Genre Analysis of Article Abstract Sections across Translation Studies and English Literature
AbstractResearch article abstract play a central role in enhancing the visibility of scientific work. As such, writing clear and informative abstract is of paramount importance for any academic discourse community. To contribute to the present body of research findings, the present investigation was conducted to explore the probable rhetorical differences between research article abstract sections across the two disciplines of English literature and translation studies with reference to Swales' (2004) CARS model, an issue, which has not been addressed to date. Precisely, the study sought to discover what rhetorical structures characterize the article abstract sections written by translation and English literature researchers. The corpus featured 100 abstracts from both disciplines published in international journals that were analyzed in terms of the aforementioned model to unravel their underlying rhetoric structure. Overall, analyses revealed no significant cross-disciplinary difference between the rhetoric structures of the two sets of corpora except in terms of Step 1A of Move 2 (Indicating a gap). Specifically, it was found that the translation studies and English literature abstracts more often provided a clear reference to the primary purpose, principal outcomes, and methodology. To conclude, the pedagogical and theoretical significance of the findings were discussed in light of relevant theory and available research evidence.
Ahmad, V.K. (1997). Research article introductionsin Malay: rhetoric in an emerging research community, In A. Duszak (Ed), Culture and Styles of academic discourse, p. 273-303.
ANSI (1979). The American standard for writing abstracts. New York: ANSI Publication
Bhatia, V. K. (2004). Worlds of written discourse. London, Continuum.
Bhatia, V. (1993). Analyzing genre: Language Use in Professional Settings, London Longman.
Brett, P. (1994). A genre analysis of the results section of sociology articles, English for Specific Purposes, 13, 47-59.
Cross, C., Oppenheim, C. (2006). A genre analysis of scientific abstracts, Journal of Documentation, 62(4), p. 428-446.
Doro, Katalin (2013). The Rhetoric Structure of Research Article Abstracts in English Studies Journals, Journal of English Studies, 2(1), p. 119-139.
Fakhri, A. (2004). Rhetorical properties of Arabic research article introductions, Journal of Pragmatics, 36, p. 1119-1138
Hasrati, M., Gheitury, A. (2010). A Genre Analysis of Persian Article Abstracts: Communicative Moves and Author Identity, Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 2(2), p. 47-74.
Hartley, J. (2003). “Improving the Clarity of Journal Abstracts in Psychology: e Case for Structure”, Science Communication, 24(3), p. 366-379.
Hartley, J., Benjamin, M. (1998). An evaluation of structured abstracts in journal published by the British psychological society, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, p. 443-456.
Holmes, R. (1997). Genre analysis and the social sciences: an investigation of the structure of research article discussion section in three Disciplines, English for Specific Purposes, 16.
Hyland, K. (2004). Graduates’ gratitude: The generic structure of dissertation acknowledgements, English for Specific Purposes, 22(3), p. 303–324.
Hyland, Ken. (2000). Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interaction in Academic Writing, London: Longman 2000.
Hyland, K. (1997). Scientific claims and community values: Articulating an academic culture, Language and Communication, 17 (1), p. 19-31.
Jalilifar, A. R. (2010). Research article introductions: Sub-disciplinary variations in Applied linguistics, The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 2.2, p. 29-55.
Marefat, H., Mohammadzadeh, Sh. (2013). Genre analysis of Literature research article abstracts: A Cross-Linguistic, Cross-Cultural Study, Applied Research on English Language, 2(2), p. 37-50.
Martin, P. M. (2003). A genre analysis of English and Spanish research paper abstracts in experimental social sciences, English for Specific Purposes, 22(1), p. 25-43.
Ozturk, I. (2007). The textual organization of research article introductions in applied linguistics: Variability within a single discipline. English for Specific Purposes, Published by Elsevier. Ltd, 26, p. 25-28.
Safnil.(2000). Rhetorical structure analysis of the Indonesian research articles. Unpublished PhD dissertation. The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1990). Discourse flaws in medical English abstracts: a genre analysis per research and text type, 10, p. 365-384
Samraj, B. (2008). A discourse analysis of masters’ theses across disciplines with a focus on introductions, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(1), p. 55- 67.
Samraj, Betty (2005). “An Exploration of a Genre Set: Research Article Abstracts and Introduction in Two Disciplines.” English for Speciﬁc Purposes, 24,p.141-56.
Samraj, B. (2002). ‘Introductions in Research Articles: Variation across Disciplines’, English for Specific Purposes, 21, 1-17.
Santos, M.B. (1996). “The Textual Organization of Research Paper Abstracts in Applied Linguistics.” , 16(4), p. 481-99.
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Exploration and applications. Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis. English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, I. (1999). Results sections of medical research articles: Analysis of rhetorical categories for pedagogical purposes, English For Specific Purposes, 18(4), p. 347-366.
Yang, R, Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions, English for Specific Purposes, 22, p. 365-385.
Copyright (c) 2020 Maryam Malekzadeh
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.