A Comparative Study on the Use of Evaluative That Patterns in Abstracts by Expert and Novice Writers

Abstract

This study investigates the differences in how expert and novice writers use evaluative that-complement clauses in abstracts. The research analyzed 150 research article abstracts and 100 master’s thesis abstracts in the social sciences, applying the model of “evaluative that patterns” with the assistance of the MAXQDA annotation tool and ChatGPT retrieval mode. The analysis reveals that both groups often use this pattern to present their findings, typically attributing evaluations to abstract sources. They primarily express epistemic stances through verbal predicates. However, experts demonstrate significantly greater use of every element (entity, source, stance, and expression) of this feature. Experts are more inclined to use human resources and discourse act verbs and prefer to evaluate prior studies and methods, expressing more tentative stances to foster a dialogic space. These findings suggest that expertise influences rhetorical strategies for evaluating research materials. The study highlights pedagogical implications, offering valuable insights for novice writers in the social sciences to help them understand how to effectively use linguistic resources to convey evaluative claims and establish authoritative authorial stances.