Journal of English for Academic Purposes

5 (2006) 153–167
www.elsevier.com/locate/jeap

Cultural and disciplinary variation in academic

discourse: The issue of influencing factors
Tatyana Yakhontova *
Department of Foreign Languages for Natural Sciences, Ivan Franko National University of L’viv,
Doroshenka 41, L’viv, Ukraine

Abstract
This paper demonstrates the role of disciplinary context in shaping the common rhetorical and textual
features of research texts in different languages and, more broadly, problematizes the validity of
straightforward sociocultural explanations of rhetorical differences frequently used in the literature. The
research is based on the contrastive genre analysis of English and Slavic (Ukrainian and Russian)
conference abstracts in the field of applied mathematics. The features compared include rhetorical moves
revealed and identified by reference to Swales’ CARS model, their textual distribution, the paragraph
organization of the texts, the syntactic structure of titles, and the use of personal pronouns I/we. The
findings of the investigation compared with previously obtained results in the domain of applied linguistics
show essential interdisciplinary variation between the two sets of data. This somewhat questions
interpretations of rhetorical differences entirely based on the role of external determinants and highlights
the importance of established traditions in various academic disciplines and cultures.
q 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: English for Academic Purposes; Contrastive rhetoric; Genre; Academic discourse; Conference abstracts

1. Introduction

Contrastive rhetorical investigations, which focus on the comparison of academic written

discourses in English versus comparable discourses in other languages, have already become an
established area of inquiry, and the scope of this research is clearly tending to widen. In
particular, the number of cultures/languages from which discourses are drawn to be contrasted to
English has increased in the last decade and now includes several Slavic tongues, which were
underrepresented or not considered before, such as Bulgarian (Vassileva, 2000, 2002), Czech
(Čmejrková, 1996; Čmejrková & Daneš, 1997), Polish (Duszak, 1997a,b; Golebiowski, 1999),

* Tel.: C380 322 964454.

E-mail addresses: tyakh@is.lviv.ua (T. Yakhontova), tyakh@yahoo.com (T. Yakhontova).

1475-1585/$ - see front matter q 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2006.03.002
154 T. Yakhontova / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5 (2006) 153–167

Russian (Prozorova, 1997; Vassileva, 2000; Yakhontova, 2002a,b), and Ukrainian (Yakhontova,
2002a,b). However, along with a number of remarkable insights, contrastive rhetorical research
has also raised certain questions and problems, most important of them being the interpretation
of differences found in contrasted texts and their explanation in the light of multiple influencing
factors.
The discrepancies in writing styles and patterns of textual organization revealed in the texts
contrasted are traditionally labeled as ‘cultural’ or ‘culture-specific’ differences. This umbrella
term seems to embrace rather diverse interpretations stemming from a wide range of possible
influences, varying, for example, from sociopolitical factors to purely intralinguistic
peculiarities, which are assumed to interplay and leave their joint imprints upon the texts
created within different linguistic and cultural environments. The extremely complicated
relationship between writing and culture obviously accounts for the existence of these
interpretational perspectives, which may roughly be grouped into academic discourse
community factors, influences of sociohistorical and sociopolitical circumstances, of national
intellectual styles, and, finally, of the possible correlation between language structures and
grammatical norms.
According to the first view (referred to, e.g. in Ahmad, 1997; Melander, Swales, &
Fredrickson, 1997; Prozorova, 1997; Salager-Meyer, Ariza, & Zambrano, 2003), specific
features and even the size of a particular discourse community may to a certain extent shape the
conventions of the writing, which its members produce. Thus, Melander et al. (1997) argue that
there exists a correlation between the less developed rhetorical schema of Swedish research
abstracts (as compared to their American counterparts) and the size and local character of the
academic discourse community in Sweden, in which abstracts play a less vital ‘gatekeeping’
function than in international environments. This important factor, however, is viewed as not
entirely isolated from the sociohistorical and sociopolitical or ideological circumstances of a
particular discourse community’s development (considered in Salager-Meyer et al., 2003;
Yakhontova, 2002a). For example, it was assumed in Yakhontova (2002a) that a frequent
reference to a current sociopolitical or economic situation in recently produced Ukrainian and
Russian linguistic texts seems to be a ‘remnant’ of the Communist discourse with its constant
emphasis on the superiority of societal values over individual ones. Such a consideration is, in its
turn, related to what is called ‘national intellectual styles’ and appropriate writing traditions
often associated with the name of Galtung (1985), who distinguished between several culturally-
marked systems of intellectual communication. The explanation of differences in writing based
on the impact of national intellectual traditions is prominent, for example, in the work of Clyne
(1991) and Duszak (1997a,b).
The three above-mentioned interpretations, which may be referred to as ‘sociocultural
factors,’ have become widespread in comparative rhetorical studies. Much less prominent,
however, are the explanations of differences or similarities in the light of possible correlation
between language and text structures or styles (addressed, for example, in Chesterman, 1998;
Kassevitch, 1998; Nichols, 1988). Within the field of contrastive rhetoric, they are often treated
with certain skepticism (see for example, Melander, 1998). Usually, investigators in this domain
choose the first three explanations, either separately or in combination.
It should be noted, however, that one important dimension in the interplay of these factors—
the influence of professional or disciplinary context—has been rarely taken into account. When
applied to academic discourse, which exists in a variety of disciplinary realizations,
consideration of the influence of the professional subculture (e.g. mathematical, linguistic,
medical) becomes essential. It is thus reasonable to assume that disciplinary conventions
 T. Yakhontova / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5 (2006) 153–167 155

interplay with national cultural influences, and, furthermore, in the fields marked by a more
universal character of cognitive paradigms (hard sciences) the former may even be more
prominent. It is not clear, however, how professional and national cultural factors interact in
particular languages and fields when both of these variables are considered: do they intricately
intertwine producing mixed rhetorical strategies and discourse structures or is it just that the
former simply overriding the influence of the latter (as has been shown by Melander et al., 1997
in biology texts)? The results of the contrastive study reported below will provide some insights
into this complicated issue.
This paper demonstrates the role of disciplinary proclivities in research writing and, more
broadly, problematizes the validity of straightforward sociocultural explanations of rhetorical
differences frequently used in the literature. It is based on the extension of the previous
contrastive rhetorical and textlinguistic study of English and Slavic (Ukrainian and Russian)
conference abstracts in applied linguistics. The present investigation (1) compares the instances
of the same genre and languages, which belong to a quite different domain-applied mathematics,
(2) contrasts them to the previous findings in the field of applied linguistics, and (3) reconsiders
the objectivity of possible sociocultural explanations of the revealed differences. Initially, this
study sought to understand the role of a disciplinary context and to analyze its interaction with
other possible influences in shaping the common rhetorical and textual features of the Anglo-
American and Slavic texts. However, the findings of the present investigation have also allowed
taking a somewhat critical perspective on the issue of influencing factors important for
contrastive rhetoric and providing relevant implications for academic writing pedagogy.
The paper will begin with the description of the analytical approach used for the purposes of this
research followed by the presentation of findings, their comparison with the previously obtained
ones and discussion of the role of external (sociopolitical and sociocultural) determinants.

2. Data and approach

The corpus analyzed consisted of 100 conference abstracts in the field of applied
mathematics, of which 50 were written by English speakers (as judged both from their names
and the names of their institutions), and another 50 by the speakers of two Slavic languages,
Ukrainian and Russian. Of these 50, 30 texts were produced in Ukrainian, and the remaining
20—in Russian. The choice of the texts in two Slavic languages was motivated by the following
considerations: both languages, although lexically different, have close syntactic features and,
more importantly, share common rhetorical patterns developed under the influence of certain
sociohistorical circumstances. They are used as academic languages of scholarship in Ukraine;
for example, Ukrainian journals and conference volumes usually include texts in both languages
(nowadays, however, the number of Ukrainian publications is increasing due to the state policy
of Ukrainization). As representative means of Ukrainian academic interaction, Ukrainian and
Russian may thus be treated as one group, at least in opposition to the English language.
It was decided at the outset of the study that both English and Slavic texts compared should be
(1) of approximately equal length (with 300 words on average), and (2) single-authored, since
one aspect of this research involved consideration of the use of first-person pronouns denoting
the persona of the author. The texts, which satisfied these selection criteria were taken from the
appropriate books of abstracts (their bibliographical descriptions and abbreviated names are
provided in the Appendix A of this paper with indication of the number of articles analyzed from
each book). For English abstracts, the procedure of extraction looked as follows: all abstracts,
which correspond to the above requirements were taken from the books labeled as SolMec and
156 T. Yakhontova / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5 (2006) 153–167

WCCM (34 altogether), while the remaining 16 were selected from the ICIAM volume as first
(with reference to the established criteria) occurring texts. The same principle was applied to the
choice of Ukrainian and Russian abstracts. All relevant texts were extracted from the smaller in
size books of abstracts (two Ukrainian and one Russian texts from the BR volume, one Ukrainian
and two Russian abstracts from the volume indicated in the Appendix A as MNS, and 15
Ukrainian texts from the SME book). The rest of Ukrainian and Russian abstracts (29 in number)
chosen as the data for investigation were extracted from the MPM book of abstracts, every first
appropriate text being selected for analysis.
It should be mentioned, however, that the character of the conferences, to which the abstracts
were submitted, was slightly different, even though all of them were labeled as ‘international.’
English conference abstracts were part of large-scale fora involving participants from many
countries and cultural backgrounds, while Ukrainian international conferences mostly included
participants from Ukraine and neighboring East European countries (such as Russia, Belarus,
and Poland). It is natural to suppose that the factor of the audience and, particularly, its size
might differently influence the rhetoric of abstracts. However, as it will be shown further, no
significant evidence for this assumption has been found.
As to the method of investigation, the same model as adopted by Yakhontova (2002a) in
her comparative investigation of linguistics conference abstracts was used. It may be termed
as contrastive genre analysis and includes consecutive consideration of the three levels of
generic structure in the texts contrasted (functional organization of their content in terms of
rhetorical moves and strategies, formal textual layout, and linguistic features) with the focus
on the differences. These three levels of investigation correspond to the Bakhtinian vision
of genre as the inseparable unity of its thematic content, compositional structure and style
that “. are equally determined by the specific nature of the particular sphere of
communication” (Bakhtin, 1986, p. 60). The starting level of this procedure focuses on the
analysis of the rhetorical organization of the texts followed by the examination of their
layout and the consideration of the most distinctive language features, which seem to play a
role in accomplishing the communicative purpose of the genre in question. These features
may involve various types of lexical groups (e.g. evaluative words), peculiarities of lexico-
grammatical phenomena, such as use of first-person pronouns or tenses, and instances of
stylistic variation.
The results of the contrastive analysis of English and Slavic abstracts in applied mathematics
are provided in the following section.

3. Results

3.1. Major cross-cultural findings

The rhetorical structure of the abstracts was interpreted as a series of moves in the spirit of
Swales’ (1990) well-known CARS model. The modification of this model applied to the
conference abstracts in linguistics (Yakhontova, 2002a) was also used for the investigation of
their mathematical counterparts. The present model consists of five rhetorical moves:

1. Outlining the research field.

2. Justifying a particular research/study.
3. Introducing the paper to be presented at the conference.
 T. Yakhontova / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5 (2006) 153–167 157

Table 1
Quantitative distribution of moves in mathematical conference abstracts

Moves English texts Ukrainian and Russian texts

Outlining the field 34 25
Justifying a research 31 33
Introducing the paper 45 44
Summarizing the paper 40 49
Highlighting its outcome 21 38

4. Summarizing the paper.

5. Highlighting its outcome/results.

The first three moves of the model coincide with those suggested by Swales for research
paper introductions, while the final two are specific for conventionalized structuring of the genre
of the conference abstract.
First of all, the rhetorical moves in the texts under analysis were identified, and appropriate
statistical data were accumulated. In some cases, it was not easy to draw distinct boundaries
between certain moves (a problem encountered, perhaps, by many genre analysts); therefore, the
interpretation of the move structure of the texts under investigation is rather subjective and
reveals only the most important and visible tendencies of their organization.
The quantitative distribution of the moves is shown in Table 1.
As can be seen from the table, some moves are more prominent in the English texts, while
others occur more frequently in their Slavic counterparts. Thus, the first move, ‘Outlining the
research field’, appears more often in English abstracts. At the same time, ‘Highlighting the
outcome’ is noticeably less represented in them: only 21 of 50 English abstracts possess this
move, while a considerably larger number of Slavic texts—38—highlight their findings. As to
the concrete strategies of the moves’ realization, the following similarities and differences have
been observed.
The first move, ‘Outlining the research field’, is predominantly realized in both sets of
abstracts by reference to established knowledge often combined with importance claim and the
reviewing of selected items of previous research. Similarly, the second move, ‘Justifying a
particular research/study’, also tends to share one and the same strategy of realization; this time
by offering a solution to the existing problem in the field or by extending research in the area.
Only two out of 33 Slavic abstracts and 12 out of 31 English ones possessing this move justify
their investigations by strategies noticeable in other fields such as indicating a gap or counter-
claiming.
The third move, ‘Introducing the paper’, immediately follows the justification of research in
the form of a metadiscursive phrase (rarely two phrases) in both groups of abstracts. Here are the
representative beginnings excerpted from English (1) and Ukrainian (2) abstracts:
Outlining the research field
(1) Plastic deformation of steel and other metals is sensitive to the
temperature and rate at which the deformation takes place. The sensitivity is introduced
through the mechanisms that govern the deformation and the evolution of the deforming
material. Justifying a particular research/study A thorough understanding of a specific material
behavior can be obtained only from a detailed and accurate testing over a wide range of
temperatures and strain rates. Introducing the paper The focus in the present paper is on the
158 T. Yakhontova / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5 (2006) 153–167

response of hot-rolled 1020 and 1151 steels over temperatures ranging from 25 to 1000 8C
and strain rates ranging from 5!10K4 to 1000 sK1. (SolMec: 8)
(2) Outlining the research field In modern technologies of the processing of electroconductive
homogenous and heterogeneous materials, geophysical investigations, methods of therapy,
constant electric and magnetic fields are used as elements of the technological process.
Justifying a particular research/study
Because of this, the problem of the investigation of the
influence of such fields on thermomechanical processes in electroconductive bodies arises.
The solving of this problem stimulates development of the innovative approach of
mechanics of deformable solids—electro-magneto-thermomechanics. Introducing the paper
The suggested work focuses on the elaboration and formulation of the equations of
mathematical models for description of interrelated mechano-thermo-electromagnetic
processes in electroconductive homogenous and porous bodies. (MPM: 25)1
As can be observed, the ‘Justifying a study’ move in both abstract parts is rather implicit
and has no distinct textual boundary (e.g. a new paragraph) that would separate it from the first
move. Overall, the rhetorical development in both of these examples proceeds in a non-
conflicting way gradually narrowing the field of the study (announced in move 1) to the topic
of the paper itself.
Move 4, ‘Summarizing the paper’, is also rather similarly realized in English and Slavic
texts. English abstracts provide a brief overview of the prospective presentation with the
emphasis on the research framework and clarification of central notions or conceptual tools of
the investigation. Their Ukrainian and Russian counterparts either follow the same strategy or,
in addition, describe the logical parts of the paper in a consecutive order. In both groups, the
paper summaries are structured with the help of descriptive meta-discourse, as in English (3)
and Ukrainian (4) excerpts below:
(3) We describe several aspects of simulation-based medical planning systems including image-
based modeling, operative planning and three-dimensional and one-dimensional blood flow
computational methods. A series of animal experiments are described where we test the
accuracy of three-dimensional and one-dimensional finite element methods for modeling
blood flow by comparing predicted flow rates in vivo measurements obtained using phase
contrast magnetic resonance imaging. (WCCM: I, 58)
(4) The computational scheme for solving the formulated equations.has been elaborated. On
this basis, the investigation of influence of the outer constant electric field upon the spread and
interaction of transversal and longitudinal waves.has been conducted. (MNS: 228)
As the analysis of the corpus shows, English authors prefer to use both active metadiscursive
constructions with animate (as in example 3) or inanimate subjects and passive constructions,
whereas Ukrainian and Russian texts clearly favor meta-discourse with passive voice forms (see
example 4). These results in the slightly different impressions the texts produce: English abstracts
sound somewhat more assertive, while their Slavic counterparts appear to be neutrally factual.
However, these differences are not radical, since assertiveness is not explicit in all of the
‘Summarizing the paper’ moves in English texts; furthermore, some of them seem to share many
characteristics with the Slavic texts.
As to the final move, ‘Highlighting the outcome’, the differences here are more considerable
and deserve closer scrutiny. First of all, far fewer English abstracts (21 only) contain this move, in

1
Here and henceforth, the translation of the Ukrainian and Russian examples (undertaken by the author of the paper) is
close to word-by-word in order to retain the rhetorical flavor of the original.
 T. Yakhontova / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5 (2006) 153–167 159

contrast to their Slavic counterparts, 38 of which highlight the outcome of the research to be
reported at the conference. Second, in English texts, this move is represented by one or two
sentences, which only indicate the most important findings, usually with the use of the present or
even future tenses. In contrast, Ukrainian and Russian texts are more specific about the results of
the investigation and tend to present them with the use of the perfective aspect of the past tense thus
adhering to a factual, reporting tone and style. Compare, for example, the following English (5)
and Russian (6) excerpts:
(5) The results of extensive studies involving experimental calibration of the overall fracture
mechanics framework will be briefly summarized. (WCCM: II, 363)
(6) A considerable amount of numerical data has been obtained. Their analysis has shown that the
temperature field may exert not only quantitative, but also qualitative influence upon the
process of the strip’s coming off the base. Thus, if bO0, the number of contacting parts may
increase, and if b!0, it may decrease in comparison with the analogous elasticity problem.
(MPM: 48)
However, despite this difference, the final moves often similarly display the signs of positive
self-evaluation realized via the use of evaluative attributes, as in the above examples (‘extensive
studies’, ‘considerable amount of data’) or even of explicit self-promotion, as shown below:
(7) This model provides a fresh perspective on GYT dysfunction in the light of queuing theory.
(ICIAM: 245)
(8) The comparative analysis of the results obtained on the basis of the elaborated approaches
confirms the efficiency and innovative character of the suggested approaches. (MPM: 150)
As we may see, both language groups of abstracts are obviously inclined to advertise their
findings.
The second dimension of the analysis focuses on formal layout of texts and involves
consideration of their paragraph structuring, types and features of titles, and textual distribution of
the moves. Let us begin with some quantitative characteristics of the paragraph structure of the
texts. Table 2 below shows the number of paragraphs (range and average) in the texts of each
group.
As can be seen from the Table 2, English texts have more extremes in their paragraph
structuring (which ranges from one up to seven paragraphs) than their Ukrainian and Russian
‘genre-mates’, although the latter have a higher average number of paragraphs (four against three).
These differences, however, do not seem to be significant. In both language groups of investigated
texts, paragraphs show a tendency to be more or less equal in length.
As to the textual distribution of the moves, the following peculiarities were observed. In 15 out
of the 25 applied mathematics, English abstracts, which contain the first two moves, these
functional units occupy no less than one half of the textual space, and in another 10, no less than one
third. In those English texts, which contain either the ‘Outlining the field’ or ‘Justifying a research’
move, the third and fourth moves textually dominate; however, the fifth move, ‘Highlighting the
outcome’, is fairly short throughout this whole set. In the Slavic group, those conference abstracts
(34 in number) which possess either one or both of the introductory moves, tend to give them less

Table 2
Paragraphs: quantitative data

Number of paragraphs English texts Ukrainian and Russian texts

Number of paragraphs in a text (range) 1–7 2–6
Number of paragraphs in a text (average) 3 4
160 T. Yakhontova / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5 (2006) 153–167

spatial prominence in textualization. In 23 texts, these moves occupy about one fifth or even lesser
part of the text, in another seven, one third, and only in four abstracts are they realized by as much
as one half of the total text. Thus, the final three moves obviously prevail in terms of their textual
size in the Ukrainian and Russian abstracts.
Returning to the final ‘Highlighting the outcome’ move, it is important to emphasize that in the
Slavic set the move is considerably longer, in 20 abstracts stretching up to one fourth of the text,
and in another eight, up to one third. Since, more English abstracts contain the two initial moves,
which are also more vividly presented and fewer of the texts possess the final, fairly short move, the
following conclusion can be formulated: English conference abstracts in applied mathematics tend
to lay more emphasis on the preface to the actual work and “scene-setting,” in Swales’ term (1996,
p. 49), whereas Ukrainian and Russian texts pay more attention to the work itself as well as to its
results.
As to the titles of the texts, they revealed more similarities than differences. Forty-four of the
English titles and all of the Slavic ones have a syntactic structure of a nominal construction based
upon a noun/nominalized verb phrase in the nominative case, for example:
(9) Application of Computational Dynamics in Cardiovascular Surgery (WCCM: I, 58)
(10) Models of cyclic deformation of laminated elastometallic bodies (MNS: 102)
In this type of title, the noun (sometimes preceded by an adjective) indicates the theme of the
presentation, while the post-modifying attributive or adverbial groups point at the scope of the
study, as can be seen from the above examples. Such nominal titles possess a generally neutral,
factual tone. Fifteen Slavic headings, however, have a feature represented only in three of their
English counterparts: they include, as principal elements, the nouns which denote the character of
research, such as ‘investigation’, ‘method’, or ‘elaboration’, for example:
(11) Method of direct integration of static equations of elasticity and thermoelasticity (MPM: 168)
These titles do not so much foreground the theme of the research itself, but emphasize the
aspects of research being investigated by the author. There are six English titles in the corpus that
contain quite different structural types: five titles each consisting of two parts separated by a colon,
and one title in the form of an incomplete sentence beginning with the preposition on. However,
titles of these types are not frequent, so they do not distort the general picture of similarities in
structure and rhetorical features of the titles in both language groups.
Having considered the major characteristics of the titles, we will proceed to the final, linguistic
level of contrastive genre analysis, although limited in this paper to the investigation of the use of
personal pronouns I/we. Table 3 shows the quantitative data illustrating the number, occurrences
and distribution of the two personal pronouns in the texts investigated.
As can be clearly seen from the table, only English texts (36% of them) adhere to a
personalized style of presentation by choosing the pronoun ‘we’ to denote the persona of the author

Table 3
Distribution and occurrence of ‘I/we’ pronouns

Pronouns English texts Ukrainian/Russian texts

I:
number of texts (out of 50) 0 0
average number of occurrences in a text 0 0
We
number of texts (out of 50) 18 1
average number of occurrences in a text 2.5 1
 T. Yakhontova / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5 (2006) 153–167 161

(it is necessary to remember here that that all the abstracts selected for investigation were single-
authored). This ‘we’ to express personal ideas and suggestions seems not to include addressees in
the range of referents of the pronoun as in the following example and thus may be treated as
exclusive authorial (Vassileva, 2000) or, in other terms, academic we.
(12) In particular, we propose a set of numerically evaluated low-energy basis functions calculated
by solving a local elliptic problem on a regular reference element. (ICIAM: 163)
However, in hard sciences, the research reported at the conferences may quite often result from
collaborative work, and, respectively, ‘we’ may be assumed to refer to a group of scientists rather
than to a presenting author alone. It is therefore necessary to treat the function of ‘we’ with certain
caution in this disciplinary set of texts.
In the abstracts where ‘we’ appears, it occurs fairly frequently (2.5 occurrences per text on
average)and often throughout the whole text, in various moves. However, in the third
(‘Introducing the paper’) and fourth (‘Summarizing the paper’) moves, it is present in all texts
and performs, in fact, a metadiscursive function (see examples 3 and 11) by replacing textual
organizers. The quantity of the English mathematical abstracts (32) without any personal pronouns
is also rather considerable. It shows, together with the visible ‘we’-perspective in other texts, that
somewhat-hedged (i.e. not explicitly manifested through the first person pronoun ‘I’) authorial
presence is characteristic of this textual group. It is also worthhighlighting that none of the
representatives of the English group use the ‘I’-perspective, which individualizes discourse and
emphasizes the responsibility of the authors for their research and its results. Although it is possible
to assume that Anglo-Saxon academic culture often labeled as individualistically oriented, or self-
prominent (see, for example, Kassevitch, 1998), would show a tendency towards the manifestation
of authorial persona through ‘I,’ this particular investigation provides no evidence in support of
such a claim. It is thus possible to suppose that the use of the personal pronouns is more
discipline—than culture-specific.
The Slavic abstracts, however, show a still stronger tendency for depersonalization by
completely avoiding any personal pronouns. These texts stick to a strictly impersonal tone of
presentation based upon the wide use of agentless passive constructions (see example 4) thus
producing an effect of a highly objective scientific style. As we can see, the two groups of abstracts
compared are somewhat different in their choice of perspectives, although they reveal a general
tendency towards hiding or disguising the authors of the texts.
Since the consideration of personal pronoun use was the last stage of our contrastive genre
analysis, it is now possible to summarize the results of this investigation. The major findings are
thus provided in Table 4.
As Table 4 demonstrates, English and Slavic conference abstracts in applied mathematics
share a number of similarities and possess certain differences. They are generally alike in the
dominant rhetorical strategies of content presentation, overall format, types of titles, and the
tendency towards depersonalization. The most striking differences are found in the distribution of
moves within the textual space of the abstracts and, so to say, the level of depersonalization, which
is higher in the Ukrainian and Russian set. These differences, however, do not seem to be radical. In
fact, the major discrepancy between the English mathematical abstracts and their
Slavic counterparts lies in the slightly more ‘scene-setting’ and promissory character of English
texts, which tend only to outline the main aspects of the papers, and the reporting, factual,
and impersonal manner of presenting research findings in their Ukrainian and Russian
counterparts.
162 T. Yakhontova / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5 (2006) 153–167

Table 4
Major features of English and Slavic (Ukrainian and Russian) conference abstracts in applied mathematics

English conference abstracts in applied mathematics
Outline the research field by importance claim or
reference to established knowledge
Justify a particular research/study by offering a solution
to the existing problem in the field or by extending
research in this area
Introduce and summarize the paper to be presented with
the extensive use of meta-discourse (prevalence of
active constructions)
Indicate the most important findings with positive self-
evaluation
Have a three-paragraph textual layout with the equal
length of paragraphs and spatial domination of the first
(‘Outlining the research field’) and second (‘Justifying a
research’) moves
Possess titles in the form of nominal phrases that state
the ultimate theme or subject of a paper
Use we or impersonal style
Ukrainian and Russian conference abstracts in applied
mathematics
Outline the research field by importance claim or
reference to established knowledge
Justify a particular research/study by offering a solution
to the existing problem in the field or by extending
research in this area
Introduce and summarize the paper to be presented with
the extensive use of meta-discourse (prevalence of
agentless passive constructions)
Describe the research results with positive self-
evaluation
Have a four-paragraph textual layout with the equal
length of paragraphs and spatial domination of the
summarizing the paper and highlighting the outcome
moves
Possess titles in the form of nominal phrases that state
the ultimate theme or subject of a paper
Use impersonal style

3.2. Cross-disciplinary comparison

Now it is possible to compare the results with those obtained in the field of applied linguistics
(Yakhontova, 2002a), which are summarized in Table 5. As seen from the table, English and
Slavic linguistic abstracts oppose each other in all of the most important rhetorical and textual
features.
Surprisingly enough, Slavic linguistic texts have more features in common with English
mathematical texts than the latter have with their English linguistic counterparts. In other words,
three groups of texts—Ukrainian and Russian texts in applied linguistics, the texts of the same
languages in applied mathematics, and English mathematical abstracts—have a number of
Table 5
Major differences between English and Slavic (Ukrainian and Russian) conference abstracts in applied linguistics

English conference abstracts in applied linguistics
Justify a particular research/study by indicating a gap in
the previous research
Summarize the paper to be presented with a fair amount
of meta-discourse and the emphasis on the novelty and
originality of the research
Highlight the research outcome by emphasizing its
originality
Have an average three-paragraph structure with the
equal length of paragraphs and spatial domination of the
first (‘Outlining the research field’) and second
(‘Justifying a research’) moves
Possess diverse types of titles with the presence of ‘eye-
catching’, appealing constructions
Use I or inclusive we to denote the persona of an author
Ukrainian and Russian conference abstracts in applied
linguistics
Justify a particular research/study as a possible solution
to the existing problem in the research field
Describe the content of the paper to be presented in a
neutral manner and without meta-discourse
Describe the significance of the findings in a declarative
manner
Have a multiparagraph structure with non-uniform
length of paragraphs and spatial domination of the
‘Summarizing the paper’ move
Possess titles in the form of nominal phrases that state
the ultimate theme or subject of a paper
Use exclusive we to denote the persona of an author
 T. Yakhontova / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5 (2006) 153–167 163

essential similarities (such as justifying research in a non-conflicting way, tendency to weaken

authorial presence or to use nominal titles), while English linguistic texts stand apart with their
peculiar, highly promotional features. On the other hand, the texts of each language group retain
a number of similar characteristics, such as spatial domination of the first and second moves in
the English linguistic and mathematical texts, and the prevalence of the fourth move in their
Slavic ‘genre-mates’.
All these observations allow us to conclude that disciplinary context plays a very important, if
not decisive role, in shaping textual features of the genre in question, which, in their turn, may be
viewed as offering, in Hyland’s (2004, p. 5) terms, a window on the practices and ideology of
appropriate discourse communities. In previous investigations, this context seems to reinforce
the potential differences between the texts in English and those in Slavic languages, while in the
present research it significantly weakens the discrepancies without, however, annihilating them.
A more detailed discussion of the most prominent findings and implications is provided in
Section 4.

4. Discussion: do we need to explain differences?

The results of this study lead us to the recognition of intracultural variation of academic
discourse most probably caused by the specific influences of certain fields or disciplines. The
importance of taking into account this factor in contrastive rhetorical studies has recently been
emphasized in the literature (see, for example, Connor, 2004). On the other hand, it somewhat
shifts from the traditional concern of contrastive rhetoric with differences in textual patterns to a
focus on similarities, since in the case of mathematical abstracts the latter obviously prevail.
Although disciplinary influence seems to be explanatory enough, it is still possible to provide
somewhat deeper insights.
First, the presence of such striking similarities in the applied mathematics texts may be due to,
at least partially, the universality of cognitive paradigms characteristic of hard sciences. Second,
the development of these sciences has always involved exchange of ideas, awareness of the work
of others, and mutually beneficial collaboration. Even during the Soviet times, for example,
when the majority of Ukrainian and Russian scholars worked in isolation, the literature on
mathematics and related fields published in the West was available in libraries, and certain,
though limited, forms of international interaction existed. This important feature of the science
of mathematics or, rather, a prerequisite for its successful development, may account for
internationalized rhetorical conventions in the field and thus for almost the same choice of them
in appropriate English and Slavic abstracts. At the same time, it is possible to assume that in
linguistics which, like other disciplines in the humanities, is more subjective and consequently
more sensitive to national contexts, textual patterns may show greater variability, yielding the
considerable divergences observed, for example, in English and Slavic texts.
As to the differences revealed in the mathematical texts compared, of most interest are
those which also consistently appear in the set of linguistic abstracts. This mainly concerns
the textual distribution of moves, which is clearly different; in English texts it is marked by
preliminary ‘scene-setting’, and in Slavic abstracts their constant focus is on the description
of the paper’s content. Such a feature is most probably due to the genre expectations of the
text-producers, often related in the literature to academic discourse community factors. The
analysis of the four sets of abstracts from two methodologically opposite fields indicates that
the vision of this genre is rather different in Ukrainian and Anglophone academic cultures.
For Ukrainian authors, the genre seems to be very close to a research paper abstract, which
164 T. Yakhontova / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5 (2006) 153–167

usually provides a condensed factual account of the main points of a paper, while for English
academic writers it is only an outline of some selected aspects of the future text, often in
combination with explicit self-promotion (most expressive in linguistic abstracts). In more
theoretical terms, here we are able to witness the deviations in the rhetorical purpose of the
genre, which may be modified in accordance with certain national values and beliefs
(Mauranen, 1993, p. 40).
A more complicated picture, however, arises if we attempt to explain this and the other
differences by the influence of additional social factors. For example, the promotionalism of
English linguistic abstracts and the absence of any self-advertisement in their Ukrainian and
Russian counterparts might be linked to the presence or, respectively, absence of the influence of
a market society with its constant demands for competitiveness, even in academic spheres.
However, how could the explicit self-promotion of Slavic mathematical abstracts then be
explained, given that it is equal to that revealed in the English ones?
In my mind, the most plausible general explanation for all the differences, which are
usually labeled as ‘cultural’, is the inheritance of academic writing conventions, typical of
this or that national culture, through various intertextual processes. Although discourses are
socially constructed, the influence of societal factors seems to be more subtle and less
straightforward in academic writing, which tends to adhere to rather stable discursive
patterns. It may be assumed that certain textual structures with inherent semantic and
pragmatic features were developed in different academic cultures under the impact of social
and historical circumstances. In the process of historical and cultural evolution, these
structures have also been shaping the existing and developing writing traditions that, in
turn, have led to their further crystallization. Within relatively closed national academic
communities in various fields, established conventions of writing seem to maintain their
stability through intertextuality, imitation, and both implicit and explicit learning. This
rather conservative character of written academic practice and the role of its intertextual
and especially imitational inheritance, undoubtedly question the direct and immediate
impact of sociopolitical factors on writing patterns.
On the other hand, the dynamic, developmental character of social and cultural practice
constantly creates and maintains space for the modification of cognitive and writing
structures and their linguistic representations, even though this ever-lasting, two-way
process of culture and discourse interaction may be rather covert and subordinated to
traditions established in various academic milieus and research fields. For example, the
processes of globalization have made possible the rapid importation of English academic
writing patterns and their further implantation in other cultures, as shown in
Salager-Meyer et al. (2003) with respect to Spanish medical writing. Also, as
Kretzenbacher (2001, pp. 454–456) suggests, the development of electronic media
might trigger another cross-cultural exchange. Since, the hypertextual structure of the new
media provides unlimited possibilities of digression and of jumping from link to link, it is
quite opposite to the linear structure typical of English expository writing. Thus, English
academic publications in the virtual space might develop a stylistic feature of
digressiveness. This requires a degree of reader responsibility, which would be new for
this culture, while coming closer to the model of academic communication in Central and
Eastern European languages. The dynamism of these changes tends to weaken the role of
national traditions in writing and to make them less powerful as an influencing factor. In
fact, only large-scale comparative diachronic studies could more or less adequately show
 T. Yakhontova / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5 (2006) 153–167 165

the interplay of conventions and changing sociohistorical circumstances in the shaping of

writing styles in different societies.
The two contradictory tendencies outlined above seem to manifest themselves differently in
different fields and thus make doubtful any general, straightforward explanations based on
external determinants. Also, consideration of writing in the postmodernist spirit, on the level of
individual identity and idiosyncrasy, inevitably undermines the homogeneity of explanatory
approaches. For example, the fact that several English mathematical abstracts in the small
corpus investigated are rhetorically and textually quite similar to their Ukrainian or Russian
counterparts might suggest a need for a more careful and critical stance even though it does not
make any culture-based explication unnecessary.
These implications together with the rather complicated issue of correlation between
linguistic and rhetorical patterns seriously problematize the objectivity and validity of broad
sociocultural explanations on a synchronous level and make them rather disputable, at least in
pedagogy. It is worth recollecting here that contrastive rhetoric emerged as a response to the
needs of learners in the field of second language writing. By providing comparative insights,
this area of inquiry helps nonnative learners to master academic writing in English. While the
demonstration of differences between English texts and those in other languages can indeed
be of great help, the efforts to explain them in sociocultural terms may not be necessarily
important. Furthermore, they could be perceived as excessively subjective or even unethical
since they may involve interpretations arising from existing cultural stereotypes or biases. At
the same time, the explanation based on the role of established traditions in this or that
academic culture and influence of educational systems is usually accepted by learners and
underscored by many researchers in the field (see, for example, Clyne, 1991; Le, 1999;
Salager-Meyer et al., 2003; Shaw, 2003; Vassileva, 2000, 2002). Thus, whatever the
individual attitudes towards elucidating the writing differences known as ‘cultural’ might be,
it is clear that the role of potential factors influencing them remains one of the most contested
issues in contrastive rhetoric.

Appendix A. Books of abstracts

Appendix A.1. Books of English abstracts

ICIAM 4th International Congress on Industrial and Applied Mathematics. Edinburgh, 5–9
July, 1999. (16).
SolMec XXXI Polish Solid Mechanics Conference. Mierki n. Olsztynek, September 9–14,
1996. (2).
WCCM 5th World Congress on Computational Mechanics. Vol. I and II. Vienna, 7–12 July,
2002. (32).

Appendix A.2. Books of Ukrainian and Russian abstracts

BR nternational Scientific Conference ‘6th Bogoliubov Readings’. Kyiv, August 26–30

2003. (3).
MPM International Scientific Conference ‘Modern Problems of Mechanics and Mathematics’.
L’viv, May 25–28, 1998. (29).
MNS 4th International Conference on Mechanics of Nonhomogeneous Structures. Ternopil’,
166 T. Yakhontova / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5 (2006) 153–167

September 19–22, 1995. (3).

SME 2nd International Symposium of Ukrainian Mechanical Engineers in L’viv. L’viv, May
4–6, 1995. (15).

References

Ahmad, K. (1997). Research article introductions in Malay: Rhetoric in an emerging research community. In A. Duszak
(Ed.), Culture and styles of academic discourse. Trends in linguistics, studies and monographs 104 (pp. 273–303).
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays, (C. Emerson M. Holquist Eds.), (V.W. McGee, Trans.) Austin,
TX: University of Texas Press.
Chesterman, A. (1998). Contrastive functional analysis. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Clyne, M. (1991). The sociocultural dimension: The dilemma of the German-speaking scholar. In H. Schröder (Ed.),
Subject-oriented texts: Languages for special purposes and text theory (pp. 49–67). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Čmejrková, S. (1996). Academic writing in Czech and English. In E. Ventola, & A. Mauranen (Eds.), Academic writing.
Intercultural and textual issues (pp. 137–152). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Čmejrková, S., & Daneš, F. (1997). Academic writing and cultural identity: The case of Czech academic writing. In A.
Duszak (Ed.), Culture and styles of academic discourse. Trends in linguistics, studies and monographs 104 (pp. 41–
61). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Connor, U. (2004). Introduction. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(4), 271–276.
Duszak, A. (1997a). Analyzing digressiveness in Polish academic prose. In A. Duszak (Ed.), Culture and styles of
academic discourse. Trends in linguistics, studies and monographs 104 (pp. 323–341). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Duszak, A. (1997b). Cross-cultural academic communication: A discourse-community view. In A. Duszak (Ed.), Culture
and styles of academic discourse. Trends in linguistics, studies and monographs 104 (pp. 11–39). Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Galtung, J. (1985). Struktur, Kultur und intellektueller stil. In A. Wierlacher (Ed.), Das Fremde und das Eigene (pp. 151–
193). Munchen: Iudicum.
Golebiowski, Z. (1999). ‘Application of Swales’ model in analysis of research papers by Polish authors. International
Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 37(3), 231–245.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of
Michigan Press.
Kassevitch, V. B. (1998). Culture-dependent differences in language and discourse structures. In B. Caron (Ed.),
Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Linguists. Oxford: Pergamon (Paper No. 0003 [CDROM]).
Kretzenbacher, H. L. (2001). Looking backward–looking forward–still looking good? On style in academic
communication. In F. Mayer (Ed.), Language for special purposes: Perspectives for the new millenium (pp. 443–
458). Tübingen: Narr.
Le, E. (1999). The use of paragraphs in French and English academic writing: Towards a grammar of paragraphs. Text,
19(3), 307–343.
Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural differences in academic rhetoric: A textlinguistic study. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Melander, B. (1998). Culture or genre? Issues in the interpretation of cross-cultural differences in scientific papers. In I.
Fortanet, S. Posteguillo, J. C. Palmer, & J. F. Coll (Vol. Eds.), Genre studies in English for academic purposes: Vol. 1
(pp. 211–226). Castello de la Plana: Publicacions de la Universitat.
Melander, B., Swales, J. M., & Fredrickson, K. M. (1997). Journal abstracts from three academic fields in the United
States and Sweden: National or disciplinary proclivities?. In A. Duszak (Ed.), Culture and styles of academic
discourse. Trends in linguistics, studies and monographs 104 (pp. 251–272). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Nichols, J. (1988). Nominalization and assertion in scientific Russian prose. In J. Haiman, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Clause
combining in grammar and discourse (pp. 399–428). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Prozorova, L. A. (1997). If not given, then what? Things that come first in academic discourse. In A. Duszak (Ed.),
Culture and styles of academic discourse. Trends in linguistics, studies and monographs 104 (pp. 306–322). Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
 T. Yakhontova / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5 (2006) 153–167 167

Salager-Meyer, F. M., Ariza, A. A., & Zambrano, N. (2003). The scimitar, the dagger and the glove: Intercultural
differences in the rhetoric of criticism in Spanish, French and English medical discourse (1930–1995). English for
Specific Purposes, 22(3), 223–247.
Shaw, P. (2003). Evaluation and promotion across languages. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(4), 343–357.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge
University Press.
Swales, J. M. (1996). Teaching the conference abstract. In E. Ventola, & A. Mauranen (Eds.), Academic writing: Today
and tomorrow (pp. 45–59). Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.
Vassileva, I. (2000). Who is the author? A contrastive analysis of authorial presence in English, German, French,
Russian and Bulgarian academic discourse. Sankt Augustin: Asgard.
Vassileva, I. (2002). Academic discourse rhetoric and the Bulgarian–English interlanguage. Sofia: Tip-Top Press.
Yakhontova, T. (2002a). ‘Selling’ or ‘telling’? The issue of cultural variation in research genres. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.),
Academic discourse (pp. 216–232). Harlow: Longman.
Yakhontova, T. (2002b). Titles of conference presentations abstracts: A cross-cultural perspective. In E. Ventola, C.
Shalom, & S. Thompson (Eds.), The language of conferencing (pp. 277–300). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Tatyana Yakhontova is an Associate Professor of English for Specific Purposes at the Ivan Franko National University
of L’viv, Ukraine. Her research interests include genre analysis and contrastive rhetoric. She has published a textbook on
English academic writing and papers in international and national journals and volumes.