10.57647/jals.2025.0502.09

A Corpus-Based Analysis of Rhetorical Moves: Insights from High-Scoring TOEFL Integrated Writing

PDF
  • Fariba Jamallivani1,
  • Atefeh Nasrollahi Mouziraji*1,
  • Hamed Barjesteh1,
  1. Department of English language and Literature, Am. C., Islamic Azad University, Amol, Iran

Received: 2025-10-01

Revised: 2025-11-02

Accepted: 2025-12-05

Published in Issue 2025-12-30

Copyright (c) 2025 Fariba Jamallivani, Atefeh Nasrollahi Mouziraji, Hamed Barjesteh (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Jamallivani, F., Nasrollahi Mouziraji, A., & Barjesteh, H. (2025). A Corpus-Based Analysis of Rhetorical Moves: Insights from High-Scoring TOEFL Integrated Writing. Journal of Applied Linguistics Studies, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.57647/jals.2025.0502.09
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

PDF views: 3

Abstract

This study explored the rhetorical organization, frequency distribution, and linguistic characteristics of high-scoring Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) integrated reading and listening-to-write argumentative essays responses. Drawing on a corpus of 100 successful essays, a qualitative, corpus-driven rhetorical move analysis was conducted using MAXQDA 2019 and guided by an adapted model from Swales (1990) and Toulmin (1958). Findings revealed five principal rhetorical moves—Introduction, Summary of Reading, Summary of Listening, Evaluation/Comparison, and Conclusion—each containing functional sub-moves essential for effective integrated writing. Frequency analysis indicated consistency in essential moves, such as presenting the topic (89%), stating the thesis (73%), summarizing the main reading ideas (100%), presenting lecturer counter-claims (100%), and restating key contrasts in the conclusion (91%). Linguistic analysis through AntConc 3.5.8 was interpreted using an adapted framework of Halliday’s (1994) systemic functional linguistics, showing that introductions predominantly used formal academic nouns, modals, and stance verbs to present topics and thesis statements. Meanwhile, summaries of reading and listening employed reporting verbs, domain-specific terms, and contrastive language alongside a mix of present tense, passive constructions, and conditional clauses to achieve clarity and coherence. Pedagogically, the results highlighted the importance of teaching move-based writing strategies that prioritized clear topic framing, objective summarization, and effective contrast while treating explicit evaluation and interpretive insight as optional enhancements.

Keywords

  • Corpus-Based Analysis,
  • Genre Analysis,
  • Linguistic Features,
  • Rhetorical Moves,
  • TOEFL Integrated Writing
PDF

References

  1. Ahmadi, A., & Parhizgar, S. (2017). Coherence errors in Iranian EFL learners' writing: A rhetorical structure theory approach. Journal of Language Horizons, 1(1), 9–37. https://doi.org/10.22051/LGHOR.2017.8588.1011
  2. Aldabbus, S., & Almansouri, E. (2022). Academic writing difficulties encountered by university EFL learners. British Journal of English Linguistics, 10(3), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.37745/bjel.2013
  3. AlGhamdi, G. A. (2025). Mapping the moves: Genre analysis of Saudi EFL students' argumentative essays. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation, 8(4), 193–203. https://doi.org/10.32996/ijllt.2025.6.4.23
  4. Bhatti, I. A., Mustafa, S., & Azher, M. (2019). Genre analysis of research article abstract in linguistics and literature: A cross disciplinary study. International Journal of English Linguistics, 9(4), 42–50. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v9n4p42
  5. Carson, J. (2001). A task analysis of reading and writing in academic contexts. In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading-writing connections (pp. 48–83). The University of Michigan Press.
  6. Derakhshan, A., & Karimian Shirejini, R. (2020). An investigation of the Iranian EFL learners’ perceptions towards the most common writing problems. Sage Open, 1–10. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/2158244020919523
  7. Educational Testing Service. (2017). Test and score data summary for TOEFL-iBT tests. Retrieved from www.ets.org/s/toefl/pdf/94227_unlweb.pdf
  8. Frear, M. W., & Bitchener, J. (2015). The effects of cognitive task complexity on writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 45 –57. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.009
  9. Guo, L. (2011). Product and process in TOEFL iBT independent and integrated writing tasks: An investigation of construct validity. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Georgia State University.
  10. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). Edward Arnold.
  11. Hamp-Lyons, L., & Kroll, B. (1996). Issues in ESL writing assessment: An overview. College ESL, 6(1), 52 –72.
  12. Hosseini, M., Taghizadeh, M. E., Abedin, M. J. Z., & Naseri, E. (2013). In the importance of EFL learners' writing skill: Is there any relation between writing skill and content score of English essay test? International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 6(1), 1–12. https:// doi.org/10.18052/www.scipress.com/ILSHS.6.1
  13. Huang, Y., & Jun Zhang, L. (2020). Does a process-genre approach help improve students’ argumentative writing in English as a foreign language? Findings from an intervention study. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 36(4), 339 –364. https:// doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2019.1649223
  14. Huff, K., Powers, D. E., Kantor, R. N., Mollaun, P., Nissan, S., & Schedl, M. (2008). Prototyping a new test. In C. A. Chapelle, M. K. Enright, & J. M. Jamieson (Eds.), Building a validity argument for the test of English as a foreign language (pp. 187 –225). Routledge.
  15. Hyland, K. (1990). A genre description of the argumentative essay. RELC Journal, 21(1), 66 –78.
  16. Imtiaz, Z., & Mahmood, M. A. (2014). Genre analysis of argumentative essays of Pakistani EFL learners. Genre, 5(30), 95 –100.
  17. Jones, J. (2007). Losing and finding coherence in academic writing. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 2(2), 125 –148.
  18. Jwa, S. (2020). Korean EFL students’ argumentative writing in L1 and L2: A comparative move analysis study. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 19(2), 217–230. https:// doi.org/10.1108/ETPC-01-2019-0010
  19. Kanestion, A., & Kaur, M. (2021). A corpus-based investigation of moves in argument stage of argumentative essay. EPRA International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 7(9), 199–204. https:// doi.org/10.36713/epra8475
  20. Kaya, F., & Yağız, O. (2020). Move analysis of research article abstracts in the field of ELT: A comparative study. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 16(1), 390 –404.
  21. Kozhakhmet, E., Tulepova, S., & Stepanov, I. (2022). The importance of writing skills for EFL learners: Common errors and ways of improving. Педагогика и Методы Обучения [Pedagogy and Teaching Methods], 61(4), 14–20. https://doi.org/10.47344/sdu20bulletin.v61i4.859
  22. Liu, H., Ismail, L., & Ahmad, N. K. (2024). Rhetorical move-step analysis of argumentative essays by Chinese EFL undergraduate students. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 14(7), 2063 –2072. https://doi.org/ 10.17507/tpls.1407.13
  23. Martı́n, P. M. (2003). A genre analysis of English and Spanish research paper abstracts in experimental social sciences. English for Specific Purposes, 22(1), 25 –43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(01)00033-3
  24. Maulani, A. (2021). The use of Genre Based Approach (GBA) to improve students’ writing descriptive text. Channing: Journal of English Language Education and Literature, 6(1), 6 –9. https://doi.org/10.33394/jtp. v9i1.9459
  25. Naghdipour, B. (2014). An evaluation of a suggested instructional writing model in freshmen English writing classes in Iran [Doctoral dissertation, Eastern Mediterranean University].
  26. Paltridge, B. (2014). Genre and second-language academic writing. Language Teaching, 47(3), 303–318. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444814000068
  27. Payant, C., McDonough, K., Uludag, P., & Lindberg, R. (2019). Predicting integrated writing task performance: Source comprehension, prewriting planning, and individual differences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 40, 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.06.001
  28. Pessoa, S., Mitchell, T. D., & Miller, R. T. (2017). Emergent arguments: A functional approach to analyzing student challenges with the argument genre. Journal of Second Language Writing, 38, 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.10.013
  29. Plakans, L., & Gebril, A. (2013). Using multiple texts in an integrated writing assessment: Source text use as a predictor of score. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.02.003
  30. Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 43, 1–32. https://doi.org/ 10.1515/iral.2005.43.1.1
  31. Rosmala, D. (2024). Investigation of rhetorical strategies in writing English argumentative essay by Indonesian EFL and Native English students [Doctoral dissertation, University of York].
  32. Setyorini, A. (2017). Moves analysis on abstracts written by the students in academic writing class. Lensa: Kajian Kebahasaan, Kesusastraan, dan Budaya [Lensa: Studies in Linguistics, Literature, and Culture], 7(2), 167–178.
  33. Shin, S. Y., & Ewert, D. (2015). What accounts for integrated reading-to-write task scores? Language Testing, 32(2), 259–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532214560257
  34. Shokrpour, N., & Fallahzadeh, M. H. (2007). A survey of the students and interns’ EFL writing problems in Shiraz University of Medical Sciences. Asian EFL Journal, 9(1), 147–163.
  35. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 185 –211. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/136216889700100302
  36. Slomp, D. H. (2012). Challenges in assessing the development of writing ability: Theories, constructs and methods. Assessing Writing, 17(2), 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2012.02.001
  37. Söğüt, S., Civan, İ., & Belli, S. A. (2024). Exploring genre awareness: L2 earners’ voices in tertiary-level writing contexts. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 14(2), 612–629. https://doi.org/10.18039/ajesi.1366618
  38. Swales, J. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge University Press.
  39. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis. Cambridge University Press.
  40. Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2009). Abstracts and the writing of abstracts. University of Michigan Press.
  41. Taguchi, N., Crawford, W., & Wetzel, D. Z. (2013). What linguistic features are indicative of writing quality? A case of argumentative essays in a college composition program. Tesol Quarterly, 47(2), 420–430. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.91
  42. Thaksanan, P., & Chaturongakul, P. (2023). Enhancing EFL students’ performance and genre awareness in academic writing through genre-based instruction. Arab World English Journal, 14, 295–311. https:// doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol14no2.21
  43. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
  44. Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge University Press.
  45. Weigle, S. C., & Parker, K. (2012). Source text borrowing in an integrated reading/writing assessment. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(2), 118–133. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.004
  46. Wilder, L. (2012). Rhetorical strategies and genre conventions in literary studies: Teaching and writing in the disciplines. SIU Press.
  47. Zare, J., & Naseri, Z. S. (2021). Communicative moves in English conceptual review article abstracts: a genre-based corpus-driven discourse analytic approach. Language Related Research, 12(5), 489–520.