VARIATIONS IN RHETORICAL MOVES AND METADISCOURSE ELEMENTS IN CONFERENCE ABSTRACTS: A GENRE ANALYSIS

Benedicta Obeng, Albert Agbesi Wornyo, Christiana Hammond

Abstract


An abstract represents the summary of a piece of writing. Genre and metadiscourse analytical studies could highlight move variations in abstracts. The study aimed to investigate variations in the academic conference abstracts of the hard and soft sciences with a focus on rhetorical structure/sequence and the use of hedges/boosters. A corpus of sixty (60) abstracts was used for the study; this comprised 30 abstracts each from the soft sciences and the hard sciences. The abstracts were selected from two conference proceedings. The framework of rhetorical moves for abstracts comprising introduction (I), purpose (P), method (M), product (Pr), and the conclusion was used for the analysis of the rhetorical sequence of the abstracts. The abstracts were further analysed for their use of boosters and hedges. From the results, 43.3% of hard sciences abstracts (HSA) and 33.3% of soft science abstracts (SSA) followed the framework used. Furthermore, purpose, method, product, and conclusion were obligatory moves whereas the introduction move was optional in the SSA. On the other hand, only method and product moves were obligatory with the rest being conventional in SSA. The most dominant move sequence for HSA was I-P-M-Pr-C (46.7%) followed by I-M-Pr-C (17%) and I-P-M-Pr (17%) whereas P-M-Pr-C (43.3%) was the most dominant sequence followed by I-P-M-Pr-C (33.3%) for the SSA. The hard sciences abstracts and the soft sciences abstracts do not show marked differences in the authors’ use of boosters and hedges. Pedagogical implications of the findings of this study are useful particularly for academic conference applicants, academic writing instruction as well as advancing genre and metadiscourse research in conference abstracts.

 

Article visualizations:

Hit counter


Keywords


genre, academic conference proceedings, hedges, boosters, rhetorical move structure

Full Text:

PDF

References


Afful, J. B. A. (2005). A rhetorical analysis of examination essays in three disciplines: The case of Ghanaian undergraduate students. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). National University of Singapore. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/48629222.pdf)

Afreh, E. S., Akoto, O. Y., & Adam-Moses, K. (2017). Hedging strategies in health discourse: A study of pharmaceutical leaflets. Journal of Asia TEFL, 14(3), 515.

Agathopoulou, E. (2009). Characteristics of high-rated and low-rated conference abstracts: A genre-based analysis. In K. Katsaboxaki-Hodgets (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference “Options and Practices of LSP practitioners”, University of Crete. Crete: Crete University Press, 150-170.

Alamri, B. (2020). A comparative study of Saudi and international journals of Applied Linguistics: The move–bundle connection approach. Journal of Language and Education, 6(2), 9-30. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2020.10531

Alotaibi, H. S. (2020). The thematic structure in research article abstracts: Variations across disciplines. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 7(1), 1756146. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2020.1756146

Ariannejad, A., Osam, U. V., & Yigitoglu, N. (2019). A comparative investigation of metadiscourse in English and Persian architectural research articles. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 55(1), 01-25.

Behnam, B., & Golpour, F. (2014). A genre analysis of English and Iranian research articles abstracts in Applied Linguistics and Mathematics. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 3(5), 173–179. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.5p.173

Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. London: Longman.

Biber, D., Connor, U., & Upton, T. A. (2007). Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure (Vol. 28). John Benjamins Publishing.

Bunton, D. (2002). Generic moves in PhD thesis introductions. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.) Academic Discourse. (pp.57-75). London: Longman.

Bunton, D. (2005). The structure of PhD conclusion chapters. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 207-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2005.03.004

Can, S., Karabacak, E., & Qin, J. (2016). Structure of moves in research article abstracts in Applied Linguistics. Publications, 4(3), 23. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications4030023

Cotos, E., Huffman, S., & Link, S. (2017). A move/step model for methods sections: Demonstrating rigour and credibility. English for Specific Purposes, 46, 90-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.01.001

Croucher, S. M. & Cronn-Mills, D. (2015). Understanding Communication Research Methods. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Demir, C. (2018). Hedging and academic writing: an analysis of lexical hedges. Dil ve Dilbilimi Çalışmaları Dergisi, 14(4), 74-92.

Dong, J., & Lu, X. (2020). Promoting discipline-specific genre competence with corpus-based genre analysis activities. English for Specific Purposes, 58, 138-154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2020.01.005

El-Dakhs, D. A. S. (2018a). Comparative genre analysis of research article abstracts in more and less prestigious journals: Linguistic journals in focus. Research in Language, 16(11), 47-63. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/rela-2018-0002

El-Dakhs, D. A. S. (2018b). Why are abstracts in PhD theses and research articles different? A genre-specific perspective. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 36, 48-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.09.005

Elena, Z. (2017). Move structure of research article abstracts on Management: Contrastive study (the case of English and Russian). Journal of Language and Education, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.17323/2411-7390-2017-3-2-63-72

Gillaerts, P. (2013). Move analysis of abstracts from a diachronic perspective: A case study. In N.-L. Johannesson, G. Melchers, & B. Björkman (Eds.). Of Butterflies and Birds, of Dialects and Genres: Essays in Honour of Philip Shaw (pp. 49-60). Stockholm: Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis, Stockholm

Gillaerts, P. & de Velde, F.V. (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

Gani, F. G., Kurniawan, E., Gunawan, W., & Lubis, A. H. (2021). Rhetorical moves analysis in soft and hard science lecturers’ master’s thesis and dissertation abstracts. In Thirteenth Conference on Applied Linguistics (CONAPLIN 2020) (pp. 156-161). Atlantis Press. https://dx.doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.210427.024

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

Gnutzmann, C., & Oldenburg, H. (1991). Contrastive text linguistics in LSP research: Theoretical considerations and some preliminary findings. In H. Schroder (Ed.), Subject-oriented texts (pp. 103-1370). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Hadi, D., Warsono, W., & Faridi, A. (2020). Metadiscourse and Rethorical Moves in English Abstract Section of Undergraduate Students' Final Project at Universitas PGRI Ronggolawe, Tuban. English Education Journal, 10(3), 404-413.

Harris, Z. S. (1970). Linguistic transformations for information retrieval. In Papers in structural and transformational linguistics (pp. 458-471). Springer, Dordrecht.

Haufiku, N. K. T., & Kangira, J. (2018). An exploration of hedging and boosting devices used in academic discourse focusing on English theses at the University of Namibia. Studies in English Language Teaching, 6(1), 1-11.

Huckin, T. (2001). Abstracting from sbstracts. In M. Hewings (Ed.) Academic writing in context. University of Birmingham Press. Birmingham:

Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Longman: London.

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. New York: Continuum.

Hyland, K. & Tse, P. (2005). Hooking the reader: A corpus study of the evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes. 24: 123-139

Juanda, M. R., & Kurniawan, E. (2020). A Comparison of Rhetorical Moves in Students’ Undergraduate Thesis Abstracts. In 4th International Conference on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education (ICOLLITE 2020) (pp. 443-448). Atlantis Press. https://dx.doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.201215.070

Kwan, B. S. C. (2006). The schematic structure of literature reviews in doctoral theses of applied linguistics. English for Specific Purposes, 25(1): 30-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2005.06.001

Loan, N. T. T., Li, Q., Pramoolsook, I., & Linh, N. D. (2014). TESOL conference abstracts: discrepancies between potential writers ‘knowledge and actual composition. 3L; Language, Linguistics and Literature, The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies., 20(3), 161-176. http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/3L-2014-2003-13

Lazoglou, M. (2017). A Rhetorical Analysis of Conference Abstracts in Greek and English: A Corpus-based Comparison (Doctoral dissertation). Aristotle University of Thessaloniki). http://ikee.lib.auth.gr/record/293592/files/GRI-2017-20082.pdf

Lorés, R. (2004). On RA abstracts: from rhetorical structure to thematic organisation. English for specific purposes, 23(3), 280-302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2003.06.001

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

Ninpanit, S. (2007). Move analysis of conference proceedings abstracts across disciplines among Thai researchers: A case of education and health sciences. RMUTSB Academic Journal (Humanities and Social Sciences), 2(1), 109-115.

Ngai, C.S. & Singh, R.G. (2020). Relationship between persuasive metadiscourse devices in research article abstracts and their attention on social media. PLoS One, 15(4): e0231305. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231305

Omidia, T., Shahriari, H., & Siyanova-Chanturia, A. (2018). A cross-disciplinary investigation of multi-word expressions in the moves of research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 36, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.08.002

Pho, P. D. (2008). Research article abstracts in Applied Linguistics and Educational Technology: A study of linguistic realizations of rhetorical structure and authorial stance. Discourse Studies, 10(2): 231-250. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1461445607087010

Qi, H., & Pan, F. (2020). Lexical bundle variation across moves in abstracts of medical research articles. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 38(2), 109-128. https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2020.1763814

Ren, H. & Li, Y. (2011). A comparison study on the rhetorical moves of abstracts in published research articles and master’s foreign-language theses. English Language Teaching. 4(1), 162–166. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n1p162

Salar, S. G., & Behzad (2016). A comparative analysis of metadiscourse features in knowledge management research articles written in English and Persian. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 5(1): 15 -27.

Samraj, B. (2005). An exploration of a genre set: Research article abstracts and introductions in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), 141-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2002.10.001

Santos, M. B. (1996). The textual organization of research paper abstracts in applied linguistics. Text & Talk, 16(4), 481-500. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1996.16.4.481

Serholt, S. (2012). Hedges and boosters in academic writing: A study of gender differences in essays written by Swedish advanced learners of English. (Published thesis), Goteborgs University, Sweden.

Sidek, H. M., Saad, N. S. M., Baharun, H., & Idris, M. M. (2016). An analysis of rhetorical moves in abstracts for conference proceedings. IJASOS-International E-journal of Advances in Social Sciences, 2(4), 24-31. https://doi.org/10.18769/ijasos.80136

Suntara, W., & Usaha, S. (2013). Research article abstracts in two related disciplines: Rhetorical variation between linguistics and applied linguistics. English Language Teaching, 6(2), 84.

Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, UK

Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Swales, J. M. & Feak C.K. (2009). Abstracts and writing of abstracts. Arn Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Uysal, H. H. (2014). A cross-cultural study of indirectness and hedging in the conference proposals of English NS and NNS scholars. In Occupying Niches: Interculturality, Cross-culturality and Aculturality in Academic Research (pp. 179-195). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02526-1_12

Wang, L., & Zhang, Y. (2016). An analysis of metadiscourse in the abstracts of English academic papers. Global Journal of Human-Social Science, 16(9), 9-15.

Yağiz, O. D. & Demir, C. (2015). A Comparative Study of Boosting in Academic Texts: A Contrastive Rhetoric. International Journal of English Linguistics, 5(4): 12-28. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v5n4p12

Zali, M. M., Mohamad, R., Setia, R., Baniamin, R. M. R., & Razlan, R. M. (2020). Comparisons of interactive and interactional metadiscourse among undergraduates. Asian Journal of University Education, 16(4), 21-30. https://doi.org/10.24191/ajue.v16i4.11946




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejals.v6i1.421

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


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

The research works published in this journal are free to be accessed. They can be shared (copied and redistributed in any medium or format) and\or adapted (remixed, transformed, and built upon the material for any purpose, commercially and\or not commercially) under the following terms: attribution (appropriate credit must be given indicating original authors, research work name and publication name mentioning if changes were made) and without adding additional restrictions (without restricting others from doing anything the actual license permits). Authors retain the full copyright of their published research works and cannot revoke these freedoms as long as the license terms are followed.

Copyright © 2018-2023. European Journal of Applied Linguistics Studies (ISSN 2602 - 0254 / ISSN-L 2602 - 0254). All rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library. All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and standards formulated by Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002), the Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing (2003) and Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities (2003) and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Copyrights of the published research works are retained by authors.