Print

PDF To download article. 

DOI: 10.15507/1991-9468.029.202502.555-572

UDC 378.1

 

Rhetoric of Promotion and Persuasion in Grant Proposal Abstracts

Olga A. Boginskaya
Dr.Sci. (Philol.), Associate Professor, Professor of the Chair of Foreign Languages, Institute of Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, Irkutsk National Research Technical University (83 Lermontov St., Irkutsk 664074, Russian Federation), ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9738-8122, Scopus ID: 56049693200, Researcher ID: O-4217-2014, SPIN-code: 1370-7025, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Abstract
Introduction. Grant proposal abstracts represent a pivotal academic genre aimed at persuading experts in a specific field of research to fund the proposed projects. Being considered a “behind-the-scenes” genre, it has received little attention in academic discourse analysis and pedagogy. This study addresses this gap by analyzing rhetorical moves employed in grant proposal abstracts with a particular focus on their promotional and persuasive nature.
Materials and Methods. A corpus of 90 successfully funded linguistics grant proposals from the Russian Science Foundation was analyzed. The texts were derived from the official website of the fund. The analysis included a comprehensive procedure of extracting texts and conducting interpretative and quantitative analyses of the rhetorical moves using Matzler’s taxonomy. The corpus was chosen to provide insights into how persuasive and promotional language is used in a funding context.
Results. The analysis revealed a consistent pattern of moves indicative of persuasive language and strategic promotion. The study identified that the most frequent moves found in the corpus were Territory, Goals, and Benefits, which underline the importance of establishing a clear context, articulating research aims, and highlighting the significance and novelty of the proposed research. The most frequent move structure in the corpus was “Territory – Goal – Means – Benefits”, which indicates the conventional approach taken in the abstracts.
Discussion and Conclusion. Through a move analysis of grant proposal abstracts, the present study contributed to a deeper understanding of this persuasive and promotional academic genre. The analysis suggests a strong link between the successful use of specific rhetorical moves and securing funding, with variations in the types of moves identified in 90 abstracts. The findings highlight the persuasive and promotional nature of scientific communication and their implications for pedagogy. Explicit training in move analysis is recommended to improve researchers’ capacity to create convincing proposals.

Keywords: grant proposal abstract, rhetorical move, Matzler’s taxonomy, patterns of rhetorical moves, genre, academic discourse, presentation strategy, persuasion

Conflict of interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

For citation: Boginskaya O.A. Rhetoric of Promotion and Persuasion in Grant Proposal Abstracts. Integration of Education. 2025;29(3):555–572. https://doi.org/10.15507/1991-9468.029.202503.555-572

Availability of data and materials. The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the author on reasonable request.

The author has read and approved the final manuscript.

Submitted 29.01.2025;
revised 29.05.2025;
accepted 05.06.2025.

 

REFERENCES

  1. Tikhonova E.V., Kosycheva M.A., Mezentseva D.A. Ineffective Strategies in Scientific Communication: Textual Wordiness vs. Clarity of Thought in Thesis Conclusion Section. Integration of Education. 2024;28(2):249–265. https://doi.org/10.15507/1991-9468.115.028.202402.249-265
  2. Boginskaya O.A. Evaluative Stancetaking in English-Medium Academic Prose: A Study of Research Article Abstracts by Russian and Chinese L2 Writers. Journal of Language and Education. 2024;10(3):40–52. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2024.16080
  3. Hyland K., Tse P. Hooking the Reader: A Corpus Study of Evaluative that in Abstracts. English for Specific Purposes. 2005;24(2):123–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2004.02.002
  4. Saidi M., Talebi S. Genre Analysis of Research Article Abstracts in English for Academic Purposes Journals: Exploring the Possible Variations across the Venues of Research. Education Research International. 2021;2021(1):3578179. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/3578179
  5. Tocalo A.W.I. Move Structures and Their Rhetorical Verbs of Research Article Abstracts across Englishes. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics. 2021;11(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v11i1.34593
  6. Arsyad S., Zainil Y. Research Gap Strategies in Article Introductions of Different Rank Applied Linguistics Journals. Studies in English Language and Education. 2023;10(1):216–234. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v10i1.25302
  7. Du J., Yuan H., Li Q. Read between the Lines: Evaluative Patterns and Paces in Engineering Research Article Introductions. English for Specific Purposes. 2023;71:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2023.02.002
  8. Xu X., Nesi H. Evaluation in Research Article Introductions: A Comparison of the Strategies Used by Chinese and British Authors. Text & Talk. 2019;39(6):797–818. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2019-2046
  9. Moreno A.I., Swales J.M. Strengthening Move Analysis Methodology towards Bridging the Function-Form Gap. English for Specific Purposes. 2018;50:40–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.11.006
  10. Zhou H., Jiang F.K. ‘The Study Has Clear Limitations’: Presentation of Limitations in Conclusion Sections of PhD Dissertations and Research Articles in Applied Linguistics. English for Specific Purposes. 2023;7:34–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2023.02.001
  11. Darabad A.M. Move Analysis of Research Article Abstracts: A Cross-Disciplinary Study. International Journal of Linguistics. 2016;8(2):125–140. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v8i2.9379
  12. Yoon H.-J., Römer U. Quantifying Disciplinary Voices: An Automated Approach to International Metadiscourse in Successful Student Writing. Written Communication. 2020;37(2):208–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088319898672
  13. Wang F., Pramoolsook I. Attitude in Abstracts: Stance Expression in Translation Practice Reports and Interpretation Practice Reports by Chinese Students. Discourse and Interaction. 2021;14(1):100–123. http://dx.doi.org/10.5817/DI2021-1-100
  14. Mehlenbacher A.R. Crowdfunding Science: Exigencies and Strategies in an Emerging Genre of Science Communication. Technical Communication Quarterly. 2017;26(2):127–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2017.1287361
  15. Feng H., Shi L. Genre Analysis of Research Grant Proposals. LSP and Professional Communication. 2004;4(1):8–30. Available at: https://clck.ru/3Mw55x (accessed 15.12.2024).
  16. Wang Y. Examining Promotional Strategies and Trends in Successful Grant Application Abstracts: Moves and Appraisal Resources. English for Specific Purposes. 2025;78:70–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2024.12.004
  17. Charles M., Whiteside K. Seeking Research Funding in a Peripheral Context: A Learner Corpus Genre Study of Grant Proposal Summaries. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 2024;71:101431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2024.101431
  18. Matzler P. Grant Proposal Abstracts in Science and Engineering: A Prototypical Move-Structure Pattern and Its Variations. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 2021;49:100938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100938
  19. Millar N., Mathis B., Batalo B., Budgell B. Trends in the Expression of Epistemic Stance in NIH Research Funding Applications: 1985–2020. Applied Linguistics. 2024;45(4):658–675. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amad050
  20. Millar N., Batalo B., Budgell B. Trends in the Use of Promotional Language (Hype) in Abstracts of Successful National Institutes of Health Grant Applications, 1985–2020. JAMA Network Open. 2022;5(8):e2228676. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.28676
  21. Kessler M. A Text Analysis and Gatekeepers’ Perspectives of a Promotional Genre: Understanding the Rhetoric of Fulbright Grant Statements. English for Specific Purposes. 2020;60:182–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2020.07.003
  22. Connor U. Variation in Rhetorical Moves in Grant Proposals of U.S. Humanists and Scientists. Text. 2020;20:1–28. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.2000.20.1.1
  23. Feng H. A Corpus-Based Study of Research Grant Proposal Abstracts. Perspectives: Working Papers in English and Communication. 2006;17(1):1–24. Available at: https://clck.ru/3Mw6ra (accessed 15.12.2024).
  24. Flowerdew L. A Genre-Inspired and Lexico-Grammatical Approach for Helping Postgraduate Students Craft Research Grant Proposals. English for Specific Purposes. 2016;42:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2015.10.001
  25. Nuzha I.V., Smirnova N.V., Shchemeleva I.Yu. Research Proposals in English: Corpus-Based Genre Analysis. Tomsk State University Journal of Philology. 2019;(68):58–84. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) https://doi.org/10.17223/19986645/68/4
  26. Yin B. An Exploratory Genre Analysis of Three Graduate Degree Research Proposals in Applied Linguistics. Functional Linguistics. 2016;3:7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40554-016-0032-2
  27. Boginskaya O.A. A Comparison of Explicit and Implicit Approaches to EAP Teaching to Postgraduate Students. Higher Education in Russia. 2024;33(2):148–161. https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2024-33-2-148-161

 

PlumX

Лицензия Creative Commons
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Details
Hits: 22