Elements of Promotional Discourse in English-Language Academic Abstracts
https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2024-13-10-230-250
Abstract
This article focuses on identifying elements of promotional discourse within Englishlanguage abstracts. The research corpus comprises ten abstracts from highly cited articles published in the Journal of Linguistics. It is demonstrated that at the lexical level, the promotional aspect is represented by specialized terminology and vocabulary that emphasizes the experimental nature of the research. Additionally, it is established that grammatical features of the abstract are realized through action-oriented verbs, present tense, a combination of active and passive voice, and the use of the pronoun “we,” which the authors employ to construct a dialogue with the reader. The analysis reveals that the sentences in the abstracts are complex and contain clarifying information. Notably, parallel constructions and enumerations — expressive syntactic techniques — are introduced in the abstracts to enhance the significance of the research findings. At the linguo-pragmatic level, references to sources, quantitative data, contextualization of the study, and contrasts are highlighted. All of these techniques are interpreted as aimed at representing specific attributes of the scientific work: high significance, breadth, reliability, and overcoming the limitations of previous research by colleagues. The conclusion is drawn that the promotional features of the abstract may be expressed implicitly; however, as is characteristic of promotional texts, they are directed towards attracting attention to both the research and the author.
About the Author
I. P. Khoutyz
Kuban State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Irina P. Khoutyz, Doctor of Philology, Professor, Department of Applied Linguistics and New Information Technology
Krasnodar
References
1. Afros, E., Schryer, C. F. (2009). Promotional (meta)discourse in research articles in language and literary studies. English for Specific Purposes, 28 (1): 58—68. DOI: 10.1016/j.esp.2008.09.001.
2. Berg, T. (2023). Gender marking in the first-person singular: A case of paradigm (in) consistency. Journal of Linguistics. Published online. 1—35. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226723000191.
3. Bhatia, V. K. (2005). Generic patterns in promotional discourse. In: Persuasion Across Genres: A Linguistic Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 213—228.
4. Bîlbîie, G., De La Fuente, I., Abeillé, A. (2023). Factivity and complementizer omission in English embedded gapping. Journal of Linguistics, 5 (2): 389—426. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226722000445.
5. Bondarenko, I. V. (2019). Linguopragmatic analysis of syntactic means of expressivity in the English political text. Bulletin of the Mari State University, 13 (3): 418—425. DOI: 10.30914/2072-6783-2019-13-3-418-425. (In Russ.).
6. Double the power of content using active verbs. Available at: https://lpgenerator.ru/blog/2015/09/24/udvojte-silu-kontenta-s-pomoshyu-aktivnyh-glagolov / (accessed 12.10.2024). (In Russ.).
7. Espinal, M. T., Cyrino, S. (2022). A syntactically-driven approach to indefiniteness, specificity and anti-specificity in Romance. Journal of Linguistics, 58 (3): 535—570. DOI:10.1017/S002222672100030X.
8. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London, New York: Longman. 270 p.
9. Galaidin, A. (2021). A genre analysis of research article abstracts in linguistics and engineering: a cross-disciplinary study based on a contrastive analysis of micro structures. Language — Culture — Politics, 1: 47—56. DOI: 10.54515/lcp.2021.1.47-56.
10. Ghubin, B. A. (2021). Role of dynamic and stative verbs in two English ballads: a comparative study. Review of International Geographical Education, 11 (11): 139—149.
11. Giering, M. E. (2016). The promotional discourse in scientific popularization articles for young readers. Bakhtiniana, 11 (2): 57—75. DOI: 10.1590/2176-457323516.
12. Graetz, N. (1985). Teaching EFL students to extract structural information from abstracts. In: Reading for Professional Purposes: Methods and Materials in Teaching Languages. Leuven: ACCO. 123—135.
13. Gribanova, T. I. (2019). Hedging in various types of discourse. Questions of applied linguistics, 35: 7—24. DOI: 10.25076/vpl.35.01. (In Russ.).
14. Hartmann, S., Ungerer, T. (2023). Attack of the snowclones: A corpus-based analysis of extravagant formulaic patterns. Journal of Linguistics. Published online. 1—36. DOI:10.1017/S0022226723000117.
15. Jiang, F. (2016). Review of abstracts in academic discourse: variation and change. System, 56: 143—144. DOI: 10.1016/j.system.2015.12.005.
16. Junge, Ch. (2019). Doing things with lists — enumeration in Arabic prose. Journal of Arabic Literature, 30: 278—297. DOI: 10.1163/1570064x-12341388.
17. Khoutyz, I. P. (2022). Features of the construction of English-language motivational discourse: the level of grammar. Bulletin of the Moscow City Pedagogical University. Ser. “Philology. Theory of language. Language education”, 45 (1): 100—112. DOI: 10.256888/2076-913X.2022.45.1.11. (In Russ.).
18. Khoutyz, I. P. (2023). Cross-cultural specificity of citation as a means of expanding the space of dialogue in academic discourse. Terra Linguistica, 14 (4): 130—141. DOI: 10.18721/JHSS.14410. (In Russ.).
19. Kosycheva, M. A., Tikhonova, E. V. (2022). Abstract of the research article: strategies of construction and optimization. Health, Food & Biotechnology, 4 (1): 6—15. DOI: 10.36107/hfb.2022.i1.s135. (In Russ.).
20. Lee, P. (2023). How math makes cents: the marketization of mathematics education discourse [PhD Thesis]. Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser University. 190 p.
21. Lieber, R., Plag, I. (2022). The semantics of conversion nouns and -ing nominalizations: A quantitative and theoretical perspective. Journal of Linguistics, 58 (2): 307—343. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226721000311.
22. Melnichuck, O. (2013). Enumeration as a semantic-syntactic strategy of fictional discourse: a case study of French fiction. Karadeniz Uluslararası Bilimsel Dergi, 19: 56―62.
23. Nagano, A. (2023). Affixal rivalry and its purely semantic resolution among English derived adjectives. Journal of Linguistics, 59 (3): 499―530. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226722000147.
24. Nuzhnova, E. E., Babaeva, T. B., Zhukovskaya, N. V. (2019). Argumentation strategy in scientific discourse. Bulletin of PNRPU. Problems of linguistics and pedagogy, 2: 57—64. DOI: 10.15593/2224-9389/2019.2.5. (In Russ.).
25. Obeng, B., Wornyo, A. A., Hammond, Ch. (2023). Variations in rhetorical moves and metadiscourse elements in conference abstracts: a genre analysis. European Journal of Applied Linguistics Studies, 6 (1): 126―148. DOI: 10.46827/ejals.v6i1.421.
26. Parallelism and its Importance in Academic Writing. Available at: https://www.econtentpro.com/blog/parallelism-and-its-importance-in-academic-writing/347 (accessed 2.10.2024).
27. Peng, H., Qiu, H. S., Fosse, H. B., Uzzi, B. (2024). Promotional language and the adoption of innovative ideas in science. PNAS, 25 (121): 1―9. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2320066121.
28. Ponomarenko, E. V., Parshutina, G. A. (2015). Dynamic and systemic properties of communication verbs in English business discourse. Bulletin of the Samara State University, 1 (123): 98—103. (In Russ.).
29. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. N., Startvik, J. (1985). A Grammar of Contemporary English. Essex: Longman Group Limited. 190 p.
30. Schwartz, G. (2023). All TRs are not created equal: L1 and L2 perception of English cluster affrication. Journal of Linguistics, 59 (3): 623—654. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226722000275.
31. Silkina, O. M. (2018). Abstract as a genre of scientific discourse. Bulletin of SUSU. The series “Linguistics”, 3 (15): 70—76. DOI: 10.14529/ling180312. (In Russ.).
32. Spouse, J., Messick, T., Bobaljik, J. D. (2022). Gender asymmetries in ellipsis: An experimental comparison of markedness and frequency accounts in English. Journal of Linguistics, 58 (2): 345—379. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226721000323.
33. Stašková, J. (2013). Promotional genres of academic discourse. Language, literature and culture in a changing translatlantic world, 2: 176—187.
34. Van Der Klis, M., Bruyn, B. Le., Swart, H. De. (2022). A multilingual corpus study of the competition between past and perfect in narrative discourse. Journal of Linguistics, 58 (2): 423—457. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226721000244.
35. Villa-García, J., Ott, D. (2024). Recomplementation as a paratactic phenomenon: Evidence from Spanish and English. Journal of Linguistics, 60 (1): 213—244. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226722000433.
36. Watling, C. (2015). The power of parallel structure. Perspectives on Medical Education, 4 (6): 329—330. DOI: 10.1007/s40037-015-0227-3.
37. Wijaya, L. E., Ardi, P. (2022). Rhetorical moves of research article abstracts: а comparative study of national and international journals. Research Result. Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, 8 (1): 135—149. DOI: 10.18413/2313-8912-2022-8-1-0-9.
38. Wróblewska, M. N. (2021). Research impact evaluation and academic discourse. Humanities & Social Sciences Communications, 8 (58): 1—12. DOI: 10.1057/s41599-021-00727-8.
39. Zoidze, E. A. (2024). Text on Book Cover: Blurb as a Genre. Nauchnyi dialog, 13 (2): 73—95. https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2024-13-2-73-95 (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Khoutyz I.P. Elements of Promotional Discourse in English-Language Academic Abstracts. Nauchnyi dialog. 2024;13(10):230-251. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2024-13-10-230-250
Views:
670
Email this article 