Abstract
The present paper explores aspects of similarity and difference between the generic structure of research letters’ abstracts (henceforth RLsA) and research articles’ abstracts (henceforth RAsA). It aims at investigating and documenting the different rhetorical patterns of 19 RLsA and 19 RAsA in order to identify if there is any unique shared way to write them, determine the most publishable way of writing this genre, and detect any possibility of generic overlap between the two genres. Melliti (2016, 2017) CARL model has been adopted to identify the kind, frequency, and overlap of moves in RLsA and RAsA of the Journal Nature. The results indicate that although the RAs are longer than the RLs, the number of sentences in the RLsA is more than the RAsA. Results show also that there are fundamental as well as expendable sets of keys in both genres. The study succeeded also in identifying the number of sentences required to write a publishable research letter abstract and research article abstract in the field of biology. These findings have interesting implication on teaching academic writing and teaching English for publication purposes.
Highlights
Researchers have extensively investigated different kinds of texts and have identified their internal organizational structures
The researcher resorted to Melliti (2016, 2017) CARL model in order to extract the rhetorical patterns of 19 Biology RLsA and 19 Biology RAsA randomly downloaded from Nature journal
The occurrence and frequency of these functions in the introduction of each RL were counted in order to identify the shared rhetorical patterns between the 19 RLsA and 19 RAsA randomly selected from the journal Nature
Summary
Researchers have extensively investigated different kinds of texts and have identified their internal organizational structures These texts include the research article (Nwogu, 1991; Skelton, 1994; Posteguillo, 1999; Kanoksilapatham, 2005) and its parts: the introduction section (Swales & Najjar, 1987; Swales, 1990, 2004; Samraj, 2002; Ozturk, 2007), the abstract (Salager-Meyer, 1992, 2006), the results section (Thompson, 1993; Brett, 1994; Williams, 1999; Bruce 2009), the discussion section (Hopkins & Dudley-Evans, 1988), and the methods section (Lim, 2006; Bruce, 2009). Previous studies covered the business letter (Bhatia, 1993), the university lecture (Thompson, 1994), the fundraising letter (Biber, Connor, & Upton, 2007), the newspaper law report (Badger, 2003), the dissertation (Hopkins & Dudley-Evans, 1988; Samraj, 2008), the editorial letter (Flowerdew & Dudley-Evans, 2002) etc
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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.
