Justification resources are crucial dialogic resources for writers to express their intersubjective positionings and negotiate writer-reader relations. Thesis abstracts play an essential role in the construction and dissemination of new knowledge. Little attention, however, has been paid to the use of justification resources in thesis abstracts. Therefore, this corpus-based research aims to examine the use of such resources in English thesis abstracts from a cross-cultural lens. Based on a corpus of 124 English thesis abstracts by Chinese and Malay doctoral students in the discipline of linguistics, this research investigates if the use of justification resources differs between Chinese and Malay doctoral students in their English thesis abstracts. Quantitative analysis showed that although the normalized frequency of justification markers in Chinese students’ thesis abstracts was higher than that in their Malay counterparts’ texts, Mann-Whitney U test showed no significant cross-cultural difference. In-depth textual analyses found that Chinese students used more informal, and had a wider range of, justification markers than Malay students, but these two groups of students deployed three identical methods to justify the authorial stances. These results revealed that Chinese students’ English thesis abstracts are more dialogized, contractive and informal in comparison with their Malay counterparts’ texts which are less dialogized and contractive but more formal. Findings of this research have some pedagogical implications for the teaching of non-native learners’ academic English writing.
Choo, L.-L. (2022). A cross-disciplinary and cross-genre study of engagement in research articles and textbooks [Doctoral dissertation, Nanyang Technological University]. NIE Digital Repository. https://hdl.handle.net/10497/24177
Chung, T. T., Bui, L. T., & Crosthwaite, P. (2022). Evaluative stance in Vietnamese and English writing by the same authors: A corpus-informed appraisal study. Research in Corpus Linguistics, 10(1), 1-30. doi:10.32714/ricl.10.01.01
Coffin, C., & Hewings, A. (2004). IELTS as preparation for tertiary writing: distinctive interpersonal and textual strategies. In L. Ravelli & R. Ellis (Eds.), Analysing academic writing: Contextualised frameworks (pp.153–171). London: Continuum.
Fryer, D. L. (2019). Engagement in medical research discourse: A multisemiotic discourse-semantic study of dialogic positioning [Doctoral dissertation, University of Gothenburg]. GUPEA Campus Repository. https://gupea.ub.gu.se/handle/2077/58506
Fryer, D. L. (2022). Engagement in medical research discourse: A multisemiotic approach to dialogic positioning. New York: Routledge.
Geng, Y., & Wharton, S. (2016). Evaluative language in discussion sections of doctoral theses: Similarities and differences between L1 Chinese and L1 English writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 22, 80-91. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2016.01.001
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London/New York: Continuum.
Jiang, F. (2019). Corpora and EAP Studies. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Klimova, B. (2015). Teaching English abstract writing effectively. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 186, 908-912. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.113
Lam, S. L., & Crosthwaite, P. (2018). Appraisal resources in L1 and L2 argumentative essays: A contrastive learner corpus-informed study of evaluative stance. Journal of Corpora and Discourse Studies, 1(1), 8-35. doi:10.18573/jcads.1
Lancaster, Z. (2011). Interpersonal stance in L1 and L2 students’ argumentative writing in economics: Implications for faculty development in WAC/WID programs. A Journal of Language, Learning, and Academic Writing, 8(4), 1-28. doi:10.37514/ATD-J.2011.8.4.22
Liu, Y., Hu, X., & Hu, J. (2022). A corpus-based study on Chinese and American students’ rhetorical moves and stance features in dissertation abstracts. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1-13. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1004744
Loi, C. K., & Lim, J. M.-H. (2019). Hedging in the discussion sections of English and Malay educational research articles. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 19(1), 36-61. doi:10.17576/gema-2019-1901-03
Maat, H. P., & Sanders, T. (2000). Domains of use or subjectivity? The distribution of three Dutch causal connectives explained. Topics in English Linguistics, 33, 57-82. doi:10.1515/9783110219043.1.57
Macken-Horarik, M., & Isaac, A. (2014). Appraising appraisal. In G. Tompson & L. Alba-Juez (Eds.), Evaluation in context (pp. 67-92). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
O’Donnell, M. J. (2022). UAM CorpusTool (Version 3.3x). Retrieved from http://www.corpustool.com/download.html
Sawaki, T. (2020). Interacting voices structure a text: A quantitative investigation of dialogic elements across structural units in the introductory chapters of history theses. Functions of Language, 27(2), 174–206. doi:10.1075/fol.17037.saw
Stukker, N., & Sanders, T. (2012). Subjectivity and prototype structure in causal connectives: A cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(2), 169-190. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.011
Tse, P., & Hyland, K. (2006). ‘So what is the problem this book addresses?’: Interactions in academic book reviews. Text & Talk, 26(6), 767–790. doi:10.1515/TEXT.2006.031
Wang, G. (2018). Engagement in academic book reviews: Disciplinary, gender, and historical perspectives [Doctoral dissertation, Nanyang Technological University]. NIE Digital Repository. https://hdl.handle.net/10497/20332
White, P. R. R. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text, 23(2), 259–284. doi:10.1515/text.2003.011
White, P. R. R. (2012). Exploring the axiological workings of ‘reporter voice’ news stories-Attribution and attitudinal position. Discourse, Context & Media, 1(2-3), 57-67. doi:10.1016/j.dcm.2012.10.004
Ziv, Y. (1993). Causality in language and in discourse. Journal of Literary Semantics, 22(3), 177-185. doi:10.1515/jlse.1993.22.3.177
