Abstract
<p>This paper aims to analyze the generic structure of English abstracts in both Chinese-medium and English-medium linguistics journals. A total of 40 abstracts published in the year of 2011-2013 are collected randomly, with 20 written by native English speakers from <em>Applied Linguistics </em>and <em>Language</em> and the other 20 by Chinese scholars from <em>Journal of</em> <em>Foreign Languages</em> and <em>Foreign Language Teaching and Research</em>. The BIMRD/C model is adopted in this study as distinct differences can be found in the two corpora in terms of the Background move. Three major differences are revealed. Firstly, the abstracts written by native English speakers are more complete in structure than those by Chinese writers as they tend to omit the Background move and the Discussion/Conclusion move. Secondly, most Chinese writers prefer to combine the Method move with the Introduction move and put it at the very beginning of the abstract, while native writers tend to use the independent and the integrated Method nearly equally. Thirdly, in the Results move, Chinese scholars tend to objectively report their study results in detail by <em>“Results indicate that…”</em>, sometimes listing them, while native English writers sometimes choose to highlight their research results by patterns of <em>“we find (show, propose) that” </em>and<em> “I propose”</em> although most of them also use such objective patterns to present their research results. This study is especially helpful for those Chinese writers who hope to publish their paper in international journals.</p>
Highlights
In 1979, American National Standards Institute (ANSI) defines abstract as ‘‘an abbreviated, accurate representation of the contents of a document, preferably prepared by its author(s) for publication with it’’
Some researchers focus on the generic structure of RA abstracts in a single discipline or a certain journal (Miller, 1984; Bhatia, 1993; Lorés, 2004; Ayers, 2008; Che, 2009), some concentrate on the contrastive studies of the generic structure of RA abstracts in different disciplines (Hyland, 2000; Huckin, 2001; Samraj, 2002; Stotesbury, 2003; Ge & Yang, 2005; Samraj, 2005; Kang & Sun, 2012), while others pay attention to the cross-linguistic and cross-cultural differences (Martín, 2003; Ju, 2004; Bonn & Swales, 2007)
The total number of moves in abstracts written by native English speakers is higher than that written by non-native English speakers, representing that abstracts of Native Speakers of English Corpora (NSEC) have a comparatively more complete generic structure
Summary
Some researchers focus on the generic structure of RA abstracts in a single discipline or a certain journal (Miller, 1984; Bhatia, 1993; Lorés, 2004; Ayers, 2008; Che, 2009), some concentrate on the contrastive studies of the generic structure of RA abstracts in different disciplines (Hyland, 2000; Huckin, 2001; Samraj, 2002; Stotesbury, 2003; Ge & Yang, 2005; Samraj, 2005; Kang & Sun, 2012), while others pay attention to the cross-linguistic and cross-cultural differences (Martín, 2003; Ju, 2004; Bonn & Swales, 2007). Some even devote to the study of metadiscourse features in RA abstracts (Hyland, 1998; Gillaerts & Velde, 2010; Mur- Dueñas, 2011)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
