Proof-of-concept tool enhances academic writing instruction in multilingual settings, suggesting implications for future applications.
Corpus tools have long been recognised as useful for teaching academic writing, particularly in multilingual and cross-disciplinary contexts. However, most current corpus tools do not directly integrate the genre-based pedagogical approach advocated by Swales and Feak, which emphasises exploring how communicative purposes shape generic structure and phraseology, while considering cross-cultural differences. In response to this gap, this paper presents the EXEMPRAES Corpus tool, a bilingual, genre-sensitive resource that integrates a communicative-function-annotated comparable corpus with a web-based interface designed to operationalise this pedagogical orientation for cross-cultural academic writing instruction. The paper explains how Swalesian principles have informed the tool's design at multiple levels, from corpus compilation, segmentation, and annotation to interface features that support sequenced, discovery-based tasks moving from audience and purpose to organisation, style, flow, and presentation. Drawing on expert-validated annotations of discussion and/or conclusion sections in ten pairs of social-science research articles in English and Spanish, we illustrate how the EXEMPRAES Corpus tool enables exploration of cross-cultural generic and phraseological variation at the level of specific communicative functions, thereby supporting genre-based pedagogy in multilingual academic contexts in ways not typically available in standard corpus interfaces. This proof-of-concept implementation demonstrates how this approach, enriched by insights from research on intercultural rhetorical and disciplinary variation, can be operationalised in a user-friendly interface for pedagogical purposes. We also suggest that this design could serve as a model for future applications with other language pairs, illustrating how Swales's ideas can continue to shape future work.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Moreno et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: