语言学与应用语言学学术论文英文摘要的写作5 56页

语言学与应用语言学学术论文英文摘要的写作HowtoWriteanAbstractforaResearchPaperinLinguisticsandAppliedLinguistics\n《中国外语》（双月刊），CSSCI来源期刊感谢各位专家、同行过去5年多来对《中国外语》的大力支持！希望专家、同行继续支持、帮助我们！《中国外语》宗旨：立足改革、高扬创新www.cflo.edu.cn/flc@pub.hep.cn感谢上海海事大学提供这次学术交流的机会！\n几本参考书黄国文、M.Ghadessy（2008）《英语学位论文写作教程》，高等教育出版社（普通高等教育“十一五”国家级规划教材）。黄国文、张美芳、M.Ghadessy（2006）《英语学术论文写作》，重庆大学出版社（普通高等教育“十一五”国家级规划教材）。黄国文、王宾、林裕音（出版中/2011）《英语专业毕业论文写作手册》，上海外语教育出版社。\nOutline1Introduction2StructureofanAbstract3QuestionsontheAbstract4ElementsofstructureinanAbstract5ThelanguageofanAbstract6Summary\n1IntroductionAnessaymaybebasedonwhatistermedascommonknowledgeorthepersonalexperiencesofastudent,butaresearchpapershoulddrawuponanumberofotherprimaryandsecondarysourcesofinformationtocompletetheproject.Writingaresearchpaperisacomplexanddemandingtask.Itrequiresalotofplanningandpreparationbeforethefinalcopyisproduced.Aresearchpapercanbewrittenonanytopic/subjectunderthesun.Thelevelofrequiredresearchforapaperdependsonmanyfactors.\nBecauseofitsimportanceinacademicwriting,aresearchpaperhasaspecialform/formatthathastobefollowedifoneistogetagoodgradefromtheinstructormarkingthepaperorhavethepaperpublished/accepted.Eachsectionandsub-sectionshouldbeclearlymarked.Thisisdonebyusingdifferentnames/labelsforthesectionsandsub-sectionsofthepaper.\nForexample,thepaperhasaMethodsectionthatisfurthersub-dividedintoDataCollectionandMethodology.ExpertsonthesubjecthaveproposedslightlydifferentformatsforthepaperbutageneralformatmayconsistofAbstract,Introduction,Background,PreviousStudies,Method,Results,Discussion,Conclusions,andReferences.\n2StructureofanAbstractAnAbstractofaresearchpaperisthefirstsourceofinformationforawould-bereader.OfcoursethetitleoftheresearchpaperwouldprovideinformationaboutthetopicofinvestigationbutitistheAbstractthatprovidesabird’seyeviewofthesubjectmatter,thepurposeofthestudy,thewaytheresearchiscarriedout,someimportantfindings,theimplications,andaconclusion.TheAbstractsummarizesthestudyforpeoplewhowouldliketospendnomorethanafewminutesonthepaper.\nAnimportantissuehereisthetimeforthewritingoftheAbstract.Usuallyitiswrittenafterthestudy/researchiscompletedbutthisisnotalwaysthecaseas,forexample,peoplesendabstractsofunfinishedpaperstoconferencestheywouldliketoparticipatein.Suchabstractsarenottotallydifferentfromthosewrittenforfinishedpapers;theymayincludelessinformationinsomepartslikeintheResultsandImplicationssections.\nBecauseofitsimportance,theAbstracthasacquiredaveryrigidstructureusedbymostwriters.Inordertofindoutwhatthisstructureis,welookatanAbstractofaresearchpaperfromtheJournalofAsianPacificCommunicationandthenaskanumberofquestions.HereisthetitleofthepaperandtheAbstract;thequestionsfollow.(Numbershavebeenaddedtothesentencesforeaseofreference.)\nGeorgeBraine,‘Fromateacher-centredtoastudent-centredapproach:AstudyofpeerfeedbackinHongKongwritingclasses’,JournalofAsianPacificCommunication12/2,2003.\n(1)Thereisacommonbeliefthat,owingtothehighlyteacher-centredformofeducation,Chinesestudentsarepassivelearners.(2)Asaresult,astudent-centredapproachsuchasprocesswritingisbelievedtobedifficulttoimplementinclassesthatconsistmainlyofChinesestudents.(3)Thisstudytestedthesebeliefsbyintroducingpeerfeedback,thebackboneofprocesswriting,toChinesestudentsenrolledinuniversitywritingclassesandbymeasuringtheeffectivenessofthefeedbackbothquantitativelyandqualitatively.(4)Thestudyshowedthat,withpropertraining,Chinesestudentscouldquicklyadapttoastudent-centredapproach,andalsoproviderichandusefulfeedbackonthewritingoftheirpeers.(5)Thisstudyhaspromisingimplicationsforeducationalcontextswherestudentsareconsideredpassivelearners,teacher-centredlearningisthenorm,ortheprocessapproachtowritingfacesdauntingchallengestoitsimplementation.\n(1)Thereisacommonbeliefthat,owingtothehighlyteacher-centredformofeducation,Chinesestudentsarepassivelearners.(2)Asaresult,astudent-centredapproachsuchasprocesswritingisbelievedtobedifficulttoimplementinclassesthatconsistmainlyofChinesestudents.(3)Thisstudytestedthesebeliefsbyintroducingpeerfeedback,thebackboneofprocesswriting,toChinesestudentsenrolledinuniversitywritingclassesandbymeasuringtheeffectivenessofthefeedbackbothquantitativelyandqualitatively.\n(4)Thestudyshowedthat,withpropertraining,Chinesestudentscouldquicklyadapttoastudent-centredapproach,andalsoproviderichandusefulfeedbackonthewritingoftheirpeers.(5)Thisstudyhaspromisingimplicationsforeducationalcontextswherestudentsareconsideredpassivelearners,teacher-centredlearningisthenorm,ortheprocessapproachtowritingfacesdauntingchallengestoitsimplementation.\n1.Whatisthesubjectmatter/areatheresearchpaperisdealingwith?Thefollowingwordsandexpressionstellthereaderwhatthesubjectmatteris,i.e.answertoquestionconcerningthesubjectmatter:teacher-centred(S-1),student-centred(S-2),process-writing(S-2),peerfeedback,thebackboneofprocesswriting(S-3),writingclasses(S-3),theeffectivenessofthefeedback(S-3),astudent-centredapproach(S-4),usefulfeedbackonthewritingoftheirpeers(S-4),teacher-centredlearning(S-5),theprocessapproachtowriting(S-5).\n2.Whatbackgroundinformationisprovidedbytheauthor(s)?Thefirsttwosentencesgivethebackgroundinformation:(1)‘Thereisacommonbeliefthat,owingtothehighlyteacher-centredformofeducation,Chinesestudentsarepassivelearners.(2)Asaresult,astudent-centredapproachsuchasprocesswritingisbelievedtobedifficulttoimplementinclassesthatconsistmainlyofChinesestudents.’\n3.Whatisthepurposeofthepresentstudy?Thethirdquestionisconcernedwiththepurposeofthestudy,andtestedthesebeliefs.(S-3)indicatesthepurposeofresearch.(3)Thisstudytestedthesebeliefsbyintroducingpeerfeedback,thebackboneofprocesswriting,toChinesestudentsenrolledinuniversitywritingclassesandbymeasuringtheeffectivenessofthefeedbackbothquantitativelyandqualitatively.\n4.Howistheresearchtobedone?Thefourthquestionis‘Howistheresearchtobedone?’,whichisconcernedwiththemethodoftheresearch.ThetwoprepositionalphrasesinSentence(3)byintroducingpeerfeedback,thebackboneofprocesswritingandbymeasuringtheeffectivenessofthefeedbackbothquantitativelyandqualitativelyclearlyindicatehowtheresearchistobecarriedout.\n5.Whataresomeoftheimportantfindings?(4)Thestudyshowedthat,withpropertraining,Chinesestudentscouldquicklyadapttoastudent-centredapproach,andalso(thatChinesestudents)providerichandusefulfeedbackonthewritingoftheirpeers.Sentence(4)servesthepurposeofgivingthereadertwofindingsofthestudy.\n6.Whataresomeoftheimplicationsofthestudy?(5)Thisstudyhaspromisingimplicationsforeducationalcontextswherestudentsareconsideredpassivelearners,teacher-centredlearningisthenorm,ortheprocessapproachtowritingfacesdauntingchallengestoitsimplementation.Thisfinalsentenceintheabstracttellsthereadertheimplicationsforthestudy,andthusitanswersthelastquestionintheabstract,i.e.‘Whataresomeoftheimplicationsofthestudy?’\nAnanalysisofanotherabstractBiber,D.etal.,‘SpeakingandWritingintheUniversity:AMultidimensionalComparison’.TESOLQuarterly,2002.\n(1)Thedozensofstudiesonacademicdiscoursecarriedoutoverthepast20yearshavemostlyfocusedonwrittenacademicprose(usuallythetechnicalresearcharticleinscienceormedicine)oronacademiclectures.(2)Otherregistersthatmaybemoreimportantforstudentsadjustingtouniversitylife,suchastextbooks,havereceivedsurprisinglylittleattention,andspokenregisterssuchasstudygroupsoron-campusserviceencountershavebeenvirtuallyignored.(3)Toexplainmorefullythenatureofthetasksthatincominginternationalstudentsencounter,thisarticleundertakesacomprehensivelinguisticdescriptionoftherangeofspokenandwrittenregistersatU.S.universities.\n(4)Specifically,thearticledescribesamultidimensionalanalysisofregistervariationintheTOEFL2000SpokenandWrittenAcademicLanguageCorpus.(5)Theanalysisshowsthatspokenregistersarefundamentallydifferentfromwrittenonesinuniversitycontexts,regardlessofpurpose.(6)Someoftheregistercharacterizationsareparticularlysurprising.(7)Forexample,classroomteachingwassimilartoconversationalregistersinmanyrespects,anddepartmentalbrochuresandWebpageswereasinformationallydenseastextbooks.(8)Thearticlediscussestheimplicationsofthesefindingsforpedagogyandfurtherresearch.\n(1)Thedozensofstudiesonacademicdiscoursecarriedoutoverthepast20yearshavemostlyfocusedonwrittenacademicprose(usuallythetechnicalresearcharticleinscienceormedicine)oronacademiclectures.(2)Otherregistersthatmaybemoreimportantforstudentsadjustingtouniversitylife,suchastextbooks,havereceivedsurprisinglylittleattention,andspokenregisterssuchasstudygroupsoron-campusserviceencountershavebeenvirtuallyignored.(3)Toexplainmorefullythenatureofthetasksthatincominginternationalstudentsencounter,thisarticleundertakesacomprehensivelinguisticdescriptionoftherangeofspokenandwrittenregistersatU.S.universities.\n(4)Specifically,thearticledescribesamultidimensionalanalysisofregistervariationintheTOEFL2000SpokenandWrittenAcademicLanguageCorpus.(5)Theanalysisshowsthatspokenregistersarefundamentallydifferentfromwrittenonesinuniversitycontexts,regardlessofpurpose.(6)Someoftheregistercharacterizationsareparticularlysurprising.(7)Forexample,classroomteachingwassimilartoconversationalregistersinmanyrespects,anddepartmentalbrochuresandWebpageswereasinformationallydenseastextbooks.(8)Thearticlediscussestheimplicationsofthesefindingsforpedagogyandfurtherresearch.\n3QuestionsontheAbstract1.Whatisthesubjectmatter/areatheresearchpaperisdealingwith?2.Whatbackgroundinformationisprovidedbytheauthor(s)?3.Whatisthepurposeofthepresentstudy?4.Howistheresearchtobedone?5.Whataresomeoftheimportantfindings?6.Whataresomeoftheimplicationsofthestudy?\n1.Itisnotdifficulttoanswerthefirstquestion.Thesubjectmatteris‘academicdiscourse’andwithinthisreferenceismadeto‘writtenacademicprose’and‘academiclectures’(S-1).Butthesetwosub-areasarenottheconcernofthepaper.Thepaperfocusesonthelanguageof‘textbooks’,‘studygroups’,and‘serviceencounters’(S-2).\n.2.Theauthorsprovidesomegeneralbackgroundinformation.Forexample,therehavebeensomestudies‘dozensofstudies’,‘overthepast20years’(S-1),and‘Otherregisters…havereceivedsurprisinglylittleattention’and‘havebeenvirtuallyignored’(S-2).Inadditiontoprovidingbackgroundinformation,theauthorsgiveareasontojustifythepresentresearch.Theyrefertoagapinknowledgeonacademicdiscoursethattheywouldliketofill.Thisislabeledas‘gapindication’.\n3.Thepurposeofthepaperisgivennextby‘thisarticleundertakesa…’(S-3).Atthesametimeweseethatthereisafocuson‘incominginternationalstudents’and‘atU.S.universities’(S-3).4.Themethodologyoftheresearchisindicatednextby‘amultidimensionalanalysisofregistervariation’andtheproposedsourceofdataby‘theTOFEL…Corpus’(S-4).\n5. Referencetofindingsisindicatedby‘Theanalysisshows…’(S-5).Theauthorsalsostatethatthefindings‘aresurprising’(S-6),i.e.‘classroomteachingwassimilartoconversationalregisters’and‘departmentalbrochureswereasinformationallydenseastextbooks’(S-7).6.Andfinallywegetthereferenceto‘implications…forpedagogy’and‘furtherresearch’(S-8).\n4ElementsofstructureinanAbstractWecanseethatbyaskinganumberofquestionswecandiscoverthestructureoftheAbstract.Wecanrefertoeachsectionasan‘elementofstructure’.ThesixelementsofstructurecanthenbereferredtoasTopicSpecification(TS),BackgroundInformation(BI),PurposeStatement(PS),MethodologyandData(MD),Results/Findings(RF),andImplications/Conclusions(IC).\nAlthoughtheexamplediscussedabovehasALLthestructuralelementsofanAbstract,wearenotsayingthatALLotherAbstractshavethesameelementsaswell.Wecansaythatsomeelementsareobligatoryandsomeareoptional.LetuslookatanotherAbstracttoseehowtheelementsarepresented.\nElizabethBlack:Metaphor,simileandcognitioninGolding’sTheInheritorsThisarticlediscussestherelationshipbetweenunderlexicalisation,metaphorandsimileinGolding’sTheInheritors.Itarguesthattheyaredeployedtoreflectthedevelopingcognitiveandlinguisticabilitiesofthenovel’scharacters.Itissuggestedthatcertainstructures,whichmayappearmetaphorical,arebesttreatedascasesofunderlexicalisation.(Editor:MickShort:LanguageandLiterature,1(2)(1993):pp.37-48.\n(1)Thisarticlediscussestherelationshipbetweenunderlexicalisation,metaphorandsimileinGolding’sTheInheritors.(2)Itarguesthattheyaredeployedtoreflectthedevelopingcognitiveandlinguisticabilitiesofthenovel’scharacters.(3)Itissuggestedthatcertainstructures,whichmayappearmetaphorical,arebesttreatedascasesofunderlexicalisation.\nQuestionsontheabstract1.Subjectmatter(1)“therelationshipbetweenunderlexicalisation,metaphorandsimile”2.BackgroundinformationNobackgroundinformation.3.Purpose(1)“discussestherelationshipbetween…”4.Methodology(2)“argues…”5.Findings(3)“itissuggestedthat…”6.ImplicationsNoimplicationsmentioned.\nObligatoryandOptional?1.Whatisthesubjectmatter/areatheresearchpaperisdealingwith?3.Whatisthepurposeofthepresentstudy?4.Howistheresearchtobedone?5.Whataresomeoftheimportantfindings?2.Whatbackgroundinformationisprovidedbytheauthor?6.Whataresomeoftheimplicationsofthestudy?\nThomasT.Ballmer:Words,sentences,texts,andallthat(Text1(2)(1981):pp.163-189)(1)Thetopicofthispaperconcernstherelationbetweenthreelevelsoflanguage:words,sentences,andtexts.(2)Afterapresentationofstateoftheartoftextlinguisticsitisshownthatthesomewhatneglectedareaoflexicologycastsnewlightontheissueoftextvs.sentencelinguistics.(3)Adynamicconceptionoflanguagebasedonitsmechanismofcontextchangetogetherwiththelexicalanalysisofthewordthesaurusofalanguageleadsthewaytoadescriptionoftheexpressions,textstructures,andcontextstructures.(4)Thisconceptionmakesitpossibletoproceedfurtherandcharacterizethetaskoftexttheory.(5)Theformalprerequisitesarelanguagereconstructionsystems,context-changelogic,andthebackgroundofoptimization.\n(1)Thetopicofthispaperconcernstherelationbetweenthreelevelsoflanguage:words,sentences,andtexts.(2)Afterapresentationofstateoftheartoftextlinguisticsitisshownthatthesomewhatneglectedareaoflexicologycastsnewlightontheissueoftextvs.sentencelinguistics.(3)Adynamicconceptionoflanguagebasedonitsmechanismofcontextchangetogetherwiththelexicalanalysisofthewordthesaurusofalanguageleadsthewaytoadescriptionoftheexpressions,textstructures,andcontextstructures.(4)Thisconceptionmakesitpossibletoproceedfurtherandcharacterizethetaskoftexttheory.(5)Theformalprerequisitesarelanguagereconstructionsystems,context-changelogic,andthebackgroundofoptimization.\n1.Subjectmatter(1)“Thetopicofthispaperconcernstherelation”2.BackgroundinformationNobackgroundinformation.3.Purpose(1)“thisarticledealswithoneparticularproblem”4.Methodology(2)“Afterapresentationofstateoftheartoftextlinguisticsitisshownthat…”(3)“Adynamicconception…leadsthewaytoadescription…”(4)“Thisconceptionmakesitpossibletoproceedfurtherandcharacterizethetaskoftexttheory”.5.Findings(5)“Theformalprerequisitesarelanguagereconstructionsystems,…andthebackgroundofoptimization”6.ImplicationsNoimplicationsmentioned.\nBallmerNobackgroundinformation.Noimplicationmentioned.Theexpressionof“findings”notclear.Descriptionof“Methodology”notclear.\nRobertdeBeaugrande:Linguistictheoryandmetatheoryforascienceoftexts(Text1(2)(1981):pp.113-161)(1)Thisarticleexploresthetypicalreactionswhichoccurwhenanestablishedscienceconfrontsanewobjectofinquiry,aswefindwhenlinguistictheoryencountersthetext.(2)Theusualdiscussionsarenotproductiveaslongastheold‘paradigm’isstillacceptedastheframeworkforachievement.(3)Theissuesarethereforere-examinedintermsofthemetatheoryofscience(e.g.Sneed,Stegmüller,Lakatos,Feyerabend,Hempel),andsomegeneralsolutionsareexpoundedfortheproblemsofvalidatingtheoriesonthebasisofempiricalcontent.(4)Aparadigmaticexampleisthenpresentedinordertoshowapossibleroleforlogicallinguisticsinfuturetheories:acomputergrammarthatparsestextsentencesintoaprogressivenetworkandbackagainviatheorem-proving,withfurthercapacitiesforapplyingschemas,answeringquestions,andgeneratingsummaries.(5)Thisexampleservesasanapplicationofgeneraldesignvaluesandcriteriaforpreferringandcomparingalternativetheories.\n(1)Thisarticleexploresthetypicalreactionswhichoccurwhenanestablishedscienceconfrontsanewobjectofinquiry,aswefindwhenlinguistictheoryencountersthetext.(2)Theusualdiscussionsarenotproductiveaslongastheold‘paradigm’isstillacceptedastheframeworkforachievement.(3)Theissuesarethereforere-examinedintermsofthemetatheoryofscience(e.g.Sneed,Stegmüller,Lakatos,Feyerabend,Hempel),andsomegeneralsolutionsareexpoundedfortheproblemsofvalidatingtheoriesonthebasisofempiricalcontent.(4)Aparadigmaticexampleisthenpresentedinordertoshowapossibleroleforlogicallinguisticsinfuturetheories:acomputergrammarthatparsestextsentencesintoaprogressivenetworkandbackagainviatheorem-proving,withfurthercapacitiesforapplyingschemas,answeringquestions,andgeneratingsummaries.(5)Thisexampleservesasanapplicationofgeneraldesignvaluesandcriteriaforpreferringandcomparingalternativetheories.\n1.Subjectmatter(1)“thetypicalreactionswhichoccurwhenanestablishedscienceconfrontsanewobjectofinquiry”2.Backgroundinformation(2)“Theusualdiscussionsarenotproductiveaslongastheold‘paradigm’isstillacceptedastheframeworkforachievement.”3.Purpose(1)“Thisarticleexploresthetypicalreactions”4.Methodology(3)“Theissuesarere-examinedintermsofthemetatheoryofscience…”“andsomegeneralsolutionsareexpounded”(4)“Aparadigmaticexampleis…presented…”5.Findings?(4)“…toshowapossibleroleforlogicallinguisticsinfuturetheories”6.Implications(5)“Thisexampleservesasanapplicationofgeneraldesignvaluesandcriteriaforpreferringandcomparingalternativetheories.”\nR.deBeaugrandeArgumentation(vsdescription)Speculative,literaturereview,libraryresearch,theorizingElementstructuresoftheabstractnotclearly-cut\nM.Couthard:Thelinguistasexpertwitness(LinguisticsandtheHumanSciences1(1)(2005Thisarticleillustratestheproblemsfacedandthetechniquesusedbythelinguistwhenactingasanexpertwitness.Examplesaredrawnfromawildvarietyofcases.Thearticlefirstexemplifiesdisputesaboutthemeaningofindividualmorphemesinatrademarkcase,wheretheAmericanburgerchainMcDonaldsclaimedownershipofthemorpheme“Mc”onthegroundsthattheyhadinventeda“McLanguage”,andabouttheinterpretationofindividualwordslike“sufficient”,“preclude”and“impairment”injuryinstructionsandhealthinsuranceproposals,whereconvincingevidenceisofferedthatcooperativereaderswouldnothavederivedthemeaningintendedbythelegalauthorsofthetexts.Thearticlesthenexaminesthecontributionlinguistsmadeintwospecificcasestoresolvingquestionsaboutthedegreeofgrammaticalcomplexityinadisputedletterandastatutewhoseinterpretationhadbeenappealed,beforemovingontousetheconceptoflinguisticuniquenesstohelpresolvethequestionofthe“ownership”ofparticularwordsandphrasesintwocasesofsuspectedplagiarism.Theconceptsusedintheplagiarismcasesarethenusedtoresolveadisputeaboutwhetherawholeinterviewrecordhadbeenfabricatedbythepoliceinamurdercase.Throughoutthearticleexamplesareprovidedofthewiderangeoftechniquesthatforensiclinguistshavedevelopedandnowusetoreachandsupporttheiropinions,rangingfromevidencederivedfromcorporaandquestionnairestoinsightsdrawnfrommorphology,grammar,lexis,pragmatics,semanticsanddiscourseandtextanalysis.\n(1)Thisarticleillustratestheproblemsfacedandthetechniquesusedbythelinguistwhenactingasanexpertwitness.(2)Examplesaredrawnfromawildvarietyofcases.(3)Thearticlefirstexemplifiesdisputesaboutthemeaningofindividualmorphemesinatrademarkcase,wheretheAmericanburgerchainMcDonaldsclaimedownershipofthemorpheme“Mc”onthegroundsthattheyhadinventeda“McLanguage”,andabouttheinterpretationofindividualwordslike“sufficient”,“preclude”and“impairment”injuryinstructionsandhealthinsuranceproposals,whereconvincingevidenceisofferedthatcooperativereaderswouldnothavederivedthemeaningintendedbythelegalauthorsofthetexts.\n(4)Thearticlesthenexaminesthecontributionlinguistsmadeintwospecificcasestoresolvingquestionsaboutthedegreeofgrammaticalcomplexityinadisputedletterandastatutewhoseinterpretationhadbeenappealed,beforemovingontousetheconceptoflinguisticuniquenesstohelpresolvethequestionofthe“ownership”ofparticularwordsandphrasesintwocasesofsuspectedplagiarism.(5)Theconceptsusedintheplagiarismcasesarethenusedtoresolveadisputeaboutwhetherawholeinterviewrecordhadbeenfabricatedbythepoliceinamurdercase.(6)Throughoutthearticleexamplesareprovidedofthewiderangeoftechniquesthatforensiclinguistshavedevelopedandnowusetoreachandsupporttheiropinions,rangingfromevidencederivedfromcorporaandquestionnairestoinsightsdrawnfrommorphology,grammar,lexis,pragmatics,semanticsanddiscourseandtextanalysis.\n1.Subjectmatter(1)“Thisarticleillustratestheproblemsfacedandthetechniquesusedbythelinguist”2.Backgroundinformation???(2)“Examplesaredrawnfromawildvarietyofcases.”3.Purpose???4.Methodology???(3)“Thearticlefirstexemplifiesdisputesaboutthemeaning”???(4)“Thearticlesthenexaminesthecontribution”???(5)“Theconceptsusedintheplagiarismcasesarethenusedtoresolveadisputeaboutwhetherawholeinterviewrecordhadbeenfabricatedbythepoliceinamurdercase.”???(6)“Throughoutthearticleexamplesareprovidedofthewiderangeoftechniques”5.Findings???6.Implications???\nM.Couthard“Purpose”isnotclearlystated.“Methodology”isnotclearlystated.Noobvious“findings”.Noobvious“implications”.Theuseofexampleshasbeenemphasized(e.g.Sentences(2)&(6).)\nDiscussionTypesofresearchandwaysofpresentationDifferentdisciplineshavedifferentnormsandconventionsDifferencesbetweenlinguisticsandappliedlinguistics(e.g.,previousstudies,implications)Some‘seniorpeople’maynotfollowthenorm,andtheyareoftenallowedtohavedeviations.\n5TheLanguageofanabstractTheinformationinanabstractiscondensedinnominalgroupswithspecialtypesofverbs.Therearecertaingrammaticalpatternsthatareusuallyused.Thebestwayistosee,fromapurelylinguistic/grammaticalperspectivehowpeoplewriteabstracts.\nSomeexamplesThispaper,thisarticle,thisstudy,thisresearch,thisproject,theauthor,we,I,Argue,report,investigates,focuson,survey,review,present,address,give,look,examine,outline,explore,dealwith,consider,discuss,suggest,beconcernedwith,approach,analyse,describe,demonstrate,illustrate,evaluate,Aimtochallenge,attempttoargue,seektoargue,\nThesecretofasuccessfulAbstractisingivingthemostinformationintheleastnumberofwordsinacoherentstructure.ThiscanbeachievedbyreadinggoodAbstractsandthenimitatingthemwhenyouneedtowriteone.\nPiecesofadviceWecansafelyassumethatifaresearchpaperisacceptedbyaninternationaljournal,thenitsAbstractcanbeimitatedbypeoplelearningtowritethiskindoftext.Ifsomeoneisrecognizedinthefield,hiswayofwritingisalsoaccepted.(but…)TowriteagoodAbstract,wehavetofollowtheconventionssetbymoreexperiencedpeopleinthefield.Ifyouwanttohaveapaperacceptedbyajournal,youshouldreadthejournalandseetheunderlyingprinciple/requirement.\n6SummaryWehavefocusedonthediscoursestructure.ThetwomainfeaturesofanAbstractareitsdiscoursestructureandthelanguageusedforcondensingtheinformation.ThesecretofasuccessfulAbstractisingivingthemostinformationintheleastnumberofwordsinacoherentstructure.ThiscanbeachievedbyreadinggoodAbstractsandthenimitatingthemwhenyouneedtowriteone.\nReminder:SixquestionsontheAbstract1.Whatisthesubjectmatter/areatheresearchpaperisdealingwith?2.Whatbackgroundinformationisprovidedbytheauthor(s)?3.Whatisthepurposeofthepresentstudy?4.Howistheresearchtobedone?5.Whataresomeoftheimportantfindings?6.Whataresomeoftheimplicationsofthestudy?