The Comparison of Verb Use in Social and Science Research Article Abstract A Corpus-Based Study
(1) National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology
Corresponding Author
Abstract
A research article is a kind of academic writing that is extensively utilized by scientists to explain their thoughts in the present day. This paper focuses on the abstract part since it is an important representation of the substance of an academic paper. This study intends to compare the verb use in abstracts of scientific and social research articles. To examine this conversation, qualitative descriptive research is performed in this study. This research investigates the frequency of the verbs identified by LancsBox 6.0 using corpus analysis. This research employs 15 scientific abstracts and 15 social abstracts produced by Indonesian authors and published between April 1st until September 30th, 2021 in order to determine the most and least commonly utilized verb types in each study. This study's objectives are to determine the types of verbs used in science and social article abstracts, to determine the frequency of verb use in science and social article abstracts, and to explain why x types of verbs are the most and y types are the least prevalent in science and social research article abstracts. Material, relational, cognitive, possessive/relational, perception/relational, feeling, existential, verbal, and corporeal are the verb kinds utilized in abstracts of scientific and social research articles, according to the study's findings. In both scientific and social abstractions, the material verb type that conveys a definite meaning is used most often. In contrast, corporeal, which expresses subjective meaning, is utilized least often in abstracts of scientific and scholarly articles. It may be argued that material verbs are most commonly utilized in academic writing that requires an objective statement as a defining property of the genre.
Keywords
References
Babbie, E.R. 2010. The Practice of Social Research. (12th ed.). Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.
Baker, M. 2004. Lexical categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baker, P. 2010. Sociolinguistics and Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press
Baker, P., Hardie, A. & McEnery, T. 2006. A Glossary of Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Bodgan, R. C., Biklen, S. K. 1992. Qualitative Research for Education: an Introduction to Theory and Methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Brezina, V., Weill-Tessier, P., & McEnery, A. (2020). #LancsBox v. 5.x. [software]. Available at: http://corpora.lancs.ac.uk/lancsbox.
Chomsky, N. 1976. Reflections on Language. London: Temple Smith.
Creswell, J. W. 2008. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (3rd ed.). NJ: Pearson Education
Deliana. Panah, E. & Manshor, R. 2021. English Collocations Improvement through Google Scholar. TESOL International Journal. 16 (6.2), 92-108. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Aysha-Alshamsi- 4/publication/353018470_Cognitive_and_Metacognitive_Skills_on_Eleme ntary_School_Students_Mixed_Methods_Study/links/610343c2169a1a010 3c724b4/Cognitive-and-Metacognitive-Skills-on-Elementary-School- Students-Mixed-Methods-Study.pdf#page=92
Dixon, R. M. W. 1991. A Semantic Approach to English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fontaine, L. 2013. Analyzing English Grammar: A Systematic-Functional Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. Spoken and Written Language. Geelong, Vic.: Deakin University Press. [republished by Oxford University Press 1989.]
Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. 2007. Language and Society. London: Continuum.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd ed). London : New York: Arnold ; Distributed in the United States of America by Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1985a. An Introduction to Functional Linguistics. London: Edward Arnold.
Hanafiah, R. & Yusuf, M. 2016. Lexical Density and Grammatical Intricacy in Linguistic Thesis Abstract: A Qualitative Content Analysis. English Education Conference (EEIC). http://www.jurnal.unsyiah.ac.id/EEIC/article/viewFile/15862/11683
Hartley, J. 2008. Academic Writing and Publishing. Routledge.
Ingthorsson, R. D. 2013. The Natural vs. The Human Sciences: Myth, Methodology, and Ontology. Discusiones Filosoficas, 14(22), 25-41. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262458712_The_natural_vs_The_ human_sciences_myth_methodology_and_ontology.
Lores, R. 2004. On RA abstracts: from Rhetorical Structure to Thematic Organisation. English for Specific Purposes. 23, 280-302. http://www.sciencedirect.com.
Martin, P. M. 2003. A Genre Analysis of English and Spanish Research Paper Abstracts in Experimental Social Sciences. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 25-43. http://ww w.sciencedirect.com.
Miles, Matthew B., Huberman, Michael A., and Saldana, J. 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. London. Sage.
Moleong, J. L. 2008. Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya.
Oktavianti, I. N. & Adnan, A. 2020. A Corpus Study of Verbs in Opinion Articles of The Jakarta Post and The Relation with Text Characteristics. English Language Teaching Educational Journal, 108 – 117. http://journal2.uad.ac.id/index.php/eltej/article/view/2158
Patton, M Q. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. (3rd ed.). Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA.
Ridwan, H. T. A. 1997. Dasar – Dasar Linguistika. Medan: Universitas Sumatera Utara
Salam et. al. 2018. Characteristic of Academic Texts from Systemic Functional Linguistic Perspectives. International Journal of Language Education, 2 (2), 122-134. DOI: 10.26858/ijole.v2i2.5266
Scheibman, J. 2002. Points of View and Grammar: Structural Patterns of Subjectivity in American English Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sinclair, J. 2005. "Corpus and Text - Basic Principles" in Developing Linguistic Corpora: a Guide to Good Practice, ed. M. Wynne. Oxford: Oxbow.
Weissberg, R. and Buker, S. 1990. Writing Up Research: Experimental Research Report Writing for Students of English. Engelwood Cliffs: Prentice Hall Regents.
Wren, P.C. & Martin, H. 1990. High School English Grammar and Composition. New Delhi: S. Chand.
Article Metrics
Abstract View : 107 timesPDF Download : 53 times
DOI: 10.57235/qistina.v3i1.2096
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2024 Suwandi Suwandi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.