A Genre-Based Comparison of Chat-GPT-Generated Abstracts Versus Human-Authored Abstracts: Focus on Applied Linguistics Research Articles

Recent studies have pointed to detectible differences between academic writing produced by AI algorithms versus human authors. With the aim to shed further light on this emerging line of enquiry, we analysed the rhetorical structure and metadiscoursal features of 320 research article abstracts, half...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Corpus pragmatics : international journal of corpus linguistics and pragmatics Vol. 10; no. 1
Main Authors: El-Dakhs, Dina Abdel Salam, Afzaal, Muhammed, Siyanova-Chanturia, Anna
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Cham Springer International Publishing 01.12.2026
Subjects:
Computational Linguistics
Computer Appl. in Arts and Humanities
Linguistics
Original Paper
Pragmatics
Semantics
Social Sciences
Research article abstracts
Rhetorical structure
Genre
ChatGPT
Metadiscourse
ISSN:2509-9507, 2509-9515
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Recent studies have pointed to detectible differences between academic writing produced by AI algorithms versus human authors. With the aim to shed further light on this emerging line of enquiry, we analysed the rhetorical structure and metadiscoursal features of 320 research article abstracts, half of which were generated by ChatGPT while the other half were written by human authors. Drawing on a genre-based analysis and as reported by Hyland (Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing, Pearson Education Limited, 2000) move structure model, we confirmed and extended the findings of earlier studies. We found that the ChatGPT did not exhibit comparable to human writing variety in the combinations of moves, provided less background information and methodological detail than did the human writing, as well as tended to overemphasize findings and conclusions. Further, the ChatGPT was found to use fewer textual metadiscourse markers, such as transitions, compared to human writers; it also overused sentential frame markers, attitude markers, and verbs used to hedge and boost. We discuss our findings in light of current literature in the field, as well as their implications for chatbot designers, AI detection developers, writing instructors, and students writing for academic purposes.
ISSN:2509-9507
2509-9515
DOI:10.1007/s41701-025-00210-8