Abstracts in Relation to Larger and Smaller Discourse Structures

Abstract

Students usually compose adequate descriptive abstracts, but many confuse summary abstracts with short paraphrases or descriptive abstracts. Textbooks define a summary abstract ambiguously, as a “mini-paper” and/or as a mere statement of an article's topic and conclusions; most textbooks maintain the conceptual distinction between summary and descriptive abstracts even though differences between the two types are blurred in practice. These irregularities are accounted for by a hypothesis: in all levels of discourse, from sentences to extended texts, general and specific components conserve the “shape” of information. Intermediate discourse components (e.g., sentential tense, the syllogistic middle term, or the body of a text) may be deleted to create a smaller equivalent discourse structure. The two polar abstract types represent polar (general vs. specific) text components. Common abstracting errors arise from two sources: failure to distinguish between an abstract as “mini-paper” and a short paraphrase from the body of a long text, but also failure to distinguish between general topical information and the specific claims of a text, attributed to students' usual lack of acquaintance with other literature on a topic, besides the article they attempt to abstract.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Consumers Union, Sore Throats, in The Medicine Show, Lippman

and Aaron

(eds.), pp. 49–53, Mount Vernon, New York, Consumers Union of the United States Inc. (Consumer Reports), 1974.

Lannon

J. M.

, Technical Writing (4th Edition), Little, Brown and Co., Toronto, 1988.

Day

R. A.

, How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper (2nd Edition), ISI Press, Philadelphia, 1983.

Blicq

R. S.

, Technically-Write (3rd Edition), Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1986.

Houp

K. W.

and Pearsall

T. E.

, Reporting Technical Information (6th Edition), Macmillan, New York, 1988.

Farr

A. D.

, Science Writing for Beginners, Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, 1985.

Michaelson

H. B.

, How to Write and Publish Engineering Papers and Reports, ISI Press, Philadelphia, 1982.

Cremmins

E. T.

, The Art of Abstracting, ISI Press, Philadelphia, 1982.

Peirce

C. S.

Ideas, Stray or Stolen, about Scientific Writing, No. 1, Philosophy and Rhetoric, 11:3, pp. 147–155, 1978.

10.

van Dijk

T. A.

, Text and Context: Explorations in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse, Longman, New York, 1977.

11.

Peirce

C. S.

, Collected Papers, volumes I-II, Hartshorne

and Weiss

(eds.), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1960. (All citations refer to paragraph numbers).

12.

Manning

A. D.

Tense and the Structure of Clause Types, Lingua, 67:1, pp. 25–36, 1985.

13.

Toulmin

, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985.

14.

Secor

M. J.

Recent Research in Argumentation Theory, The Technical Writing Teacher, 14:3, pp. 337–354, 1987.

15.

Conway

W. D.

, Essentials of Technical Writing, Macmillan, New York, 1987.

16.

Sherrard

The Psychology of Summary Writing, The Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 15:3, pp. 247–258, 1985.

17.

Williams

J. M.

, Thinking, Writing, and Acculturation, A lecture delivered at the University of Chicago Institute: Interpretive Communities and the Undergraduate Writer, May 1987.