The winner takes it all: Stance and engagement markers in successful project proposal abstracts funded by ERC

Vol.16,No.2(2023)
Discourse and Interaction

Abstract

This paper aims to investigate frequency and distribution patterns of stance and engagement markers across different science fields in European Research Council funded project proposal abstracts. Three science fields analysed using corpus-based quantitative and qualitative methodology are life sciences, physical sciences and engineering, and social sciences and humanities. A corpus consisting of 90 project proposal abstracts was compiled and each text was examined for stance and engagement markers following Hyland’s (2005b) framework of stance and engagement. The results show that stance markers were used much more frequently than engagement markers in all science fields analysed. However, it was found that compared to writers in social sciences and humanities, authors of life sciences and physical sciences and engineering abstracts tended to use more stance markers which may suggest a greater importance placed on creating a stronger authorial persona. In social sciences and humanities abstracts, on the other hand, engagement markers were more frequent than in the other two fields, which may imply that their texts are slightly more reader focused. The results of the study shed light on competitive funding discourse which is still scarcely researched, as well as reveal strategies and techniques used to create effective scientific discourse.


Keywords:
stance, engagement, competitive research funding, project proposal abstracts, European Research Council, cross-disciplinary study
Author biographies

Jolanta Sinkuniene

Jolanta Šinkūnienė is Professor of Linguistics at the Faculty of Philology, Vilnius University, Lithuania. Her research interests focus on research writing patterns and epistemological traditions of various disciplines and cultures,
academic rhetoric, elements of persuasion in academic discourse, researchpublication practices, evaluation of research, and academic identity aspects.

Augustinas Melinskas

Augustinas Mėlinskas is currently an MA student of English Studies at Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania. His research interests include corpus linguistics, discourse analysis, and English for Academic Purposes.

References

Ädel, A. (2006) Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.24
Alghazo, S., Al-Salem, M. N. and Alrashdan, I. (2021) ‘Stance and engagement in English and Arabic research article abstracts.’ System 103, 102681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102681
Becher, T. (1994) ‘The significance of disciplinary differences.’ Studies in Higher Education 19(2), 151-161. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079412331382007
Bordet, G. (2014) ‘Influence of collocational variations on making the PhD abstract an effective “would-be insider” self-promotional tool.’ In: Bondi, M. and Lorés Sanz, R. (eds) Abstracts in Academic Discourse. Bern: Peter Lang. 131-160.
Coates, J. (1983) The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London and Canberra: Croom Helm. Connor, Connor, U. (2000) ‘Variation in rhetorical moves in grant proposals of US humanists and scientists.’ Text & Talk 20(1), 1-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/text.1.2000.20.1.1
Connor, U. and Mauranen, A. (1999) ‘Linguistic analysis of grant proposals: European Union research grants.’ English for Specific Purposes 18(1), 47-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00026-4
Cotos, E. (2019) ‘Articulating societal benefits in grant proposals: Move analysis of broader impacts.’ English for Specific Purposes 54, 15-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.11.002
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R. and Steffensen, M. (1993) ‘Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students.’ Written Communication 10(1), 39-71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088393010001002
Cutting, J. (2012) ‘Vague language in conference abstracts.’ Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11(4), 283-293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.05.004
Dahl, T. (2004) ‘Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline?’ Journal of Pragmatics 36(10), 1807-1825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.004
Diani, G. (2014) ‘On English and Italian research article abstracts: Genre variation across cultures.’ In: Bondi, M. and Lorés Sanz, R. (eds) Abstracts in Academic Discourse. Bern: Peter Lang. 65-84.
Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2020) ‘Persuasion in academic discourse: Metadiscourse as a means of persuasion in anglophone and Czech linguistics and economics research articles.’ In: Dontcheva-Navratilova, O., Adam, M., Povolná, R. and Vogel, R. (eds) Persuasion in Specialised Discourses. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. 121-158. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58163-3_3
Dos Santos, M. B. (1996) ‘The textual organization of research paper abstracts in applied linguistics.’ Text & Talk 16(4), 481-500. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1996.16.4.481 European Research Council (2023) ‘ERC at a glance.’ In: About ERC. Online document. Accessed on 15 August 2023 <https://erc.europa.eu/>.
Feng, H. and Shi, L. (2004) ‘Genre analysis of research grant proposals.’ Professional Communication 4(1), 8-30.
Fløttum, K., Dahl, T. and Kinn, T. (2006). Academic Voices: Across Languages and Disciplines. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Friginal, E. and Mustafa, S. S. (2017) ‘A comparison of U.S.-based and Iraqi English research article abstracts using corpora.’ Journal of English for Academic Purposes 25, 45-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.11.004
Gillaerts, P. and Van de Velde, F. (2010) ‘Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts.’ Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9(2), 128-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.004
Harwood, N. (2007) ‘Political scientists on the functions of personal pronouns in their writing: An interview-based study of ‘I’ and ‘we’.’ Text & Talk 27(1), 27-54. https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2007.002
Hood, S. (2012) ‘Voice and stance as appraisal: Persuading and positioning in research writing across intellectual fields.’ In: Hyland, K. and Sancho Guinda, C. (eds) Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 51-68.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137030825_4
Hyland, K. (2005a) Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London and New York: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2005b) ‘Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse.’ Discourse studies 7(2), 173-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365 Mur-Dueñas, P. (2011) ‘An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish.’ Journal of Pragmatics 43(12), 3068-3079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.002
Nasseri, M. and Thompson, P. (2021) ‘Lexical density and diversity in dissertation abstracts: Revisiting English L1 vs. L2 text differences.’ Assessing Writing 47, 100511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100511
Ozdemir, N. O. and Longo, B. (2014) ‘Metadiscourse use in thesis abstracts: A cross-cultural study.’ Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 141(25), 59-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.011
Palmer, F. R. (1990) Modality and the English Modals. New York: Routledge.
Samar, R. G., Talebzadeh, H., Kiany, G. R. and Akbari, R. (2014) ‘Moves and steps to sell a paper: A cross-cultural genre analysis of applied linguistics conference abstracts.’ Text & Talk 34(6), 759-785. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2014-0023
Sancho Guinda, C. and Hyland, K. (2012) ‘Introduction: A context-sensitive approach to stance and voice.’ In: Hyland, K. and Sancho Guinda, C. (eds) Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137030825_1
Scott, M. (2020) WordSmith Tools version 8. Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software.
Stotesbury, H. (2003) ‘Evaluation in research article abstracts in the narrative and hard sciences.’ Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2(4), 327-341. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00049-3
Šinkūnienė, J. (2014) Lietuviškojo humanitarinių ir socialinių mokslų diskurso ypatybės [Insights into Lithuanian academic discourse of the humanities and social sciences]. Vilnius: Vilniaus Universiteto Leidykla.
Treanor, L., Frank, R. A., Cherpak, L. A., Sharifabadi, A. D., Salameh, J.-P., Hallgrimson, Z., Fabiano, N., Mcgrath, T. A., Kraaijpoel, N., Yao, J., Korevaar, D. A., Bossuyt, P. M. and McInnes, M. D. F. (2020) ‘Publication bias in diagnostic imaging: Conference
abstracts with positive conclusions are more likely to be published.’ European Radiology 30(12), 2964-2972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06568-z
van den Besselaar, P. and Mom, C. (2022) ‘The effect of writing style on success in grant applications.’ Journal of Infometrics 16(1), 101257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2022.101257
Vande Kopple, W. (1985) ‘Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse.’ College Composition and Communication 36(1), 82-93. https://doi.org/10.2307/357609
Vladimirou, D. (2007) ‘‘I suggest that we need more research’: Personal reference in linguistics journal articles’ In: Gabrielatos, C., Slessor, R. and Unger, J. W. (eds) Papers from Lancaster University Postgraduate Conference in Linguistics and Language Teaching. Lancaster: Lancaster University. 169-157.
Xie, S. (2020) ‘Multidimensional analysis of master thesis abstracts: A diachronic perspective.’ Scientometrics 123(1), 861-881. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020- 03408-6
Yakhontova, T. (2006) ‘Cultural and disciplinary variation in academic discourse: The issue of influencing factors.’ Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5(2), 153-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.03.002

Metrics

0

Crossref logo

0


107

Views

62

PDF views