Corpus Analysis of Reporting Verbs in Abstracts to Research Articles

Tyumen State University Herald. Humanities Research. Humanitates


2020, Vol. 6. № 1 (21)

Corpus Analysis of Reporting Verbs in Abstracts to Research Articles

For citation: Khabibullina S. B., Ulyanova O. B. 2020. “Corpus Analysis of Reporting Verbs in Abstracts to Research Articles”. Tyumen State University Herald. Humanities Research. Humanitates, vol. 6, no. 1 (21), pp. 62-75. DOI: 10.21684/2411-197X-2020-6-1-62-75

About the authors:

Saida B. Khabibullina, Senior Lecturer, Department of English Philology and Translation, University of Tyumen;

Olga B. Ulyanova, Cand. Sci. (Philol.), Associate Professor, Department of the English Language, University of Tyumen; eLibrary AuthorID,


The authors of this article employ the methods of corpus linguistics to study the semantics of general scientific verbs of the lexical-semantic group of reporting in order to study the semantic organization and thematic ordering of this group of English-language predicates in abstracts. The categorical taxonomic meaning of reporting verbs provides an appropriate perception of information when compressing the main text of a research article. Studies that exist in this area comprise the analyses of the rhetorical structure or linguo-cognitive organization of research articles abstracts in various subject areas. Paradigmatics and syntagmatics of lexical units in general and predicates in particular remain not fully understood within the framework of abstracts.

Consequently, the relevance of the subject of the study, namely verbs of reporting in abstracts, is due to the objective need to perform the communicative task of creating or translating a research article abstract mainly from Russian into English. At the same time, the non-English academic community needs access to authentic research, the understanding of which occurs mainly basing on proposition predicates. Based on the material of the сompiled corpus of 500 research article abstracts in the subject field of linguistics, the use of automated quantitative and qualitative methods of corpus analysis makes the selection of predicates and forms the lexical-semantic group of reporting with the semantic dominant to show, which reveals the highest frequency of use in abstracts. Along with the nuclear semantics to show, the semes: emergence of knowledge; confirmation of knowledge; clarification of knowledge; accentuation of knowledge; overview of knowledge, organize the space of the lexical-semantic group of reporting and, therefore, the texts of abstracts. Syntagmatics of the studied verbs is limited to four types of combination models of a verb and a direct object; a verb and a prepositional object; a verb and a subordinate clause; as well as a verb and an infinitive, where the first model is most frequent and the last one is least frequent.


  1. Ahmanova G. I., Vilshtain A. M., Glushko M. M. 1989. The Semantic Analysis of Reporting Verbs in the Scientific Text. Mocsow: MSU. [In Russian]

  2. Baranov A. N. 2001. Introduction to Applied Linguistics. Moscow: Editorial URSS. [In Russian]

  3. Bogdanova S. Yu. 2012. “Corpus Methodology Opportunities in Linguistic Tasks”. Vestnik IGLU, no. 2yu (18), pp. 47-50. [In Russian]

  4. Zakharov V. P. 2003. “Internet Search Engines as a Tool for Linguistic Research”. Russkiy Yazik v Internete. Kazan: Otechestvo, pp. 48-59. [In Russian]

  5. Zakharov V. P., Bogdanova S. Yu. 2013. Corpus Linguistics. StP: StPSU. RIO. [In Russian]

  6. Ibragimova V. L. 2014. “Verb in Semantic Lexicon Environment”. Vеstnik Bаshkirskogо Univеrsitеtа, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 500-505. [In Russian]

  7. Lavrentiev A. M. 2004. “Corpus Linguistics: ideology, methods, technology”. Sibirskiy philologicheskiy jurnal, no. 3-4, pp. 121-134. [In Russian]

  8. Paducheva E. V. 2009. “Lexical Aspect and Verb Classification according to Maslow-Vendler”. Voprosy Yazikoznaniya, no. 6, pp. 3-20. [In Russian]

  9. Ryabtseva N. K. 2014. “Construction grammar, combinatory dictionaries, modern information technologies and foreign language learning”. Lingvistika i metodika prepodavaniya inostrannyh yazikov. Moscow: Institut Yazikoznaniya RAN, no. 6, pp. 214-247. Accessed on 13 February 2020. URL: [In Russian]

  10. Biber D., Conrad S., Reppen R. 1998. “Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  11. Cambridge Dictionary Online URL:

  12. 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, vol. 43, i. 11, pp. 2795-2809. URL:

  13. Hyland K. 2000. Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. London, UK: Longman.

  14. Kingsbury P., Palmer M. 2002. From TreeBank to PropBank. University of Pennsylvania. URL:

  15. Kipper K. 2005. VerbNet: a Broad-coverage, Comprehensive Verb Lexicon. University of Pennsylvania. Kipper Schuler K. VerbNet: a Broad-coverage, Comprehensive Verb Lexicon: a dissertation in Computer and Information Science / K. Kipper Schuler. University of Pennsylvania, 2005. URL:

  16. Kipper K., Kornonen A., Ryant N., Palmer M. 2008. “A Large-Scale Classification of English Verbs”. Language Resources and Evaluation Journal, no. 42, pp. 21-40.

  17. Leech G. 1992. “Corpora and Theories of Linguistic Performance”. In J. Svartvik (ed.). Directions in Corpus Linguistics: proceedings of the Nobel Symposium 82. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Trends in Linguistics, vol. 65, pp. 105-122.

  18. Levin B. 1993. “English Verb Classes and Alternations: a Preliminary Investigation”. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 366 p.

  19. Ngai S. B. C., Singh R. G., Koon A. C. 2018. “A Discourse Analysis of the Macrostructure, Metadiscoursal and Microdiscoursal Features in the Abstracts of Research Articles across Multiple Science Disciplines”. PLoS One, no. 13(10). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0205417

  20. Pho P. D. 2008. “Research Article Abstracts in Applied Linguistics and Educational Technology: a Study of Linguistic Realizations of Rhetorical Structure and Authorial Stance”. Vol. 10, i. 2, pp. 231-250. DOI: 10.1177/1461445607087010

  21. Sinclair J. 1991. Corpus. Concordance. Collocation. Oxford. 179 p.

  22. Stubbs M. 1993. “British Traditions in Text Analysis: From Firth to Sinclair”. In M. Baker, F. Francis and E. Tognini-Bonelli (eds.). Text and Technology: In honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing, pp. 1-36.

  23. Swales J. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.