Cover not available
Part of
Intercultural Perspectives on Research Writing
Edited by Pilar Mur-Dueñas and Jolanta Šinkūnienė
[AILA Applied Linguistics Series 18] 2018
► pp. 105–127

Chapter 5
Asserting research status, values and relevance in thesis abstracts of Science and Engineering

| Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
| Johor Bahru, Malaysia
This study examines the use of evaluation in thesis abstracts written by Malaysian novice research writers from Science and Engineering fields. Different linguistic features performing three different functions of evaluation were identified and categorised into status, value and relevance. Lexico-grammatical analysis has shown variations in terms of the overall preferences for status over value and relevance in the two fields. Science writers were more inclined to include status markers expressing certainty while summarising their research findings in the Product section of abstracts whereas Engineering writers appeared less assertive. Results from this study offer L2 research writers insights into specific linguistic choices to be made for writing efficient and persuasive research abstracts.
Keywords: abstracts, novice research writers, second language writers, Science and Engineering discourse
Article outline
  • 1.Abstracts and promotional features
  • 2.Theoretical orientation
  • 3.Corpus description
  • 4.Methodology
  • 5.Findings
    • Distribution of evaluation functions
    • Evaluation functions per section in thesis abstract
  • 6.Discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgement
  • References
Published online: 6 December 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.18.05meh
References (50)
References
Afros, E., & Schryer, C. F. (2009). Promotional (meta) discourse in research articles in language and literary studies. English for Specific Purposes, 28(1), 58–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
ANSI. (1979). The American standard for writing abstracts. New York: ANSI Publication.
Anthony, L. (2011). AntConc (Version 3.2.4w) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. <[URL]>
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Pearson.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Connor, U., & Upton, T. (2007) Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bordet, G. (2009). A comparative study of PhD abstracts written in English by native and non native speakers across different disciplines. In M. Mahlberg, V. González-Diaz, & Catherine Smith (eds), Proceedings from Corpus Linguistics. Liverpool: University of Liverpool. <[URL]>
Dahl, T. (2000). Lexical cohesion-based text condensation: An evaluation of automatically produced summaries of research articles by comparison with author-written abstracts (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Bergen, Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration.Google Scholar
Friginal, E., & Mustafa, S. S. (2017). A comparison of US-based and Iraqi English research article abstracts using corpora. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 25, 45–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gillaerts, P., & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 128–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gosden, H. (1993). Discourse functions of subject in scientific research articles. Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 56–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistics perspective. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Graetz, N. (1985). Teaching EFL students to extract structural information from abstracts. In J. M. Ulijn & A. K. Pugh (Eds.), Reading for professional purposes. Methods and materials in teaching language (pp.123–135). Amersfoort: ACCO.Google Scholar
Hanania, E. A., & Akhtar, K. (1985). Verb form and rhetorical function in science writing: A study of MS theses in biology, chemistry, and physics. English for Specific Purposes, 4(1), 49–58.Google Scholar
Hartley, J. (2003). Improving the clarity of journal abstracts in Psychology: The case for structure. Science Communication, 24(3), 366–379. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinkel, E. (2002). Second language writers’ text: Linguistic and rhetorical features. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huckin, T. (2001). Abstracting from abstracts. In M. Hewings (Ed.), Academic Writing in Context: Implications and Applications (pp. 93–103). Birmingham: The University of Birmingham Press.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. (1993). Evaluation and ideology in scientific writing. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.), Register analysis: Theory and practice (pp. 57–73). London: Pinter.Google Scholar
(1994). Evaluation and organization in a sample of written academic discourse. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 191–198). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2011). Corpus approaches to evaluation: Phraseology and evaluative language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (2000). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (1999). Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles. In C. N. Candlin & K. Hyland, (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 99–121). Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
(2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.Google Scholar
(2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics. 34(8), 1091–1112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(1), 17–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006) English for Academic Purposes: An advanced resource book. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of second language writing, 6(2), 183–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005). Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), 123–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jordan, M. P. (1991). The linguistic genre of abstracts. In A. Della Volpe (Ed.), The seventeenth LACUS forum 1990 (pp. 507–527). Lake Bluff, IL: LACUS.Google Scholar
Koutsantoni, D. (2006). Rhetorical strategies in engineering research articles and research theses: Advanced academic literacy and relations of power. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 19–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lorés, R. (2004). On RA abstracts: from rhetorical structure to thematic organisation. English for Specific Purposes, 23(3), 280–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Melander, B., Swales, J., & Fredrickson, K. (1997). Journal abstracts from three academic fields in the US and Sweden: National or disciplinary proclivities. In A. Duszak (Ed.), Culture and styles of academic discourse (pp. 251–272). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salager-Meyer, F. (1990). Discoursal flaws in medical English abstracts: A genre analysis per research-and text-type. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 10(4), 365–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1992). A text-type and move analysis study of verb tense and modality distribution in medical English abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 11(2), 93–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Samraj, B. (2002a). Disciplinary variation in abstracts: The case of Wildlife Behaviour and Conservation Biology. Academic Discourse, 40–56.Google Scholar
(2002b). Introductions in research articles: Variations across disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 21(1), 1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). An exploration of a genre set: Research article abstracts and introductions in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), 141–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shaw, P. (2000). Towards classifying the arguments in research genres. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Analysing professional genres (pp. 41–56). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stotesbury, H. (2003). Evaluation in research article abstracts in the narrative and hard sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(4), 327–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2009). Abstracts and the writing of abstracts. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ullmann, D. (1990). How to write and publish a scientific paper. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Bonn, S., & Swales, J. M. (2007). English and French journal abstracts in the Language Sciences: Three exploratory studies. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(2), 93–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ventola, E. (1994). Abstracts as an object of linguistic study. In S. Cmejrkova, F. Danes, & E. Havlova (Eds.), Writing vs. speaking: Language, text, discourse, communication (pp. 333–352). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2), 225–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yakhontova, T. (2002). ‘Selling’ or ‘telling’? The issue of cultural variation in research genres. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.). Academic discourse (pp. 216–232). Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar