1887
Volume 38, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0213-2028
  • E-ISSN: 2254-6774
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The present study aims to compare abstracts written by graduate students and internationally-published authors using Biber’s (1988) Multi-Dimensional (MD) model. To this end, two corpora of abstracts (1800 texts each) from research articles (RA) published in top international Applied Linguistics journals, and theses completed in the same field were compiled. We compared the two corpora with regard to three of Biber’s (1988) dimensions: involved versus informational production; elaborated vs. situation-dependent reference; and abstract vs. non-abstract style. Our results revealed that RA abstracts and thesis abstracts are similar when compared to non-academic registers of English, but different when compared to each other. Relative to thesis abstracts, RA abstracts are more informational but less elaborated and less impersonal. Interestingly, we found that RA/thesis abstracts differ from Biber’s (1988) academic prose register along the three dimensions. Our findings can further our understanding of the differences between RA and thesis abstracts, thus contributing to the instruction of academic writing at the graduate level.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/resla.22052.ans
2024-04-08
2025-02-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Afzaal, M., Ilyas Chishti, M., Liu, C., & Zhang, C.
    (2021) Metadiscourse in Chinese and American graduate dissertation introductions. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 8(1), 1970879. 10.1080/23311983.2021.1970879
    https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2021.1970879 [Google Scholar]
  2. American Psychological Association
    American Psychological Association (2010) Publication manual of the American psychological association. American Psychological Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Ansarifar, A., Shahriari, H., & Pishghadam, R.
    (2018) Phrasal complexity in academic writing: A comparison of abstracts written by graduate students and expert writers in applied linguistics. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 311, 58–71. 10.1016/j.jeap.2017.12.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.12.008 [Google Scholar]
  4. Biber, D.
    (1988) Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024 [Google Scholar]
  5. (1993) Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and linguistic computing, 8(4), 243–257. 10.1093/llc/8.4.243
    https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/8.4.243 [Google Scholar]
  6. (1995) Dimensions of register variation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511519871
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519871 [Google Scholar]
  7. (2003) Compressed noun-phrase structures in newspaper discourse: The competing demands of popularization vs. economy. InJ. Aitchison, & D. M. Lewis (Eds.), New media language (pp.169–181). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (2014) Multi-dimensional analysis: A personal history. InT. B. Sardinha & M. V. Pinto (Eds.), Multi-dimensional analysis, 25 years on: A tribute to Douglas Biber (pp.xxvi–xxxviii). John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.60.005bib
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.60.005bib [Google Scholar]
  9. (2014) Using multi-dimensional analysis to explore cross-linguistic universals of register variation. Languages in Contrast, 14 (1), 7–34. 10.1075/lic.14.1.02bib
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.14.1.02bib [Google Scholar]
  10. (2019) Multi-dimensional analysis: A historical synopsis. InT. B. Sardinha & M. V. Pinto (Eds.), Multi-dimensional analysis: Research methods and current issues (pp.11–26). Bloomsbury. 10.5040/9781350023857.0009
    https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350023857.0009 [Google Scholar]
  11. Biber, D., & Clark, V.
    (2002) Historical shifts in modification patterns with complex noun phrase structures: How long can you go without a verb?InT. Fanego, M. J. López-Couso, & J. Pérez-Guerra (Eds.), English historical syntax and morphology (pp.43–66). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.223.06bib
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.223.06bib [Google Scholar]
  12. Biber, D., & Conrad, S.
    (2009) Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511814358
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814358 [Google Scholar]
  13. (2019) Register, genre, and style. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108686136
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108686136 [Google Scholar]
  14. Biber, D., & Gray, B.
    (2010) Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 2–20. 10.1016/j.jeap.2010.01.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  15. Biber, D., & Finegan, E.
    (1988) Adverbial stance types in English. Discourse processes, 11(1), 1–34. 10.1080/01638538809544689
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538809544689 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2001) Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English. InS. Conrad & D. Biber (Eds.), Variation in English: Multi-dimensional studies (pp.63–86). Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Biber, D., & Gray, B.
    (2013) Being specific about historical change: The influence of sub-register. Journal of English Linguistics, 41(2), 104–134. 10.1177/0075424212472509
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424212472509 [Google Scholar]
  18. Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K.
    (2011) Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development?Tesol Quarterly, 45(1), 5–35. 10.5054/tq.2011.244483
    https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.244483 [Google Scholar]
  19. Biber, D., Gray, B., & Staples, S.
    (2014) Predicting patterns of grammatical complexity across language exam task types and proficiency levels. Applied Linguistics, 37(5), 639–668. 10.1093/applin/amu059
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu059 [Google Scholar]
  20. Candarli, D.
    (2021) Linguistic characteristics of online academic forum posts across subregisters, L1 backgrounds, and grades. Lingua, 2671, 103190. 10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103190
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103190 [Google Scholar]
  21. Cao, Y., & Xiao, R.
    (2013) A multi-dimensional contrastive study of English abstracts by native and non-native writers. Corpora, 8(2), 209–234. 10.3366/cor.2013.0041
    https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2013.0041 [Google Scholar]
  22. Cheng, A.
    (2021) The place of language in the theoretical tenets, textbooks, and classroom practices in the ESP genre-based approach to teaching writing. English for Specific Purposes, 641, 26–36. 10.1016/j.esp.2021.07.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2021.07.001 [Google Scholar]
  23. Cohen, J.
    (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Conrad, S.
    (1996a) Academic discourse in two disciplines: Professional writing and student development in Biology and History. PhD dissertation, Northern Arizona University.
  25. (2001) Variation among disciplinary texts: A comparison of textbooks and journal articles in biology and history. InS. Conrad & D. Biber (Eds.), Variation in English: Multi-dimensional studies (pp.94–107). Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (2014) Expanding multi-dimensional analysis with qualitative research techniques. InT. B. Sardinha & M. V. Pinto (Eds.), Multi-dimensional analysis, 25 years on: A tribute to Douglas Biber (pp.273–297). John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.60.09con
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.60.09con [Google Scholar]
  27. Conrad, S., & Biber, D.
    (2001) Multi-dimensional methodology and the dimensions of register variation in English. InS. Conrad & D. Biber (Eds.), Variation in English: Multi-dimensional studies (pp.13–42). Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Crosthwaite, P.
    (2016) A longitudinal multidimensional analysis of EAP writing: Determining EAP course effectiveness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 221, 166–178. 10.1016/j.jeap.2016.04.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.04.005 [Google Scholar]
  29. El-Dakhs, D. A. S.
    (2018) Why are abstracts in PhD theses and research articles different? A genre-specific perspective. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 361, 48–60. 10.1016/j.jeap.2018.09.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.09.005 [Google Scholar]
  30. Fauzan, U., Lubis, A. H., & Kurniawan, E.
    (2020) Rhetorical moves and linguistic complexity of research article abstracts in international Applied Linguistics journals. The Asian ESP Journal, 16(5), 219–247.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Friginal, E., Li, M., & Weigle, S. C.
    (2014) Revisiting multiple profiles of learner compositions: A comparison of highly rated NS and NNS essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 231, 1–16. 10.1016/j.jslw.2013.10.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.10.001 [Google Scholar]
  32. Gray, B.
    (2015) Linguistic variation in research articles. John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.71
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.71 [Google Scholar]
  33. Gray, B., Cotos, E., & Smith, J.
    (2020) Combining rhetorical move analysis with multi-dimensional analysis: Research writing across disciplines. InU. Römer, V. Cortes, & E. Friginal (Eds.), Advances in corpus-based research on academic writing: Effects of discipline, register, and writer expertise, 137–168. John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.95.06gra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.95.06gra [Google Scholar]
  34. Habibie, P.
    (2016) Writing for scholarly publication in a Canadian higher education context: A case study. InC. Badenhorst & C. Guerin (Eds.), Research literacies and writing pedagogies for masters and doctoral students (pp.51–67). Brill. 10.1163/9789004304338_004
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004304338_004 [Google Scholar]
  35. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R.
    (1976) Cohesion in English. Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Hartley, J., & Betts, L.
    (2009) Common weaknesses in traditional abstracts in the social sciences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(10), 2010–2018. 10.1002/asi.21102
    https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21102 [Google Scholar]
  37. Harwood, N.
    (2005) ‘Nowhere has anyone attempted… In this article I aim to do just that’: A corpus-based study of self-promotional I and we in academic writing across four disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(8), 1207–1231. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.012 [Google Scholar]
  38. Hewings, M., & Hewings, A.
    (2002) “It is interesting to note that…”: A comparative study of anticipatory ‘it’ in student and published writing. English for Specific Purposes, 21(4), 367–383. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(01)00016‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(01)00016-3 [Google Scholar]
  39. Hyland, K.
    (2000) Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility: Noticing modifiers in academic texts. Language Awareness, 9(4), 179–197. 10.1080/09658410008667145
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410008667145 [Google Scholar]
  40. (2002) Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091–1112. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00035‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00035-8 [Google Scholar]
  41. (2004) Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. University of Michigan Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. (2008) Genre and academic writing in the disciplines. Language Teaching, 41(4), 543–562. 10.1017/S0261444808005235
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444808005235 [Google Scholar]
  43. Hyland, K., & Tse, P.
    (2007) Is there an “academic vocabulary”?. TESOL quarterly, 41(2), 235–253. 10.1002/j.1545‑7249.2007.tb00058.x
    https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00058.x [Google Scholar]
  44. Jalilifar, A.
    (2012) Academic attribution: Citation analysis in master’s theses and research articles in applied linguistics. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 23–41. 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.2011.00291.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2011.00291.x [Google Scholar]
  45. Kawase, T.
    (2015) Metadiscourse in the introductions of PhD theses and research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 201, 114–124. 10.1016/j.jeap.2015.08.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.08.006 [Google Scholar]
  46. Kim, J. E., & Nam, H.
    (2019) How do textual features of L2 argumentative essays differ across proficiency levels? A multidimensional cross-sectional study. Reading and Writing, 32(9), 2251–2279. 10.1007/s11145‑019‑09947‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09947-6 [Google Scholar]
  47. 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(1), 19–36. 10.1016/j.jeap.2005.11.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2005.11.002 [Google Scholar]
  48. Kwan, B. S. C.
    (2010) An investigation of instruction in research publishing offered in doctoral programs: The Hong Kong case. Higher Education, 59(1), 55–68. 10.1007/s10734‑009‑9233‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9233-x [Google Scholar]
  49. Lee, D. Y. W., & Chen, S. X.
    (2009) Making a bigger deal of the smaller words. Function words and other key items in research writing by Chinese learners. Journal of Second Language Writing, 181, 149–165. 10.1016/j.jslw.2009.05.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2009.05.004 [Google Scholar]
  50. Lei, S. A., & Chuang, N.
    (2009) Research collaboration and publication during graduate studies: Evaluating benefits and costs from students’ perspectives. College Student Journal, 43(4), 1163–1168.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Li, Y., Ma, X., Zhao, J., & Hu, J.
    (2020) Graduate-level research writing instruction: Two Chinese EAP teachers’ localized ESP genre-based pedagogy. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 431, 1–15. 10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100813
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100813 [Google Scholar]
  52. Mizumoto, A., Hamatani, S., & Imao, Y.
    (2017) Applying the bundle-move connection approach to the development of an online writing support tool for research articles. Language Learning, 67(4), 885–921. 10.1111/lang.12250
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12250 [Google Scholar]
  53. Nasseri, M.
    (2021) Is postgraduate English academic writing more clausal or phrasal? Syntactic complexification at the crossroads of genre, proficiency, and statistical modelling, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 491, 100940. 10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100940
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100940 [Google Scholar]
  54. Nini, A.
    (2019) The Multi-Dimensional Analysis Tagger. InT. B. Sardinha, & M. V. Pinto (Eds.). Multi-dimensional analysis: Research methods and current issues, (pp.67–96). Bloomsbury. 10.5040/9781350023857.0012
    https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350023857.0012 [Google Scholar]
  55. Noguera, C. P.
    (2012) Writing business research article abstracts: A genre approach. Ibérica: Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos (AELFE), 241, 211–232.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 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. 10.1177/1461445607087010
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607087010 [Google Scholar]
  57. 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. 10.5539/elt.v4n1p162
    https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n1p162 [Google Scholar]
  58. Samraj, B.
    (2013) Form and function of citations in discussion sections of master’s theses and research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(4), 299–310. 10.1016/j.jeap.2013.09.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2013.09.001 [Google Scholar]
  59. Sardinha, T. B., Pinto, M. V., Mayer, C., Zuppardi, M. C., & Kauffmann, C. H.
    (2019) Adding registers to a previous multi-dimensional analysis. InT. B. Sardinha, & M. V. Pinto (Eds.). Multi-dimensional analysis: Research methods and current issues, (pp.165–186). Bloomsbury. 10.5040/9781350023857.0017
    https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350023857.0017 [Google Scholar]
  60. Staples, S., & Reppen, R.
    (2016) Understanding first-year L2 writing: A lexico-grammatical analysis across L1s, genres, and language ratings. Journal of Second Language Writing, 321, 17–35. 10.1016/j.jslw.2016.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  61. Starfield, S., & Paltridge, B.
    (2019) Thesis and dissertation writing in a second language: Context, identity, genre. Journal of Second Language Writing, 431, 1–3. 10.1016/j.jslw.2018.10.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.10.002 [Google Scholar]
  62. Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B.
    (2009) Abstracts and the writing of abstracts (Vol.11). The University of Michigan Press. 10.3998/mpub.309332
    https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.309332 [Google Scholar]
  63. Xie, S.
    (2020) Multidimensional analysis of Master thesis abstracts: A diachronic perspective. Scientometrics, 123(2), 861–881.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Yoneoka, D., & Ota, E.
    (2017) Evaluating association between linguistic characteristics of abstracts and risk of bias: Case of Japanese randomized controlled trials. PLOS ONE, 12(3), 1–10. 10.1371/journal.pone.0173526
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173526 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/resla.22052.ans
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/resla.22052.ans
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error