IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/eltjnl/v6y2013i2p84.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research Article Abstracts in Two Related Disciplines: Rhetorical Variation between Linguistics and Applied Linguistics

Author

Listed:
  • Watinee Suntara
  • Siriluck Usaha

Abstract

The previous studies on abstracts (e.g., Santos, 1996; Samraj, 2002; Pho, 2008) illustrate that disciplinary variation in research article abstracts is discernible. However, the studies of abstracts from two related disciplines are still limited. The present study aimed to explore the rhetorical moves of abstracts in the fields of linguistics and applied linguistics by investigating 200 abstracts published between 2009-2012. Hyland’s (2000) model of five rhetorical moves was chosen as the analytical framework for the rhetorical structure. Findings indicated that there were three conventional moves in abstracts in linguistics, while there were four conventional moves in abstracts in applied linguistics. The findings have significant pedagogical implications for academic writing for novice writers in the two disciplines.

Suggested Citation

  • Watinee Suntara & Siriluck Usaha, 2013. "Research Article Abstracts in Two Related Disciplines: Rhetorical Variation between Linguistics and Applied Linguistics," English Language Teaching, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 6(2), pages 1-84, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:ibn:eltjnl:v:6:y:2013:i:2:p:84
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/download/23817/15115
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/view/23817
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ken Hyland, 2003. "Self‐citation and self‐reference: Credibility and promotion in academic publication," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 54(3), pages 251-259, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ho Yoong Wei & Abu Bakar Razali & Arshad Abd Samad, 2022. "Writing Abstracts for Research Articles: Towards a Framework for Move Structure of Abstracts," World Journal of English Language, Sciedu Press, vol. 12(6), pages 492-492, September.
    2. Niwat Wuttisrisiriporn, 2017. "Comparative Rhetorical Organization of ELT Thesis Introductions Composed by Thai and American Students," English Language Teaching, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(12), pages 1-1, December.
    3. Kai Li & Chenyue Jiao, 2022. "The data paper as a sociolinguistic epistemic object: A content analysis on the rhetorical moves used in data paper abstracts," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(6), pages 834-846, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rabishankar Giri & Sabuj Kumar Chaudhuri, 2021. "Ranking journals through the lens of active visibility," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(3), pages 2189-2208, March.
    2. Abramo, Giovanni & D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Grilli, Leonardo, 2021. "The effects of citation-based research evaluation schemes on self-citation behavior," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    3. Moustafa, Khaled, 2018. "Aberration of the citation," arabixiv.org gn8zb, Center for Open Science.
    4. Michelle L. Dion & Sara McLaughlin Mitchell & Jane L. Sumner, 2020. "Gender, seniority, and self-citation practices in political science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 1-28, October.
    5. Jinhyo Joseph Yun & Zheng Liu & Euiseob Jeong & Sangwoo Kim & Kyunghun Kim, 2022. "The Difference in Open Innovation between Open Access and Closed Access, According to the Change of Collective Intelligence and Knowledge Amount," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-19, February.
    6. Taşkın, Zehra & Doğan, Güleda & Kulczycki, Emanuel & Zuccala, Alesia Ann, 2021. "Self-Citation Patterns of Journals Indexed in the Journal Citation Reports," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    7. Qianjin Zong, 2019. "Response to Dr. Copiello’s comments on “The impact of video abstract on citation counts”," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(3), pages 1499-1504, September.
    8. Ibrahim Shehatta & Abdullah M. Al-Rubaish, 2019. "Impact of country self-citations on bibliometric indicators and ranking of most productive countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(2), pages 775-791, August.
    9. Mathias Mund & Beatrix Kloft & Matthias Bundschuh & Doris Klingelhoefer & David A. Groneberg & Alexander Gerber, 2014. "Global Research on Smoking and Pregnancy—A Scientometric and Gender Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-15, May.
    10. Paulo Henrique Santos Gonçalves & Thiago Gonçalves-Souza & Ulysses Paulino Albuquerque, 2020. "Chronic anthropogenic disturbances in ecology: a bibliometric approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(2), pages 1103-1117, May.
    11. Gita Ghiasi & Catherine Beaudry & Vincent Larivière & Carl St-Pierre & Andrea Schiffauerova & Matthew Harsh, 2021. "Who profits from the Canadian nanotechnology reward system? Implications for gender-responsible innovation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 7937-7991, September.
    12. Lina Zhou & Uchechukwuka Amadi & Dongsong Zhang, 2020. "Is Self-Citation Biased? An Investigation via the Lens of Citation Polarity, Density, and Location," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 77-90, February.
    13. Daniela Filippo & Rafael Aleixandre-Benavent & Elías Sanz-Casado, 2020. "Toward a classification of Spanish scholarly journals in social sciences and humanities considering their impact and visibility," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1709-1732, November.
    14. John S. Liu & Louis Y. Y. Lu & Mei Hsiu-Ching Ho, 2019. "A few notes on main path analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(1), pages 379-391, April.
    15. Martin Szomszor & David A. Pendlebury & Jonathan Adams, 2020. "How much is too much? The difference between research influence and self-citation excess," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(2), pages 1119-1147, May.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ibn:eltjnl:v:6:y:2013:i:2:p:84. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.