A rhetorical approach to the genre of the abstract within the field of Food Science and Technology

Contenido principal del artículo

María Milagros del Saz Rubio


In this paper I have outlined the rhetorical structure of 50 abstracts from the field of Food Science and Technology and have assessed how metadiscoursal features are used across its different moves. 25 abstracts were authored by researchers with English as their L1, and other 25 were written by Spanish researchers. In general terms, 54% of the abstracts deploy the moves traditionally associated with the IRMD and CARS structure, whereas 46% of the abstracts exclusively follow the IMRD structure and, hence, do not use topic contextualization or gap signalling. English researchers tend to write more complex abstracts with regard to move and steps deployment. Interpersonal features occur with a normalized frequency of 29.2 per 1000 words, especially in moves 5 (56% of the features), 1 (16%), 6 (14%) and 3 (10%). English researchers tend to use metadiscoursal features with a slightly higher frequency (59%) than the Spanish group (41%).

Detalles del artículo

Cómo citar
del Saz Rubio, M. M. (2019). A rhetorical approach to the genre of the abstract within the field of Food Science and Technology. Pragmalingüística, (27), 328-348. Recuperado a partir de https://revistas.uca.es/index.php/pragma/article/view/4549
Biografía del autor/a

María Milagros del Saz Rubio, Universitat Politècnica de València

Dr. Del Saz-Rubio is a tenured lecturer in the Department of Applied Linguistics where she teaches English for Specific Purposes. She has published extensive research on the fields of (Critical) Discourse Analysis and Pragmatics, and in the field of English for Specific Purposes.



ANDERSON, K., & MACLEAN, J. (1997): “A genre analysis study of 80 medical abstracts”, Edinburgh Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 8, pp. 1–23.


BHATIA, V. K. (1993): Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. London: Longman.

BUSÀ M.G. (2005): “The use of Metadiscourse in Abstracts: A comparison between Economics and Psychology Abstracts”, Bamford, J. and M. Bondi (eds.), Dialogue within discourse communitites: Metadiscursive perspectives on academic genres, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 38-48.

CARRELL, P. L. (1984): “The effect of rhetorical organization on ESL readers”, TESOL Quarterly, 18, pp. 441– 469.

CARRELL, P. L., DEVINE, J., & ESKEY, D. E. (1989): Interactive approaches to second language reading. Cambridge University Press: CUP.

DORÓ, K. (2013): “The Rhetoric Structure of Research Article Abstracts in English Studies Journal”, Prague Journal of English Studies, 2(1), pp. 119-139.

FLOWERDEW, J. (2001): “Attitudes of Journal Editors to Non-native Speaker Contributions”, TESOL Quarterly, 35 (1), pp. 121-150.

GILLAERTS, P. & VAN DE VELDE, F. (2010): “Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts”, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, pp. 128-139.

HARTLEY, J. (2003): “Improving the Clarity of Journal Abstracts in Psychology: The case for structure”, Science Communication, 24(3), pp. 366-379.

HIRANO, E. (2009): “Research article introductions in English for specific purposes: A comparison between Brazilian Portuguese and English”, English for Specific Purposes, 28, pp. 240-250.

HU, G. & CAO, F. (2011): “Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English and Chinese”, Medium Journals, 5(3), pp. 234-246.

HUCKIN, T. (2001): “Abstracting from abstracts”, Hewings M. (ed.), Academic Writing in Context: Implications and Applications. Papers in honour of Tony Dudley-Evans, Birmingham: The University of Birmingham. University Press, 93- 105.

HUNSTON, S. (1993): Evaluation and Ideology in Scientific Writing, Ghadessy, M. (ed.), Register Analysis: Theory and Practice, London and New York. Pinter Publishers, pp. 57-73.

HUNSTON, S., & THOMPSON, G. (Eds.) (2000): Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

HYLAND, K. & TSE. P. (2005): “Hooking the Reader: A Corpus Study of Evaluative That in Abstracts”, English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), pp. 123–39.

HYLAND, K. (2000): Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing, London: Pearson.

HYLAND, K. (2004): “Patterns of engagement: Dialogic features and L2 student writing”, Ravelli L. & R. Ellis (eds.), Academic writing in context: Social-functional perspectives on theory and practice, London: Continuum, pp. 5-23.

HYLAND, K. (2005a): “Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse”, Discourse Studies, 7(2), pp. 173-192.

HYLAND, K. (2005b): Metadiscourse, London: Continuum.

KAFES, H. (2012). “Cultural traces on the rhetorical organization of research article abstracts”, International Journal on New Trends in Education and their Implications, 3(2), pp. 207-220.

KANOKSILAPATHAM, B. (2005): “Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles”, English for Specific Purposes, 24(3), pp. 269-292.

KAPLAN, R. B., CANTOR, S., HAGSTROM, C., KAMHI-STEIN, L., SHIOTANI, Y., & ZIMMERMAN, C. (1994): “On abstract writing”, Text, 14(3), pp. 401–426.

LORES, R. (2004): “On RA abstracts: From rhetorical structure to thematic organization”, English for Specific Purposes, 23, pp. 280-302.

MARTÍN-MARTÍN. P. (2005): The Rhetoric of Abstract in English and Spanish Scientific Discourse: A cross-cultural genre-analytic approach, Bern: Peter Lang.

MELANDER, B., SWALES, J.M. & FREDERICKSON, K.M. (1997): “Journal Abstracts from three academic fields in the United States and Sweden: National or Disciplinary Proclivities?, Duszak, A. (ed.), Intelectual Styles and Cross-cultural Studies Communication, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 251-272.

NWOGU, K. (1997): “The medical research paper: Structure and functions”, English for Specific Purposes, 16(2), pp. 119–138.

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, pp. 231-250.

SALAGER-MEYER, F. (1990): “Discoursal flaws in medical English abstracts: A genre analysis per research- and text-type”, Text, 4, pp. 365–384.

SALGAER-MEYER, F. (1991): “Medical English abstracts: How well are they structured?, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 42(7), pp. 528-531.

SALAGER-MEYER, F. (1992): “A text-type and move analysis study of verb tense and modality distribution in medical English abstracts”, English for Specific Purposes, 11, pp. 93–113.

SAMRAJ, B. (2002): Introductions in research articles: Variations across disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 21, pp.1-17.

SAN, L. & TAN, H. (2012): “A Comparative Study of the Rhetorical Moves in Abstracts of Published Research Articles and Students’ Term Papers in the Field of Computer and Communication Systems Engineering”, International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 1(7), pp. 40-50.

SANTOS, M. B. D. (1996): “The textual organization of research paper abstracts in applied linguistics”, Text 16, pp. 481–499.

STOTESBURY, H. (2003): “Evaluation in research article abstracts in the narrative and hard sciences”, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, pp. 327-341.

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

SWALES, J.M. (1981). Aspects of article introductions. Birmingham, England: University of Aston.

TANKÓ, G. (2017): “Literary research article abstracts: an analysis of rhetorical moves and their linguistic realizations”, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 27, pp. 42-55.

WOOD, A. (2001): “International scientific English: The language of research scientists around the world”, Flowerdew, J. & M. Peacock (eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp 71–83.