Stylistic Redundancy and Wordiness in Introductions of Original Empirical Studies: Rhetorical Risks of Academic Writing

Elena Tikhonova; Olga Zavolskaya; Nataliia Mekeko

doi:10.17323/jle.2025.27389

Elena Tikhonova MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8252-6150
Olga Zavolskaya Sergo Ordzhonikidze Russian State University for Geological Prospecting, Moscow, Russia https://orcid.org/0009-0007-9594-626X
Nataliia Mekeko RUDN University, Moscow, Russia https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1876-9953

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2025.27389

Keywords: academic writing, wordiness, redundancy, rhetorical analysis, CARS model, Russian academic texts

Abstract

Background: The introduction of a research article plays a central role in shaping scientific argumentation. However, this section is often especially prone to stylistic overload, which can obscure the clarity of the author’s position. While the issues of redundancy and wordiness have been broadly acknowledged in applied linguistics, there is still limited understanding of how these features are distributed in relation to rhetorical structure, particularly within Russian-language academic texts.

Purpose: To identify rhetorically sensitive areas of stylistic overload in the introductions of Russian-language research articles in the field of education.

Method: The analysis is based on a corpus of 40 introductions from empirical articles published in 2024 in leading Russian peer-reviewed journals in education. The rhetorical Move-Step model developed by Swales was used as the framework for annotation. Each fragment was manually coded for two dimensions: the type of deviation (wordiness or redundancy) and its communicative impact (according to the IMPACT scale). Pearson’s chi-squared test was used to assess statistical significance.

Results: Stylistic overload was found to cluster in specific rhetorical steps, especially those related to establishing the importance of the topic (M1_S2), identifying gaps in the literature (M2_S1), and stating research objectives (M3_S2). The most frequent features included syntactic overcomplexity, vague abstract nouns, and overused credibility markers. A high level of negative communicative impact (IMPACT = HIGH) was observed in 60 fragments, most of which were located in the mentioned segments. Statistical testing (χ², p < 0.0001) confirmed a significant relationship between rhetorical function and the type of deviation.

Conclusion: The results confirm that stylistic overload in introductions is not accidental but structurally motivated. This supports the need for rhetorically informed strategies in teaching academic writing. The annotation scheme developed in the study may be applied in future corpus-based analyses of academic Russian.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Alontseva, N. V., & Ermoshin, Y. A. (2019). Problem of language redundancy on the example of a scientific text. RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics, 10(1), 129-140. https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2299-2019-10-1-129-140

Alramadan, M. (2020). Authorial stance in English, Arabic and EFL applied linguistics research: An appraisal study. Asiatic: IIUM Journal of English Language and Literature, 14(1), 189–216. https://doi.org/10.31436/asiatic.v14i1.1844

Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2010). Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 2–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.01.001

Biesta, G., Takayama, K., Kettle, M., & Heimans, S. (2024). How ‘academic’ should academic writing be? Or: why form should follow function. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 121–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2024.2324582

Çakir, A., Kuyurtar, D., & Balyer, A. (2024). The effects of the publish or perish culture on publications in the field of educational administration in Türkiye. Social Sciences and Humanities Open, 9, 100817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.100817

Demir, C. (2019). Writing Intelligible English Prose: Conciseness vs. Verbosity. Söylem Filoloji Dergisi, 4(2), 482-505. https://doi.org/10.29110/soylemdergi.617184

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387. https://doi.org/10.2307/356600

Flowerdew, J., & Forest, R. W. (2015). Signalling nouns in English: A corpus-based discourse approach. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139135405

Gong, X., & Barlow, M. (2022). A corpus-based analysis of research article macrostructure patterns in high-impact journals. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 58, 101138. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1206.12

Goonaratna, C. (2002a). Writing well (6) Wordiness, alias verbosity. Ceylon Medical Journal, 47(1), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.4038/cmj.v47i1.6393

Goonaratna, C. (2002b). Writing well (7) Wordiness alias verbosity, continued. Ceylon Medical Journal, 47(3), 79-80. https://doi.org/10.4038/cmj.v47i3.3432

Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Louwerse, M. M. (2003). What do readers need to learn in order to process coherence relations in narrative and expository text. In A. P. Sweet & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 82–98). Guilford Publications.

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.

Hyland, K. (2008). Academic clusters: Text patterning in published and postgraduate writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 41–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2008.00178.x

Hyland, K. (2008). Genre and academic writing in the disciplines. Language Teaching, 41(4), 543-562. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444808005235

Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005). Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 24(3), 269–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2004.08.003

Kravtchenko, E., & Demberg, V. (2022). Informationally redundant utterances elicit pragmatic inferences. Cognition, 225, 105159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105159

Leufkens, S. (2023). Measuring redundancy: The relation between concord and complexity. Linguistics Vanguard, 9(s1), 95-106. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2020-0143

Raitskaya L.K., & Tikhonova E.V. (2019). Multilingualism in Russian journals: A controversy of approaches. European Science Editing, 45(2), 41. https://doi.org/10.20316/ESE.2019.45.18024

Raitskaya, L., & Tikhonova, E. (2020). Overcoming cultural barriers to scholarly communication in international peer-reviewed journals. Journal of Language and Education, 6(2), 4-8. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2020.11043

Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 149–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(94)90013-2

Samraj, B. (2002). Introductions in research articles: Variations across disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 21(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00023-5

Smirnova, N. V., Lillis, T., & Hultgren, A. K. (2021). English and/or Russian medium publications? A case study exploring academic research writing in contemporary Russian academia. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 53, Article. 101015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.101015

Strunk, W., & White, E. B. (1999). The elements of style (4th ed.). Pearson Education.

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.

Tikhonova E.V., Kosycheva M.A., & Mezentseva D.A. (2024b). Ineffective strategies in scientific communication: textual wordiness vs. clarity of thought in thesis Conclusion section. Integration of Education, 28(2), 249-265. https://doi.org/10.15507/1991-9468.115.028.202402.249-265

Tikhonova, E. V., & Mezentseva, D. A. (2024). Wordiness in academic writing: A systematic scoping review. Research Result. Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 133–157. https://doi.org/10.18413/2313-8912-2024-10-1-0-8

Tikhonova, E., Mezentseva, D., & Kasatkin, P. (2024a). Text redundancy in academic writing: A scoping review. Journal of Language and Education, 10(3), 128–160. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2024.23747

van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and Power. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-07299-3

Wang, S.-P. (2016). Corpus research on hedges in linguistics and EFL journal papers. International Journal of Education, 9(1), 44. https://doi.org/10.17509/ije.v9i1.3717

Williams, J. M., & Bizup, J. (2017). Style: Lessons in clarity and grace (12th ed.). Pearson Education.