Stability Amid AI Disruption: A Diachronic Linguistic Analysis of MA Thesis and PhD Dissertation Titles in Humanities, 2015–2025
الكلمات المفتاحية:
Large Language Models, thesis titles, humanities disciplines, ChatGPT, academic writing style, stylistic stability, diachronic analysis
الملخص
The integration of large language models such as ChatGPT has raised concerns about stylistic homogenization in scholarly writing. While scientific literature shows clear LLM-driven shifts, e.g., increased lexical markers and reduced cohesion (Bao et al., 2025; Kousha & Thelwall, 2024), this study examines whether similar changes appear in humanities thesis and dissertation titles. Drawing on 8,631 unique MA and PhD titles from ProQuest in History, Religion, Literature, Philosophy, and Musicology, linguistic features were compared between 2015 (pre-AI) and 2025 (post-AI stabilization). Five dimensions were analyzed: word length, informativity, lexical diversity, syntactic structure, and semantic content. Results reveal remarkable stability across most metrics (title length ~12–13 words, informativity ~67%, lexical diversity near 100%). Only a modest increase in compound structures (70% to 74%) occurred, reflecting amplification of existing humanities conventions rather than disruption. The brevity of titles and extended human supervision appear to limit deep LLM intervention. These findings contrast with scientific fields and highlight the resilience of disciplinary norms in graduate scholarship.
المراجع
1. Altmäe, S., Sola-Leyva, A., & Salumets, A. (2023). Artificial intelligence in scientific writing: A friend or a foe? Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 47(1), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2023.04.009
2. Atkinson, D. (1998). Scientific discourse in sociohistorical context: The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675-1975. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410601704
3. Ball, R. (2009). Scholarly communication in transition: The use of question marks in the titles of scientific articles in medicine, life sciences and physics 1966–2005. Scientometrics, 79(3), 667–679. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1984-5
4. Bao, T., Zhao, Y., Mao, J., & Zhang, C. (2025). Examining linguistic shifts in academic writing before and after the launch of ChatGPT: A study on preprint papers. Scientometrics, 130, 3597–3627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-025-05341-y
5. Bérubé, N., Sainte-Marie, M., Mongeon, P., & Larivière, V. (2018). Words by the tail: Assessing lexical diversity in scholarly titles using frequency-rank distribution tail fits. PLoS ONE, 13(7), Article e0197775. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197775
6. Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315844992
7. 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
8. Buxton, A. B., & Meadows, A. J. (1977). The variation in the information content of titles of research papers with time and discipline. Journal of Documentation, 33(1), 46–52. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026626
9. Cao, Y., Li, S., Liu, Y., Yan, Z., Dai, Y., Yu, P. S., & Sun, L. (2023). A comprehensive survey of AI-generated content (AIGC): A history of generative AI from GAN to ChatGPT (arXiv:2303.04226). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.04226
10. Chen, B., Deng, D., Zhong, Z., & Zhang, C. (2020). Exploring linguistic characteristics of highly browsed and downloaded academic articles. Scientometrics, 122(3), 1769–1790. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03361-4
11. Chen, X., & Liu, H. (2023). Academic “click bait”: A diachronic investigation into the use of rhetorical part in pragmatics research article titles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 66, Article 101306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2023.101306
12. Cheng, S. W., Kuo, C.-W., & Kuo, C.-H. (2012). Research article titles in applied linguistics. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 6(1), A1–A14. Retrieved from https://journal.aall.org.au/index.php/jall/article/view/178
13. Comas-Forgas, R., Koulouris, A., & Kouis, D. (2025). ‘AI-navigating’ or ‘AI-sinking’? An analysis of verbs in research articles titles suspicious of containing AI-generated/assisted content. Learned Publishing, 38(1), Article e1647. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1647
14. Crossley, S. A., Kyle, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2016). The tool for the automatic analysis of text cohesion (TAACO): Automatic assessment of local, global, and text cohesion. Behavior Research Methods, 48(4), 1227–1237. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0651-7
15. Dillon, J. T. (1982). In pursuit of the colon: A century of scholarly progress: 1880-1980. Journal of Higher Education, 53(1), 93–99. https://doi.org/10.2307/1981541
16. Dong, S., Mao, J., Ke, Q., & Pei, L. (2024). Decoding the writing styles of disciplines: A large-scale quantitative analysis. Information Processing & Management, 61(4), Article 103718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2024.103718
17. Elsevier. (2024). Insights 2024: Attitudes toward AI – Full report. Elsevier. https://www.elsevier.com/insights/attitudes-toward-ai
18. Flowerdew, J. (1999). Problems in writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 243–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80116-7
19. Gao, C.A., Howard, F.M., Markov, N.S. et al. Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to real abstracts with detectors and blinded human reviewers. NPJ Digital Medicine, 6, 75. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-023-00819-6
20. Geng, M., & Trotta, R. (2024). Is ChatGPT transforming academics’ writing style? (arXiv:2404.08627). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.08627
21. Goodman, R. A., Thacker, S. B., & Siegel, P. Z. (2001). What’s in a title? A descriptive study of article titles in peer-reviewed medical journals. Science Editor, 24(3), 75–78.
22. Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. The Milbank Quarterly, 82(4), 581–629. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x
23. Gross, A. G., Harmon, J. E., & Reidy, M. S. (2002). Communicating science: The scientific article from the 17th century to the present. Oxford University Press.
24. Haggan, M. (2004). Research paper titles in literature, linguistics and science: Dimensions of attraction. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(2), 293–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00090-0
25. Hartley, J. (2005). To attract or to inform: What are titles for? Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 35(2), 203–213. https://doi.org/10.2190/nv6e-fn3n-7ngn-twqt
26. Hartley, J. (2007). Planning that title: Practices and preferences for titles with colons in academic articles. Library & Information Science Research, 29(4), 553-568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2007.05.002
27. Hu, H., Wang, D., & Deng, S. (2021). Analysis of the scientific literature’s abstract writing style and citations. Online Information Review, 45(7), 1290–1305. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-05-2020-0188
28. Huang, J. C. (2010). Publishing and learning writing for publication in English: Perspectives of NNES PhD students in science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2009.10.001
29. Huang, J., & Tan, M. (2023). The role of ChatGPT in scientific communication: Writing better scientific review articles. American Journal of Cancer Research, 13(4), 1148–1154.
30. Hyland, K., & Zou, H. J. (2022). Titles in research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 56, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2022.101094
31. Jaime-Sisó, M. (2009). Titles or headlines? Anticipating conclusions in biomedical research article titles as a persuasive journalistic strategy to attract busy readers. Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies, 39, 29–54.
32. Juzek, T. S., & Ward, Z. B. (2025). Why does ChatGPT “delve” so much? Exploring the sources of lexical overrepresentation in large language models. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 6397–6411).
33. Kobak, D., González-Márquez, R., Horvát, E. Á., & Lause, J. (2024). Delving into ChatGPT usage in academic writing through excess vocabulary (arXiv:2406.07016). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.07016
34. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2024). How much are LLMs changing the language of academic papers after ChatGPT? A multi-database and full text analysis (arXiv:2509.09596). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2509.09596
35. Kyle, K., & Crossley, S. A. (2015). Automatically assessing lexical sophistication: Indices, tools, findings, and application. TESOL Quarterly, 49(4), 757–786. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.194
36. Lebrun, J. (2011). Title: The face of your paper. In J. Lebrun (Ed.), Scientific writing 2.0: A reader and writer’s guide (pp. 115–133). World Scientific Publishing.
37. Liang, W., Zhang, Y., Wu, Z., Lepp, H., Ji, W., Zhao, X., Cao, H., Liu, S., He, S., Huang, Z., Yang, D., Potts, C., Manning, C. D., & Zou, J. Y. (2024). Mapping the increasing use of LLMs in scientific papers (arXiv:2404.01268). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.01268
38. Liu, J., & Bu, Y. (2024). Towards the relationship between AIGC in manuscript writing and author profiles: Evidence from preprints in LLMs (arXiv:2404.15799). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.15799
39. Lozić, E., & Štular, B. (2023). ChatGPT v Bard v Bing v Claude 2 v Aria v human-expert. How good are AI chatbots at scientific writing? Future Internet, 15(10), Article 336. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi15100336
40. Lu, C., Bu, Y., Wang, J., Ding, Y., Torvik, V., Schnaars, M., & Zhang, C. (2019). Examining scientific writing styles from the perspective of linguistic complexity. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 70(5), 462–475. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24126
41. Lu, X. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(4), 474–496. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02lu
42. Martín, P., & León Pérez, I. (2024). The evolution of sub-disciplinary linguistic trends: A diachronic study of biomedical research article titles. Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes, 5(1/2), 60–81. https://doi.org/10.1075/jerpp.00027.mar
43. Nagano, R. L. (2015). Research article titles and disciplinary conventions: A corpus study of eight disciplines. Journal of Academic Writing, 5(1), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.18552/joaw.v5i1.168
44. OUP (2024). How are researchers responding to AI? Oxford University Press, May 23, 2024, https://corp.oup.com/news/how-are-researchers-responding-to-ai/
45. Plavén-Sigray, P., Matheson, G. J., Schiffler, B. C., & Thompson, W. H. (2017). The readability of scientific texts is decreasing over time. eLife, 6, Article e27725. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.27725
46. Sahragard, R., & Meihami, H. (2016). A diachronic study on the information provided by the research titles of applied linguistics journals. Scientometrics, 108(3), 1319–1335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2049-4
47. Sebo, P., Nie, B., & Wang, T. (2026). Can ChatGPT write better scientific titles? A comparative evaluation of human-written and AI-generated titles. F1000Research, 14, Article 1470. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.173647.2
48. Soler, V. (2007). Writing titles in science: An exploratory study. English for Specific Purposes, 26(1), 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2006.08.001
49. Soler, V. (2011). Comparative and contrastive observations on scientific articles written in English and Spanish. English for Specific Purposes, 30(1), 124–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2010.09.002
50. Song, N., Chen, K., & Zhao, Y. (2023). Understanding writing styles of scientific papers in the ISLS domain: Evidence from abstracts over the past three decades. Journal of Informetrics, 17(1), Article 101377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2023.101377
51. Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
52. Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students (pp. 155–156). University of Michigan Press.
53. Thorp, H. H. (2023). ChatGPT is fun, but not an author. Science, 379(6630), 313. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adg7879
54. Uzun, L. (2023). ChatGPT and academic integrity concerns: Detecting artificial intelligence generated content. Language Education and Technology, 3(1), Article 1. http://www.langedutech.com/letjournal/index.php/let/article/view/49
55. 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. BMJ, 351, Article h6467. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h6467
56. Wang, G., Wang, H., Sun, X., Wang, N., & Wang, L. (2023). Linguistic complexity in scientific writing: A large-scale diachronic study from 1821 to 1920. Scientometrics, 128(1), 441–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04550-z
57. Xiang, X., & Li, J. (2020). A diachronic comparative study of research article titles in linguistics and literature journals. Scientometrics, 122(2), 847–866. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03329-z
2. Atkinson, D. (1998). Scientific discourse in sociohistorical context: The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675-1975. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410601704
3. Ball, R. (2009). Scholarly communication in transition: The use of question marks in the titles of scientific articles in medicine, life sciences and physics 1966–2005. Scientometrics, 79(3), 667–679. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1984-5
4. Bao, T., Zhao, Y., Mao, J., & Zhang, C. (2025). Examining linguistic shifts in academic writing before and after the launch of ChatGPT: A study on preprint papers. Scientometrics, 130, 3597–3627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-025-05341-y
5. Bérubé, N., Sainte-Marie, M., Mongeon, P., & Larivière, V. (2018). Words by the tail: Assessing lexical diversity in scholarly titles using frequency-rank distribution tail fits. PLoS ONE, 13(7), Article e0197775. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197775
6. Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315844992
7. 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
8. Buxton, A. B., & Meadows, A. J. (1977). The variation in the information content of titles of research papers with time and discipline. Journal of Documentation, 33(1), 46–52. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026626
9. Cao, Y., Li, S., Liu, Y., Yan, Z., Dai, Y., Yu, P. S., & Sun, L. (2023). A comprehensive survey of AI-generated content (AIGC): A history of generative AI from GAN to ChatGPT (arXiv:2303.04226). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.04226
10. Chen, B., Deng, D., Zhong, Z., & Zhang, C. (2020). Exploring linguistic characteristics of highly browsed and downloaded academic articles. Scientometrics, 122(3), 1769–1790. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03361-4
11. Chen, X., & Liu, H. (2023). Academic “click bait”: A diachronic investigation into the use of rhetorical part in pragmatics research article titles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 66, Article 101306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2023.101306
12. Cheng, S. W., Kuo, C.-W., & Kuo, C.-H. (2012). Research article titles in applied linguistics. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 6(1), A1–A14. Retrieved from https://journal.aall.org.au/index.php/jall/article/view/178
13. Comas-Forgas, R., Koulouris, A., & Kouis, D. (2025). ‘AI-navigating’ or ‘AI-sinking’? An analysis of verbs in research articles titles suspicious of containing AI-generated/assisted content. Learned Publishing, 38(1), Article e1647. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1647
14. Crossley, S. A., Kyle, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2016). The tool for the automatic analysis of text cohesion (TAACO): Automatic assessment of local, global, and text cohesion. Behavior Research Methods, 48(4), 1227–1237. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0651-7
15. Dillon, J. T. (1982). In pursuit of the colon: A century of scholarly progress: 1880-1980. Journal of Higher Education, 53(1), 93–99. https://doi.org/10.2307/1981541
16. Dong, S., Mao, J., Ke, Q., & Pei, L. (2024). Decoding the writing styles of disciplines: A large-scale quantitative analysis. Information Processing & Management, 61(4), Article 103718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2024.103718
17. Elsevier. (2024). Insights 2024: Attitudes toward AI – Full report. Elsevier. https://www.elsevier.com/insights/attitudes-toward-ai
18. Flowerdew, J. (1999). Problems in writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 243–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80116-7
19. Gao, C.A., Howard, F.M., Markov, N.S. et al. Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to real abstracts with detectors and blinded human reviewers. NPJ Digital Medicine, 6, 75. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-023-00819-6
20. Geng, M., & Trotta, R. (2024). Is ChatGPT transforming academics’ writing style? (arXiv:2404.08627). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.08627
21. Goodman, R. A., Thacker, S. B., & Siegel, P. Z. (2001). What’s in a title? A descriptive study of article titles in peer-reviewed medical journals. Science Editor, 24(3), 75–78.
22. Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. The Milbank Quarterly, 82(4), 581–629. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x
23. Gross, A. G., Harmon, J. E., & Reidy, M. S. (2002). Communicating science: The scientific article from the 17th century to the present. Oxford University Press.
24. Haggan, M. (2004). Research paper titles in literature, linguistics and science: Dimensions of attraction. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(2), 293–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00090-0
25. Hartley, J. (2005). To attract or to inform: What are titles for? Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 35(2), 203–213. https://doi.org/10.2190/nv6e-fn3n-7ngn-twqt
26. Hartley, J. (2007). Planning that title: Practices and preferences for titles with colons in academic articles. Library & Information Science Research, 29(4), 553-568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2007.05.002
27. Hu, H., Wang, D., & Deng, S. (2021). Analysis of the scientific literature’s abstract writing style and citations. Online Information Review, 45(7), 1290–1305. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-05-2020-0188
28. Huang, J. C. (2010). Publishing and learning writing for publication in English: Perspectives of NNES PhD students in science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2009.10.001
29. Huang, J., & Tan, M. (2023). The role of ChatGPT in scientific communication: Writing better scientific review articles. American Journal of Cancer Research, 13(4), 1148–1154.
30. Hyland, K., & Zou, H. J. (2022). Titles in research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 56, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2022.101094
31. Jaime-Sisó, M. (2009). Titles or headlines? Anticipating conclusions in biomedical research article titles as a persuasive journalistic strategy to attract busy readers. Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies, 39, 29–54.
32. Juzek, T. S., & Ward, Z. B. (2025). Why does ChatGPT “delve” so much? Exploring the sources of lexical overrepresentation in large language models. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 6397–6411).
33. Kobak, D., González-Márquez, R., Horvát, E. Á., & Lause, J. (2024). Delving into ChatGPT usage in academic writing through excess vocabulary (arXiv:2406.07016). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.07016
34. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2024). How much are LLMs changing the language of academic papers after ChatGPT? A multi-database and full text analysis (arXiv:2509.09596). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2509.09596
35. Kyle, K., & Crossley, S. A. (2015). Automatically assessing lexical sophistication: Indices, tools, findings, and application. TESOL Quarterly, 49(4), 757–786. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.194
36. Lebrun, J. (2011). Title: The face of your paper. In J. Lebrun (Ed.), Scientific writing 2.0: A reader and writer’s guide (pp. 115–133). World Scientific Publishing.
37. Liang, W., Zhang, Y., Wu, Z., Lepp, H., Ji, W., Zhao, X., Cao, H., Liu, S., He, S., Huang, Z., Yang, D., Potts, C., Manning, C. D., & Zou, J. Y. (2024). Mapping the increasing use of LLMs in scientific papers (arXiv:2404.01268). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.01268
38. Liu, J., & Bu, Y. (2024). Towards the relationship between AIGC in manuscript writing and author profiles: Evidence from preprints in LLMs (arXiv:2404.15799). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.15799
39. Lozić, E., & Štular, B. (2023). ChatGPT v Bard v Bing v Claude 2 v Aria v human-expert. How good are AI chatbots at scientific writing? Future Internet, 15(10), Article 336. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi15100336
40. Lu, C., Bu, Y., Wang, J., Ding, Y., Torvik, V., Schnaars, M., & Zhang, C. (2019). Examining scientific writing styles from the perspective of linguistic complexity. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 70(5), 462–475. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24126
41. Lu, X. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(4), 474–496. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02lu
42. Martín, P., & León Pérez, I. (2024). The evolution of sub-disciplinary linguistic trends: A diachronic study of biomedical research article titles. Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes, 5(1/2), 60–81. https://doi.org/10.1075/jerpp.00027.mar
43. Nagano, R. L. (2015). Research article titles and disciplinary conventions: A corpus study of eight disciplines. Journal of Academic Writing, 5(1), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.18552/joaw.v5i1.168
44. OUP (2024). How are researchers responding to AI? Oxford University Press, May 23, 2024, https://corp.oup.com/news/how-are-researchers-responding-to-ai/
45. Plavén-Sigray, P., Matheson, G. J., Schiffler, B. C., & Thompson, W. H. (2017). The readability of scientific texts is decreasing over time. eLife, 6, Article e27725. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.27725
46. Sahragard, R., & Meihami, H. (2016). A diachronic study on the information provided by the research titles of applied linguistics journals. Scientometrics, 108(3), 1319–1335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2049-4
47. Sebo, P., Nie, B., & Wang, T. (2026). Can ChatGPT write better scientific titles? A comparative evaluation of human-written and AI-generated titles. F1000Research, 14, Article 1470. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.173647.2
48. Soler, V. (2007). Writing titles in science: An exploratory study. English for Specific Purposes, 26(1), 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2006.08.001
49. Soler, V. (2011). Comparative and contrastive observations on scientific articles written in English and Spanish. English for Specific Purposes, 30(1), 124–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2010.09.002
50. Song, N., Chen, K., & Zhao, Y. (2023). Understanding writing styles of scientific papers in the ISLS domain: Evidence from abstracts over the past three decades. Journal of Informetrics, 17(1), Article 101377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2023.101377
51. Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
52. Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students (pp. 155–156). University of Michigan Press.
53. Thorp, H. H. (2023). ChatGPT is fun, but not an author. Science, 379(6630), 313. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adg7879
54. Uzun, L. (2023). ChatGPT and academic integrity concerns: Detecting artificial intelligence generated content. Language Education and Technology, 3(1), Article 1. http://www.langedutech.com/letjournal/index.php/let/article/view/49
55. 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. BMJ, 351, Article h6467. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h6467
56. Wang, G., Wang, H., Sun, X., Wang, N., & Wang, L. (2023). Linguistic complexity in scientific writing: A large-scale diachronic study from 1821 to 1920. Scientometrics, 128(1), 441–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04550-z
57. Xiang, X., & Li, J. (2020). A diachronic comparative study of research article titles in linguistics and literature journals. Scientometrics, 122(2), 847–866. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03329-z
منشور
2026-04-24
كيفية الاقتباس
Maha Abdulghafar Alayyash. (2026). Stability Amid AI Disruption: A Diachronic Linguistic Analysis of MA Thesis and PhD Dissertation Titles in Humanities, 2015–2025. Journal of Arts, Literature, Humanities and Social Sciences, (130), 461-486. https://doi.org/10.33193/JALHSS.130.2026.1663
إصدار
القسم
المقالات
الحقوق الفكرية (c) 2026 Maha Abdulghafar Alayyash
هذا العمل مرخص حسب الرخصة Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
