Negation in thesis and dissertation abstracts by English, Chinese, and Iranian writers from a cross-cultural perspective


Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The effective use of negation is a critical yet challenging aspect of academic writing, as it influences the clarity and persuasiveness of arguments. Despite its rhetorical importance and the potential impact of sociocultural factors on its usage, cross-cultural variations in the use of negative markers in theses and dissertations-particularly in abstracts, remain underexplored. Abstracts serve as a key persuasive genre, engaging readers by summarizing research findings and their significance. This study addresses this gap by examining how negative markers are used in English abstracts produced by postgraduate students from English-speaking, Chinese, and Iranian academic contexts. A corpus of 300 abstracts was analyzed using a corpus-based approach grounded in an interpersonal model of negation. Quantitative analyses, including descriptive statistics and log-likelihood testing, revealed both shared and distinct patterns across groups. Commonly used markers included “not,” “no,” “little,” and “few,” while markers such as “nowhere” and “nobody” were absent. Notable differences emerged: Iranian students showed more use of “no”, particularly as a consequence marker; English students employed affective negation more frequently; English and Chinese students diverged in their use of “little.” These findings underscore the influence of cultural and linguistic backgrounds on the rhetorical deployment of negation in academic writing. The study advocates for targeted pedagogical strategies in English for Academic Purposes programs that explicitly address the rhetorical functions of negation. Such strategies can improve L2 students’ writing quality, enhance nuanced expression, and reduce pragmatic miscommunication, thereby better preparing students for successful academic communication in diverse English-medium contexts.

About the authors

Muhammed Parviz

Imam Ali University

Email: mohammad.parviz60@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1449-1651

Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics at Imam Ali University, Tehran, Iran. His research explores corpus linguistics, second language writing, and AI applications in language education. He has published widely on AI-assisted L2 writing and text analysis, bridging technology and second language acquisition.

Tehran, Iran

Qiusi Zhang

University of Illinois

Author for correspondence.
Email: qiusiz@illinois.edu
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5607-4258

ESL Lecturer & OEAI Coordinator in Department of Linguistics, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, and College of Liberal Arts & Sciences. Her areas of research interest center around corpus linguistics, educational assessment, second language studies, psychometrics, developmental psychology

Urbana-Champaign, USA

References

  1. Abdollahzadeh, Esmaeel. 2011. Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics 43 (1). 288–297. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.019
  2. Afzaal, Muhammad, Muhammad Ilyas Chishti, Chao Liu & Chenxia Zhang. 2021. Metadiscourse in Chinese and American graduate dissertation introductions. Cogent Arts & Humanities 8 (1). 1970879. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2021.1970879
  3. Biber, Douglas, Ulla Connor & Thomas Upton. 2007. Discourse on the Move: Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.28
  4. Blagojević, Savka N. 2004. Metadiscourse in academic prose: A contrastive study of academic articles written in English by English and Norwegian speakers. Studies About Linguistics 5. 60–67.
  5. Boginskaya, Olga. 2022. Functional categories of hedges: A diachronic study of Russian-medium research article abstracts. Russian Journal of Linguistics 26 (3). 645–667. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-30017
  6. Burke, Isabelle. 2020. Negation in Australian English: From bugger all to no worries. In Louisa Willoughby & Howard Manns (eds.), Australian English reimagined: Structure, features and developments, 51–65. Abingdon Oxon UK: Routledge.
  7. Сhen, Chenghui & Lawrence Jun Zhang. 2017. An intercultural analysis of the use of hedging by Chinese and Anglophone academic English writers. Applied Linguistics Review 8 (1). 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2016-2009
  8. Councill, Isaac, Ryan McDonald & Leonid Velikovich. 2010. What’s great and what’s not: Learning to classify the scope of negation for improved sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the workshop on negation and speculation in natural language processing. 51–59.
  9. Crismore, Avon, Raija Markannen & Steffensen Margaret. 1993. Metadiscourse in persuasive writing. A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication 10 (1). 39–71.
  10. Davoodifard, Mahshad. 2008. Functions of hedges in English and Persian academic discourse: Effects of culture and the scientific discipline. ESP Across Cultures 5. 23–48.
  11. Deng, Liming & Ping He. 2023. “We may conclude that:” A corpus-based study of stance-taking in conclusion sections of RAs across cultures and disciplines. Frontiers in Psychology 14. 1175144.
  12. Dunning, Ted. 1993. Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence. Computational Linguistics 19 (1). 61–74.
  13. Gabrielatos, Costas & Anna Marchi. 2011. Keyness: Matching metrics to definitions. Theoretical-methodological challenges in corpus approaches to discourse studies and some ways of addressing them. https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/51449
  14. Gritsenko, Elena S. & Olivier Mozard T. Kamou. 2024. Academic English melting pot: Reconsidering the use of lexical bundles in academic writing. Russian Journal of Linguistics 28 (3). 615–632. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-39663
  15. Herriman, Jennifer. 2009. Don’t get me wrong! Negation in argumentative writing by Swedish and British students and professional writers. Nordic Journal of English Studies 8 (3). 117–140.
  16. Hu, Guangwei & Feng Cao. 2011. Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English-and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics 43 (1). 2795–2809.
  17. Hyland, Ken. 1998. Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  18. Hyland, Ken. 2004. Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 13 (2).133–151.
  19. Hyland, Ken. 2019. Metadiscourse. Exploring Interaction in Writing. Continuum, Oxford.
  20. Jin, Yan & Jinsong Fan. 2011. Test for English majors (TEM) in China. Language Testing 28 (4). 589–596.
  21. Jiang, Kevin & Ken Hyland. 2017. Metadiscursive nouns: Interaction and cohesion in abstract moves. English for Specific Purposes 46. 1–14.
  22. Jiang, Kevin & Ken Hyland. 2022a. “The datasets do not agree”: Negation in research abstracts. English for Specific Purposes 68. 60–72.
  23. Jiang, Kevin & Ken Hyland. 2022b. Changes in research abstracts: Past tense, third person, passive, and negatives. Written Communication 40 (1). 210–237.
  24. Kong, Kenneth C. 2006. Linguistic resources as evaluators in English and Chinese research articles. Multilingua 25 (1–2). 183–216.
  25. Kreutz, Heinz & Annette Harres. 1997. Some observations on the distribution and function of hedging in German and English academic writing. Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 104. 181–202.
  26. Lantolf, James P. 1999. Second culture acquisition: Cognitive considerations. In Eli Hinkel (ed.), Culture in language teaching and learning, 28–42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  27. Li, Xuelan, Kevin Jiang & Jing Ma. 2023. A cross-sectional analysis of negation used in thesis writing by L1 and L2 PhD students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 64. 101264.
  28. Martin, James R. & Peter R. White. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan.
  29. Noorian, Mina & Reza Biria. 2010. Interpersonal metadiscourse in persuasive journalism: A study of texts by American and Iranian EFL columnists. Journal of Modern Languages 20 (1). 64–79.
  30. Paltridge, Brian & Sue Starfield. 2020. Thesis and Dissertation Writing in a Second Language (2nd edn.). London: Routledge.
  31. Park, Sehee & Sun-Young Oh. 2018. Korean EFL learners’ metadiscourse use as an index of L2 writing roficiency. The SNU Journal of Education Research 27 (2). 65–89.
  32. Parviz, Muhammed & Ge Lan. 2023. A corpus-based investigation of phrasal complexity features and rhetorical functions in data commentary. Journal of Language and Education 9 (3). 90–109.
  33. Rayson, Paul & Roger Garside. 2000. Comparing corpora using frequency profiling. In Adam Kilgarriff & Tory Berber Sardinha (eds.), Proceedings of the workshop on comparing corpora, 1–6. Stroudsburg: Association for Computational Linguistics.
  34. Sinclair, John. 2005. Corpus and text: Basic principles. In Martin Wynne (ed.), Developing linguistic corpora: A guide to good practice, 1–16. Oxbow Books. http://users.ox. ac.uk/~martinw/dlc/index.htm.
  35. Sun, Shuyi Amelia & Peter Crosthwaite. 2022a. “The findings might not be generalizable”: Investigating negation in the limitations sections of PhD theses across disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 59. 101155.
  36. Sun, Shuyi Amelia & Peter Crosthwaite. 2022b. “Establish a niche” via negation: A corpus-based study of negation within the move 2 sections of PhD thesis introductions. Open Linguistics 8 (1). 189–208.
  37. Sun, Shuyi Amelia & Kevin Jiang. 2024. “The results might not fully represent…”: Negation in the limitations sections of doctoral theses by Chinese and American students. Text & Talk 45 (3). 365–389.
  38. Swales, John M. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  39. Swales, John M. 2019. The futures of EAP genre studies: A personal viewpoint. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 38. 75–82.
  40. Tottie, Gunnel. 1991. Negation in English Speech and Writing: A Study in Variation. Academic Press.
  41. Tribble, Christopher. 2017. ELFA vs. Genre: A new paradigm war in EAP writing instruction. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 25. 30–44.
  42. Wang, Jingjing & Feng Jiang. 2018. Epistemic stance and authorial presence in scientific research writing. In Pilar Mur-Duenas & Jolanta Sinkuniene (eds.), Intercultural perspectives on research writing, 195–216. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  43. Webber, Pauline. 2004. Negation in linguistics papers. In Gabriella Del Lungo Camiciotti & Elena Tognini-Bonelli (eds.), Academic discourse: New insights into evaluation, 181–202. Peter Lang AG, European Academic Publishers.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

Copyright (c) 2025 Parviz M., Zhang Q.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Согласие на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика»

1. Я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных»), осуществляя использование сайта https://journals.rcsi.science/ (далее – «Сайт»), подтверждая свою полную дееспособность даю согласие на обработку персональных данных с использованием средств автоматизации Оператору - федеральному государственному бюджетному учреждению «Российский центр научной информации» (РЦНИ), далее – «Оператор», расположенному по адресу: 119991, г. Москва, Ленинский просп., д.32А, со следующими условиями.

2. Категории обрабатываемых данных: файлы «cookies» (куки-файлы). Файлы «cookie» – это небольшой текстовый файл, который веб-сервер может хранить в браузере Пользователя. Данные файлы веб-сервер загружает на устройство Пользователя при посещении им Сайта. При каждом следующем посещении Пользователем Сайта «cookie» файлы отправляются на Сайт Оператора. Данные файлы позволяют Сайту распознавать устройство Пользователя. Содержимое такого файла может как относиться, так и не относиться к персональным данным, в зависимости от того, содержит ли такой файл персональные данные или содержит обезличенные технические данные.

3. Цель обработки персональных данных: анализ пользовательской активности с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика».

4. Категории субъектов персональных данных: все Пользователи Сайта, которые дали согласие на обработку файлов «cookie».

5. Способы обработки: сбор, запись, систематизация, накопление, хранение, уточнение (обновление, изменение), извлечение, использование, передача (доступ, предоставление), блокирование, удаление, уничтожение персональных данных.

6. Срок обработки и хранения: до получения от Субъекта персональных данных требования о прекращении обработки/отзыва согласия.

7. Способ отзыва: заявление об отзыве в письменном виде путём его направления на адрес электронной почты Оператора: info@rcsi.science или путем письменного обращения по юридическому адресу: 119991, г. Москва, Ленинский просп., д.32А

8. Субъект персональных данных вправе запретить своему оборудованию прием этих данных или ограничить прием этих данных. При отказе от получения таких данных или при ограничении приема данных некоторые функции Сайта могут работать некорректно. Субъект персональных данных обязуется сам настроить свое оборудование таким способом, чтобы оно обеспечивало адекватный его желаниям режим работы и уровень защиты данных файлов «cookie», Оператор не предоставляет технологических и правовых консультаций на темы подобного характера.

9. Порядок уничтожения персональных данных при достижении цели их обработки или при наступлении иных законных оснований определяется Оператором в соответствии с законодательством Российской Федерации.

10. Я согласен/согласна квалифицировать в качестве своей простой электронной подписи под настоящим Согласием и под Политикой обработки персональных данных выполнение мною следующего действия на сайте: https://journals.rcsi.science/ нажатие мною на интерфейсе с текстом: «Сайт использует сервис «Яндекс.Метрика» (который использует файлы «cookie») на элемент с текстом «Принять и продолжить».