Abstracting is a purposeful understanding of
the original text, its interpretation and then a special projection of the information
deemed to be worth of abstracting into a new text.
The first stage of the
abstracting process is orientation, followed by the interiorization of the perceived
needs, planning, translation (execution) and review.
An important element
of many of these stages is reading, a special technique of which is selective reading,
that allows the exploration of the text, searching for useful information, then immerse
study of selected segments of the text.
It is especially
important to differentiate between informative abstracts and indicative ones. Indicative
abstracts exclusively consist of indicative utterances, informative abstracts consist of
informative utterances, while mixed (indicative-informative) abstracts contain a blend of
these. Indicative abstracts contain some kind reference to the original that is (often
implicitly) the following: “(In) the (abstracted) document…”, etc.
Abstracting is a
professional activity based on abilities and skills that can be and have to be learnt. It
is based on summarizing information that can be spontaneous, everyday activity, but can
also acquire a semi-professional character.
The quality of abstracts can be judged using the
following criteria:
- What is the level of abstraction?
- Is there enough important
information of the original text included
in the abstract?
- Are unnecessary details excluded?
- Are there any misunderstandings
of the original text reflected in the abstract?
- How well is it worded in
the target language ? (Koltay 2003)
Proposals represent a
genre that is highly useful for any writer, including translators. Well-written proposals
multiply the chances of being accepted. In many cases proposals have to be prepared in two
or more languages. Translators familiar with the genre and the cultural differences
between the source and the target language can render a highly useful service. This is
true even if we know that proposals differ by their type and conditions of their
submission.
In the most general
terms, a written proposal is a document in which the writer offers something beneficial to
the reader in exchange for something in return.
The writer (or writers
and the organization they represent) may offer to conduct research, develop systems,
design and build equipment, improve services, repair damage, increase profits, etc. In
return, the reader (or readers and the organization they represent) will provide funding,
payment, equipment, and other support.
The proposal may
reflect a need recognized and stated by the reader, by the writer, or both. This gives us
the foundations for a typology of proposals. Not all proposals, but most of them fall into
the following six categories:
applications for government
grants,
bids for government contracts,
applications for foundation
grants,
applications for corporate
grants,
bids for commercial contracts,
internal proposals (where
writer and reader are members of the same organization). (Haselkorn 1985)
Proposals are often
written according to requirements set in Requests for Proposals (RFPs).
Proposals are
delivered to a specific audience to achieve a specific purpose. The audience of a proposal
may include both technical and non-technical readers. Both groups have to be addressed.
One part of the audience may be interested in the results, other part in the costs; again
others in trying out new things. Some may resist new ideas. he following questions have to
be answered concerning the audience of a proposal:
Who is the real audience?
What does the reader already
know?
What does the reader want to
know?
What does the reader not want
to know?
What does the reader perceive?
The person (or
persons) who can make a decision or take action as a result of the proposal constitutes
the real audience. In many cases there are many readers of a proposal. The first reader
may have the authority to reject the idea but not the authority to approve it. A proposal
may be evaluated by a team selected for that purpose. A good proposal should include
information necessary to have each person who receives it take the appropriate action, as
well as information required to ensure that the right person sees it. From this
perspective, the audience can be divided into three distinct categories:
Primary audience: The person or
persons who can make decisions or act on the proposal.
Secondary audience: Those who
will be affected by the decision or action taken.
Intermediate audience: Those
who review and route the proposal.
Individual readers
often tend to focus on their own areas of interest and specialization. Some of them focus
on technical details; others on budgetary and financial matters; and those who work in
personnel may focus primarily on the way people will be influenced. (Bowman & Branchaw 1992).
A linguistic analysis
of research grant proposals submitted to the European Union (Connor & Mauranen 1999) showed, that following the
model for article introductions proposed by Swales (1990) ten rhetorical moves can be
identified. Of these moves the following nine occur in the majority of proposals:
The first move in most
proposals examined was one which established the territory in which the research placed
itself. They found that it is possible to distinguish two types of territory, of which at
least one, but sometimes both were used:
- a 'real-world'
territory, i.e. how the proposed project is
situated in the world outside the research
field;
- a research
territory, that is, the field of research
within the discipline or disciplines of the
project.
The Gap move indicates
that there is a gap in knowledge or a problem in the territory. The gap move is again very
similar to the second swalesian introduction move known as "establishing a
niche." Like the territorial move, the gap can also be placed either in the 'real
world' (for instance environmental, commercial, or financial problems), or in the research
world (for example pointing out that something is not known or not known with certainty,
or needs to be known).
An important aspect of
this move is placing one's work in relation to the consensus in the field. The researcher
needs to be innovative, yet the proposed research has to remain within the constraints of
the field. Citation of sources helps a great deal in solving this dilemma.
The Goal move is a
statement of the aim, or general objective of the study. Depending on its formulation, the
real-world element may be present or the research territory element may dominate.
The Means move
specifies how the goal will be achieved. This move describes the methods, procedures,
plans of action, and tasks that are to lead to the goal.
The Reporting Previous
Research move consists of reporting or referring to earlier research in the field, either
by the proposers themselves or by others.
Using the Achievements
move, the proposals present their anticipated results, findings, or outcomes of the study.
The Benefits move
comprises intended or projected outcomes of the study, presented in terms of their
usefulness and value to the world outside, the study itself, or the domain of research in
itself.
The Competence Claim
move introduces the research group, or its responsible members. It makes a statement to
the effect that the research group is well qualified, experienced, and generally capable
of carrying out the tasks it proposes to undertake.
The Importance Claim
move which makes out the proposal, its objectives, anticipated outcomes, or the territory
as particularly important or topical, much needed or urgent with respect to either the
'real world' or to the research field.
No matter how
persuasive the tone of the proposal, it may be rejected. In general terms, proposals are
rejected because of:
a) No trust: For one reason or another, the reader
does not trust the writers, their organization,
or members of the given profession in general.
b) No need: The reader doesn't perceive a problem.
c) No desire: The reader perceived a problem
but doesn't believe that it is sufficiently
important to worry about.
d) No urgency: The reader perceives a problem
and would like it solved but has higher priorities
at the moment.
e) No value: The reader perceived a problem
and would like it to be solved, but doesn't
believe that the proposed solution will provide
an adequate return on investment (Bowman &
Branchaw 1992).
This list shows well
the differences between solicited and unsolicited proposals. If we prepare a solicited
proposal, it is unlikely that they would be rejected on (b) and (c). Obviously the
reader's perception is depends on how detailed and unambiguous the RFP was. This is also
true in the case of (d). "No trust" may be the case regardless of whether the
proposal is solicited or unsolicited.
Beside of this, it is
useful to see the following, more detailed list of possible causes for rejection.
1. The proposer did
not demonstrate a clear understanding of the problem.
2. The proposal did
not arrive by the submission deadline.
3. The information
requested in the RFP was not provided.
4. The objectives were
not well-defined.
5. The wrong audience
was addressed.
6. The procedures and
methodology were not specific.
7. The overall design
was questionable.
8. The proposal lacked
evidence of intent to meet all terms and conditions specified in the RFP.
9. Cost estimates were
not realistic: either too high or too low.
10. Resumes of key
personnel were inadequate.
11. Personnel lacked
experience or the required qualifications.
12. The proposal was
poorly written and not well-organized.
13. The proposal did
not follow the organizational pattern specified in the RFP.
14. The completed
proposal was not attractive.
15. The proposal did
not provide adequate assurance that completion deadlines would be met.
16. Essential data
were not included in the proposal.
17. The proposed
facilities were inadequate.
18. The proposal
failed to show that essential equipment and facilities were available.
19. The proposed time
schedule was unrealistic.
20. The proposal
failed to include the qualifications of the submitting organization (Bowman & Branchaw 1992).
We have mentioned the
importance of proposals to be well-written. The above arguments have proven how important
is the role that extralingual factors play in producing successful proposals. Just to
mention one obvious issue: If the proposal does not arrive by the submission deadline, is
this fact related in any way to linguistics?
References
Bowman, J.P. & Branchaw, B.P. (1992). How to Write
Proposals that Produce. Phoenix, Arizona: Oryx Press.
Connor, U. & Mauranen, A. ( 1999). Linguistic Analysis of
Grant Proposals: European Union Research Grants. English for Specific Purposes.
Vol. 18, No. 1, 47–62.
Haselkorn, M.P. (1985). Proposals. Research in technical communication. M.G. Moran and D.
Journet, (Eds.), (255-283). Westport CT: Greenwood Press.
Koltay, T. (2003) A referálás elmélete
és gyakorlata (Theory and practice of abstracting [In Hungarian] Budapest: Könyvtári
Intézet.
Markel, M.H. (1998). Technical
Writing. Situations and Strategies. 2nd ed. New York: St.Martin's.
Maylath, B. (1997) Writing Globally.
Teaching the Technical Writing Student to Prepare Documents for Translation. Journal of
Business and Technical Communication, Vol. 11, No. 3, 339-352.
Neufeld, M.L. & Cornog,
M. (1983). Abstracting and Indexing: A Career
Guide. Philadelphia, NFAIS.
Swales, J.M. (1990).Genre analysis. English
in academic and research settings. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.
Uso, E & Palmer, J.C. (1998). A product-focused
approach to text summarisation. In: The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. 4,No. 1.
