Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Introduction: Reporting verbs are a central linguistic resource that enable writers to represent prior research while negotiating authorial stance with professional community members. While previous studies have documented variation in reporting verb use from various perspectives, less attention has been paid to how its use is shaped by genre sets and research paradigms. Methods: Drawing on a corpus of 160 research articles in Applied Linguistics, this study investigates the use of reporting verbs across genre sets (pre-methods sections vs. post-methods sections) and research paradigms (quantitative vs. qualitative), with special attention given to their denotations and evaluations. Results: It is shown that the use of reporting verbs varies across genre sets and research paradigms: pre-methods sections favor verbs denoting research acts and containing neutral evaluation, post-methods sections rely more on discourse-oriented verbs and exhibit a shift toward positive evaluation; quantitative articles tend to employ more research-oriented and neutrally evaluative verbs, while qualitative articles draw more on discourse- and cognition-oriented verbs and adopt more positive evaluative stances. Discussion: These patterns can be attributed to the combined influence of rhetorical conventions, epistemological orientations, and knowledge-making practices in academic discourse construction. The findings provide pedagogical implications for EAP practitioners in developing novice writers' awareness of part-genres and research paradigms in their reporting practice when approaching academic writing.
Deng et al. (2026) studied this question.