Stances in Research Article Abstracts: An Analysis of Abstracts in Literary Journals
Issued Date
2026-01-01
Resource Type
eISSN
2672989X
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-105039244538
Journal Title
Journal of Studies in the English Language
Volume
21
Issue
1
Start Page
113
End Page
136
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Journal of Studies in the English Language Vol.21 No.1 (2026) , 113-136
Suggested Citation
Suntara W., Xingbin T., Saouy M., Panthumas S., Thongchalerm S., Chansiri N. Stances in Research Article Abstracts: An Analysis of Abstracts in Literary Journals. Journal of Studies in the English Language Vol.21 No.1 (2026) , 113-136. 136. doi:10.64731/jsel.v21i1.287235 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/116873
Title
Stances in Research Article Abstracts: An Analysis of Abstracts in Literary Journals
Author's Affiliation
Corresponding Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
In academic discourse, research article abstracts are often considered objective; however, they are inherently evaluative and frequently encode subjectivity through linguistic choices. Although abstracts have been extensively studied, literary research article abstracts (LRAs) have not received the same level of attention. This study investigates the rhetorical structure and use of stance in one hundred LRAs from high-impact journals. We employ Tankó’s (2017) revised move-structure model and Hyland’s (2005) interactional metadiscourse framework to analyze the corpus of abstracts. The rhetorical analysis shows no dominant structure, contrary to conventional accounts. LRA writers prefer to assert their interpretations using boosters, which show the highest density in the Outcome (0.63), Background (0.58), and Purpose (0.56) moves. Attitude markers are used most frequently in the Background move (0.65). Consistent with academic conventions, the use of self-references is typical of the Methodology move (0.43). The use of these devices indicates that LRAs are intentionally subjective and contain evaluative language and strategic rhetorical choices deployed to engage readers and enhance the authors’ credibility. The findings underscore the need for EFL/ESL students and novice writers to recognize academic discourse as strategically evaluative rather than purely objective.