Rhetorical Structure of Research Article Abstracts in Environmental Science

Main Article Content

Supachai Saeeaw
Supong Tangkiengsirisin

Abstract

Given a massive influx of information, abstracts are considered very useful for accessing pertinent literature and filtering large numbers of articles submitted to the journals rather than perusing through the entire document. In order to create an effective one, many non-English speaking scholars may confront the major challenge of developing writing strategies that conform to the conventions of their own disciplines. Using Hyland’s (2000) five-move model, the objective of this study is to examine the rhetorical structure of research article abstracts in environmental science. The findings indicate that all of the moves, except for Introduction move, were conventional. I-P-M-Pr-C was the most prevalent structure, with Methods and Product the most cyclical moves. Some writers also resorted to embedding strategies to maintain conciseness. Further analysis reveals key linguistic features associated with each particular move. Despite the shared disciplinary content, variations of language choices to some extent can be observed. Pedagogical implications of the findings suggest how the notion of genre can be implemented into reading and writing instruction. Language teachers are highly encouraged to empower their students with strategies in response to the common rhetorical practices. A better understanding of genre characterization will contribute to more active learning participation in class activities and ultimately encourage learners to disseminate their knowledge into the research world.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Section
Articles
Author Biographies

Supachai Saeeaw

Supachai Saeeaw is a graduate at Language Institute, Thammasat University, Thailand. He completed the bachelor’s degree of Arts in English from Silpakorn University. His current research interests are English pronunciation teaching, genre analysis, language testing and assessment, academic reading and writing instruction, and English for academic purposes.

Supong Tangkiengsirisin

Supong Tangkiengsirisin is an Associate Professor in Applied Linguistics at the Language Institute of Thammasat University. With over 25 years of teaching experience at the tertiary level, he has covered a wide range of areas in his teaching including academic writing, business communication, English for Specific Purposes, and career-related English skills, both in the undergraduate and graduate levels. He developed several coursebooks and teaching materials for academic and ESP courses. He also serves as a trainer for school teachers of English who wish to improve their language skills and enhance their professional development.  His research interests involve second language writing, written discourse analysis, genre analysis, and interlanguage pragmatics.

References

Anderson, N. J. (1999). Exploring second language reading: Issues and strategies. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Becher, T., & Paul, R. T. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. Buckingham; Philadelphia: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

Cross, C., & Oppenheim, C. (2006). A genre analysis of scientific abstracts. Journal of Documentation, 62, 428-446.

Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education.

Hyland, K. (2009). Writing in the disciplines: Research evidence for specificity. Taiwan International ESP Journal, 1(1), 5-22.

Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005). Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 24(3), 269-292.

Kanoksilapatham, B. (2013). Generic characterisation of civil engineering research article abstracts. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 19(3), 1-10.

Li, Y. (2011). A genre analysis of English and Chinese research article abstracts in linguistics and chemistry. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, San Diego State University.

National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, & Institute of Medicine. (2009). On being a scientist: A guide to responsible conduct in research (3rd Ed.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Orasan, C. (2001). Patterns in scientific abstracts. In Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2001 Conference, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK, pp. 433-443.

Pho, P. D. (2008). Research article abstracts in applied linguistics and educational technology: A study of linguistic realizations of rhetorical structure and authorial stance. Discourse Studies, 10(2), 231-250.

Samraj, B. (2002). Disciplinary variation in abstracts: The case of wildlife behavior and conservation biology. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic Discourse (pp. 40-56). Harlow: Longman.

Santos, M. B. (1996). The textual organization of research paper abstracts in applied linguistics. Text, 16(4), 481-499.

Suntara, W., & Usaha, S. (2013). Research article abstracts in two related disciplines: Rhetorical variation between linguistics and applied linguistics. English Language Teaching, 6(2), 84-99.

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Tseng, F. P. (2011). Analyses of move structure and verb tense of research article abstracts in applied linguistics journals. International Journal of English Linguistics, 1(2), 27-39.

Zhangsirikul, W. (2012). A study of moves in research article abstracts in the field of English language teaching. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Language Institute, Thammasat University.