Metadiscourse Patterns in Human-Written vs. Generative AI-Authored Research Abstracts: A Comparative Corpus-Based Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.69760/aghel.026001005Keywords:
Metadiscourse, Generative AI writing, Research Abstracts, Coprus-Based Analysis, Academic DiscourseAbstract
This study examines how metadiscourse markers differ in research article abstracts written by human authors and those generated by AI (ChatGPT). We compiled a balanced corpus of human-written abstracts from peer-reviewed journals and AI-generated abstracts using the same titles and publication contexts. Using Hyland’s interpersonal metadiscourse framework, we annotated interactive (text-organizing) and interactional (reader-focused) devices and compared their frequencies across corpora. Quantitative analysis (frequency counts normalized per 1,000 words; chi-square tests) revealed systematic differences: AI abstracts contained more structural (interactive) markers (e.g. transitions, frame signals) but significantly fewer stance and engagement markers (e.g. hedges, boosters) than human abstracts. Qualitative analysis of exemplar abstracts confirmed that AI-generated abstracts adopt a clearer, more impersonal tone, while human abstracts show richer personal voice and reader engagement. These findings align with recent studies showing ChatGPT’s abstracts are coherent but lack nuanced authorial presence. We discuss implications for academic writing, noting that AI can mimic formal structure yet may omit the rhetorical subtlety valued in scholarly communication. Limitations (e.g. single AI model, one genre) and future work are identified. Overall, this comparative corpus analysis highlights characteristic metadiscourse profiles of AI vs. human authorship in scientific abstracts and informs discourse research in the AI era.
References
Abdi, R. (2002). Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies, 4(2), 139–145.
Afzaal, M., Imran, M., Du, X., & Almusharraf, N. (2022). Automated and human interaction in written discourse: A contrastive parallel corpus-based investigation of metadiscourse features in machine-human translations. Sage Open, 12(4), 21582440221142210.
Amirjalili, F., Neysani, M., & Nikbakht, A. (2024, March). Exploring the boundaries of authorship: A comparative analysis of AI-generated text and human academic writing in English literature. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 9, p. 1347421). Frontiers Media SA.
Azijah, D. P., & Gulö, I. (2020). Interpersonal metadiscourse markers in Jacinda Ardern speech at Christchurch memorial. Linguist. Lit. J, 1(2), 70–77.
Brezina, V. (2018). Statistics in corpus linguistics: A practical guide. Cambridge University Press.
Camiciottoli, B. C. (2004). Interactive discourse structuring in L2 guest lectures: Some insights from a comparative corpus-based study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(1), 39–54.
Cao, F., & Hu, G. (2014). Interactive metadiscourse in research articles: A comparative study of paradigmatic and disciplinary influences. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 15–31.
Curry, N., Baker, P., & Brookes, G. (2024). Generative AI for corpus approaches to discourse studies: A critical evaluation of ChatGPT. Applied Corpus Linguistics, 4(1), 100082.
Dueñas, P. M. (2007). ‘I/we focus on…’: A cross-cultural analysis of self-mentions in business management research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(2), 143–162.
Gao, C. A., Howard, F. M., Markov, N. S., Dyer, E. C., Ramesh, S., Luo, Y., & Pearson, A. T. (2023). Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to real abstracts with detectors and blinded human reviewers. NPJ Digital Medicine, 6(1), 75.
Hyland, K., & Vande Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 128–139.
Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(11), 2795–2809.
Hyland, K. (1995). The author in the text: Hedging scientific writing. Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching, 18, 33–42.
Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 437–455.
Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory coursebooks. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 3–26.
Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20(3), 207–226.
Hyland, K. (2003). Self-citation and self-reference: Credibility and promotion in academic publication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(3), 251–259.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133–151.
Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27(1), 4–21.
Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(S2), 125–143.
Hyland, K. (2012). Bundles in academic discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 150–169.
Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16–29.
Hyland, K. (2018). Metadiscourse.
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2016). Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance. Written Communication, 33(3), 251–274.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156–177.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005). Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), 123–139.
Istiani, R., & Puspita, D. (2020). Interactional metadiscourse used in Bloomberg International Debate. Linguistics and Literature Journal, 1(1), 13–20.
Jiang, F. K., & Hyland, K. (2025). Rhetorical distinctions: Comparing metadiscourse in essays by ChatGPT and students. English for Specific Purposes, 79, 17–29.
Jiang, F., & Hyland, K. (2015). ‘The fact that’: Stance nouns in disciplinary writing. Discourse Studies, 17(5), 529–550.
Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2025). Literacy in the time of Artificial Intelligence. Reading Research Quarterly, 60(1), e591.
Peacock, M. (2006). A cross-disciplinary comparison of boosting in research articles. Corpora, 1(1), 61–84.
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge University Press.
Tocalo, A. W. I. (2021). Move structures and their rhetorical verbs of research article abstracts across Englishes. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 1–10.
Vaccaro, M., Almaatouq, A., & Malone, T. (2024). When combinations of humans and AI are useful: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nature Human Behaviour, 8(12), 2293–2303.
Zhang, M., & Zhang, J. (2025). Reflexivity in human-written and ChatGPT-generated English research article abstracts: A comparison of metadiscourse. Applied Linguistics.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Acta Globalis Humanitatis et Linguarum
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
