PL EN


2013 | 10 | 1 | 181-191
Article title

Selling Their Research: The Linguistic Realization of Rhetoric Moves in English Thesis Abstracts Written by Hungarian Undergraduates

Authors
Title variants
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
Abstracts are short and dense summaries of the main aspects of academic work. Major rhetoric moves, such as the aim the research, description of the methodology, the summary of the results, are identified in 52 undergraduate theses written by Hungarian students of English. Emphasis is given to the academic lexical bundles, the use of tenses and aspects, personal pronouns, modal auxiliaries, hedging in the realization of these moves. Comparison is made between novice and experienced writers. The pedagogical implications of the findings are also discussed.
Publisher
Year
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
181-191
Physical description
Dates
published
2013-03-01
online
2013-02-22
Contributors
author
References
  • Anderson, Kenneth and Maclean, Joan. 1997. “A genre analysis study of 80 medical abstracts.” Edinburgh WorkingPapers in Applied Linguistics 8:1-23.
  • Bayley, Liz and Eldredge, Jonathan, D. 2003. “The structured abstract: an essential tool for researchers.” Hypothesis 17(1):11-13.
  • Biber, Douglas and Barbieri, Federica. 2007. “Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers.” Englishfor Specific Purposes 26(3):263-286.
  • Chen, Ya-Hua and Baker, Paul. 2010. “Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic writing.” Language Learning & Technology 14(2):30-49.
  • Coxhead, Averil. 2000. “A new academic word list.” TESOL Quarterly 34 (2):213-238.[Crossref]
  • Coxhead, Averil and Byrd, Pat. 2007. “Preparing writing teachers to teach the vocabulary and grammar of academic prose.” Journal of Second Language Writing 16(3):129-147.
  • Doró, Katalin. 2007. “The use of high- and low-frequency verbs in English native and non-native student writing” in Second language lexical processes: Applied linguistic and psycholinguistic perspectives. Zs. Lengyel and J. Navracsics (Eds.). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 117-129.
  • Doró, Katalin. 2008. The written assessment of the vocabulary knowledge and use of English majors in Hungary. University of Szeged. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
  • Harwood, Nigel. 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.[Crossref]
  • Hirano, Eliana. 2009. “Research article introduction in English for specific purposes: A comparison between Brazilian Portuguese and English.” English for Specific Purposes 28(4):204-250.[WoS]
  • Horváth, József. 2001. Advanced writing in English as a foreign language: A corpus-based study of processes andproducts. Pécs: Lingua Franca.
  • Hyland, Ken. 1996. “Talking to the academy: forms of hedging in science research articles.” Written Communication 13(2):251-281.[Crossref]
  • Hyland, Ken. 2001. “Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles.” English for SpecificPurposes 20(3):207-226.
  • Lehmann, Magdolna. 2003. “The lexis of writing and vocabulary size: The relationship between receptive knowledge and productive use.” Studies in English theoretical and applied linguistics. József Andor, József Horváth and Marianne Nikolov (Eds.). Pécs: Lingua Franca, pp. 172-181.
  • Li, Jie and Schmitt, Norbert. 2009. “The acquisition of lexical phrases in academic writing: A longitudinal case study.” Journal of Second Language Writing 18(2):85-102.[WoS]
  • Li, Yongyan and Casanave, Christine Pearson. 2012. “Two first-year students’ strategies for writing from sources: Patchwriting or plagiarism?” Journal of Second Language Writing 21(2):165-180.[WoS]
  • Lorés, Rosa. 2004. “On RA abstracts: From rhetorical structure to thematic organization.” English for SpecificPurposes 23(3):280-302.
  • Malcolm, Lois. 1987. “What rules govern tense usage in scientific articles?” English for Specific Purposes 6(1):31-43.
  • Martínez, Iliana A. 2001. “Impersonality in the research article as revealed by analysis of the transitivity structure.” English for Specific Purposes 20(3):227-247.
  • Martínez, Iliana A. 2005. “Native and non-native writers’ use of first person pronouns in the different sections of biology research articles in English.” Journal of Second Language Writing 14:174-190.
  • Pecorari, Diane. 2003. “Good and original: Plagiarism and patchwriting in academic second-language writing.” Journal of Second Language Writing 12(4):317-345.
  • Petrić, Bojana. 2012. “Legitimate textual borrowing: Direct quotation in L2 student writing.” Journal of SecondLanguage Writing 21(2):102-117.Pho, Phuong Dzung. 2008. “Research article abstracts in applied linguistics and educational technology: a study of linguistic realizations of rhetorical structure and authorial stance.” Discourse Studies 13(4):234-250.
  • Pho, Phuong Dzung. 2009. “Linguistic realization of rhetoric structure: a corpus-based study of research-article abstracts and introductions in applied linguistics and education technology” in Corpus-linguisticapplications: current studies, new directions. Stefan Thomas Gries, Stefanie Wulff and Mark Davies (Eds.). Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 135-152.
  • Sheldon, Elena. 2011. “Rhetorical differences in RA introductions written by English L1 and L2 Castilian Spanish L1 writers.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 10(4):238-351.[WoS]
  • Stotesbury, Hilkka. 2003. “Evaluation in research article abstracts in the narrative and hard sciences.” Journal ofEnglish for Academic Purposes 2(4):327-341.
  • Strunkytė, Gintarė and Jurkūnaitė, Eglė. 2008. Written Academic Discourse: Lexical Bundles in Humanities andNatural Sciences. Vilnius University. Unpublished BA thesis.
  • Wallwork, Adrian. 2011. English for writing research papers. New York: Sprinkler.
  • Weigle, Sara Cushing and Parker, Keisha. 2012. “Source text borrowing in an integrated reading/writing assessment.” Journal of Second Language Writing 21(2):118-133.[WoS]
  • Wette, Rosemary. 2010. “Evaluating student learning in a university-level EAP unit on writing using sources.” Journal of Second Language Writing 19(3):158-177.[WoS]
  • Zergollern-Miletić, Lovorka and Horváth, József. 2009. “Coherence and originality in university students’ writing: The Zagreb-Pécs project” in Réka Lugossy, József Horváth and Marianne Nikolov (Eds.). UPRT 2008:Empirical studies in English applied linguistics. Pécs: Lingua Franca Csoport, pp. 135-151.
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.doi-10_2478_rjes-2013-0016
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.