GENRE AND REGISTER IN MEDICAL RESEARCH ABSTRACTS: A SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL LINGUISTIC APPROACH
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study explores the genre structure and register realization of medical research abstracts through the lens of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL). Based on a corpus of 60 abstracts from six major medical disciplines published between 2017 and 2024, the study analyzes rhetorical staging and linguistic choices to uncover how meaning is constructed in this highly codified academic genre. The findings reveal substantial standardization across the corpus, with most of the abstracts following a simplified Introduction–Methods–Results–Discussion (IMRaD) structure and displaying standard features such as technical field realizations, nominalizations, low-modality expressions, and impersonal constructions. However, subtle disciplinary variations are noted in which Oncology abstracts emphasize contextual background more, while Pulmonology and Cardiology focus more on methods and results, highlighting the influence of field-specific epistemological priorities. These results affirm prior research in genre and discourse analysis and suggest that medical abstract writing requires structural conformity and rhetorical flexibility. Pedagogically, the study underscores the value of SFL-informed instruction in medical English writing courses, especially for non-native English-speaking scholars. Integrating genre- and register-based training could enhance abstract-writing competence and increase the international publication success of emerging researchers in contexts such as Vietnam.
Keywords
Genre, Register, Medical abstracts, Systemic Functional Linguistics, Academic writing
Article Details
References
Cheng, S. (2024). A review of interpersonal metafunction studies in systemic functional linguistics (2012–2022). Journal of World Languages, 10(3), 623–667. https://doi.org/10.1515/jwl-2023-0026
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104
Doran, Y. J., Martin, J. R., & Herrington, M. (2024). Rethinking context: realisation, instantiation, and individuation in systemic functional linguistics. Journal of World Languages, 10(1), 177–220. https://doi.org/10.1515/jwl-2023-0051
Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics (2nd ed.). Continuum.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday's introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). Routledge.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Longman.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre Relations: Mapping Culture. Equinox.
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan.
Melliti, M. (2024). Using genre analysis to detect AI-generated academic texts. Diá-logos, 29, 9–27. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385820914
Nguyen, T. N. (2023). Politeness Exchange Through Modality Uses in Vietnamese Doctor Talk. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 11(5), 165–178. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20231105.13
Nguyen, T. T. M. (2019). Medical case reports in English and Vietnamese: A genre-based analysis. [Doctoral dissertation, Vietnam National University, Hanoi].
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
Wang, P. F., Khalid, P. Z. M., & Kussin, H. J. (2023). A review of genre analysis of academic writings. Arab World English Journal, 14(4), 312-324. https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol14no4.23