Abstract:
Although flourishing research has been devoted to research on
article abstracts, more studies are needed to unpack the
relationship between rhetorical moves and their associated
linguistic and rhetorical features (e.g., meta-discourse). To
underpin this relationship, the current study analyzed a total
of 60 research article abstracts written in English by two
cultural groups in three disciplines. The first stage identified
the rhetorical structure of the abstracts based on Hyland’s
(2000) move pattern. Then, the meta-discourse features
prototypical of each move were determined, following
Hyland’s (2005a) interpersonal model. We found diverse move
patterns in both cultural groups. In the Anglo-American
group, the abstracts tend to be more compatible with Hyland’s
(2000) move structure, whereas the Iranians prefer to omit
some of those moves. The results also revealed that there was a
close relationship between the communicative function of
moves and meta-discourse choices per move. This finding
suggests that meta-discourse features can be manipulated
effectively to fulfill the communicative intentions of moves.
This study has rewarding pedagogical implications for
ESP/EAP context, especially in writing courses.
Machine summary:
Of the number of studies which embark on rhetorical structure of abstracts from a cross-disciplinary perspective, we can mention Hyland (2004), Lores (2004), Graetz (1985) in humanities, social and natural sciences; Anderson and Maclean (1997), Busch-Lauer (1995a), Salager-Meyer (1990) in medicine; and Santos (1996) and Hyland (2004) in applied linguistics.
An interpersonal model of metadiscourse (Hyland, 2005a) Category Function Example Interactive Help to guide the reader Resources through the text Transitions express relations between main clauses Frame markers refer to discourse acts, sequences or stages in addition; but; thus; and finally; to conclude; my purpose Endophoric markers refer to information in other parts of the text Evidentials refer to information from other text Code glosses elaborate propositional meanings Interactional Involves the reader in the text Hedges withhold commitment and open dialogue Boosters emphasize certainty or close dialogue Attitude markers express writer’s attitude to proposition noted above; see Fig; according to X; Z states namely; e.
That is to say, interactional choices are deployed to project writers’ personal voice, identity and standing as a competent member of discourse community motivated by crafting more persuasive arguments in introduction, product, and conclusion (Charles, 2003; Crismore Farnsworth, 1990; Hyland, 1998, 2005a; Lim, 2006; Thompson, 2001; Vande Kopple, 1985) marked with interpersonal relationships, whereas interactive meta-discourse resources are greatly resorted in order to suggest a clear audience orientation through knitting a more comprehensible and persuasive text with sober recognition of processing needs and rhetorical expectations of readers on the part of writers (Hyland, 2005a , 2007; Vande Kopple, 1985).