The move structure of abstracts in applied linguistics research articles in light of the distribution and functions of metadiscourse markers

Abstract

To communicate with other experts in a specific field as well as sharing knowledge in the academic world, researchers might need to publish their research articles (RAs) in high-impact factor journals. In addition, to increase the possibility of publishing their RAs in these journals, they should improve their writing skills. Many investigations have been conducted so far which have analyzed the move structure or the distribution of metadiscourse markers in different sections of RAs. But, to the best of our knowledge, no study has yet been conducted to investigate the analysis of both move structure and use of metadiscourse markers in RAs abstracts of applied linguistics. To bridge this gap, the present study employed the model of abstract moves in RAs and the model of metadiscourse markers as a framework to analyze 125 RA abstracts, which were extracted from five main journals. Regarding the move organizational features, presenting the research (PTR) and situating the research (STR) were identified as opening moves. Also, discussing the research (DTR), summarizing the findings (STF), and describing the methodology (DTM) were employed as closing moves. Furthermore, in terms of the distribution of metadiscourse markers in the collected abstracts, the findings showed the high frequency of transitions. In addition, the results demonstrated that applied linguistics authors are tentative and use more hedges in their abstracts, possibly to open space for opposite arguments of their claims. Finally, this study suggests pedagogical implications for novice authors in the field of applied linguistics.

Keywords

• metadiscourse markers;
• distribution;
• function; Pho’s model; Hyland’s model; RA abstracts; applied linguistics

References

1. Adel, A. (2016). Remember that your reader cannot read your mind: problem/solution-oriented metadiscourse in teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of English for Specific Purposes, 45, 54-68.
2. Biber, D., Connor, U., & Upton, T. (2007) Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis todescribed/iscourse structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
3. Can, S., Karabacak, E., &Qin, J. (2016). Structure of moves in RA abstracts in Applied Linguistics. Publications, 4 (3), 23-39
4. Chan, T. (2015). A corpus-based study of the expression of stance in dissertation acknowledgements. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 176-191.
5. Crosthwaite, P., Cheung, L., & Jiang, K. (2017). Writing with attitude: Stance expression in learner and professional dentistry research reports. Journal of English for Specific Purposes, 46, 107-123.
6. Flowerdew, J. (2008). Scholarly writers who use English as an additional language: what can Goffman’s “Stigma” tell us? Journal of English for Academic Purposes,7(2),77-86.
7. Friginal, E., Mustafa, S. (2017). A comparison of U.S.-based and Iraqi English research article abstracts using corpora. Journal of English for Sspecific Purposes, 25, 45-57.
8. Gillaerts, P. & Van de Velde, F. (2010) “Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts”, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 128-139.

9. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
10. Hewings, M., &Hewings. A. (2002).It is interesting to note that…”: a comparative study of anticipatory ‘it’ in student and published writing. Journal of English for Specific Purposes, 21(4), 367–383.
11. Holmes, R. (1997). Genre analysis and the social sciences: an investigation of the structure of research article discussion sections in three disciplines. Journal of English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 321-337.
12. Ho, V., & Li, C. (2018). The use of metadiscourse and persuasion: An analysis of first year university students’ timed argumentative essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,33, 53-68.
13. Huckin, T. (2001). Abstracting from abstracts.Academic writing in context: Implications and applications. London: Continuum.
14. Hu, G. & Cao, F. (2011) Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A compar¬ative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2795-2809.
15. Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 207-226.
16. Hyland, K. (2004). Discplinary discourses. Ann Arbor.Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
17. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2017). “We believe that”: changes in an academic stance marker. Australian Journal of Linguistics. 38 (2). 139-161.
18. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2018). “In this paper we suggest”: changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse. Journal of English for specific purposes,51, 18-30.
19. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse. London, UK: Continuum.
20. Hyland, K. (2007). Applying a gloss: Exemplifying and reformulating in academic discourse. Applied Linguistics, 28(2), 266-285.
21. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2016). Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance. Written Communication, 33. (3), 1-24.
22. Hyland, K., &Tse, P. (2005). Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. Journal of English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), 123-139.
23. Hyland, K. (2009). Teaching and researching writing.Abingdon, UK: Routlege.
24. Jiang, F., & Hyland, K. (2016). Metadiscursive nouns: Interaction and cohesion in abstract moves. Journal of English for Specific Purposes, 46,1-14.
25. Kawase, T. (2015). Metadiscourse in the introductions of PhD theses and research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 114-124.
26. Kawase, T. (2017). Rhetorical structure of the introductions of applied linguistics PhD theses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 31, 18-27.
27. Khedri, M, Chan, S, Ebrahimi, F, (2013). An exploration of interactive metadiscourse markers in academic research article abstracts in two disciplines. Discourse Studies, 15(3), 319—331.
28. Liu, Y., & Buckingham, L. (2018). The schematic structure of discussion sections in applied linguistics and the distribution of metadiscourse markers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 34, 97-109.
29. Lores, R. (2004). On RA abstracts: From rhetorical structure to thematic organization. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 280-302.
30. Mocanu, M. (2015). An empirical analysis of metadiscourse in the abstracts of Romanian accounting research articles. Accounting and Management Information System, 14(2), 362-377
31. Mu, C., Jun, L., Ehrich, J., & Hong, H. (2015). The use of metadiscourse for knowledge construction in Chinese and English research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 135–148.
32. Ozdemir, N., &Longo, B. (2014). Metadiscourse use in thesis abstracts: A cross-cultural study, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 59 – 63.
33. 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.
34. Quirik R, S., Greenbaum, G., Leech & J. Svartvik. (1985). Agrammar of contemporary English.Essex: Longman.
35. Samraj, B. (2008). A discourse analysis of master’s theses across disciplines with a focus on introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 55-67.
36. Santos,M. B. (1996). The textual organization of research paper abstracts in applied linguistics. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse,16(4), 481-500.
37. Tanko, G. (2017). Literary research article abstracts: An analysis of rhetoricalmoves and their linguistic realizations. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,27, 42-55.
38. Tseng, F. (2011). Analyses of Move Structure and Verb Tense of Research Article Abstracts in Applied Linguistics. International Journal of English Linguistics, 1(2), 27-39
39. Upton, T., & Cohen, M. (2009). An approach to corpus-based discourse analysis: The move analysis as example. Discourse Studies, 11(5), 585-605.
40. Yang, R., & Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 365-385.