Chapter 4
“This dissonance”
Bolstering credibility in academic abstracts
Writing a convincing abstract requires the ability to demonstrate credibility through an adequate selection of
keywords. A case in point is the selection of shell nouns determined by this. Based on a comparable
interdisciplinary corpus of 400 PhD abstracts written in English by writers in an Anglophone and a Francophone
context, the role of shell nouns determined by this is studied to (1) assess their impact on textual
cohesion (2) evaluate the connection between the selected terms and the discipline’s epistemological values as
perceived by newcomers (3) consider the influence of the writer’s linguistic origin on the handling of this device.
This study aims to contribute to the assessment of the parameters which might undermine writers’ credibility in their
scientific community.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Background issues on labeling nouns and the uses of this as an anaphoric determiner in academic
discourse
- 2.1Labeling nouns also known as general, signalling, shell, or metadiscursive nouns
- 2.2This as a determiner
- 3.Corpus and methodology
- 3.1A comparable corpus of PhD abstracts written in English by writers in a French and an English context
- 3.2Approach and method for corpus study
- 3.3Approach and method for case studies
- 4.Results and discussion of the corpus-based study
- 4.1Definition and distribution of a functional typology of this as a determiner
- 4.2Definition and distribution of a semantic typology of encapsulating this + LN
- 5.Back to the text: Gains and losses
- 5.1Case study 1: Building an effective argumentative flow
- 5.2Case study 2: Failing to inscribe the research project in the disciplinary field
- 5.3Case study 3: Assessing the rhetorical impact of interpretive encapsulating this
- 5.4Gains and losses
- 6.Final discussion and conclusion
- 6.1Final discussion
- 6.2Conclusion
-
Acknowledgement
-
Notes
-
References
References (30)
References
Amory, S. (2007). La diffusion des gènes de la période protohistorique à l'époque actuelle dans le complexe spatial Altaï-Baïkal. Anthropologie biologique. Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales (EHESS). Français. <tel-00136132>.
Aronowitz, S. (1988). Science
as power: Discourse and ideology in modern society. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Blanchy, S. (1988). La vie quotidienne à Mayotte (Comores): essai d'anthropologie compréhensive. Anthropologie sociale et ethnologie. Université de la Réunion.
Bhatia, V. K. (2002) Applied
genre analysis; A multi-perspective
model. Ibérica, 4, 3–19.
Bordet, G. (2015). Labeling
discourse to build academic persona. Journal of Academic
Writing, 5(1), 106–118.
Charles, M. (2003). ‘This
mystery…’: A corpus-based study of the use of nouns to construct stance in theses from two contrasting
disciplines. Journal of English for Academic
Purposes, 2(4), 313–326.
Flowerdew, J. (2003). Signalling
nouns in discourse. English for Specific
Purposes, 22(4), 329–346.
Flowerdew, J., & Peacock, M. (2001). Research
perspectives on English for academic
purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Francis, G. (1994) Labelling
discourse: an aspect of nominal-group lexical
cohesion. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances
in written text
analysis (pp. 83–101). London: Routledge.
Gray, B. (2010). On
the use of demonstrative pronouns and determiners as cohesive devices: A focus on sentence-initial
this/these in academic prose. Journal of English for
Academic
Purposes, 9(3), 167–183.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). The
language of science (Collected works of M.A.K.
Halliday, Vol. 5). London: Continuum.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion
in
English. London: Routledge.
Henshall, A. C. (2015). Shell
nouns: In a systemic functional linguistics perspective. Repositorio de Universidade de Lisboa. Available at: <[URL]>
Hertog, J. K. & D. M. McLeod (2001). A multiperspectival approach to framing analysis: A field guide. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy & A. E. Grant. Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world. Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: 139-161.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary
discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press/ELT.
Hyland, K., & Salager‐Meyer, F. (2008). Scientific
writing. Annual Review of Information Science and
Technology, 42(1), 297–338.
Ivanič, R. (1991). Nouns
in search of a context: A study of nouns with both open-and closed-system
characteristics. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language
Teaching, 29(2), 93–114.
Jiang, F. K., & Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscursive
nouns: Interaction and cohesion in abstract moves. English for Specific
Purposes, 46, 1–14.
Lorés Sanz, R. (2006). The
referential function of metadiscourse: Thing(s) and idea(s) in academic
lectures. In A. Hornero Corisco, M. J. Luzón Marco, & S. Murillo Ornat (Eds.), Corpus
linguistics: Applications for the study of
English (pp. 315–333). Bern: Peter Lang.
Moreno, A. I. (2003). The
role of cohesive devices as textual constraints on relevance: A discourse-as-process
view. IJES, International Journal of English
Studies, 3(1), 111–166.
Moulard, S. (2008). “Senegal yewuleen!” Analyse anthropologique du rap à Dakar: liminarité, contestation et culture populaire. Anthropologie sociale et ethnologie. Université Victor Segalen - Bordeaux II. Pérez-Llantada, C. (2012). Scientific
discourse and the rhetoric of globalization: The impact of culture and
language. London: A&C Black.
Schmid, H. (1995). Treetagger|
a language independent part-of-speech
tagger. Stuttgart: Institut für Maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung, Universität Stuttgart.
Schmid, H. J. (2000). English
abstract nouns as conceptual shells: From corpus to
cognition. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Sinclair, J. (1993). Written
discourse structure. In J. Sinclair, M. Hoey, & G. Fox (Eds.), Techniques
of description: Spoken and written
discourse (pp. 6–31). London: Routledge.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre
analysis: English in academic and research
settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2009). Abstracts
and the writing of abstracts. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Szelag, B. J., (2011) Growing up with HIV: Disease management among perinatally infected adolescents. Graduate Theses and Dissertations. [URL].
Testa, J. (2012). The
Thomson Reuters journal selection process. Transnational Corporations
Review, 1(4), 59–66.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Varga, Mirna
2019.
Intercultural Perspectives on Research Writing, Pilar Mur-Dueñas, Jolanta Šinkūnienė, eds. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia (2018).
Kalbotyra 72
► pp. 107 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.