LI Mei-qi

【Abstract】The abstract plays a decisive role in academic writing and reading for many readers can get a clear sketch by just reading the abstract. However， few studies have been done on abstracts of legal articles currently， let alone a specified discussion in genre analysis between English one and Chinese. In view of this， this study aims to analyze the macro-structures of abstracts both in English and Chinese， and compare generic structures and linguistic features of abstracts between the two. Then the possible factors which caused these differences will be mentioned. Based on Bhatias IMRC mode， this study analyzes 20 pieces of legal articles from top legal academic journals at home and abroad and finds that no matter in English or Chinese， the macro-structure of this kind of abstracts all basically tally with Bhatia IMRC model. Due to different writing methods and the way of thinking as well as writing habits， there are some distinguished differences between English and Chinese legal article abstracts in the frequency and distribution of each move as well as the linguistic features.

【Key words】English and Chinese legal article； abstracts； contrastive analysis； generic structure； linguistic features

【作者簡(jiǎn)介】李美奇（1990- ），女，四川南充人，四川省西華師范大學(xué)外國(guó)語(yǔ)學(xué)院，助教，碩士研究生，主要研究方向：專門(mén)用途英語(yǔ)。

Introduction

The communication between China and foreign countries in law has been daily on the increase with the expansion and deepening of open-up policy. Accordingly， academic article has become a very important way for scholars in law at home and abroad to discuss various kinds of hot issues， exchange information， improve the legal system and solve legal disputes. To some extent， in order to gain recognitions in international academic community， a task of top priority for legal research in domestic is to publish high-level academic papers in top international-level academic journals. Hence， to know the differences and grasp the writing regularities of legal article writing between English and Chinese is a pressing matter of the moment.

Bhatia holds that the abstract of academic article has become a recognizable genre. No matter which discipline is， the abstract of academic article commonly has the communicative purpose of definition integrity and mutual understanding. Thus， he points out that the abstract of an article should contain four moves， namely introduction， methodology， results and conclusion， which is the famous IMRC model. This model is established on the basis of Swaless CARS model which is used in analyzing the introduction of research articles. But now， the IMRC model has been widely used in abstracts genre analysis.

Based on Bhatias IMRC mode， this study aims to get an overall understanding of legal article abstracts both in English and Chinese. To be concrete， this study is to answer the following three questions： 1. What is the macro-structure of legal article abstracts in both English and Chinese； 2. What are the differences between English and Chinese legal article abstracts in genre analysis and linguistic features？ 3. What are the possible factors caused these differences in English and Chinese legal article abstracts？

1. The Macro-structures of Legal Article Abstracts in English and Chinese Journals

The research objects of this study are 20 pieces of legal articles from top legal academic journals at home and abroad. According to Bhatias IMRC mode， annotating manually the moves in these twenty legal articles， and then abstracting the moves by Software AntConc， we generalize the features of frequency and distribution of each move and step， and summarize the differences of abstracts between English and Chinese legal articles and explore the in-depth reasons.

1.1 The macro-structure of English Abstracts

After analyzing these 10 pieces of legal article abstracts， we find the macro-structure of this kind of abstract basically tally with Bhatia IMRC model. In detail， introduction and results are two moves which are indispensable in English legal article abstracts. Move 2 methodology and Move 4 conclusion may sometimes appear in some abstracts according to the different needs of articles. Example 1 is a typical English abstract taken directly from Tracking Inconsistent Judicial Behavior in International Review of Law and Economics.

Example 1：

【Abstract】

（1）This paper explores the phenomenon of inconsistent judicial decisions.

（2）We analyze inconsistency in 174 legal decisions from the California Court of Appeal that determine whether or not an arbitration provision in a contract is enforceable as written. We map the facts of cases and introduce a new methodology for measuring inconsistency， directly comparing each case with every precedent.

（3）Our results indicate that cases are inconsistent with about one-quarter of relevant precedents. Inconsistency is highly correlated with conflicting political ideology of the judges on the benches that hear the two cases. Inconsistency also correlates with the publication of cases and the non-publication of precedents.

Judging by the words of “this paper explores”， we can infer that the writer intends to tell us what this article is going to study. By knowing goals or objects of the research， we name the first sentence as Move 1： introducing purpose. And in the second paragraph， the author gives a good indication of the experimental design， including information on the data， procedures or method（s） used. Thus， this paragraph can be named as Move 2： describing methodologies. From the words “our results indicate”， the author mentions his observations and findings and also suggests solutions to the problem. So this paragraph belongs to Move 3： summarizing results. However， this example of abstract lacks Move 4： conclusion which is a common phenomenon in English legal article abstracts.

1.2 The macro-structure of Chinese abstracts

According to Bhatias IMRC model， the macro-structure of Chinese legal article abstracts commonly contains three moves， introduction， results and conclusion. Few Chinese writers may refer the methodologies them used in abstracts. Example 2 is a typical Chinese abstract taken directly from “法治及其社會(huì)資源——兼評(píng)蘇力‘本土資源說(shuō)” in 《現(xiàn)代法學(xué)》.

Example 2：

摘要：

（1）鑒于中國(guó)法治建設(shè)和法律實(shí)施中存在的問(wèn)題， 有必要重新檢視蘇力的“本土資源”說(shuō)。

（2）中國(guó)法治建設(shè)之所以不很成功， 以及現(xiàn)代法律制度之所以在中國(guó)社會(huì)“水土不服”， 最重要的原因， 不是“本土資源”被重視不夠， 而是“社會(huì)資源”（即社會(huì)成員之間的相互信任）供給不足。

（3）歸根到底， 是由于中國(guó)社會(huì)目前面臨嚴(yán)重的信任危機(jī)。

In the first sentence， from the words like “鑒于”， we can infer this is the reason why writer wants to do this study， and from the words “有必要”， we also can know this is the purpose of this study. Thus， this sentence belongs to Move 1： introducing purpose. The second sentence obviously belongs to Move 3： summarizing results， because writer here directly points out the research results. Then， the last sentence belongs to Move 4： presenting conclusions. Because this is a typical concluding sentence to summarize writer findings.

2. Comparison between English and Chinese Legal Articles Abstracts

2.1 Comparison of generic structure

Table 1 the number and percentage of moves in each kind of articles

Move English articles （10） Chinese articles（10）

Number Percentage Number Percentage

Introduction 8 80% 6 60%

Methodology 6 60% 2 20%

Results 10 100% 8 80%

Conclusion 6 60% 10 100%

Table 2 the percentage of each move in each corpora

Move English articles Chinese articles

1. Introduction 26.7% 30.8%

2. Methodology 20% 7.7%

3. Results 33.3% 30.8%

4. Conclusion 20% 38.4%

From the table 1， we can easily find that no matter for English or Chinese legal articles abstracts， introduction and results are two necessary moves which may not be omitted by writers. However， English and Chinese writers also have their own focuses on abstracts writing respectively. From the table 2， we can see directly the following three significant differences. Firstly， for English legal article abstracts， English writers pay more attentions to Move 3 which has a larger percentage than other three moves. That is to say， almost every abstract contains Move 3. While for Chinese legal article abstracts， writers take Move 4 more seriously of which the percentage is 100%. Whats more， English writers are more likely to mention their research methodologies in abstracts， while Chinese writers seldom do this. Only 20% Chinese legal article abstracts contain Move 2 while 60% English legal article abstract contain this move. The last but not least， in English legal article abstracts， Move 1 and Move 3 are two important parts which have to appear in abstracts. In contrast， in many Chinese legal article abstracts， Move 3 and Move 4 are two essential parts which must be introduced writers in detail.