IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v12y2022i3p21582440221126342.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Lexical Profile of Academic Written English Revisited: What Does it Take to Understand Scholarly Abstracts?

Author

Listed:
  • Nhu Le Quynh Nguy
  • Hung Tan Ha

Abstract

The abstract is an integral part of a scientific paper. Despite the importance of abstracts, very little research has investigated the vocabulary size needed to read abstracts in scientific papers. This present study analyzed the lexical profile of 26 million words from approximately 100,000 scholarly abstracts across 10 major subjects of science. The results showed that the vocabulary size of the most frequent 7,000 and 15,000 word families in the British National Corpus/Corpus of Contemporary American English (BNC/COCA) word list plus proper nouns, marginal words, transparent compounds, acronyms were needed to gain 95% and 98% coverage of the abstract corpus, respectively. However, data from cross-disciplinary analyses demonstrated significant differences in the lexical demands between abstracts of different fields of study. The 570 word families in the Academic Word List were found to make up for 13.77% of the words in the corpus. Implications for the use of abstracts in language classrooms were discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Nhu Le Quynh Nguy & Hung Tan Ha, 2022. "Lexical Profile of Academic Written English Revisited: What Does it Take to Understand Scholarly Abstracts?," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(3), pages 21582440221, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:12:y:2022:i:3:p:21582440221126342
    DOI: 10.1177/21582440221126342
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440221126342
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/21582440221126342?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lu, Chao & Bu, Yi & Dong, Xianlei & Wang, Jie & Ding, Ying & Larivière, Vincent & Sugimoto, Cassidy R. & Paul, Logan & Zhang, Chengzhi, 2019. "Analyzing linguistic complexity and scientific impact," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 817-829.
    2. Tan Jin & Huiqiong Duan & Xiaofei Lu & Jing Ni & Kai Guo, 2021. "Do research articles with more readable abstracts receive higher online attention? Evidence from Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(10), pages 8471-8490, October.
    3. Ben H. Weil, 1970. "Standards for writing abstracts," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 21(5), pages 351-357, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Song, Ningyuan & Chen, Kejun & Zhao, Yuehua, 2023. "Understanding writing styles of scientific papers in the IS-LS domain: Evidence from abstracts over the past three decades," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1).
    2. Xueying Liu & Haoran Zhu, 2023. "Linguistic positivity in soft and hard disciplines: temporal dynamics, disciplinary variation, and the relationship with research impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(5), pages 3107-3127, May.
    3. Tan Jin & Huiqiong Duan & Xiaofei Lu & Jing Ni & Kai Guo, 2021. "Do research articles with more readable abstracts receive higher online attention? Evidence from Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(10), pages 8471-8490, October.
    4. Ju Wen & Lei Lei, 2022. "Adjectives and adverbs in life sciences across 50 years: implications for emotions and readability in academic texts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4731-4749, August.
    5. Guo Chen & Jing Chen & Yu Shao & Lu Xiao, 2023. "Automatic noise reduction of domain-specific bibliographic datasets using positive-unlabeled learning," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(2), pages 1187-1204, February.
    6. Dengsheng Wu & Huidong Wu & Jianping Li, 2024. "Citation advantage of positive words: predictability, temporal evolution, and universality in varied quality journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4275-4293, July.
    7. Don Watson & Manfred Krug & Claus-Christian Carbon, 2022. "The relationship between citations and the linguistic traits of specific academic discourse communities identified by using social network analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 1755-1781, April.
    8. Charles J. Gomez & Andrew C. Herman & Paolo Parigi, 2022. "Leading countries in global science increasingly receive more citations than other countries doing similar research," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 6(7), pages 919-929, July.
    9. Xi Zhao & Li Li & Wei Xiao, 2023. "The diachronic change of research article abstract difficulty across disciplines: a cognitive information-theoretic approach," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-12, December.
    10. Bikun Chen & Dannan Deng & Zhouyan Zhong & Chengzhi Zhang, 2020. "Exploring linguistic characteristics of highly browsed and downloaded academic articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(3), pages 1769-1790, March.
    11. Tohalino, Jorge A.V. & Amancio, Diego R., 2022. "On predicting research grants productivity via machine learning," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    12. Michael Park & Erin Leahey & Russell Funk, 2021. "The decline of disruptive science and technology," Papers 2106.11184, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2022.
    13. Evelyn Eika & Frode Eika Sandnes, 2022. "Starstruck by journal prestige and citation counts? On students’ bias and perceptions of trustworthiness according to clues in publication references," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(11), pages 6363-6390, November.
    14. Amon, Julian & Hornik, Kurt, 2022. "Is it all bafflegab? – Linguistic and meta characteristics of research articles in prestigious economics journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    15. Kun Sun & Haitao Liu & Wenxin Xiong, 2021. "The evolutionary pattern of language in scientific writings: A case study of Philosophical Transactions of Royal Society (1665–1869)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1695-1724, February.
    16. Gui Wang & Hui Wang & Xinyi Sun & Nan Wang & Li Wang, 2023. "Linguistic complexity in scientific writing: A large-scale diachronic study from 1821 to 1920," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(1), pages 441-460, January.
    17. Brito, Ana C.M. & Silva, Filipi N. & de Arruda, Henrique F. & Comin, Cesar H. & Amancio, Diego R. & Costa, Luciano da F., 2021. "Classification of abrupt changes along viewing profiles of scientific articles," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2).
    18. Diego Marino Fages, 2020. "Write better, publish better," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(3), pages 1671-1681, March.
    19. van den Besselaar, Peter & Mom, Charlie, 2022. "The effect of writing style on success in grant applications," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    20. Ante, Lennart, 2022. "The relationship between readability and scientific impact: Evidence from emerging technology discourses," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:12:y:2022:i:3:p:21582440221126342. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.