Variation and Diachronic Change in Epistemic Stance: Testing Promotional Trends in NSF Grant Proposal Abstracts

Although epistemic stance in academic discourse has been extensively researched in linguistics, relatively little is known about diachronic change and variation in its expression across disciplines, and still less about the grant proposal abstract, a genre produced under strong promotional pressure. The present paper addresses this gap by testing whether the widely reported trend towards research “hype” is reflected in the epistemic stance of grant proposal abstracts and, if so, whether it is uniform across disciplines. We examined three groups of epistemic stance expressions (hedges, boosters, and modal auxiliaries) in a 99.4-million-word corpus of openly available abstracts of successful NSF grant proposals representing seven disciplinary groups (biological sciences, computer and information science, engineering, geosciences, mathematical and physical sciences, social, behavioral and economic sciences, and education) and spanning the period 1987–2024. Using Kendall’s tau and linear regression, complemented by autocorrelation diagnostics, we established whether there is a consistent upward or downward trend in the incidence of these features in each discipline over time and estimated the size of the differences. The results complicate the picture drawn by existing discipline-specific studies of epistemic stance. Contrary to the upward trend observed in medical research abstracts, the frequency of boosters decreases consistently across four disciplines and in the corpus overall; the frequency of hedges follows a comparable downward trajectory, and modal auxiliaries decline overall, a trend accounted for largely by the high-frequency future marker will, though one that falls short of our consistency criterion, while individual modals move in opposite directions. These findings suggest that trends in the expression of epistemic stance are highly dependent on discipline and genre, and that the assumption that the language of research is becoming uniformly less cautious and more promotional merits comprehensive, cross-disciplinary empirical examination. The study contributes to ESP research by demonstrating that the promotionalisation of academic writing does not operate uniformly across professional genres and disciplines.

1. Abdeljaoued, M. (2026). From hedging to self-mention: Seventy years of stance in do toral theses and what it means for EAP. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 79, 101616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101616

2. Arora-Jonsson, S., Brunsson, N., & Edlund, P. (2023). The construction of competition in public research funding systems. In B. Lepori, B. Jongbloed, & D. Hicks (Eds.), Handbook of public funding of research (pp. 172–184). Edward Elgar Publishing.

3. Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/culture/power. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

4. Bhatia, V. (2005). Generic patterns in promotional discourse. In H. Halmari & T. Virtanen (Eds.), Persuasion across genres: A linguistic approach (pp. 213–225). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.130.13bha

5. Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Dis course, 9(1), 93–124. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93

6. Bondi, M., & Lorés Sanz, R. (Eds.). (2014). Abstracts in academic discourse: Variation and change. Peter Lang.

7. Bordignon, F., Ermakova, L., & Noel, M. (2021). Over-promotion and caution in abstracts of preprints during the COVID-19 crisis. Learned Publishing, 34(4), 622–636. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1411

8. Connor, U., & Mauranen, A. (1999). Linguistic analysis of grant proposals: European Un ion research grants. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00026-4

9. Egbert, J., & Plonsky, L. (2015). Success in the abstract: Exploring linguistic and stylistic predictors of conference abstract ratings. Corpora, 10(3), 291–313. https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2015.0079

10. 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

11. Feng, H. (2008). A genre-based study of research grant proposals in China. In U. Con nor, E. Nagelhout, & W. Rozycki (Eds.), Contrastive rhetoric: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric (pp. 63–86). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.169.07fen

12. Gray, B., & Biber, D. (2014). Stance markers. In K. Aijmer & C. Rühlemann (Eds.), Corpus pragmatics: A handbook (pp. 219–248). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139057493.012

13. Hilpert, M., & Gries, S. Th. (2009). Assessing frequency changes in multistage diachronic corpora: Applications for historical corpus linguistics and the study of language acquisition. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 24(4), 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqn012

14. Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles (Vol. 54). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.54

15. Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365

16. Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse: English in a global context. Bloomsbury Academic. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474211673

17. Hyland, K. (2015). Academic publishing: Issues and challenges in the construction of knowledge. Oxford University Press.

18. Hyland, K. (2023). Academic publishing and the attention economy. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 64, 101253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2023.101253

19. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (Kevin). (2016). Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance. Written Communication, 33(3), 251–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088316650399

20. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (Kevin). (2021). ‘Our striking results demonstrate …’: Persuasion and the growth of academic hype. Journal of Pragmatics, 182, 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.06.018

21. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (Kevin). (2024). Hyping the REF: Promotional elements in impact submissions. Higher Education, 87(3), 685–702. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01030-y

22. Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005). Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), 123–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2004.02.002

23. Jiang, F. (Kevin), & Qiu, X. (2022). “These findings are very astonishing”: Hyping of disciplinary research in 3MT presentations and thesis abstracts. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 42(3–4), 300–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2023.2180320

24. Kaplan, R. B., Cantor, S., Hagstrom, C., Kamhi-Stein, L. D., Shiotani, Y., & Zimmerman, C. B. (1994). On abstract writing. Text – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Dis course, 14(3), 401–426. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1994.14.3.401

25. Lillis, T., & Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic writing in a global context: The politics and practices of publishing in English. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203852583

26. Loi, C. K., & Lim, J. M.-H. (2019). Hedging in the discussion sections of English and Malay educational research articles. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies, 19(1), 36–61. https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2019-1901-03

27. Martín, P., & Burgess, S. (2024). “Our study offers insight into…” Rhetorical promotion in English and Spanish conference abstracts. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 34(1), 134–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12483

28. Martín, P., & León Pérez, I. K. (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

29. Martín, P., & León Pérez, I. (2024). The rise of promotional communicative functions in medical research article abstracts: A diachronic (1940–2022) perspective. Higher Education, 88(1), 209–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01112-x

30. Melander, B., Swales, J. M., & Fredrickson, K. M. (1997). Journal abstracts from three academic fields in the United States and Sweden: National or disciplinary proclivities? In A. Duszak (Ed.), Culture and styles of academic discourse (pp. 251–272). Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110821048.251

31. Millar, N., & Batalo, B. (2026). Comparative analysis of epistemic stance in abstracts of published biomedical research and associated National Institutes of Health funding applications (1985–2020). Applied Linguistics, 47(1), 73–92. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amae072

32. 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), e2228676. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.28676

33. Millar, N., Batalo, B., & Budgell, B. (2023). Promotional language (hype) in abstracts of publications of National Institutes of Health–funded research, 1985-2020. JAMA Network Open, 6(12), e2348706. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.48706

34. 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

35. Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge University Press.

36. Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2009). Abstracts and the writing of abstracts. University of Michigan Press.

37. Takimoto, M. (2015). A corpus-based analysis of hedges and boosters in English academic articles. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v5i1.836

38. Thompson, P. (2016). Genre approaches to theses and dissertations. In K. Hyland & P. Shaw (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English for academic purposes (pp. 379–391). Routledge.

39. Tseng, M.-Y. (2011). The genre of research grant proposals: Towards a cognitive–prag matic analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(8), 2254–2268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.02.015

40. Wang, H., & Hu, Z. (2023). Changes in the ways authors refer to themselves: A diachronic study of self-mention in English research articles. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10, 646. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02099-7

41. Wang, J., & Zeng, L. (2021). Disciplinary recognized self-presence: Self-mention used with hedges and boosters in PhD students’ research writing. SAGE Open, 11(2), 21582440211005454. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211005454

42. Xie, S., & Mi, C. (2023). Promotion and caution in research article abstracts: The use of positive, negative and hedge words across disciplines and rankings. Learned Publishing, 36(2), 249–265. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1515

43. Yao, M., Wei, Y., & Wang, H. (2023). Promoting research by reducing uncertainty in academic writing: A large-scale diachronic case study on hedging in Science research articles across 25 years. Scientometrics, 128(8), 4541–4558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04759-6