In general, sadly, little is known about the referential characteristics of Hungarian academic writing in particular; although some comparative studies of English and Hungarian academic texts deal with other discourse-related features (theoretical RA introductions: Árvay & Tankó, 2004; Futász, 2006). In the absence of such background research it was often unclear whether a particular difference was due to lack of experience in the academic genre or the presence of undiscovered cultural norms, for instance. One such example was our discussion of personal pronoun reference in the literature reviews of MA theses. It would be very exciting to know whether reference to researchers, that is, the human aspect of the research process, with a special emphasis on their ideas, innovations or experience was a specifically Hungarian approach or whether this approach characterizes novice writers from other cultures as well (e.g., Ivanič & Camps, 2001). It would be important to discover more about Hungarian academic discourse practices and integrate this knowledge into teaching EAP. While English has become the world language of academic communication and a key to international acceptance, it need not mean the loss of local features of scholarly writing (see Hyland, 2006). If rhetorical practices reflect and embody thought-pattern characteristics of a culture (Mauranen, 1993), innovative and creative ideas may not be best expressed in the standardized English language academic discourse that authors form non-English language background are required to adopt for international publication.