(1) The place where we present ourselves as social beings is, first and foremost, in our

interactions with others, and in this, talk has a central role (cf Schegloff, 1987). (2) Most of the
time, cooperation and agreement rather than conflict and disagreement characterize the way
which these interactions are accomplished (cf Heritage, 1984), and we mostly manage to avoid
overt conflict even when we disagree. (3) The way we achieve this is a complex and delicate
matter, and one in which language plays an important role, though of course not an exclusive
one. (4) Much of the time we show ourselves as agreeing and aligning with our interlocutors;
sometimes we reveal through hints and hedges and other ways of talking that we are not in full
agreement; occasionally we will disagree in an unmitigated way. (5) Learning to become a
fully functioning member of a linguistic community will require learning how to do these
delicate manoeuvres, how to adjust our talk to the requirements of the social situation in which
we find ourselves. (6) Even learners who require the language for limited purposes are
likely to want to avoid conflict or embarrassment arising from being blunter than they wish or
indeed politer than they wish. (7) Anyone who desires to have the freedom to present
themselves socially as they would wish will need the appropriate linguistic and interactional
resources. (8) The aim of this paper is to explore one small but important aspect of this
difficult area, namely how to disagree (and agree) in English, and how to choose the language
to pitch the agreement or disagreement at the level wanted. (9) In particular, there will be a
consideration of some of the major resources used in English to agree and disagree both in
ordinary conversation and in institutional talk (see Alcon and Tricker for the use of well in
spoken language and language teaching materials). (10) There is then a brief examination of
some published ELT materials to see how adequately this area is covered. (11) Finally, there
are some suggestions about how such matters might be taught.

To arouse readers’ interest in the research topic, the introduction opens with a centrality claim
stating the critical role of talk in creating our self- image in social interaction “talk has a central
role”. In this sense, the research topic’s territory was initially established by Move 1 Step 1
according to Swale’s model. The second sentence saw the transition of ideas from claiming the
centrality in the first sentence (Move 1 step 1) to generalizing topics (Move 1 step1) in the four
subsequent sentences. The transition was marked by the phrase “most of the time” indicating a
discussion on the general truth about the preference for agreement over disagreement in social
interaction. This discussion was continued in the third sentence which aims to bring the
complexity of expressing disagreement to readers’ attention. In addition, the two sentences are
semantically connected by the use of anaphoric reference “this” (sentence 3), referring to “ways
to avoid conflict” in the preceding sentence. The fourth sentence, then gives further elaboration
on “the complex, delicate” ways to express disagreement. In this sense, the four sentences were
semantically and lexically linked. After establishing territory for the research topic, the
introduction proceeds to move 2 “creating a niche” in the subsequent three sentences (from the
fifth to the seventh sentence).

The use of the verb showing purpose “to explore” and the deictic references to the present text
“this paper” in the eighth sentences clearly signify Move 3 step 1b “announcing present
research”. The introduction section closes with the outline of the research paper’s structure
expressed in the last three sentences. The use of linguistic exponents was, again taken advantage
to explicitly show how the flow of ideas were being structure from “the consideration of some of
the major resources… then a brief examination of some published ELT materials …. finally
suggestions about how such matter might be taught”
 The interaction of discipline and culture in academic writing
STEP 1
(1)All writers use the language of their discourse communities and communicate in
ways deemed appropriate to and by their communities. (2) The rhetorical choices made
STEP 2
by writers are influenced by cultural norms, values and belief systems prevailing in
discourse communities which constitute social context of texts. (3) Studies in academic
rhetoric (Berkenkotter & Huckin, 1995; Berkenkotter, 1990) clearly show that
epistemologies and ideological assumptions of academic discourse are firmly embedded
MOVE 1 in the conventions of academic genres, which reveal and signal the academic discourse
community’s norm, values and social ontology. (4) Research into the development of
rhetorical conventions of scientific writing reveals a close connection between the
formation of a scientific discourse community and the development of discursive
strategies for making scientific claims and the appearance of genre textual features
(Bazerman, 1988). STEP 3
(5) At the same time, the cross- cultural studies of academic text organization (eg

MOVE 2

STEP 2C

MOVE 3 STEP 1A
The introduction opens with a topic generalization of step 2, skipping the first step establishing
the centrality of Move 1. A closer look at the first two sentences reveals the different
communicative functions they are serving. While the first sentence is the statement of knowledge
with the linguistic signals “all writers use”, the second sentence states the phenomena by
discussing the influences of culture- related factors on writers’ rhetorical choices. The opening
section proceeds with the review on a number of previous studies on the research topic (from the
third to the sixth sentence). Noticeably, the review does not just “provide specification of
previous findings and an attribution to the research workers” (Swales, 1990, p. 148) but also
clearly presents two prevailing “stance” (Swales, 1990, p. 148) toward the factor affecting
writers’ rhetorical choice: one proving the effects of conventions in discourse community and the
other showing the culture- related impacts. Although, at the first glance, it would be regarded as
Move 2 step 1A: counter- claiming, the authors’ stance between these two arguments was not
identified in this part. Therefore, it should be assigned to Move 1 step3: review items of previous
researches. The flow of ideas in the introduction continues with a conclusion drawn from the
prior literature review. As many preceding studies have proved the role of either culture or
discourse community in shaping the writing style of a research paper, the authors concluded that
“…therefore… texts are not entirely influenced…. but rather that each writer is at the
intersection between culture and discourse community…”. The next sentence gives an insight
into this intersection which could be subject to cultural and disciplinary differences. This
conclusion seems neither to continue any traditions as no studies on this intersection has been
found before nor counterclaim the previous findings since they did not entirely attribute the
influence of culture or discourse community to the variations in writing style. There are no
linguistic signals of the “gap indicating” purpose, as well. Therefore, the seventh and eighth
sentences are assigned to Move 2 Step 1c: raising an issue or an indirect question that will be
investigated in this research. The last sentence clearly announces the authors’ research purpose
with the verb “to investigate” and the use of deictic reference “this research”; hence it belongs to
Move 3 step 1a.
In overall, the rhetorical structure of this introduction follows a hierarchically prescribed order
and a linear pattern suggested by Swales. In addition, every move is explicitly displayed and
identified on the basis of linguistic exponents used to express moves and corresponding steps
such as “all writers”, “studies in academic rhetoric”, “the cross- cultural studies”, “this
research… to investigate”. Therefore, in contrast with Golebiowski’s (1999) conclusion on
Polish style of writing which is characterized by “lack of linearity, implicitness of style”
(Golebiowski, 1999, p. 238), the moves analysis of this introduction shows the conformity to
Swales’ model in regard with the sequence and the explicitness of establishing moves. In
addition, although three moves in Swales’ model were identified in this introduction, not all of
the steps in each move was utilized.

Golebiowski, Z. (1999). Application of Swales' Model in Analysis of Research Papers by Polish