Rhetorical Move Analysis of Science and Engineering Abstracts Rejected in a Scopus-Indexed Journal

  • Syifa Fauzia Qurratu’aini English Education Department, Faculty of Language and Literature Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung, Indonesia
  • Eri Kurniawan English Education Department, Faculty of Language and Literature Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung, Indonesia
  • Arif Husein Lubis Korean Education Department, Faculty of Language and Literature Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung, Indonesia
Keywords: Cross-disciplinary, Hard sciences, Linguistic features, Rejected, Research article abstract, Rhetorical moves analysis

Abstract

The role of an appropriate writing of an abstract becomes significantly important as it acts not only as the representative of the whole content of the paper, but also helps journal reviewers to decide whether the article is deemed worthy to be published. While myriad research on rhetorical move analysis of research article abstracts has been conducted, an inadequate amount of them has probed onto rejected research article abstracts, specifically using a cross-disciplinary lens. This study aims to uncover the rhetorical organization and linguistic features of science and sngineering abstracts by utilizing Hyland’s (2000) rhetorical structure. The method of this research is used as the nature of this research rooted from discourse analysis. A total of eighteen rejected abstracts were retrieved from Indonesian Journal of Science and Technology (IJoST). The findings revealed that all of Hyland’s moves were found in both dataset where the move occurrences were identical to one another. However, significant differences existed in step occurrences, particularly in Step 4 of Move 1, Step 1*, 1, and 2 of Move 3, and Step 1 and 2 of Move 5. Engineering studies considered Introduction, Purpose, and Method as obligatory moves, while science studies viewed Purpose as a conventional move of the three. Pattern-wise, science applied two configurations, while engineering used three. Regarding the linguistic features, present tense and active voice were dominant across the disciplines. Furthemore, it was observed that the conventionality of abstract writing had not been properly performed in the rejected abstracts. This research is hoped to provide an insightful source on rejected research article abstracts to future researchers.

References

Ahmed, S. (2015). Rhetorical organization of tourism research article abstracts. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 208, 269–281.

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).

Campbell-Sills, A., & Stein, M. B. (2007). Psychometric analysis and refinement of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) validation of a 10- Item Measure of Resilience. Jurnal of Traumatic Stress, 20(6), 1019–1028.

Doró, K. (2013). The rhetoric structure of research article abstracts in English studies journals. Versita Prague Journal of English Studies, 2(1), 119–139.

Esfandiari, R. (2014). Realization of rhetorical moves and verb tense variation in o subdisciplines of computer sciences: Artificial intelligence and architecture. Nternational Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, I 5(2), 564-573.

Gani, F. G., Kurniawan, E., Gunawan, W., & Lubis, A. H. (2021). Rhetorical moves analysis in soft and hard science lecturers’ master’s thesis and dissertation abstracts. CONAPLIN 2020, 156–161.

Hanidar, S. (2016). Rhetorical patterns, verb tense, and voice in cross-disciplinary research article abstract. Jurnal Humaniora, 28(1), 12.

Hardjanto, T. D. (2017). Common discourse patterns of cross-diciplinary research article abstracts in English. Humaniora, 29(1), 72–84.

Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. The University of Michigan Press.

Juanda, M. R., & Kurniawan, E. (2020). A Comparison of Rhetorical Moves in Students’ Undergraduate Thesis Abstracts. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education (ICOLLITE 2020). Atlantis Press.

Kanafani, A., Nurcik, A. B., Harisbaya, A. I., Qurratu’aini, S. F., Kurniawan, E., & Lubis, A. H. (2021). Rhetorical move and linguistic features comparative analysis of research article abstracts by authors of different organizational backgrounds. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education (ICOLLITE 2021).

Kaplan, R., Cantor, S., Hagstrom, C., Kamhi-Stein, L., Shiotani, Y. & Zimmerman, C. (1994). On abstract writing. Text - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 14(3), 401–426.

Kurniawan, E., Lubis, A. H., Suherdi, D., & Danuwijaya, A. A. (2019). Rhetorical Organization of Applied Linguistics Abstracts: Does Scopus Journal Quartile Matter? GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies, 19(4).

Lorés, R. (2004). On RA abstracts: from rhetorical structure to thematic organisation. English for Specific Purposes, 23(3), 280–302.

MacDonald, S. P. (1994). Professional academic writing in the humanities and social sciences. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Nurhayati, N. (2017). Verb tense analysis of research article abstract in Asian EFL journal. Progressive Journal, 12(2), 121–128.

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.

Saeeaw, S., & Tangkiengsirisin, S. (2014). Rhetorical Variation across Research Article Abstracts in Environmental Science and Applied Linguistics. English Language Teaching, 7(8), 81–93.

Salatino, A. A., & Motta, E. (2016). Detection of embryonic research topics by analysing semantic topic networks. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 9792 LNCS, 131–146.

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. & Feak, C. B. (2009). Abstracts and the writing of abstracts. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.

Tseng, F. P. (2011). Analyses of move structure and verb tense of research article abstracts in applied linguistics journals. International Journal of English Linguistics, 1(2), 27.

Yoon, J., & Casal, J. E. (2020). Rhetorical structure, sequence, and variation: A step-driven move analysis of applied linguistics conference abstracts. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 30(3), 462–478.

Zhang, B., Thuc, T.B.Q., & Pramoolsook, I. (2012). Moves and linguistic realizations: English research article abstracts by Vietnamese agricultural researchers. Asian E.S.P. Journal, 8(2), 126–149.

Published
2022-04-01
How to Cite
Syifa Fauzia Qurratu’aini, Eri Kurniawan, & Arif Husein Lubis. (2022). Rhetorical Move Analysis of Science and Engineering Abstracts Rejected in a Scopus-Indexed Journal. RETORIKA: Jurnal Ilmu Bahasa, 8(1), 38-47. https://doi.org/10.55637/jr.8.1.4846.38-47
Section
Articles
Abstract viewed = 58 times
PDF downloaded = 92 times