“These findings are very astonishing”: Hyping of disciplinary research in 3MT presentations and thesis abstracts

References

• Anthony, L. 2019. AntConc 3.5.8. Waseda University. http://www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp.
   Google Scholar
• Barusch, A., C. Gringeri & M. George. 2011. Rigor in qualitative social work research: A review of strategies used in published articles. Social Work Research, 35(1), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/35.1.11
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Becher, T. & P. Trowler. 2001. Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. 2nd edn. Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Berkenkotter, C. & T. N. Huckin. 1995. Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition, culture, power. Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Biber, D. 2006. University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Biber, D., Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, S. Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Boldt, H. 2019. The three minute thesis in the classroom: What every ESL teacher needs to know. The University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bondi, M., S. Cacchiani & D. Mazzi. 2015. Discourse in and through the media: Recontextualizing and reconceptualizing expert discourse. Cambridge Scholars Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bordet, G. 2014. Influence of collocational variations on making the PhD abstract an effective ‘would-be insider’ self-promotional tool. In M. Bondi & R. Lorés Sanz (eds.), Abstracts in academic discourse: Variation and change (pp. 131–160). Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Bordignon, F., L. Ermakova & M. Noel. 2021. Over-promotion and caution in abstracts of preprints during the COVID-19 crisis. Learned Publishing, 34(4), 622–636. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1411
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boutron, I. & P. Ravaud. 2018. Misrepresentation and distortion of research in biomedical literature. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2613–2619. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1710755115
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calsamiglia, H. 2003. Popularization discourse. Discourse Studies, 5(2), 139–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445603005002307
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calsamiglia, H. & T. A. van Dijk. 2004. Popularization discourse and knowledge about the genome. Discourse & Society, 15(4), 369–389. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926504043705
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carter-Thomas, S. & E. Rowley-Jolivet. 2020. Three minute thesis presentations: Recontextualisation strategies in doctoral research. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 48, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100897
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caulfield, T. & C. Condit. 2012. Science and the sources of hype. Public Health Genomics, 15(3–4), 209–217. https://doi.org/10.1159/000336533
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charles, M. 2006. The construction of stance in reporting clauses: A cross-disciplinary study of theses. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 492–518. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi, S. & K. Richards. 2016. Introduction to the special issue: Innovation in research methods in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 37(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooley, L. & J. Lewkowicz. 2003. Dissertation writing in practice: Turning ideas into text. Hong Kong University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dong, Y., J. Wang & F. Jiang. 2022. Epistemic positioning by science students and experts: A divide by applied and pure disciplines. Applied Linguistics Review. online advance. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2021-0203
   Google Scholar
• Dueñas, P. M. 2010. Attitude markers in business management research articles: A cross-cultural corpus-driven approach. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 50–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00228.x
   Google Scholar
• El-Dakhs, D. A. S. 2018. Why are abstracts in PhD theses and research articles different? A genre-specific perspective. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 36, 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.09.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fairclough, N. 1993. Critical discourse analysis and the marketisation of public discourse: The universities. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 133–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002002
   Google Scholar
• Fraser, V. J. & J. G. Martin. 2009. Marketing data: Has the rise of impact factor led to the fall of objective language in the scientific article? Respiratory Research, 10(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1465-9921-10-35
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gabrielatos, C. 2018. Keyness analysis: Nature, metrics and techniques. In C. Taylor & A. Marchi (eds.), Corpus approaches to discourse: A critical review (pp. 225–258). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Gotti, M. 2014. Reformulation and recontextualization in popularization discourse. Ibérica, 27, 15–34.
   Google Scholar
• Hu, G. & Y. Liu. 2018. Three minute thesis presentations as an academic genre: A cross-disciplinary study of genre moves. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 35, 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.06.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. 1998. Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 437–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. 2004. Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. 2005. Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. 2010. Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 116–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. & F. Jiang. 2016. Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance. Written Communication, 33(3), 251–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088316650399
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. & F. Jiang. 2019. Academic discourse and global publishing: Disciplinary persuasion in changing times. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. & F. Jiang. 2021a. ‘Our striking results demonstrate … ’: Persuasion and the growth of academic hype. Journal of Pragmatics, 182, 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.06.018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. & F. Jiang. 2021b. The COVID infodemic: Competition and the hyping of virus research. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 26(4), 444–468. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.20160.hyl
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang, F. & X. Ma. 2018. ‘As we can see’: Reader engagement in PhD candidature confirmation reports. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 35, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.05.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang, F. & X. Qiu. 2022. Communicating disciplinary knowledge to a wide audience in 3MT presentations: How students engage with popularization of science. Discourse Studies, 24(1), 115–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456211037438
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johns, A. M. & J. M. Swales. 2002. Literacy and disciplinary practices: Opening and closing perspectives. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1(1), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(02)00003-6
   Google Scholar
• Kawase, T. 2015. Metadiscourse in the introductions of PhD theses and research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 114–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.08.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolb, D. A. 1981. Learning styles and disciplinary differences. In A. W. Chickering (ed.), The modern American college: Responding to the new realities of diverse students and a changing society (pp. 232–255). Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Koutsantoni, D. 2006. Rhetorical strategies in engineering research articles and research theses: Advanced academic literacy and relations of power. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2005.11.002
   Google Scholar
• Lazarus, C., R. Haneef, P. Ravaud & I. Boutron. 2015. Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 15(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0079-x
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lindeberg, A. C. 2004. Promotion and politeness: Conflicting scholarly rhetoric in three disciplines. Abo Akademi University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Martín, P. & I. K. L. Pérez. 2014. Convincing peers of the value of one’s research: A genre analysis of rhetorical promotion in academic texts. English for Specific Purposes, 34, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2013.09.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Master, Z. & D. B. Resnik. 2013. Hype and public trust in science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(2), 321–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9327-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCarthy, M. 2015. Superlatives are commonly used in news coverage of cancer drugs, study finds. BMJ, h5803. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h5803
   Google Scholar
• Millar, N., B. Budgell & F. Salager-Meyer. 2020. Hype in reports of clinical research: The authors’ perspectives. English for Specific Purposes, 60, 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2020.07.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millar, N., F. Salager-Meyer & B. Budgell. 2019. “It is important to reinforce the importance of … ”: ‘Hype’ in reports of randomized controlled trials. English for Specific Purposes, 54, 139–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2019.02.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nerlich, B. 2013. Moderation impossible? On hype, honesty and trust in the context of modern academic life. The Sociological Review, 61(2_suppl), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.12099
   Google Scholar
• Paltridge, B. & S. Starfield. 2020. Thesis and dissertation writing in a second language. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Qiu, X. & F. Jiang. 2021. Stance and engagement in 3MT presentations: How students communicate disciplinary knowledge to a wide audience. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 51, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.100976
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qiu, X. & X. Ma. 2019. Disciplinary enculturation and authorial stance: Comparison of stance features among master's dissertations, doctoral theses, and research articles. Ibérica, 38, 327–348.
   Google Scholar
• Rowley-Jolivet, E. & S. Carter-Thomas. 2005. The rhetoric of conference presentation introductions: Context, argument and interaction. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 45–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2005.00080.x
   Google Scholar
• Scotto di Carlo, G. 2014. The role of proximity in online popularizations: The case of TED talks. Discourse Studies, 16(5), 591–606. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445614538565
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skrbis, Z., D. MacDonald, T. Miscamble, C. Tustin, C. Stoddart & M. Kiley. 2010. The three minute thesis (3MT). In M. Kiley, J. Baird, W. Bastalich, M. Behrend, R. Bloomfield, B. Bolt & M. Zeng (eds.), Quality in postgraduate research: Educating researchers for the 21st century (pp. 39–46). Centre for Educational Development and Academic Methods at Australian National University.
   Google Scholar
• Starfield, S. & B. Paltridge. 2019. Thesis and dissertation writing in a second language: Context, identity, genre. Journal of Second Language Writing 43, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.10.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swales, J. M. & C. B. Feak. 2009. Abstracts and the writing of abstracts. University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, P. 2016. Genre approaches to theses and dissertations. In K. Hyland & P. Shaw (eds.), The Routledge handbook of English for academic purposes (pp. 379–391). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Vinkers, C. H., J. K. Tijdink & W. M. Otte. 2015. Use of positive and negative words in scientific PubMed abstracts between 1974 and 2014: Retrospective analysis. BMJ, 351, h6467. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h6467
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waite, M. 2009. Oxford thesaurus of English. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wheatley, D. 2014. Drama in research papers. European Science Editing, 40(1), 14.
   Google Scholar