Recent linguistic research into author abstracts: Its value for Information Science

Knowledge Organization

Volumn 32, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 64-78

  Montesi, Michela ^a   Urdiciain, Blanca Gil ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSIDAD COMPLUTENSE DE MADRID   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 30344470495     PISSN: 09437444     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (66)

1. Anderson, K. and J. MacLean. 1997. A genre analysis study of 80 medical abstracts. Edinburgh Working Papers in Applied Linguistics 8: 1-23.
2. Andersson, B. and B. L. Gunnarsson. 1995. A contrastive study of text patterns in conference abstracts. Anglicana Turkuensia 14: 139-148.
3. Armstrong, C.J. and A. Wheatley. 1998. Writing abstracts for online databases: Results of an investigation of database producers' guidelines. Program, 32 (4): 359-371.
4. Berkenkotter, C. and T. N. Huckin. 1995. Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition, culture, power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5. Bittencourt dos Santos, M. 1996. The textual organization of research paper abstracts in applied linguistics. Text 16 (4): 481-499.
6. Bolívar, A. 1999. Homogeneidad versus variedad en la estructura de los resúmenes de investigación para congresos. Akademos 2: 121-138.
7. Borko, H. and C. L. Bernier. 1975. Abstracting concepts and methods. New York: Academic Press.
8. Busch-Lauer, I.A. 1995. Textual organization in English and German abstracts. Anglicana Turkuensia 14: 175-186.
9. Chan, S.K. and S. Foo. 2001. Bridging the interdisciplinary gap in abstract writing for scholarly communication, Genre and Discourse in Education, Work and Cultural Life: Encounters of Academic Disciplines on Theories and Practices (GENRE 2001), Oslo University College, May 13-16. Available at: http://islab.sas.ntu.edu.sg:8000/user/schubert/publications/2001/conf_oslo_fmt. pdf
10. Cleveland, D.B. and A. D. Cleveland. 2001. Introduction to indexing and abstracting. Englewood, NJ: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.
11. Endres-Niggemeyer 1998. Summarizing information. Berlin: Springer.
12. Espinoza Muñoz, A. M. 2000. Tendencias en el contenido de la oración inicial en Horticultural abstracts. The ESPecialist 21 (1): 29-41.
13. Faber, B. 1996. Rhetoric in competition: The formation of organizational discourse in Conference on College Composition and Communication Abstracts. Written Communication 13 (3): 355-384.
14. García-Calvo, J. 1999. Un estudio comparativo de abstracts para eventos científicos en inglés y en español. D.E.LT.A 15 (2): 269-288.
15. Gibson, T. 1993. Towards a discourse theory of abstracts and abstracting. Volume 1. Monographs in Systemic Linguistics. No. 5. Nottingham: University of Nottingham.
16. Hartley, J. and M. Sydes. 1996. Which layout do you prefer? An analysis of readers' preferences for different typographic layouts of structured abstracts. Journal of Information Science 22 (1): 27-37.
17. Hartley, J. and M. Sydes. 1997. Are structured abstracts easier to read than traditional ones? Journal of Research in Reading 20 (2): 122-136.
18. Hartley, J. 2000. Are structured abstracts more or less accurate than traditional ones? A study in the psychological literature. Journal of Information Science 26 (4): 273-277.
19. Hartley, J. 2000a. Typographic settings for structured abstracts. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 30 (4): 355-365.
20. Hartley, J. 2000b. Clarifying the abstracts of systematic literature reviews. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 88 (4): 332-337.
21. Hartley, J. 2002. Do structured abstracts take more space? And does it matter? Journal of Information Science 28 (5): 417-422.
22. Hartley, J. 2004. Current findings from research on structured abstracts. Journal of the Medical Library Association 92 (3): 368-371.
23. Hjørland, B. 1998. Information retrieval, text composition, and semantics. Knowledge Organization 25 (1/2): 16-30.
24. Hjørland, B. 2001. Towards a theory of aboutness, subject, topicality, theme, domain, field, content... and relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 52 (9): 774-778.
25. Hjørland, B. 2002. Domain analysis in information science. Eleven approaches - traditional as well as innovative. Journal of Documentation 22 (4): 422-462.
26. Hjørland, B. 2003. Fundamentals of knowledge organization. Knowledge Organization 30 (2): 87-111.
27. Hovy, E. 2003. Text summarization, The Oxford handbook of computational linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
28. Huckin, T. 2001. Abstracting from abstracts. In Academic writing in context: Implications and Applications, eds. Martin Hewings and Tony Dudley-Evans, 93-103. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.
29. Hyland, K. 1998. Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company.
30. Hyland, K. 2000. Disciplinary discourses: Social interaction in academic writing. Harlow, England and New York: Longman.
31. Hyland, K. and P. Tse. 2004. Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes 24 (2): 123-139.
32. Kaplan, R. B., S. Cantor, C. Hagstrom, L. D. Kamhi-Stein, Y. Shiotani, and C. B. Zimmerman, 1994. On abstract writing. Text 14 (3): 401-426.
33. International Standard Organization 1976. ISO 214-1976. Documentation - Abstracts for publications and documentation. Geneva: ISO.
34. Lancaster, F.W. 2003. Indexing and abstracting in theory and practice. 3rd ed. London: Facet Publishing.
35. Liddy, E. D. 1991. The discourse-level structure of empirical abstracts: An exploratory study. Information Processing & Management 27 (1): 55-81.
36. López-Arroyo, B. 2001. Estudio descriptive comparado inglés/español de la representación del conocimiento en los "abstracts" de las Ciencias de la Salud. PhD thesis. Universidad de Valladolid. Available at: http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/FichaObra.html?Ref= 8034.
37. Lorés, R. 2004. On RA abstracts: From rhetorical structure to thematic organisation. English for Specific Purposes 23 (3): 280-302.
38. Mani, I. 2001. Automatic summarization. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company.
39. Martín Martín, P. 2001. La textura léxico- sintáctica de los resúmenes de los artículos científicos en inglés y español. Revista de Lingüística Teórica y Aplicada 39: 101-116.
40. Martín Martín, P. 2003. A genre analysis of English and Spanish research paper abstracts in experimental social sciences. English for Specific Purposes 22 (1): 25-43.
41. Martín Martín, P. 2003a. Análisis contrastivo de los componentes estructurales y gramaticales de los resúmenes de los artículos científicos. Revista Española de Lingüística 33 (1): 153-183.
42. Martín Martín, P. and S. Burgess. 2004. The rhetorical management of academic criticism in research article abstracts. Text 24 (2): 171-195.
43. Melander, B., J. M. Swales, and M. Fredrickson. 1994. Journal abstracts from three academic fields in the United States and Sweden: National or disciplinary proclivities? In Culture and style of academic discourse, ed. A. Duszak. New York and Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
44. Méndez-Cendón B. and B. López-Arroyo. 2003. Intralinguistic analysis of medical research papers and abstracts: Rhetorical and phraseological devices in scientific information. Terminology 9 (2): 247-268.
45. Montesi, M. In press. Métodos de evaluación y calidad de resúmenes documentales. Gijón: Trea.
46. Montesi M. and B. Gil Urdiciain. In press. Abstracts: classifying problems from the user perspective. Journal of Information Science.
47. Mulrow, C.D., S. B. Thacker, and J. A. Pugh. 1988. A proposal for more informative abstracts of review articles. Annals of Internal Medicine 108: 613-615.
48. National Information Standards Organization 1997. ANSI/NISO Z39.14-1997. Guidelines for abstracts. Bethesda, Maryland: NISO Press.
49. Pérez Ruiz, L. 2001. Análisis retórico contrastivo: el resumen lingüístico y médico en inglés y en español. PhD thesis. Universidad de Valladolid. Available at: http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/FichaObra.html?Ref=7782.
50. Pinto Molina, M. 2001. El resumen documental. Paradigmas, modelos y métodos. Madrid: Fundación Germán Sánchez Ruipérez.
51. Rowley, J 1988. Abstracting and indexing. London: Clive Bingley.
52. Salager-Meyer, F. 1990. Discoursal flaws in medical English abstracts: A genre analysis per research-and text-type. Text 10 (4): 365-384.
53. Salager-Meyer, F. 1991. Medical English abstracts: How well are they structured? Journal of the American Society for Information Science: 42 (7): 528-531.
54. Samraj, B. 2002. Disciplinary variation in abstracts: The case of wildlife behaviour and conservation biology. In Academic discourse, ed. J. Flowerdew 40-56. London: Longman.
55. Samraj, B. 2004. An exploration of a genre set: Research article abstracts and introductions in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes 23 (2): 141-156.
56. Staa, B. von 1999. A construçao de auto-imagem a partir de justificativas en resumos cientificos. The ESPecialist 20(1): 1-16.
57. Stotesbury, H. 2003. Evaluation in research article abstracts in the narrative and hard sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2 (4): 327-341.
58. Swales, J.M. 1990. Genre analysi:. English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
59. Tenopir, C. and P. Jacsó. 1993. Quality of abstracts. Online 17 (3): 44-55.
60. Tibbo, H. R. 1992. Abstracting across the disciplines: A content analysis of abstracts from the natural sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities with implications for abstracting standards and online information retrieval. Library and Information Science Research 14: 31-56.
61. Tibbo. H.R. 1993. Abstracting, information retrieval and the humanities: Providing access to historical literature. Chicago and London: American Library Association.
62. Valero Garcés, C. and Ma. C. Calle Martínez. 1997. Contrastive rhetoric in ESP: A cross-linguistic analysis of finite verb profiles in English and Spanish medical abstracts. UNESCO ALSED-LSP Newsletter 20.2 (44): 22-36.
63. Vande Kopple, W. 1985. Some Exploratory Discourse on Metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication 36 (1): 82-93.
64. Ventola, E. 1994. From syntax to text: Problems in producing scientific abstracts in L2. In The syntax of sentence and text, eds. S. Čmejrková and F. Štícha. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company.
65. Webber, P. 1996. Metaphor in medical English abstracts. UNESCO ALSED-LSP Newsletter 19.1 (41): 35-52.
66. Webber, P. 2004. From spoken science to published research article: a comparative case study. In Text and texture: Systemic functional viewpoints on the nature and structure of text, ed. D. Banks. Paris: Harmattan.