Stances in Research Article Abstracts: An Analysis of Abstracts in Literary Journals
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
In academic discourse, research article abstracts are often considered objective; however, they are inherently evaluative and frequently encode subjectivity through linguistic choices. Although abstracts have been extensively studied, literary research article abstracts (LRAs) have not received the same level of attention. This study investigates the rhetorical structure and use of stance in one hundred LRAs from high-impact journals. We employ Tankó’s (2017) revised move-structure model and Hyland’s (2005) interactional metadiscourse framework to analyze the corpus of abstracts. The rhetorical analysis shows no dominant structure, contrary to conventional accounts. LRA writers prefer to assert their interpretations using boosters, which show the highest density in the Outcome (0.63), Background (0.58), and Purpose (0.56) moves. Attitude markers are used most frequently in the Background move (0.65). Consistent with academic conventions, the use of self-references is typical of the Methodology move (0.43). The use of these devices indicates that LRAs are intentionally subjective and contain evaluative language and strategic rhetorical choices deployed to engage readers and enhance the authors’ credibility. The findings underscore the need for EFL/ESL students and novice writers to recognize academic discourse as strategically evaluative rather than purely objective.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms: Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).References
Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. John Benjamins.
Al-Shujairi, Y. B. J., Yuu, M. S., & Buba, J. A. (2016). Role of moves, tenses, and metadiscourse in the abstract of an acceptable research article. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 7(2S1), 379–386. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2016.v7n2s1p379
Aull, L. (2019). Linguistic markers of stance and genre in upper-level student writing. Written Communication, 36(2), 267–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088318849472
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines (2nd ed.). Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analyzing genre: Language use in professional settings. Routledge.
Bhatia, V. K. (2017). Methodological issues in genre analysis. HERMES – Journal of Language and Communication in Business, 9(16), 39–59. https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlc.v9i16.25383
Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text & Talk, 9(1), 93–124. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93
Bondi, M. (2010). Metadiscursive practices in introductions: Phraseology and semantic sequences across genres. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(S2), 99–123. https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.219
Chang, P. (2016). An exploration of interactional metadiscourse in architecture research articles. In Proceedings of the Joint International Conference of the 8th International Conference on ESP in Asia and the 3rd International Symposium on Innovative Teaching and Research in ESP (pp. 5–12).
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. S. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10(1), 39–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088393010001002
Dixon, T. (2022). Proscribed informality features in published research: A corpus analysis. English for Specific Purposes, 65, 63–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2021.09.003
Farahanynia, M., & Nourzadeh, S. (2023). Authorial and gendered identity in published research articles and students’ academic writing in applied linguistics. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.22111/IJALS.2023.45472.2349
Geng, H., & Wei, H. (2023). Metadiscourse markers in abstracts of linguistics and literature research articles from Scopus-indexed journals. Journal of Modern Languages, 33(1), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.22452/jml.vol33no1.2
Gilbert, P., & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 128–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.004
Gray, B., & Biber, D. (2012). Current conceptions of stance. In K. Hyland & C. S. Guindo (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 15–33). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137030825_2
Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(11), 2795–2809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007
Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 437–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Pearson Education.
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–191.
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2016). Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance. Written Communication, 33(3), 251–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088316650399
Jiang, F., & Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse nouns: Interaction and cohesion in abstract moves. English for Specific Purposes, 46, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2016.11.001
Khamkhien, A. (2025). Disciplinary variation in argumentative essays: Mapping metadiscourse patterns in undergraduate writing. Ampersand, 15, Article 100238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2025.100238
Li, Z. (2021). Authorial presence in research article abstracts: A diachronic investigation of the use of first-person pronouns. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 51, Article 100977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.100977
Liu, P., & Huang, X. (2017). A study of interactional metadiscourse in English abstracts of Chinese economics research articles. Higher Education Studies, 7(3), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v7n3p25
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan.
Maton, K., Hood, S., & Shay, S. (Eds.). (2015). Knowledge-building: Educational studies in Legitimation Code Theory. Routledge.
McGrath, L., & Kuteeva, M. (2012). Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research articles: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practices. English for Specific Purposes, 31(3), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.11.002
Nawawi, N. A., & Ting, S.-H. (2023). An analysis of interactional metadiscourse markers in political science research articles. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies, 22(1), 225–244.
Nguyen, T. T. (2018). Rhetorical structures and linguistic features of English abstracts in Thai Rajabhat University journals. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 24(4), 71–84. https://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2018-2404-06
Nur, S., Aswad, S., Zaim, M., & Ramadhan, S. (2021). Interacting with readers: How nonnative authors of English use metadiscourse markers in their research article abstracts published in English-medium journals. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 17(1), 239–255. https://doi.org/10.52462/jlls.132
Saidi, M., & Karami, N. (2024). A cross-move analysis of interactional metadiscourse markers in abstracts of local and international journals of history. Journal of Language Horizons, 7(4), 37–62. https://doi.org/10.22051/lghor.2023.41767.1738
Šandová, J. K. (2021). Interpersonality in research article abstracts: A diachronic case study. Discourse and Interaction, 14(1), 77–99.
Santos, M. B. D. (1996). The textual organization of research paper abstracts in applied linguistics. Text & Talk, 16(4), 481–499. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1996.16.4.481
Suntara, W., & Chokthawikit, S. (2018). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts: An analysis from public health journals. Language and Linguistics, 36, 31–52.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2009). Abstracts and the writing of abstracts. University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.309332
Tankó, G. (2017). Literary research article abstracts: An analysis of rhetorical moves and their linguistic realizations. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 27, 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.04.003
Vathanalaoha, K., & Tangkiengsirisin, S. (2018). Genre analysis of experiment-based dental research article abstracts: Thai and international journals. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 24(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2018-2403-01
Walková, M. (2020). Transition markers in EAP textbooks. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 46, Article 100874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100874
Wang, J., & Zeng, L. (2021). Disciplinarily recognized self-presence: Self-mention used with hedges and boosters in PhD students’ research writing. SAGE Open, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211005454
Zhang, W., & Cheung, Y. L. (2023). The different ways to write publishable research articles: Using cluster analysis to uncover patterns of appraisal in discussions across disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 63, Article 101231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2023.101231
