s. Abstracts serve as a stand-alone source of information and may draw readers’ attention to the articles they are based on. ‘Research article abstracts are the most effective means of sharing research results.’ (Tankó, 2016). The abstracts in the top 100 articles average 153.6 words, with the shortest abstract containing 62 words, and the longest numbering 275 words. No abstract includes any sub-titles. Most are one-paragraph pieces (98 out of 100). The research aims in the abstracts are stated via set phrases which contain ‘aim’ – both noun or verb – in 9 abstracts; ‘to analyse’ (12 abstracts); ‘to focus’ (11 abstracts); ‘to consider’ (7 abstracts); ‘to examine’ (29 abstracts); to argue (16 abstracts); ‘to explore’ (25 abstracts); ‘purpose’ and ‘hypothesis’ (1 abstract each). On the whole, the top 100 article abstracts tend to follow the move structure applicable in applied linguistics (Pho, 2008) and embracing: (1) Situating the Research; (2) Presenting the Research; (3) Methodology; (4) Results; (5) Discussing the Research. The move ‘Presenting the Research’ (No.2 in the above list) is often enforced by ‘Filling in the Knowledge Gap’. Partly, methodology and discussion of the results were omitted in the abstracts to the empirical articles. The above moves are relevant to empirical or research articles, with theoretical articles sticking to a simpler structure, where methodology is rarely included. As for results and their discussion, these sections also aim to convey as a contribution to a knowledge field. The section titles below are headlined according to IMRAD simplified version (Introduction; Methods; Results and Discussion). Section ‘Introduction’. As ‘the introduction is of prime importance in grabbing the reader’s attention’(Ecarnot et al., 2015), we thoroughly compared the introductions to the top 100 articles with the canonical introduction schema for original theoretical and IMRAD-structured (empirical) papers. It implies that the relevance of the research is followed by a field or literature outlining the gap to be filled by the present research; the next step is the research aim (or in addition, hypothesis/ research questions may be included); on top of all, (for a theoretical paper only) a general description of the main body of the articles displays authors’ logic at the end of the introduction. As most articles under discussion (88 out of 100) do not follow the standard IMRAD format, their introductions are often shorter with additional sub-titles for the steps which tend to be included into introductions to scholarly articles at large. The following themed titles and sub-titles exemplify a kind of ‘extensions’ to the introductions: • Literature Review (Ross & Rivers, 2017; Wu, 2018; Du-Babcock & Chan, 2018; Carden, 2018); • Review of literature on climate change discourses in the context of mobilization (Molek-Kozakowska, 2018); • Aims; Literature Review (Marlow, 2015);

中文翻译：

---

前100名被引用话语研究：最新动态

s。摘要是独立的信息源，可以吸引读者注意它们所基于的文章。“研究论文摘要是共享研究成果的最有效手段。” （Tankó，2016年）。前100名文章的摘要平均为153.6个单词，最短的摘要包含62个单词，最长的摘要为275个单词。没有摘要包含任何字幕。大部分是单段的（100个中的98个）。摘要的研究目的通过9个摘要中包含“目标”（名词或动词）的固定短语表述；“分析”（12个摘要）；“专注”（11个摘要）；“考虑”（7个摘要）；“检查”（29个摘要）；争论（16个摘要）；“探索”（25个摘要）；“目的”和“假设”（各1个摘要）。总体上，排名前100的论文摘要倾向于遵循适用语言学的移动结构（Pho，2008）并包含以下内容：（1）开展研究；（2）介绍研究成果；（3）方法论；（4）结果；（5）讨论研究。“呈现研究”这一举动（上述清单中的第二名）通常是由“填补知识鸿沟”来实施的。在部分经验文章的摘要中省略了方法论和结果讨论。以上举动与经验性或研究性文章有关，理论性文章坚持简单的结构，很少包含方法论。至于结果及其讨论，这些部分还旨在传达对知识领域的贡献。下面的小节标题是根据IMRAD简化版（介绍，方法，结果和讨论）标题显示的。“简介”部分。由于``引言对于吸引读者的注意力至关重要''（Ecarnot等人，2015），因此我们对前100名文章的引言与原始理论和IMRAD结构（经验）论文的规范引言进行了全面比较。它暗示着研究的相关性之后是一个领域或文献，概述了本研究要填补的空白；下一步是研究目标（或此外，可能包括假设/研究问题）；最重要的是，（仅针对理论论文）文章正文的一般性描述在引言结尾显示了作者的逻辑。由于大多数讨论中的文章（100条中的88条）都不遵循标准的IMRAD格式，它们的介绍通常会简短一些，并为步骤加上额外的字幕，这些步骤通常会包含在整个学术文章的介绍中。以下主题标题和副标题是对引言的一种“扩展”：•文学评论（Ross＆Rivers，2017； Wu，2018； Du-Babcock＆Chan，2018； Carden，2018）；•在动员背景下审查有关气候变化话语的文献（Molek-Kozakowska，2018年）；目的；文献评论（Marlow，2015）; •在动员背景下审查有关气候变化话语的文献（Molek-Kozakowska，2018年）；目的；文献评论（Marlow，2015）; •在动员背景下审查有关气候变化话语的文献（Molek-Kozakowska，2018年）；目的；文献评论（Marlow，2015）;