JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 7(2), 2022 345
JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature)
Vol. 7 No. 2, August 2022
ISSN (print): 2502-7816; ISSN (online): 2503-524X
Available online at https://ejournal.unib.ac.id/index.php/joall/article/view/20542
https://doi.org/10.33369/joall.v7i2.20542
Revealing the rhetorical moves and linguistic patterns
in discipline-related undergraduate thesis
Risa Rumentha Simanjuntak
English Department, Faculty of Humanities, Bina Nusantara University, INDONESIA
Jalan Kemanggisan Ilir III No. 45, Kemanggisan, Palmerah, Jakarta Barat 11480
ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT
Article history:
Received: Feb 3, 2022
Revised: June 16, 2022
Accepted: July 13, 2022
Previous studies have provided exciting findings for language
variations in theses and dissertations. However, not many
studies have revealed the rhetorical analysis of the
undergraduate abstracts. This study investigated the rhetorical
structure of undergraduate thesis abstracts to reveal the
constructions of the genre by novice writers. It further
explored the variations between two groups of writers,
students with the native language of English and Indonesian
students writing in English. The aim was to present the
commonalities and differences within the genre and finally
conclude the genre’s conventions. The corpus for this study
consisted of 180 undergraduate thesis abstracts from 12
universities in the United States, New Zealand, and Indonesia
from Computer Science. The findings of this study revealed
certain conventions consisting of rhetorical moves and
rhetorical strategies used to perform the rhetorical moves.
Differences between native writers of English and non-native
writers of English included the use of lexical items and lexico-
grammatical constructions in presenting arguments and
evidence. The study concluded that socio-cultural factors, such
as institutional guidelines for thesis writing and students’ first
language, may contribute to the genre's variations.
Keywords:
thesis abstract
rhetorical construction
rhetorical moves
Computer Science
Conflict of interest:
None
Funding information:
None
Correspondence:
Risa Rumentha Simanjuntak,
English Department, Faculty of
Humanities, Bina Nusantara
University, INDONESIA
risarsimanjuntak@binus.edu
©Risa Rumentha Simanjuntak
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA 4.0 international license.
How to cite (APA style):
Simanjuntak, R.R. (2022). Revealing the rhetorical moves and linguistic patterns in discipline-related
undergraduate thesis. JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 7(2), 345-361.
https://doi.org/10.33369/joall.v7i2.20542
Research in university has been regarded as gatekeeper for quality in
universities (Hyland, 2012). For students, this is translated as writing research
based final papers, or theses. A good thesis would then gain acknowledgment
from its readers and becomes a reference for further research. In a thesis the
persuasive effect appears as early as in its abstract. An abstract of a research
paper has been studied for its structures and functions. Abstract as a genre
consists of certain macrostructure and microstructure (Santos, 1996; Nwogu,
https://ejournal.unib.ac.id/index.php/joall/article/view/20542
https://doi.org/10.33369/joall.v7i2.20542
https://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.33369/joall.v7i2.20542&domain=pdf
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
https://doi.org/10.33369/joall.v7i2.20542
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2324-4019
Risa Rumentha Simanjuntak
346 JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 7(2), 2022
1997; Hyland, 2000; Kanoksilapatham, 2013; Arsyad, 2014; Atanassova,
Bertin, & Lariviere, 2016; Amnuai, 2019). An abstract also has certain
rhetorical moves (Halliday & Hasan, 1989, 2013; Swales, 1990), comparatively
different from other parts of a thesis.
A thesis abstract appearing at the beginning of a thesis covers major or
critical issues. When accessible through e-repositories, an abstract would
usually be the only text people read from a thesis. As a result, large numbers
of research fidelity available in the library will eventually be left unnoticed.
An abstract effectively captures the essence of research (Bhatia, 1993;
O’Connor, 2009; Koltay, 2010). A good abstract can depict the significant
contributions of the study and persuade people to continue reading the thesis
(O’Connor, 2009).
The macrostructure of an abstract consists of the research topic,
motivation, or reason to conduct the research, the method in conducting the
research, results of the investigation, and conclusion. On the other hand, the
microstructure of an abstract is an amalgamation of various linguistic devices
used to accomplish the communication purposes of each rhetorical move.
Generally, an abstract may consist of 3 to 5 rhetorical moves (Halliday &
Hasan, 1989, 2013; Swales, 1990). Typically, an abstract begins with
introducing the issue to be researched, then presents the problem to be
investigated/the purpose/motivation of the research, methods used in the
research, results/products of the research, and finally ends with the
conclusion of the research.
A model of the rhetorical structure of an abstract proposed by Hyland
(2000) based on 800 abstracts in eight disciplines reveals an abstract with five
moves. The rhetorical move structure consists of I-P-M-Pr-C (Introduction-
Purpose-Method-Product-Conclusion). An abstract is also noted for using
Past Tense in Method rhetorical moves, whereas Introduction and Purpose
moves generally use Present Tense (Amnuai, 2019). Furthermore, studies
have also shown specific language devices to create a stance by using hedges,
boosters, and attitude markers. The language devices can also increase
persuasiveness/engagement (Hyland and Jiang, 2017) in abstracts. However,
no study was conducted to comprehensively identify the use of specific
linguistic devices concerning the use of the rhetorical move. Knowing
whether a rhetorical move requires certain words, phrases, and sentence
construction is essential.
Variations in rhetorical moves are identified in abstracts, covering 3 to
5 rhetorical moves in abstracts. These variations are affected by the
conventions of the disciplines, such as Applied Linguistics (Tseng, 2011;
Suntara & Usaha, 2013; Pho, 2014; Can, Karabacak, & Qin, 2016), Biology
(Samraj, 2005), Educational Technology (Pho, 2014), Linguistics (Suntara &
Usaha, 2013), Psychology (Samraj, 2005); Tourism (Iaorr & Jarunthawatchai,
Revealing the rhetorical moves and linguistic patterns in discipline-related…
JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 7(2), 2022 347
2014), and Sociology (Sanz, 2014). Variations in rhetorical moves and
linguistic devices could apply the convention of a discipline or field. Abstracts
in Social Sciences, for example, focus more on presenting the issues (Santos,
1996; Nwogu, 1997) and on identifying gaps in previous studies (Swales &
Feak, 1994, 2009) and a manner of invitation (Pho, 2008). Meanwhile,
Pure/Natural sciences abstracts usually focus more on the
problem/motivation for research and the method/procedure in finding
solutions to the problem (Samraj, 2005; Apple, 2014). Computer Science is a
newly emerging and vastly developing discipline (Hyland, 2012) and uses a
five-move rhetorical structure of I-P-M-Pr-C (Introduction-Purpose-Method-
Product-Conclusion) (Hyland, 2000; Hyland & Tse, 2005, 2007). Five rhetorical
moves are typical of social sciences, unlike four rhetorical moves (without I
rhetorical move) in pure sciences.
Also, variations emerge from the language backgrounds of the
students as writers, such as Arabic (Fallatah, 2016); Indonesian (Basthomi,
2006; Arsyad and Arono, 2018), Japanese (Apple, 2014); Spanish (Sanz, 2014),
Thai (Amnuai, 2019), Turkish (Ozmen, 2016), and Vietnamese, (Zhang, Thuc,
& Pramoolsook, 2012). In countries where English is taught as a foreign
language, difficulties are identified in presenting convincing arguments and
making propositions. Students are determined to overuse boosters to
convince the degree of arguments (Hyland and Jiang, 2017) and underuse
hedges to present objective and factual statements.
The more rudimentary issue falls on students' limited abilities to write
confidently in their discipline community (Hyland, 2006; Apple, 2014;
Ozmen, 2016; Hyland and Jiang, 2017; Amnuai, 2019). There has been a
general take such differences from typical native English writers would be
linked to underperformance. Such perceptions have also been supported by
findings in studies from several countries around the world, such as Saudi
Arabia, Vietnam, Japan, Turkey, and Indonesia (Fallatah, 2016; Zhang, Thuc,
& Pramoolsook, 2012; Apple, 2012; Ozmen, 2016; Cahyono, 2001). All of these
studies have shown similar conclusions, in which problems faced by students
in writing abstracts were linked to low scores or weak performance in English
courses. There are no further investigations on whether other contributing
factors rather than the low scores in English contribute significantly to English
writing performance. The previous studies suggest that, in general, academic
writing still becomes the biggest challenge for scholars.
Different studies also consider the challenges in writing as due to the
challenge of studying other structures in a language foreign to learners
(Flowerdew, 2012, 2013; Adnan, 2009; Arsyad, Purwo, Sukamto, & Adnan,
2019). Student writers may be unfamiliar with the thesis structure, including
the abstract (Swales and Feak, 1994; Chang, 2016), and may not be familiar
with the rhetorical moves required in an abstract. However, no studies have
Risa Rumentha Simanjuntak
348 JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 7(2), 2022
identified the possible factors related to the differences in the process and
used students’ perspectives in revealing the socio-cultural factors regarding
variations in thesis writing. While several studies have been done on the
writing of abstracts by Indonesian learners (Safnil, 2006; Arsyad & Arono,
2018), none focuses on undergraduate students’ research abstracts.
With such a gap, this study aims to explore the standard conventions
and possible variations in undergraduate thesis abstracts in Computer Science
and find the explanations for the variations (if any). This study is to answer
the main questions below:
(1) What similarities and differences in the use of rhetorical moves
could be identified in Computer Science abstracts from native
speakers and Indonesian students’ undergraduate thesis written in
English?
(2) What similarities and differences in the use of linguistic devices
could be identified in Computer Science abstracts from native
speakers and Indonesian students’ undergraduate thesis written in
English?
METHOD
The Corpus
This study's corpus comprised 180 undergraduate students' thesis abstracts in
Computer Science. Ninety abstracts were from students in Indonesian
universities (henceforth ISA) and English-native universities (henceforth
NISA). All abstracts were obtained from university websites. The Indonesian
corpus consisted of 90 abstracts from 6 universities. Table 1 below shows the
universities included in ISA:
Table 1. Abstracts from ISA and NISA
Name of Universities
Number of Abstracts
(N=90)
Category of
Abstracts
Universitas Bina Nusantara 15 ISA
Institut Pertanian Bogor 15 ISA
Institut Teknologi Surabaya 15 ISA
Universitas Indonesia 15 ISA
Universitas Muhammadiyah
Surakarta
15 ISA
Universitas Andalas 15 ISA
Harvard University 15 NISA
Georgia Institute of Technology 15 NISA
Cornell University 15 NISA
University of Michigan 15 NISA
University of Colorado 15 NISA
University of Tasmania 15 NISA
180
Revealing the rhetorical moves and linguistic patterns in discipline-related…
JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 7(2), 2022 349
Corpus Tools
AntConc 3.5.9 (2020) was used to generate data from the corpus. The
instrument generates data for wordlist, concordance, and the keyword in
context.
Instruments
This present study used two instruments to identify rhetorical moves and
linguistic devices. The first instrument was communicative functions
(Hyland, 2000). This instrument was used to identify functions of
communicative purposes in the rhetorical moves. The second instrument
was Interactive and Interactional Metadiscourse (Hyland, 2005). The second
instrument was used as the Wordlist in AntConc 3.5.9 (2020). Using this
instrument, AntConc was able to generate linguistic devices in the corpus.
Table 2. Communicative functions in abstracts (Hyland, 2000)
Rhetorical moves Rhetorical Move Function
Introduction (1) establishes the context of the paper
(2) motivates the research or discussion
Purpose (1) indicates purpose
(2) indicates thesis or hypothesis
(3) outlines the intention behind the paper.
Method (1) Provides information on design
(2) Provides information on procedures
(3) Provides information on assumption
(4) Provides information on the approach
(5) Provides information on data
Product (1) States main findings or results
(2) states the argument
(3) states what was accomplished
Conclusion (1) interprets or extends results beyond the scope of the paper
(2) draws inferences
(3) points to applications
(4) points to wider implications
Data Analysis Procedures
Analysis of the data was done first in the macrostructure of abstracts. The
analysis used Halliday’s five rhetorical moves (I-P-M-Pr-C). Rhetorical
moves were categorized based on the functions of the sentences, as seen in
Table 2. The location of the sentences in the abstracts also decided the
function of the sentence. Another instrument used was the classification of
Obligatory (Halliday & Hasan, 1989), Dominant (Kanoksilapatham, 2013),
and Optional rhetorical moves (Kanoksilapatham, 2013). An Obligatory
rhetorical move is when a rhetorical move occurs 100% in all abstracts. A
Dominant rhetorical move is when a rhetorical move occurs >90% in the
Risa Rumentha Simanjuntak
350 JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 7(2), 2022
abstracts, and an Optional rhetorical move is when the rhetorical move
occurs only <60% in abstracts.
Analysis was done on the microstructure of abstracts. Microstructure
categories used were Kanoksilapatham’s (2013). Interactive and interactional
metadiscourse markers were identified, following the categories used by
Hyland (2000), and listed using the keyword feature in AntConc. Further
analysis was done using concordances in AntConc to provide contexts for
using the metadiscourse markers. A second rater was used to identify the
microstructure identification with a similarity result of 97%.
RESULTS
Results showed Computer Science abstracts from native speakers, and
Indonesian students’ undergraduate thesis have similarities and differences.
Results also showed the discourse conventions in Computer Science
undergraduate thesis abstract. The results showed similarities in the
rhetorical styles between NISA and ISA. First, there was a similarity in the
type of abstracts. Both NISA and ISA used the informative kind of abstract
(58.89% and 83.33%, respectively). This type of abstract provides information
on what has been written in the full research paper. However, NISA used a
higher frequency of indicative abstracts (27.78%) compared to ISA (6.67%).
An indicative abstract offers a promise of what will be discussed in the paper.
This finding aligns with a previous study (Apple, 2014) in which Japanese
senkoka (Engineering) students used informative (also called reporting)
style in writing their abstracts.
Similarities and Differences in Computer Science Undergraduate Thesis
Abstracts
There were similarities in the use of rhetorical moves, as in (1) the use of P
(Purpose) as the obligatory rhetorical move, and (2) the C (Conclusion)
rhetorical move as the least used rhetorical move. NISA and ISA used the P
(Purpose) rhetorical move as obligatory. P (Purpose) rhetorical move
occurred in 100% of the abstracts. The table below shows the comparison
between NISA and ISA in the occurrence of rhetorical moves:
Table 3. The occurrence of rhetorical moves in NISA and ISA
Rhetorical Moves
NISA
(N=90)
ISA
(N=90)
I 91.11% 90.67%
P 100% 100%
M 82.22% 97.67%
Pr 77.78% 96.50%
C 50.00% 55.50%
Revealing the rhetorical moves and linguistic patterns in discipline-related…
JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 7(2), 2022 351
It can be seen from Table 3 that both NISA and ISA showed P (Purpose) move
to be present in every abstract (100%). The data showed the P (Purpose) move
to be the only obligatory rhetorical move in Computer Science
undergraduate thesis abstracts.
This finding was in line with the previous studies (Halliday & Hasan,
1989, 2013; Swales, 1990), and all studies showed the purpose of the research
as identifiable in abstracts. The finding also showed that the Purpose
rhetorical move was written in a sentence or was written as part of other
rhetorical moves, such as I (Introduction), M (Method), and Pr (Product). An
example from University of Colorado shows an embedded Purpose
rhetorical move. The excerpt reads:
(1) < I > While previous work on this topic has resulted in
approximations to this problem with an unquantifiable amount
error, < P > I present a novel method that provides a confidence
interval around the true probability which scales much better
than exact calculations.
(Sentence 5, University of Colorado_8)
In this sample, sentence 5 consists of the purpose of presenting a novel
method as a continuation of the introductory remark on the previous works.
The second similarity between NISA and ISA was the absence of a C
(Conclusion) rhetorical move. This move was the least used rhetorical move,
and NISA used C rhetorical move for 50% of all abstracts. Meanwhile, ISA
used C in 55.50% of the abstracts. The result is in line with the previous
studies, in which students usually did not include C in their abstracts
(Ozmen, 2016; Crosthwaite, Cheung, Jiang 2017; Zhong, 2017). This present
study also showed both NISA and ISA did not always present further
implications of the research, which is in C.
This present study also found several differences. As seen in Table 3,
ISA used the M (97.67%), and Pr (96.50%) rhetorical moves more often as
compared to NISA (82.22% and77.78%respectively). On the other hand,
NISA used more the I rhetorical move than ISA (91.11% compared to
90.67%). ISA used more rhetorical moves in general, except in the rhetorical
move where an introduction to the issue or research problem was stated.
The second difference found in the corpus was in the recycling of
rhetorical moves. NISA also frequently recycled, or repeated, rhetorical
move P (recycled ten times). ISA, however, recycled the M rhetorical move
the most (recycled 11 times).
The similarity between NISA and ISA appeared using linear sequence
to organize the abstracts. A linear five-move structure (I>P>M>Pr>C) was
mainly used. In all 180 abstracts in the corpus, there were 39 sequence types
identified in NISA and 50 types specified in ISA.
Risa Rumentha Simanjuntak
352 JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 7(2), 2022
An example of the sequence can be seen below:
(2) Synchronous interfaces provide a new input modality for
wearable devices requiring minimal user learning and calibration.
We present SeeSaw, a synchronous gesture interface for
commodity smartwatches to support rapid, one-handed input with no
additional hardware. Our algorithm introduces methods for
minimizing false-trigger events while facilitating fast and expressive
input. Results from a live evaluation of the system as a
onehanded notification response gesture show comparable speed and
accuracy to two-handed touch-based interfaces on smartwatches. The
SeeSaw input interaction is also evaluated as an input interface for
smartwatches and head-worn display systems, showing that the
interface enables rapid and accurate interaction. Thus, we find
that the SeeSaw synchronous gesture offers a compelling alternative
to existing input methods on wearable computers. Finally, a suite of
demo applications are presented to show SeeSaw’s support of binary,
multi-target, and activation input.
(Synchronous Interfaces for Wearable Computers, Gatech_12)
NISA showed difference in the sequencing of the rhetorical move. In
NISA, the M (Method) rhetorical move appeared to be used in the opening
or closing sections of the abstract. Inverted sequences found were I>P and
C>C. In ISA, M (Method) rhetorical move only appeared in the middle
section of the abstract. Such appearance is in line with the previous study,
which denotes the method rhetorical move does not introduce the topic of
research (Lim, 2006). Instead, the method rhetorical move needs to only
explain the procedures in research (ibid.).
Similarities and Differences in The Use of Linguistic Devices
The use of linguistic devices was found to be significantly different between
NISA and ISA. First, ISA used more interactive markers in arranging ideas
and in helping readers to follow the information in abstracts. The use of frame
markers (eg., this study, the method, the result) was very frequent in ISA to
identify the transition from one rhetorical move to another. NISA, on the other
hand, preferred to use transition markers (also, thus, furthermore) in marking
the transitions.
Second, NISA, in general, used more types and higher frequency of
interactional metadiscourse compared to ISA:
Revealing the rhetorical moves and linguistic patterns in discipline-related…
JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 7(2), 2022 353
Table 4. Metadiscourse used in abstracts
Rhetorical Moves
NISA ISA
Types Frequency Types Frequency
Hedges 38 146 25 67
Boosters 25 114 16 54
Attitude Markers 14 47 10 44
Engagement markers 48 460 46 282
Self-Mentions 5 208 2 11
Total 130 958 99 458
As can be seen from the table, both NISA and ISA were similar in the use of
more hedges and fewer boosters. This finding is not in line with the previous
studies, which states that learner or novice writers are distinctive in the use
of more boosters (presenting promise or offering certainty) and less use of
hedges (mitigating claims) (Hyland, 1998; Hyland and Tse, 2004).
Third, NISA used more engagement markers compared to ISA. NISA
also used more self-mentions compared to ISA. ISA never used “I” as self-
mention and only used to types of self-mentions: “the author” (used 7 times),
and “we” (used 4 times) and prefer to use passive voice. NISA used five types
of self-mentions: “I” (31 times), “my” (7 times), “our” (exclusive) (48 times),
“us” (exclusive) (3 times), “we” (exclusive) (118 times). The findings are in
line with the previous study, which identifies novice/student writers to be
more impersonal than professional/expert writers (Kafes, 2009).
Both ISA and NISA were similar in the use of tenses in I, P, M, and Pr
rhetorical moves. However, ISA used past tense in C (Conclusion) rhetorical
move whereas NISA never used past tense in C (Conclusion) but only used
the Future tense.
Also, both ISA and NISA used Passive/Active voices in all rhetorical
moves. However, ISA appeared to use more Passive voice compared to
NISA, especially in the I (Introduction) rhetorical move.
Table 5. Voice and tense used in NISA and ISA
Rhetorical
Move
NISA ISA
Voice Tense Voice Tense
I Active/Passive Simple
Past/Simple
Present/Present
Perfect
Active/Passive Simple Past/Simple
Present/Present
Perfect
P Active/Passive Simple Past/
Simple Present/
Simple
Future/Present
Perfect
Active/Passive Simple Past/ Simple
Present/ Simple
Future/Present
Perfect
M Active/Passive Simple Past/
Simple Present/
Active/Passive Simple Past/ Simple
Present/ Simple
Risa Rumentha Simanjuntak
354 JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 7(2), 2022
Rhetorical
Move
NISA ISA
Voice Tense Voice Tense
Simple
Future/Present
Perfect
Future/Present
Perfect
Pr Active/Passive Simple Past/
Simple Present/
Simple
Future/Present
Perfect
Active/Passive Simple Past/Simple
Present/ Simple
Future/Present
Perfect
C Active/Passive Simple
Present/Simple
Future/Present
Perfect
Active/Passive Simple Past/Simple
Present/Simple
Future/Present
Perfect
DISCUSSION
The results showed the rhetorical moves and linguistic devices used in
students’ abstracts. The comparison was initially made based on the
previous studies indicating problems or clear contrasts between students
with native English background and students with non-native English
backgrounds. Previous studies indicated students without exposure to
English or being non-native speakers of English would find difficulties in
writing academic English.
Also, there seemed to be conventions in Computer Science
undergraduate thesis abstract. From the results, it is apparent that
differences reoccur as common practice. To this point, it is important to
further analyze the possible reasons resulted in the difference from the
perspectives of academic culture and language backgrounds of Indonesian
students. Guidelines in thesis writing from Indonesian universities described
abstracts as summaries of the thesis. An example of the guideline provided
through the university is as follows:
(29) Abstrak ditulis dengan paragraph tunggal dan memuat uraian singkat
mengenai masalah dan tujuan penelitian, metode yang digunakan, dan hasil.
Abstrak harus menggambarkan rangkuman penelitian secara lugas yang ditulis
dalam bahasa Indonesia dan Bahasa Inggris. Panjang abstrak yang baik adalah
150 sampai dengan 300 kata. Abstrak diketik menggunakan font Times New
Roman dengan ukuran 12. Abstrak sangat penting di era internet karena akan
diindeks secara online dan akan sering dibaca. (Pedoman Penulisan Naskah
Publikasi, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta)
(The abstract is written in a single paragraph and contains a short
description of the problem and purpose of the research, methods used,
and the results. An abstract should summarize the research in a
straightforward manner, written in Indonesian and English. The good
Revealing the rhetorical moves and linguistic patterns in discipline-related…
JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 7(2), 2022 355
length for an abstract is from 150 up to 300 words. An abstract is typed
using Times New Roman font in 12 points. An abstract is very important
in the Internet era because it will be indexed online and will be read
frequently). (Publication Guideline, Muhammadiyah Surakarta
University)
As can be seen from the guideline, one factor affecting the rhetorical structure
and style of Indonesian students as the conventions set by the university's
guidelines.
The results showed that there was a different style of writing in ISA.
The reason for this was due to the translation process. ISA was the product of
translation from the original Indonesian abstracts. Linguistic devices used by
the Indonesian students were typical of Indonesian academic writing style, as
can be seen from most frequently used expressions in P (Purpose) rhetorical
move:
• English abstract : The purpose of this research is/was…
Indonesian abstract : (Tujuan dari penulisan ini adalah…)
• English abstract : This final project…
Indonesian abstract : (Tugas akhir ini…)
• English abstract : This research is…
Indonesian abstract : (Penelitian ini …)
• English abstract : This study aims to…
Indonesian abstract : (Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk…)
Such expressions were successfully transferred into English and found
equivalence in the target language. The translation process as carried out in
relevance to English lexico-grammatical constructions. Meanwhile, some
expressions, using the Indonesian lexico-grammatical construction, were
translated word-to-word into English. This translation strategy resulted in
grammatical errors in English, such as:
• English abstract : *In this final project will contain…
Indonesian abstract : (Dalam tugas akhir ini terdapat..)
• English abstract : *Based on the problems * made a desktop-
based food ordering application
Indonesian abstract :(Berdasakan permasalahan pembuatan
aplikasi pemesanan makanan berbasis desktop yang ada…)
These seem to have not found the equivalence in English, resulting in word-
to-word translation rather than using idioms or other semantically-founded
above-the-word level strategies. As a result, the hedges "terdapat” and
“berdasarkan" in Indonesian were not transferred successfully into English.
Another example of the influence of the Indonesian language background
was the use of modal "will" rather than "would" to present the epistemic
quality.
Risa Rumentha Simanjuntak
356 JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 7(2), 2022
Another possible factor in the style students used for research genre
was the lack of confidence. Students may be lacking in confidence and
resorted in distancing themselves from their readers and on the contrary from
the inclusive voice found in Computer Science discourse, used of passive
voice or "the author" to refer to themselves as authors.
CONCLUSION
Some conclusions can be drawn from the findings: First, undergraduate
student abstracts have certain rhetorical moves. In the study, all abstracts
appeared to follow the linear sequence of I>P>M>Pr>C. However, the most
frequently used rhetorical moves were I-P-M-Pr, in which sometimes I
replaced P. Second, intercultural factors were influencing the use of rhetorical
moves. Several factors found to influence the variations in abstracts were:
different academic cultures and conventions in universities’ guidelines,
different socio-cultural backgrounds, and different perceptions of self as
insiders in the field.
There are some pedagogical implications from this study: first, it is
important to provide more specifically discipline-oriented knowledge to
familiarize students with how people write in Computer Science through
exposure or acculturation. Besides, it is important to raise awareness of the
differences in rhetorical styles between Indonesian and English to prepare
students to write more effectively. Finally, lecturers need to embrace the
functions of facilitating rather than error-correcting. Lecturers’ key role would
be to provide some alternatives and explanations on the communicative
purposes as the students make linguistic decisions.
This study is limited to textual analysis, using the final version of
abstracts provided by authors in open access repositories. In the future, it is
recommended that the following findings from this research, experimental
study would also be conducted to reveal the process of the writing. Such
investigation would also be important to reveal the negotiating issues
pertinent to the lexical items used by students to reveal meaning and
functions. Another importance is to identify certain strategies undertaken by
student authors in order to achieve the functions and meanings. on the use of
the specific rhetorical structure or linguistic devices. An example would be
in writing a C (Conclusion) rhetorical move, which requires a pre-writing
activity (of reading the research article/paper and other related references),
process-writing (of collaborating and re-writing), and post-writing (or
evaluating peer-reviewing, and editing). Another important agenda in doing
further research by way of the experiment is to reveal students' attitudes and
perceptions of self (Sugiharto, 2012) prior, during, and after the writing. It is
expected that such an in-depth qualitative study would reveal more realities
Revealing the rhetorical moves and linguistic patterns in discipline-related…
JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 7(2), 2022 357
in the learning process in Higher Education level, especially for specific
academic purposes.
REFERENCES
Almeida, F.A. (2012). Sentential evidential adverbs and authorial stance in a
corpus of English computing articles. Volumen Monografico, 15-31.
American National Standards Institute. (1996). Guidelines for abstracts.NISO
Press.
American Psychological Association. (2009). Publication manual of the
American Psychological Association. 6th ed.
Amnuai, W. (2019). Analyses of rhetorical moves and linguistic realizations
in Accounting research article abstracts published in international and
Thai-based journals. SAGE Open, 9(1), 1-9.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018822384Apple, M. T. (2014). The
vocabulary and style of Engineering research abstract writing, OnCUE
Journal, 7(2), 86-102.
Arsyad, S. (2014). The discourse structure and linguistic features of research
article abstracts in English by Indonesian academics. The Asian ESP
Journal, 10 (2), 191-224.
Arsyad, S., & Arono. (2018). Memahami dan menulis abstrak artikel jurnal
[Understanding and writing journal article abstract]. Bogor, Indonesia:
Halaman Moeka Publishing. Arsyad, S., Purwo, B. K., Sukamto, K. E.,
& Adnan, Z. (2019). Factors hindering Indonesian lecturers from
publishing articles in reputable international journals. Journal on
English as a Foreign Language, 9(1), 42-70. doi: 10.23971/jefl.v9i1.982.
Atanassova, I., Bertin, M., &Lariviere, V. (2016). On the composition of
scientific abstracts. Journal of Documentation. 72. doi: 10.1108/JDOC-
09-2015-0111.
Basthomi, Y. (2016). The Rhetoric of Article Abstracts: A Seep through the
literature and a preliminary study. Bahasa dan Seni, 34(2), 174-190.
Bazerman, C. (1992). From cultural criticism to disciplinary participation:
living with powerful words. In A. Herrington, & C. Moran (Eds.),
Writing, teaching and learning in the disciplines (pp. 61–68). Modern
Languages Association of America.
Bazerman, C. (2009). Genre and cognitive development: Beyond writing to
learn. In Bazerman, C., Bonini, A., & Figueiredo, D. (Eds.). Genre in a
changing world (pp. 279-94). Parlor Press.
Bazerman, C., et. al. (Eds.). (2010). Traditions of writing research. Routledge.
Bhatia, V. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings.
Longman.
Bhatia, V. (Ed.). (2017). Critical genre analysis: Investigating interdiscursive
performance in professional practice. Routledge.
Risa Rumentha Simanjuntak
358 JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 7(2), 2022
Cahyono, B.Y. (2001). Research studies in second language writing and in
contrastive rhetoric. Kata, 3 (1), 39–52.
Can, S., Karabacak, E., & Qin, J. (2016). Structure of moves in applied
linguistics abstracts, Publications, 4(3), 1-16.
Chang, C. F., &Kuo, C. H. (2011). A corpus-based approach to online
materials development for writing research articles. English for Specific
Purposes, 30 (3), 222-234.
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learner's errors. IRAL: International
Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 5(4),161-170.
Crosthwaite, P., Cheung, L., & Jiang, F. (2017). Writing with attitude: Stance
expression in learner and professional dentistry research reports.
English for Specific Purposes, 46, 107–123. doi:
10.1016/j.esp.2017.02.001.
Ebrahimi, S.F., & Cheng, C. S. (2016). Cross-disciplinary use of
organizational linkers in research article abstracts. International Journal
of Foreign Language Teaching & Research, 4(15), 63-75.
El Malik, A. T., &Nesi, H. (2008). Publishing research in a second language:
The case of Sudanese contributors to international medical journals.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 87-96.
https://doi.org//10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.007.
Fallatah, W. (2016). Features of Saudi English research articles. World English
Journal, 7(2), 368- 379. doi: https://doi.org//
10.24093/awej/vol7no2.25.
Flowerdew, J. (2001). Attitudes of journal editors to nonnative speaker
contributions, TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 121–50.
Flowerdew, L. (2012). Corpora in the classroom: An applied linguistic
perspective. In K. Hyland, C. M. Huat, & M. Handford (Eds.), Corpus
applications in applied linguistics (pp. 208-224). London, England:
Continuum.
Flowerdew, L. (2013). Corpus-based research and pedagogy in EAP: From
lexis to genre. Language Teaching, Vol. 26, pp. 1–18.
https://doi.org//10.1017/S0261444813000037.
Gesuato, S. (2011). Structure, content and functions of calls for conference
abstracts. In V. K. Bhatia, P. Sánchez Hernández, & P. Pérez-Paredes,
(Eds.), Researching specialized languages (pp.47-70). John Benjamins.
Gillaerts, P. (2014). Shifting Metadiscourse: Looking for diachrony in the
abstract genre. In M. Bondi & L. S., Sanz, (Eds.), Abstracts in academic
discourse: Variation and change (pp. 271-280). Bern: Peter Lang AG.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context, and text: Aspects
of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K & Hasan, R. (2013). Cohesion in English. Routledge.
Revealing the rhetorical moves and linguistic patterns in discipline-related…
JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 7(2), 2022 359
Holtz, M. (2011). Lexico-grammatical properties of abstracts and research
articles. A corpus-based study of scientific discourse from multiple
disciplines. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from:
http://tuprints.ulb.tu-darmstadt.de/2638/
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. John Benjamins.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic
writing. Longman.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: a
reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25, 156-177.
https://doi.org//10.1016/j.esp.2004.02.002.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse. Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2006). The ‘other’ English: thoughts on EAP and academic
writing. The European English Messenger, 15 (2), 34-57.
Hyland K. &Tse, P. (2007). Is there an “academic vocabulary”?, TESOL
Quarterly, 41(2), 235–253. https://doi.org//10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.005.
Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic
writing, Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 125-143.
Hyland, K. (2012). Corpora and academic discourse. In K. Hyland, C. M.
Huat, & M. Handford (Eds.), Corpus applications in Applied
Linguistics (pp. 30-46). Continuum.
Hyland, K. & Jiang, F. (2017). ‘We believe that…’: Changes in an academic
stance marker. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 1-22.
https://doi.org//:10.1080/07268602.2018.1400498
Iaorr, K. & Jarunthawatchai, A. W. (2014). Abstracts Writing: A case study of
Science-Direct Top 25 Hottest Articles. Thailand TESOL International
Conference Proceedings, 91-110.
Jiang, F. (2017). Stance and voice in academic writing: The “noun + that”
construction and disciplinary variation. International Journal of Corpus
Linguistics, 22(1), 85–106. https://doi.org//10.1075/ijcl.22.1.04jia
Kafes, H. (2009). Authorial stance in academic English: Native and non-native
academic speaker writers’ use of stance devices (modal verbs) in research
articles. [Doctoral dissertation, Anadolu University]. ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Global.
Kanoksilapatham, B. (2013). Generic characterization of Civil Engineering
research article abstracts. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English
Language Studies, 19(3), 1 – 10.
Khansari, D., Heng, C. S., Yuit, C. M., & Tan, H. (2016). Regularities and
irregularities in rhetorical move structure of linguistics abstracts in
research articles. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language
Studies, 22(1), 39–54. https://doi.org//10.17576/3L-2016-2201-04.
Koltay, T. (2010). Abstracts and abstracting: A genre and set of skills for the
twenty-first century. Chandos.
Risa Rumentha Simanjuntak
360 JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 7(2), 2022
Lawrence, A. (2016). AntConc Version 3.5.
Lim, J. M. (2006). Method sections of management research articles: A
pedagogically motivated qualitative study. English for Specific
Purposes, 25(3), 282-309. https://doi.org//10.1016/j.esp.2005.07.001.
Lores, R. (2004). On RA abstracts: from rhetorical structure to thematic
organisation. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 280–302.
https://doi.org//10.1016/j.esp.2003.06.001.
Matsuda, P. K. & Silva, T. (Eds.) (2005). Second language writing research:
perspectives on the process of knowledge construction. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Molino, A. (2010). Personal and impersonal authorial references: A
contrastive study of English and Italian linguistics research articles.
English for Academic Purposes, 9, 86-101. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.007.
Nwogu, K. N. (1997). The medical research paper: structure and functions.
English for Specific Purposes, 16(2), 119-138.
https://doi.org//10.1016/S0889-4906(97)85388-4.
O’Connor, R. (2009). Writing scientific research articles: Strategy and steps.
West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
Ozmen, K. S. (2016). Rhetorical analysis of the doctoral abstracts on English
Language Teaching in Turkey. Journal on English Language Teaching, 6
(1), 25-35.
Pho, P. D. (2008). Research article abstracts in applied linguistics and
educational technology: a study of linguistic realizations of rhetorical
structure and authorial stance, Discourse Studies, 10(2), 231–250.
https://doi.org// 10.1177/1461445607087010.
Safnil. (2006). Rhetorical structure analysis of the Indonesian research
articles. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from: https://openresearch-
repository.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/48183
Samraj, B. (2005). An exploration of a genre set: Research article abstracts
and introductions in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 24,
141–156. https://doi.org//10.1016/j.esp.2002.10.001.
Santos, M. B. D. (1996). The textual organization of research paper abstracts
in Applied Linguistics. Text, 16(4), 481–99.
Sanz, L. S., (2014). Lost (and gained) in translation: A contrastive
(English/Spanish) analysis of rhetorical and lexicogrammatical
patterns in Sociology research article abstracts. In Bondi, M., and Sanz,
L.S. (eds.) Abstracts in academic discourse: Variation and change
(pp.85-110). Bern: Peter Lang AG.
Sugiharto, S. (2012). The construction of self in academic writing: A
qualitative case study of three Indonesian undergraduate student
writers. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from:
https://lib.atmajaya.ac.id/default.aspx?tabID=61&src=k&id=183528
Revealing the rhetorical moves and linguistic patterns in discipline-related…
JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 7(2), 2022 361
Suntara, W. & Usaha, S. (2013). Research article abstracts in two related
disciplines: Rhetorical variation between Linguistics and Applied
Linguistics. English Language Teaching, 6(2), 84-99.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings.
Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students-
essential tasks and skills: A course for nonnative speakers of English. The
University of Michigan Press.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2009). Abstracts and the writing of abstracts. The
University of Michigan Press.
Tseng, F. (2011). Analyses of move structure and verb tense of research
article abstracts in Applied Linguistics journals. International Journal of
English Linguistics, 1(2), 27-39. https://doi.org//10.5539/ijel.v1n2p27.
Zhang, B., Thuc, Q. B. T., & Pramoolsook, I. (2012). Moves and linguistic
realizations: English research article abstracts by Vietnamese
Agricultural researchers. Asian ESP Journal, 8(3), 127-149.
Zhong, J. (2017). Rhetorical interpretation of abstracts in Sci-Tech theses
based on Burke’s identification theory. English Language Teaching, 10(5),
68-75.
THE AUTHOR
Risa R. Simanjuntak is a lecturer from English Department, Bina Nusantara
University. She obtained her doctoral degree in Applied Linguistics from
Atma Jaya University. Her research interests included language and behavior,
the identity of language users, and technology in language learning.