian origin of a multicultural background cannot be abandoned. These practices
might also reflect the Indonesian recognition and acceptance of the cultural, ethnical,
linguistic, and religious diversity of its people that is represented in the Indonesian
 273

national motto Bhnineka Tunggal Ika meaning unity in diversity (Purwadi, 2007). To
deal with this circumstance, practising diversification of rhetorical features might be
considered as part of becoming a loyal member of the Indonesian discourse community.
In line with this spirit, Susilo (2007) advises us to stop thinking that deviations occur in
the texts of multilingual writers as errors. Instead, they are part of the multicultural
background of writers that cannot be separated from having a multilingual competence.
Strictly speaking, there is a movement away from the assumption that rhetorical
deviations from such native speaker rhetorical norms are seen as signs of un-proficiency
experienced or interference (Canagarajah, 2006). Concerning to this phenomenon, Susilo
(2007) emphasizes that the new rhetoric view argues that such rhetorical deviations from
the normative should not be considered as signs of interference for the bi/multilingual
writers, but rather as rhetorical choices that could become critical or alternate discourse.
This view respects the bi/multilingualism norms as a great prospect of complex identity
that might be considered as the basis of contrastive text analysis.
The analysis concludes that a variety in organizing English RAs structure is apparent in
the Indonesian accredited journals in terms of the generic structure and rhetorical
variation, but the main surface structure of IMRD+C section of RAs are consistently
maintained. English RAs written by Indonesian academics do not strictly follow the
IMRD format, but give extra sub-sections title following the main sections. The variety
of English RAs generic structure might be due to the different journal guidelines that
have been preserved as their own house-style. Another salient variation found in English
RAs written by Indonesian academics is in the Conclusion section that is accompanied by
the Suggestion section written explicitly as the final sub-heading section. This practice
might be influenced by the Indonesian research tradition that the research findings should
provide a direct solution for an identified problem in the community.
Finally, this rhetorical diversification might be result of acceptance by the Indonesian
research community agreed upon the government policy as well as the guidelines set by
the accredited journals that meets the Indonesian discourse community expectations. In
addition, the diversity of rhetorical features in writing English RAs might evolve from the
permissive attitude of the Indonesian norms that respect the diversity in written style.
This leniency of the rhetorical features variation use in writing English RAs might not be
seen as a sign of lacking awareness either by writers or editorial board members;
however, Indonesian writers wishing to publish in international publication face
uncompromising and restricted guidelines of English RAs.

References

Ahmad, U. K. (1997). Research Article Introduction in Malay: Rhetoric in an Emerging

Research Community. In A. Duszak (Ed.), Culture and Styles of Academic
Discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Basthomi, Y. (2006). The Rhetoric of Research Article Introductions Written in English

by Indonesians. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Program Pascasarjana
Universitas Negeri Malang.
 274

Basthomi, Y. (2007). Learning from the discursive practice of reviewing and editing:
English research article publication in Indonesia. Jurnal Pendidikan dan
Pembelajaran 14(1), 65 - 74.

Bhatia, V. K. (2008). Genre Analysis, ESP and professional practice. English for Specific
Purposes, 27, 161 174.

Canagarajah, A. S. (2002). A Geopolitics of Academic Writing. Pittsburgh: University of

Pittsburgh Press.

Canagarajah, A. S. (2006). Negotiating the local in English as a lingua franca. Annual

Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 197 -218.

Canagarajah, A. S. (2010). Internationalizing knowledge construction and dissemination.

The Modern Language Journal, 94(4), 661 - 664.

Cargill, M., & O'Connor, P. (2009). Writing specific research articles: Strategy and
steps. Oxford UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Cruz, I. R. (2008). Challenging ISI Thomson Scientific's Journal Citation Reports:

Deconstructing "Objective", "Impact", and "Global". Libraries and the Academy,
8(1), 7 -13.

Fakhri, A. (2009). Rhetorical variation in Arabic academic discourse: Humanities versus

law. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 306 - 324.

Gibbs, W. W. (1995). Lost science in the Third World. Scientific American - SCI Amer,
273(2), 92 - 99.

Holmes, R. (1997). Genre analysis and the social sciences: An investigation of the
structure of research article discussion sections in three disciplines. English for
Specific Purposes, 16(4), 321 - 337.

Lindsay, D. (2011). Scientific Writing = Thinking in Words. Coolingwood VIC Australia:

CSIRO Publishing.

Mirahayuni, N. K. (2002). Investigating Textual Structure in Native and Non-native

English Research Articles: Strategy differences between English and Indonesian
writers. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. The University of New South Wales
Sydney Australia.

Moreno, A. I. (2008). The importance of comparable corpora in cross-cultural studies. .

In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout & W. Rozycki (Eds.), Contrastive Rhetoric:
Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric (pp. 25 - 41). Amsterdam: John Benjamis.
 275

Moreno, A. I. (2010). Researching into English for research publication purposes from an
applied intercultural perspective. Utrech Studies in Language and
Communication, 22, 57 - 71.

Purwadi. (2007). Filsafat Jawa dan Kearifan Lokal. [The Javanese Philospohy and the
Local Perspicacious]. Yogyakarta: Panji Pustaka.

Safnil. (2000). Rhetorical Structure Analysis of the Indonesian research articles.

Unpublished Ph. D thesis. The Australian National University. Canberra.

Salager-Meyer, F. (2008). Scientific publishing in peripheral (a.k.a. developing)

countries: Challenges for the future. Journal of English for Academic Purposes
7(2), 121 -132.

Susilo. (2007). Viewing Contrastive Rhetoric from a post modern perspective: Finding an
implication to the second language pedagogy. Cultural and English Language
Teaching, 7(2), 99 - 109.

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Swales, J. M. (2004). Research Genres: Explorations and Applications. New York:

Cambridge University Press.