Análisis contrastivo inglés-ruso de resúmenes de artículos de investigación del ámbito de geociencias

Maria Belyakova


Un buen dominio del género textual del Resumen resulta fundamental para satisfacer las expectativas de la comunidad científica. Hasta la fecha ya contamos con diferentes investigaciones sobre este género en diversas disciplinas, si bien el Resumen en el ámbito de geociencias ha sido menos estudiado. Por otro lado, el enfoque adoptado en la mayoría de esos estudios se basa en las dicotomías nativo/no nativo. No obstante, el análisis de los resúmenes escritos por rusohablantes todavía presenta un campo de investigación poco explorado. El presente trabajo tiene por objetivo llevar a cabo una comparación lingüística de resúmenes escritos en inglés por geocientíficos noveles rusos, por un lado, y por expertos ingleses nativos, por el otro. Para ello se ha recopilado un corpus de resúmenes geocientíficos en inglés. El análisis multidimensional del corpus generalmente confirma los estudios previos sobre el tema, sin embargo, ha mostrado unas características diferentes en los resúmenes rusos.

Palabras clave

Escritura académica; Resumen de artículo de investigación; Discurso especializado; Lingüística de corpus; Análisis discursivo contrastivo


Abarghooeinezhad, M., & Simin, S. (2015). “Analyses of verb tense and voice of research article abstracts in engineering journals”, International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 47, pp. 139-152.

Alonso Almeida, F. (2014). “Evidential and epistemic devices in English and Spanish medical, computing and legal scientific abstracts: A contrastive study”. In M. Bondi & R. Lorés (eds.). Abstracts in academic discourse: variation and change. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 21-42.

Anthony, L. (2014). AntConc (Version 3.4.4m) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University:

Ayers, G. (2008). “The evolutionary nature of genre: An investigation of the short texts accompanying research articles in the scientific journal Nature”, English for Specific Purposes, 27(1), pp. 22-41.

Bates, R. L., Adkins-Heljeson, M. D., & Buchanan, R. C. (eds.) (1995). Geowriting: A guide to writing, editing, and printing in earth science, (5th ed.). Alexandria, VA: American Geological Institute.

Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). “If you look at…: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks”, Applied linguistics, 25(3), pp. 371-405.

Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge University Press.

Busá, M. G. (2005). “The use of metadiscourse in abstracts: A comparison between economics and psychology abstracts”. In J. Bamford & M. Bondi (eds.). Dialogue within discourse communities: Metadiscursive perspectives on academic genres. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 31-48.

Busch-Lauer, I. A. (1995). “Abstracts in German medical journals: a linguistic analysis”, Information Processing & Management, 31(5), pp. 769-776.

Chen, Y. H., & Baker, P. (2010). “Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic writing”, Language Learning and Technology 14(2), pp. 30-49.

CLAWS WWW tagger. (n.d.) [Computer Software]:

Davis, M. A. (2012). “The abstract: why and how to write one”: (20-09-2017)

De Cock, S. (2004). “Preferred sequences of words in NS and NNS speech”, BELL - Belgian Journal of English Language and Literature, pp. 225–246.

Donovan, S. K. (2017). Writing for Earth Scientists: 52 Lessons in Academic Publishing. John Wiley & Sons.

Dorgeloh, H. & Wanner, A. (2003). “Too abstract for agents? The syntax and semantics of agentivity in English research articles”. In H. Härtl, S. Olsen, H. Tappe (eds.). Mediating between concepts and grammar. Berlin: Mouton

de Gruyter, pp. 433-453.

Dos Santos, M. B. (1996). “The textual organization of research paper abstracts in applied linguistics”. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 16(4), pp. 481-500.

Dudley-Evans, T. (1994). “Variations in the discourse patterns favoured by different disciplines and the pedagogical implications”. In J. Flowerdew (ed.). Academic listening. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 146–158.

Friginal, E., & Mustafa, S. S. (2017). “A comparison of US-based and Iraqi English research article abstracts using corpora”, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 25, pp. 45-57.

Gilquin, G., Granger, S., & Paquot, M. (2007). “Learner corpora: The missing link in EAP pedagogy”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(4), pp. 319-335.

Graetz, N. (1985). “Teaching EFL students to extract structural information from abstracts”. In J. M. Ulijn and A. K. Pugh (eds.). Reading for professional purposes: Methods and materials in teaching languages. Belgium, Leuven: Acco, pp. 123–135.

Granger, S. (2002). “A bird’s-eye view of learner corpus research”. In S. Granger, J. Hung, & S. Petch-Tyson (eds.). Computer learner corpora, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 3–33.

Harwood, N. (2005). “‘We do not seem to have a theory… The theory I present here attempts to fill this gap’: Inclusive and exclusive pronouns in academic writing”, Applied Linguistics, 26(3), pp. 343-375.

Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourse: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.

Hyland, K. (2008). “Academic clusters: Text patterning in published and postgraduate writing”, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(1), pp. 41–62.

Hyland, K. (2011). “10 Disciplines and Discourses: Social Interactions in the Construction of Knowledge”. In Starke Meyerring, D. (ed.). Writing in knowledge societies. Perspectives on writing. WAC Clearinghouse, pp. 193-214.

Hyland, K., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2002). “EAP: Issues and directions”, Journal of English for academic purposes, 1(1), pp. 1-12.

Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2011). “Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English-and Chinese-medium journals”, Journal of Pragmatics, 43(11), pp. 2795-2809.

Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Klimzo, B. N. (2006). Remeslo tekhnicheskogo perevodchika. [The Craft of Technical Translation]. Moscow: Valent.

Landes, K. K. (1966). “A scrutiny of the abstract, II”, Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 50(9), pp. 1992-1999.

Lorés, R. (2004). “On RA abstracts: from rhetorical structure to thematic organisation”, English for Specific Purposes, 23(3), pp. 280-302.

Maia, B., Silva R., Barreiro, A., & Cecília Fróis. (2008). “N-grams in search of theories” In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (ed.). Corpus Linguistics, Computer Tools, and Applications-State of the Art: PALC 2007 (Vol. 17). Peter Lang, pp. 71-84.

Martı́n, P. M. (2003). “A genre analysis of English and Spanish research paper abstracts in experimental social sciences”, English for Specific Purposes, 22(1), pp. 25-43.

Monk, B., & Burak, A. (2001). “Russian speakers”. In M. Swan, & B. Smith (eds.). Learner English: A Teacher's Guide to Interference and Other Problems. Cambridge University Press, pp. 145-161.

Nwogu, K. N. (1990). Discourse variation in medical texts: Schema, theme and cohesion on professional and journalistic accounts. Nottingham: Department of English Studies, University of Nottingham.

Nwogu, K. N., & Bloor, T. (1991). “Thematic progression in professional and popular medical texts”. In E.Ventola (ed.). Functional and systemic linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 369–384.

Pho, P. (2013). Authorial stance in research articles: Examples from applied linguistics and educational technology. Springer.

Perales-Escudero, M., & Swales, J. M. (2011). “Tracing convergence and divergence in pairs of Spanish and English research article abstracts: The case of Ibérica”. Ibérica, (21), pp. 49-70: (20-09-2017).

Prozorova, L. (1997). “If not given, then what? Things that come first in academic discourse”. In A. Duszak (ed.). Culture and styles of academic discourse. Trends in Linguistics.Studies and Monographs,104. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 305-322.

Pyankova, T. M. (1994). ABC perevodchika nauchno-tekhnicheskoi literaturi [ABC of scientific and technical literature translation]. Moscow: Letopis.

Rashidi, N., & Ghaffarpour, H. (2012). “A generic analysis of academic written discourses: TEFL and Astrophysics in contrast”, TELL, 6(1), pp. 161-184.

Römer, U. (2009). “English in academia: Does nativeness matter?”, Anglistik: International Journal of English Studies, 20(2), pp. 89–100.

Samraj, B. (2005). “An exploration of a genre set: Research article abstracts and introductions in two disciplines”, English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), pp. 141-156.

Sanz, R. L. (2006). “‘I will argue that’: First person pronouns as metadiscoursal devices in research article abstracts in English and Spanish”, ESP across Cultures, 3, pp. 23-40.

SCImago. (2017). SJR — SCImago Journal & Country Rank: (21-06-2017).

Scott, M. (2004). Oxford WordSmith Tools (version 4.0) [Computer Software]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford University Press.

Spillner, B. (1996) “Interlinguale Stilkontraste in Fachsprachen” [Elements of style in scientific discourse]. In B. Spillner (ed.). Stil in Fachsprachen. Peter Lang, pp. 105-137.

Stotesbury, H. (2003). “Evaluation in research article abstracts in the narrative and hard sciences”, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(4), pp. 327-341.

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. (2000). English in today’s research world: A writing guide. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Swales, J. & Feak, C. (2012). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (3rd ed.). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Taylor, S. (n.d). “Notes, rules, and tips on technical writing for earth science students”: (20-09-2017).

Tribble, C. (2017). “ELFA vs. Genre: A new paradigm war in EAP writing instruction?”, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 25, pp. 30-44.

Tseng, F. P. (2011). “Analyses of move structure and verb tense of research article abstracts in applied linguistics”, International journal of English linguistics, 1(2), pp. 27-39.

Van Bonn, S., & Swales, J. M. (2007). “English and French journal abstracts in the language sciences: Three exploratory studies”, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(2), pp. 93-108.

Vassileva, I. (1995). “Some aspects of the rhetorical structure of specialized written discourse in English, Bulgarian and Russian”, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(2), pp. 173-186.

Vassileva, I. (1998). “Who am I/who are we in academic writing? A contrastive analysis of authorial presence in English, German, French, Russian and Bulgarian”, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(2), pp. 163-185.

Ventola, E. (1994). “Abstracts as an object of linguistic study”. In S. Cmejrkova, F. Danes, & E. Havlova (eds.). Writing vs. Speaking: Language, text, discourse, communication. Tubingen: Gunter Narr, pp. 333–352.

Yakhontova, T. (2002). “Selling or ‘telling’? The issue of cultural variation in research genres”, In J. Flowerdew (ed.). Academic Discourse. Harlow: Longman, pp. 216-232.

Yakhontova, T. (2006). “Cultural and disciplinary variation in academic discourse: The issue of influencing factors”, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(2), pp. 153-167.

Yang, Y. (2013). “Exploring linguistic and cultural variations in the use of hedges in English and Chinese scientific discourse”, Journal of Pragmatics, 50(1), pp. 23-36.


Licencia de Creative Commons
Este obra está bajo una licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional.