Abstract

Research abstracts are an increasingly important aspect of research articles in all knowledge fields, summarizing the full article and encouraging readers to access it. Graetz suggests that four main features contribute to this purpose—the use of past tense, third person, passive, and the non-use of negatives, although this claim has never been confirmed. In this article, we set out to explore the extent to which these forms are used in the abstracts of four disciplines, the functions they perform and how their frequency has changed over the past 30 years. Drawing on a corpus of 6,000 abstracts taken from the top 10 journals in each of four disciplines at three distinct time periods, we found high but decreasing frequencies of past tense and passives, an increasing number of third person forms, and more than one negation every two texts. We also noted a remarkable decrease of past tense and passives in the hard sciences and an increase in applied linguistics, with sociologists making greater use of negation. These results suggest that abstracts have developed a distinctive argumentative style, rhetorically linked both to their communicative function and to the changing social contexts in which academic writing is produced and consumed.

Journal
Written Communication
Published
2023-01-01
DOI
10.1177/07410883221128876
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
Closed
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

References (57) · 1 in this index

  1. American Medical Writers Association Journal
  2. AntConc
  3. Scientific discourse in sociohistorical context: The philosophical transactions of the ro…
  4. 10.1186/s40554-017-0045-5
  5. A common sense guide to grammar and usage
Show all 57 →
  1. 10.1080/03075078712331378052
  2. Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines
  3. 10.1075/z.232
  4. 10.1017/CBO9781139208833
  5. English grammar today: An A-Z of spoken and written grammar
  6. 10.1075/fol.1.1.03col
  7. 10.4324/9780203856949-17
  8. 10.1515/9783110219302.9
  9. 10.1080/07268602.2019.1542932
  10. 10.1111/j.1475-682X.2008.00246.x
  11. 10.1002/asi.24206
  12. 10.4324/9781315179346-11
  13. 10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.004
  14. Linguistic features and genre profiles of scientific English
  15. Reading for professional purposes: Methods and materials in teaching languages
  16. 10.1093/oso/9780195134544.001.0001
  17. 10.1075/fol.7.2.03her
  18. Academic writing in context: Implications and applications
  19. 10.1093/applin/20.3.341
  20. 10.3998/mpub.6719
  21. Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing
  22. Academic writing: At the interface of corpus and discourse
  23. 10.1075/ds.23.02hyl
  24. Written Communication
  25. 10.1080/07268602.2018.1400498
  26. 10.4324/9780429433962
  27. 10.1177/00754242211019080
  28. 10.1016/j.esp.2004.02.002
  29. 10.1016/j.esp.2016.11.001
  30. 10.1016/j.esp.2022.06.003
  31. On abstract writing
  32. 10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00058-6
  33. 10.1142/6286
  34. 10.1515/text-2020-2066
  35. 10.1515/9783110197631
  36. 10.1093/applin/10.1.1
  37. 10.1016/j.jeap.2018.08.002
  38. 10.1075/z.231
  39. 10.17265/2159-5313/2016.09.003
  40. The process of composition
  41. Text
  42. 10.1016/S0889-4906(05)80002-X
  43. Part-of-speech tagging guidelines for the Penn treebank project
  44. Syntax, style and grammatical norms: English from 1500-2000
  45. 10.1075/jhp.14.1.03seo
  46. Collins Cobuild English grammar
  47. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings
  48. 10.1016/j.jeap.2019.01.003
  49. 10.3998/mpub.309332
  50. 10.1016/0272-2380(81)90004-4
  51. Negation in English speech and writing: A study in variation
  52. Academic discourse: New insights into evaluation