Abstract writing: the phraseology of self-representation

There has been increasing interest in the structure of research article abstracts from the point of view of genre studies. A key issue in defining the structure of the genre seems to be the relationship between the abstract and the abstracted article, i.e. the way the structure and content of the article itself are represented, in a multiple semiotic process in which words are used to represent and interpret verbal objects. By guiding the reader’s interpretation of the abstracted text, abstracts can be seen to offer a persuasive representation of the argumentative structure of the text and a representation of the writer as a competent researcher. Using comparable corpora of abstracts from applied linguistics, the paper focuses on an analysis of forms of self-representation in the genre and looks at the phraseological patterns that emerge, arguing for a view of phraseology that combines lexical, syntactic and semantic considerations. The phraseological patterns of framing sequences are shown to act also as forms of self-promotion, variously constructing the discursive identity of the writer as researcher or arguer. The analysis of the phraseological patterns of markers of claim-making such as "argue" or "suggest" shows that these play a significant role in the structure of applied linguistics abstracts. The two verbs, however, though similarly frequent, have shown different semantic preferences. The lemma "argue" in framing sequences shows a preference for personal framing, though well balanced with attribution to the text itself; the constructs originated by the process are mostly presented as full propositions (arguing that, rather than arguing for or against). The sequences with "suggest", on the other hand, tend to favour impersonal framing, having mostly research components as origins and often dynamic constructs as their object. The phraseological trends thus highlighted seem to match well with the discourse functions observed and with the preference for argue-constructions in argumentative abstracts. From a pragmatic point of view, suggest-type framing seems to contribute more to displaying membership (for example by emphasizing expertise in the research process), whereas argue-type framing emphasizes claiming significance and ultimately the argumentative dimension of scientific discourse.On a more general level, this paper looks at the structure of abstracts in terms of the general structure of the abstracted paper, focusing on two key issues in academic discourse: its reflexivity and its argumentative nature. The focus on the representational nature of abstract highlights the importance of framing sequences. Their phraseological nature is well signalled by formulaic language, but a full understanding of its working requires going beyond lexical strings and looking at the intersection of syntax and semantics.