From “Spicing Up My Writing” to “Convincing My Supervisors”: EFL Learners’ Motivations for Using Promotional Language (‘Hypes’) in Academic Texts
Abstract
Background. The trend of promotional language (hypes) in academic discourse, such as critical, robust, new, discover, and undoubtedly, has raised concerns about the changing nature of scholarly communication. While previous studies have documented this trend in published texts, the motivations driving hype usage among developing academic writers, especially in EFL context, remain underexplored.
Purpose. This paper investigates Indonesian EFL learners’ use of hypes in theses and dissertations, examines their perceptions and the factors that motivate hype usage in unpublished academic texts.
Materials and Methods. Through purposive sampling, we conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with 12 Indonesian EFL learners whose theses and dissertations contained hypes, focusing on the intentions and reasons for using hypes. Hypes were analyzed using Millar et al.’s (2020) functional framework, and reflexive thematic analysis was conducted to identify motivational patterns underlying their usage.
Results. Through thematic analysis of in-depth interviews, this study reveals that participants generally viewed hypes positively and strategically used them across all functional categories, with a novel category targeting the research gaps. While viewing hypes positively as persuasive tools, they expressed concerns about appearing overconfident. Five external motivational factors were identified: supervisory expectations shaped by hierarchical power dynamics, audience awareness, AI tool influences, classroom instructions, and published writing conventions.
Conclusion. This study demonstrates that Indonesian EFL learners use hypes mainly to meet supervisory expectations rather than publication pressures. The findings offer three key theoretical contributions: first, that hype usage represents identity construction where EFL learners negotiate academic and cultural expectations; second, that power asymmetries in hierarchical context manifest linguistically through rhetorical compliance; and third, that AI tools now function as rhetorical agents alongside traditional human influences in academic discourse socialization.
Downloads
References
Arianto, M. A., Haq, M., & Jufrizal, J. (2023). Research article introductions in applied linguistics: A comparative study on the use of appeals. Journal of Language and Education, 9(2), 12-24. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2023.16163
Arsyad, S. (2019). Struggling for international publication: The potential rhetorical problems for Indonesian scholars in social sciences and humanities when writing in English. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, (301), 469-478.
Avena, B. & Yumarnamto, M. (2022). Indonesian EFL students’ thesis conclusions: organizational preferences and pedagogical implications. LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Learning, 25(2), 709-728. https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.v25i2.3715
Bhatia, V. K. (2005). Generic patterns in promotional discourse. In H. Halmari & T. Virtanen (Eds.), Persuasion across genres: A linguistic approach (pp. 213-225). John Benjamins Publishing.
Boutron, I., Dutton, S., Ravaud, P., & Altman, D. G. (2010). Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. JAMA, 303(20), 2058 – 2064. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2010.651
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Constantinou, C.S., Georgiou, M., & Perdikogianni, M. (2017). A comparative method for themes saturation (CoMeTS) in qualitative interviews. Qualitative Research, 17, 571 - 588. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794116686650
Deyrich, M.-C. (2023). Addressing power asymmetries in doctoral supervision. In C. J. Craig, J. Mena, & R. G. Kane (Eds.), Studying teaching and teacher education (Advances in research on teaching, vol. 44, pp. 243-254). Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-368720230000044024
Fairclough, N. (1993). Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse: The universities. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 133-168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002002
Hinkel, E. (2005). Hedging, inflating, and persuading in L2 academic writing. Applied Language Learning, 15(1 & 2), 29-53.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. McGraw Hill.
Huang, J., Li., N., Shumin, W., & He, Z. (2023). The roles of cultural capital in teacher-student interactions in China: A qualitative study of students in higher vocational colleges. Behavioral Sciences, 13(8), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13080690
Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091-1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00035-8
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7, 173-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
Hyland, K. & Jiang, K. (2023). Hyping the REF: Promotional elements in impact submissions. Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01030-y
Hyland, K. & Jiang, K. (2021a). The Covid infodemic: Competition and the hyping of virus research. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 26(4), 444-468. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.20160.hyl
Hyland, K. & Jiang, K. (2021b). ‘Our striking results demonstrate …’” Persuasion and the growth of academic hype. Journal of Pragmatics, 182(2021), 189-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.06.018
Intemann, K. (2022). Understanding the problem of “hype”: Exaggeration, values, and trust in science. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 52(3), 279-294. https://doi.org/10.1017/can.2020.45
Ishak, C. N., Basthomi, Y., & Yannuar, N. (2024). Hypes in undergraduate thesis abstracts by Indonesian students across years. Discourse and Interaction, 17(1), 51-72. https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2024-1-51
Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing (Studies in written language and literacy, vol. 5). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Lambovska, M., & Todorova, D. (2021). ‘Publish and Flourish’ instead of ‘Publish or Perish’: A motivation model for top-quality publications. Journal of Language and Education, 7(1), 141-155. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2021.11522
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman.
Lillis, T., & Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic writing in a global context: The politics and practices of publishing in English. Routledge.
Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. SAGE.
Liyanti, L. (2019). Information seeking behavior of santriwati of Madrasah Aliyah Pondok Pesantren Jakarta: A study of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions perspective in information seeking behavior. Jurnal Ilmu Informasi, Perpustakaan dan Kearsipan, 21(1), 11-18. https://doi.org/10.7454/JIPK.v21i1.002
Lo, Y. Y., Othman, J., & Lim, J. W. (2021). Mapping the use of boosters in academic writing by Malaysian first-year doctoral students. Pertanika Journal Social Sciences & Humanities, 29(3), 1917-1937. https://doi.org/10.47836/pjssh.29.3.23
Malmir, B., Khany, R., & Aliakbari, M. (2019). Journal article highlights in applied linguistics: An exploration into the rhetorical moves and their lexico-grammatical features. Iranian Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(4), 49-63.
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910
Martín, P. & Pérez, I. K. L. (2014). Convincing peers of the value of one’s research: A genre analysis of rhetorical promotion in academic texts. English for Specific Purposes, 34, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2013.09.002
Miasari, S., Arsyad, S., & Arono. (2018). Indonesian authors’ stances in citing English research article introductions literature in sciences. EduLite:Journal of English Education, Literature, and Culture, 3(2), 173-187. https://doi.org/10.30659/e.3.2.173-187
Millar, N., Batalo B., & Budgell, B. (2022). Trends in the use of promotional language (hype) in abstracts of successful National Institutes of Health Grant Applications, 1985-2020. JAMA Network Open, 5(8), 1-11. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.28676
Millar, N., Budgell, B., & Salager-Meyer, F. (2020). Hype in reports of clinical research: The authors’ perspectives. English for Specific Purposes, 60, 53-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2020.07.001
Millar, N., Salager-Meyer, F., & Budgell, B. (2019). “It is important to reinforce the importance of.”: ‘Hype’ in reports of randomized controlled trials. English for Specific Purposes, 51, 139- 151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2019.02.004
Mohamad, R. & Saad, N. M. (2016). Power distance culture and the construction of the followership identity. Asia Pacific Journal of Advanced Business and Social Studies, 2(1), 149-160.
Morse, J. M. (2000). Determining Sample Size. Qualitative Health Research, 10(1):3-5. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973200129118183
Nangimah, M., & Walldén, R. (2023). Diverse views on supervision: Insights from interviews with EAL supervisors in Sweden and Indonesia. Journal of Praxis in Higher Education, 5(1), 122-153. https://doi.org/10.47989/kpdc281
Ogden, J., & Cornwell, D. (2010). The role of topic, interviewee and question in predicting rich interview data in the field of health research. Sociology of Health & Illness, 32(7), 1059–1071. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2010.01272.x
Palys, T. (2008). Purposive sampling. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (vol. 2, pp. 697-698). SAGE.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Raitskaya, L., & Tikhonova, E. (2023). Academic integrity: Author-related and journal-related issues. Journal of Language and Education, 9(4), 5-10. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2023.18489
Rinaldi, A. (2012). To hype, or not to(o) hype. EMBO Reports, 13, 303-307. https://doi.org/10.1038/embor.2012.39
Sandelowski M. (1995). Sample size in qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health, 18(2), 179-183. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.4770180211
Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., Burroughs, H., & Jinks, C. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity, 52(4), 1893-1907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8
Scott, S. L. & Jones, C. W. (2017). Superlative scientific writing. ACS Catalysis, 7, 2218-2219. https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.7b00566
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge University Press.
Tan, H. & Eng, W. B. (2014). Metadiscourse use in the persuasive writing of Malaysian undergraduate students. English Language Teaching, 7(7), 26-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n7p26
Vinkers, C.H., Tijdink, J.K., & Otte, W.M. (2015). Use of positive and negative words in scientific PubMed abstracts between 1974 and 2014: Retrospective analysis. British Medical Journal, 351, h6467. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h6467
Wheatley, D. (2014). Drama in research papers. European Science Editing, 40(1), 14-16.
Wäscher, S., Biller-Andorno, N., & Deplazes-Zemp, A. (2020). “I Don’t Want to Do Anything Bad.” Perspectives on scientific responsibility: Results from a qualitative interview study with senior scientists. Nanoethics, 14, 135-153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-020-00365-5
Yannuar, N., Shitadevi, I. A., Basthomi, Y., & Widiati, U. (2014). Active and passive voice constructions by Indonesian student writers. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(7), 1400-1408. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.7.1400-1408
Yusofi, M., Zarghami-Hamrah, S., Ghaedy, Y., & Mahmudnia, A. A quasi-transcendental approach for removing hierarchical teacher-student relation. Policy Futures in Education, 16(3), 346-359. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210317736205
Zhang, O & Hyland, K. (2021). Advice-giving, power and roles in theses supervisions. Journal of Pragmatics, 172, 35-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.11.002
Copyright (c) 2025 National Research University Higher School of Economics
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the Copyright Notice.
