Une approche rhétorique au genre du résumé dans le domaine des sciences et technologie des aliments
DOI
https://doi.org/10.25267/Pragmalinguistica.2019.i27.17Info
Auteurs
- María Milagros del Saz Rubio (ES) Universitat Politècnica de València
Résumé
Cet article analyse la structure rhétorique de 50 résumés appartenant à la discipline des sciences et technologie des aliments et quantifie la présence d'éléments métadiscursifs dans les différents mouvements qui les composent. 25 résumés ont été rédigés par des chercheurs ayant l'anglais comme langue maternelle et 25 autres par des chercheurs espagnols. D'une manière générale, 54% des résumés intègre les mouvements typiques des structures IMRD et CARS, alors que les 46% restant n’incorporent que la structure IMRD sans référence à la contextualisation du sujet ou au problème existant. Les chercheurs anglophones autochtones ont tendance à écrire des résumés rhétoriquement plus complexes. En ce qui concerne l’utilisation d’éléments métadiscursifs, la fréquence normalisée est de 29,2 pour 1 000 mots. Les écrivains anglais natifs ont recours à leur utilisation avec une fréquence légèrement supérieure à celle des Espagnols (59% contre 41%).
Mots-clés
Téléchargements
Comment citer
Licence
Ce travail est disponible sous licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International.
Références
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.
DEL SAZ-RUBIO, M. M. (IN PRESS): "A genre-based approach to the rhetorical structure and use of interpersonal metadiscourse in the Results and Discussion section of Food Science & Technology Research Articles”, Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies.
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.