Aller directement au menu principal Aller directement au contenu principal Aller au pied de page


Janvier-juin 2019

Langage et sociéte

L’écriture du résumé en biologie :une révision bibliographique

https://doi.org/10.19053/0121053X.n33.2019.7084

Publiée 2019-02-07

  • Benjamín Cárcamo Morales

Benjamín Cárcamo Morales
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso

Résumé

Dû à son rôle clé dans la diffusion de la connaissance dans l’académie, le résumé a été étudié par rapport aux aspects tels que sa réalisation lexico-grammaticale et son organisation rhétorique. Cependant, l’ordre de ces trouvailles n’a pas été fait dès le regard disciplinaire de la biologie. Cet article a comme objectif le fait de contribuer avec de l’information par rapport à l’écriture du résumé dans le domaine de la biologie, en particulier, en ce qui concerne l’organisation rhétorique du genre discursif, le positionnement de l’auteur et le rapport de cohérence. Avec ce propos, on présente une articulation des résultats de diverses études empiriques. Comme produit de cette révision bibliographique, on expose une synthèse des caractéristiques de ce genre en biologie, dont la plus remarquable est le fait d’avoir, comme des déplacements obligatoires, celle de « méthode » et « produit », son écriture fréquente en première personne du pluriel et l’utilisation de clauses subordonnées pour exprimer des évaluations subjectives de l’auteur. Il faut espérer que cette synthèse soit une contribution didactique pour l’alphabétisation disciplinaire

Mots-clés

discours académique, organisation rhétorique, résumé, variation disciplinaire

PDF (Español) XML (Español)

Références

  1. Bhatia, V. (1993). Analyzing genre. Language use in professional settings. Harlow: Longman.
  2. Bhatia, V. (2002). A generic view of academic discourse. En Flowerdew, J. (Ed.), Academic discourse. London: Longman. 21-39.
  3. Bhatia, V. y Bremner, S. (eds.). 2014. The Routledge handbook of language and professional communication. New York: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315851686
  4. Biber, D. (2006). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(2), 97–116. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001
  5. Bondi, M. (2004). The discourse function of academic connectors in abstracts. En K. Aijmer y A. Stenström (Eds) Discourse Patterns in Spoken and Written Corpora (pp. 139-156). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.120.10bon
  6. Bondi, M. (2014). Changing voices: Authorial voice in abstracts. En M. Bondi y R. LorésSanz (eds.), Abstracts in academic discourse: Variation and change, (pp. 243-270). Bern: Peter Lang.
  7. Bondi, M. y Lorés-Sanz, R. (eds.). (2014). Abstracts in academic discourse: Variation and change. Bern: Peter Lang. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0351-0701-2
  8. Busch-Lauer, I. (2014). Abstracts: Cross-linguistic, disciplinary and intercultural perspectives. En M. Bondi y R. Lorés-Sanz (eds.), Abstracts in academic discourse: Variation and change, (pp. 43-64). Bern: Peter Lang.
  9. Castelló, M., Corcelles, M., Iñesta, A., Bañales, G. y Vega, N. (2011). La voz del autor en la escritura académica: Una propuesta para su análisis. Revista Signos, 44 (76), 105-117. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342011000200001
  10. Diani, G. (2014). On English and Italian research article abstracts: Genre variation across cultures. En M. Bondi y R. Lorés-Sanz (eds.), Abstracts in academic discourse:Variation and change, (pp. 65-84). Bern: Peter Lang.
  11. Dos Santos, M. (1996). The textual organization of research paper abstracts in applied linguistics. Text & Talk, 16(4), 481-499. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1996.16.4.481
  12. Flowerdew, J. (2001). Attitudes of journal editors to nonnative speaker contributions. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 121–50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3587862
  13. Flowerdew, J. (2015). John Swales’s approach to pedagogy in genre analysis: A perspective from 25 years on. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 19, 102-112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.02.003
  14. Harwood, N. (2005). What do we want EAP teaching materials for? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(2), 149–61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2004.07.008
  15. Huckin, T. (2001). Abstracting from abstracts. En M. Hewings (ed.), Academic writing in context: Implications and applications. London: Continuum.
  16. Hunston, S. y Thompson, G. (eds). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  17. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourse: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.
  18. Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
  19. Hyland, K. (2010). Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 116-127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.003
  20. Hyland, K. (2012a). Disciplinary Identities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  21. Hyland, K. (2012b). Undergraduate understandings: Stance and voice in final year reports. En K. Hyland y C. Sancho Guinda, Stance and voice in academic writing (pp. 134-150). London: Palgrave-MacMillan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137030825_9
  22. Hyland, K. (2015). Genre, discipline and identity. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 19, 32-43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.02.005
  23. Hyland, K. (2016). Writing with attitude: Conveying a stance in academic texts. En E. Hinkel Teaching English grammar to speakers of other languages (pp. 246-265). London: Routledge.
  24. Hyland, K. y Tse, P. (2005). Evaluating that constructions: Signalling stance in research abstracts. Functions of Language, 12(1), 39-64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.12.1.03hyl
  25. Hyland, K. y Sancho Guinda, C. (2012). Stance and voice in academic writing. London: Palgrave-MacMillan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137030825
  26. Ibáñez, R., Moncada, F., & Santana, A. (2015a). Organización retórica y relaciones de coherencia en el abstract de biología. Estudios Filológicos, 56, 51–84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4067/S0071-17132015000200004
  27. Ibáñez, R., Moncada, F., & Santana, A. (2015b). Variación disciplinar en el discurso académico de la Biología y del Derecho: un estudio a partir de las relaciones de coherencia. Onomázein Revista de Lingüística, Filología Y Traducción, (32), 101–131. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7764/onomazein.32.6
  28. Ibáñez, R. y Moncada, F. (2017). El resumen de artículos de investigación científica: Variación disciplinar a nivel local y global. Spanish in context, 14(2), 273-309. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.14.2.06iba
  29. Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005). Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 24(3), 269–292. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2004.08.003
  30. Lorés-Sanz, R. (2004). On RA abstracts: From rhetorical structure to thematic organisation. English for Specific Purposes, 23(3), 280–302. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2003.06.001
  31. Lorés-Sanz, R. (2006). “I will argue that”: first person pronouns as metadiscoursal devices in research article abstracts in English and Spanish. ESP across Cultures, 3, 23–40.
  32. Lorés-Sanz, R. (2008). Authorial visibility in research article and research article abstracts: the intergeneric perspective. En S. Burgess y P. Martín-Martín (eds.). English as an additional language in research publication and communication (pp. 105-122). Bern: Peter Lang.
  33. Lorés-Sanz, R. (2016). When the local becomes international: The lexicogrammar of rhetorical moves in English and Spanish Sociology abstracts. Languages in Contrast, 16(1), 133–158. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.16.1.06lor
  35. Martin, J. R. y Rose, D. (2007). Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the Clause (2a ed.). London/New York: Continuum.
  36. Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910
  37. Martı́n-Martı́n, P. (2002). A genre-based investigation of abstract writing in English and Spanish. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 47–64.
  38. Martín-Martín, P. (2003). A genre analysis of English and Spanish research paper abstracts in experimental social sciences. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 25–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(01)00033-3
  39. Melander, B., Swales, J. y Fredrickson, K. (1997). Journal abstracts from three academic fields in the United States and Sweden: National or disciplinary proclivities? En A. Duszak (ed.), Intellectual styles and cross-cultural communication (pp. 251-272). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
  40. Meza, P. (2016). El posicionamiento estratégico del autor en Artículos de Investigación: una propuesta para su estudio. Forma y Función, 29(2), 111-134. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15446/fyf.v29n2.60191
  41. Mur Dueñas, P. (2007). “I/we focus on...”: A cross-cultural analysis of self-mentions in business management research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(2), 143–162. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2007.05.002
  42. Okamura, A. y Shaw, P. (2014). Development of academic journal abstracts in relation to the demands of stakeholders. En M. Bondi y R. Lorés-Sanz (eds.), Abstracts in academic discourse:Variation and change, (pp. 287-318). Bern: Peter Lang.
  43. Parodi, G. (2007). El discurso especializado escrito en el ámbito universitario y profesional: Constitución de un corpus de estudio. Revista Signos, 40(63), 147-178. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342007000100008
  44. Parodi, G. (ed.) (2008). Géneros Académicos y Géneros Profesionales: Accesos Discursivos para Saber y Hacer. Valparaíso: Ediciones Universitarias de Valparaíso.
  45. Parodi, G., Boudon, E. y Julio, C. (2014). La organización retórica del género Manual de Economía: Un discurso en tránsito disciplinar. RLA, 52(2), 133–163. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-48832014000200007
  46. Parodi, G. y Julio, C. (2017). More than words: contending semiotic systems and the role of disciplinary knowledge in specialized text comprehension. Ibérica, 33, 11-36.
  47. Pho, P. (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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607087010
  48. Pho, P. (2013). Authorial stance in research articles: Examples from applied linguistics and education technology. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137032782
  49. Piqué-Noguera, C., & Camaño-Puig, R. (2015). El resumen del artículo de investigación: Análisis del género en un corpus de textos de Enfermería. Revista Signos, 48(87), 77–94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342015000100004
  50. Renkema, J. (2009). The texture of discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/z.151
  51. Sabaj, O. (2009). Descubriendo algunos problemas en la redacción de Artículos de Investigación Científica (AIC) de alumnos de postgrado. Revista Signos, 42(69), 107–127.
  52. Samraj, B. (2002). Disciplinary variation in abstracts: The case of wildlife behavior and conservation biology. En J. Flowerdew (ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 40-56). London: Pearson.
  53. Samraj, B. (2005). An Exploration of a Genre Set: Research article abstracts and in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), 141-156. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2002.10.001
  54. Sanders, T., Spooren, W. y Noordman, L. (1992). Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes 15, 1-36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539209544800
  55. Sanders, T y Spooren, W. (2001). Text representation as an interface between language and its users. En Sanders, Ted, Joost Schilperoord y Wilbert Spooren (eds.), Text representation: Psycholinguistic aspects (pp. 1-26). Benjamins: Amsterdam. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.8.02san
  56. Spooren, W. y Sanders, T. (2008). The acquisition of coherence relations: On cognitive complexity in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(12), 2003-2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.021
  57. Swales, J. y Feak, C. (2010). From text to task: putting research on abstracts to work. En M. Ruiz-Garrido, J. Palmer-Silveira e I. Fortanet-Gómez (eds.), English for professional and academic purposes, (pp. 167-180). Amsterdam-New York: Rodopi.
  58. Tardy, C. y Jwa, S. (2016). Composition studies and EAP. En K. Hyland y P. Shaw (eds.), The Routledge handbook of English for academic purposes (pp. 56-68). New York: Routledge.
  59. Thompson, G. y Zhou, J. (2000). Evaluation and organization in text: The structuring role of evaluative disjuncts. En S. Hunston y G. Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in text: authorial stance and the construction of discourse (121-141). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  60. Tse, P. y Hyland, K. (2006). Gender and Discipline: Exploring Metadiscourse Variation in Academic Book Reviews. En K. Hyland y M. Bondi (eds.) Academic Discourse across Disciplines (pp. 177-202). Bern: Peter Lang. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0351-0446-2
  61. Tse, P. y Hyland, K. (2008). Robot Kung Fu: Gender and Professional Identity in Biology and Philosophy Reviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1232-1248. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.02.002
  62. Tseng, F. (2011). Analysis of move structure and verb tense of research article abstracts in applied linguistics journals. International Journal of English Linguistics, 1(2), 27-39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v1n2p27
  63. Valderrama, J. 2005. Principales aspectos sobre la preparación de un artículo para ser publicado en una revista internacional de corriente principal. Información Tecnológica,16(2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-07642005000200002
  64. Van Bonn, S. y Swales, J. 2007. English and French journal abstracts in the language sciences: Three exploratory studies. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(2), 93-108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2007.04.001
  65. Ventola, E. (1997). Abstracts as an object of linguistic study. En F. Danes, E. Havlova & S. Cmejrkova (eds.), Writing vs. speaking: Language, text, discourse, communication (pp. 333-352). Proceedings of the Conference held at the Czech Language. Tübingen: Günter Narr.
  66. Weissberg, R. & Buker, S. (1990). Writing up research. Experimental research report writing for students of English. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.

Téléchargements

Les données relatives au téléchargement ne sont pas encore disponibles.

Articles similaires

<< < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

Vous pouvez également Lancer une recherche avancée de similarité pour cet article.