The aim of this paper is to
make a comparative analysis of the abstracts of four research papers belonging
to the fields of education and medicine. Abstracts are the first contact
readers have with papers; however, they
are the last part researchers write. As they summarize the major points made by
the author, they tend to be short, concise and neat. They are generally written
in no more than 250 words. Swales and Feak (1994) state that research papers
abstracts consist of a single paragraph containing from about four to ten full
sentences. The main purpose is to attract readers to go on reading the rest of
the paper. According to APA (2008), an effective abstract uses one or more well
developed paragraph which may be able to stand alone, strictly follows the
chronology of the report and is intelligible to a wide audience, containing no
abbreviations or specialized words. The present analysis will be based on
distinguishing the main linguistic characteristics of abstracts, their
structure, and their classification as well as their approach.
Considering their classification,
abstracts can be either descriptive or informative in nature (Swales & Feak, 1994). Informative abstracts are
extracts from articles, chapters or as in this case, from research papers (RPs).
The texts belonging to the medicine field, by Jorgensen´ s ( 2009 ) and Wijeysundera´s
et. al (2009), follow this informative characteristic, as they provide a
considerable amount of data on what the researchers did. As regards their
structure, it can be asserted that they both belong to the structured type of
abstracts since they are divided into sections with italicized headings which
identify the main sections in the RP. The headings for both
articles are: Objective, Design, ,Setting, Participants, Main Outcome Measure,
and Results. Therefore, it can be assumed that both abstracts
on medicine field follow the Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussions
(IMRAD). Most researchers agree on this formula which is generally followed
when writing this part of the texts. Other relevant characteristics these two
abstracts share are connected to their linguistic features. In both abstracts
the objectives are expressed with infinitives, as for the next sections they
are written in full sentences in the past tense, negatives are avoided together
with the use of abbreviations. The
vocabulary used is formal. One
main difference between these two pieces of writing is that the conclusion of Jorgensen´ s ( 2009 ) abstract
on breast cancer is written in the past tense whereas the conclusion of
Wijeysundera´s et. al ( 2009) abstract on cardiac stress is in the present
tense, probably because of the kind of conclusion reached, which proved the
hypothesis that guided this research. Following
Swales and Freak (1994) again, the approaches of these
two abstracts can be characterized as results-driven since they concentrate on the
research findings and what might be concluded from them.
With reference to the abstracts of
the educational field, by Rammal (2005) and King (2002), it can be pointed out
that they are similar in the sense that they can be classified as indicative
since they do not describe what the researches did in detail. Instead, they
summarize the main information in the RP, and they do not provide extensive
information about the results. Regarding their structure, they are unstructured
since they are not divided into different sections under subheadings. In fact,
both of them consist of only one paragraph. King´s (2002) abstract on DVDs
seems to have the appropriate length whereas Rammal´s (2005) abstract on video does not, it is quite
short. The first one contains seven sentences in all and the latter
only five. Analyzing the linguistic features of abstracts, it can be seen
that both of them are written in the present tense. In both abstracts it is
possible to notice the use of the impersonal passive voice, full sentences and
no negatives; abbreviations and jargon are not included. As for their approach, they
follow the lines of the summary approach of abstracts as defined by Swales and
Feak (1994) because in just a few sentences they outline the different sections
of the RP.
On the whole, Jorgensen´ s ( 2009 ) and Wijeysundera´s et. al
(2009) abstracts on the field of
medicine are very structured, mainly following the IMRAD formula. This characteristic can be thought as a
consequence of another relevant aspect they share: They are results-driven,
which means that they concentrate on results findings. On the contrary, the article by King
(2002) on the use of DVDs and Rammal (2005) on videos are not structured, but
seem to have the function of attracting the readers’ attention, of generating
the need of reading the rest of the article, which is one of the main functions
abstract have. As for the linguistics
features of the abstracts, it can be seen that the fourth of them respect the
tenses generally used for this kind of writings, all of them are written in
full sentences and no examples of negatives, abbreviations and jargon can be
found in either of them.
References
American Psychological Association (2008). Concise rules of APA style. Washington, DC: British
Library Cataloguing-in
–Publication Data.
Jorgensen, K., Zahi, P.,& Gotzsche, P.,
(2009). Breast cancer mortality in
organized mammography
screening in Denmark:
comparative study. British Medical Journal, 2010; 340:
c1241.doi:101136/bmj.c1241
King, J. (2002).
Using DVD features films in the EFL classroom. The
Weekly column, 88.
Rammal, S.M. (2005). Using video in the EFL
classrooms. CDELT 25th
Annual Symposium, April
12-13,
2005. Ein-Shams Univertity, Cairo, Egypt.
Swales, J.M., & Feak, C.B. (1994). Academic
writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills.
Ann Harbor, MI: The Universty of Michigan Press.
Wijeysundera, D., Scott B., Fraser E., Austin, P., Hux
J., & Laupacis A., (2009). Non-
invasive
cardiac stress testing
before elective major non-cardiac surgery: population based cohort study.
British Medical Journal, 2010;340: b5526.doi:101136/bmj.b5526