Stances in Research Article Abstracts: An Analysis of Abstracts in Literary Journals

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.