1 / 13

ENGAGING WITH THE LITERATURE, ENGAGING WITH THE READER: EVALUATION IN ACADEMIC WRITING

ENGAGING WITH THE LITERATURE, ENGAGING WITH THE READER: EVALUATION IN ACADEMIC WRITING. Norwegian Forum for English for Academic Purposes (NFEAP), Summer Seminar, June 9-10, 2011 Daniel Lees Fryer Department of Languages and Literatures, University of Gothenburg

mingan
Download Presentation

ENGAGING WITH THE LITERATURE, ENGAGING WITH THE READER: EVALUATION IN ACADEMIC WRITING

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. ENGAGING WITH THE LITERATURE, ENGAGING WITH THE READER: EVALUATION IN ACADEMIC WRITING Norwegian Forum for English for Academic Purposes (NFEAP), Summer Seminar, June 9-10, 2011 Daniel Lees Fryer Department of Languages and Literatures, University of Gothenburg Center for Education Research and Development, Oslo University College daniel.lees.fryer@sprak.gu.se

  2. Introduction • Background • Dialogism, Evaluation, and Academic Discourse • Summary of Part of Ongoing PhD Project • Engagement in Medical Research Discourse • The Dialogic Perspective in EAP • A Brief Example • Concluding Remarks • References

  3. Dialogism, Evaluation, and Academic Discourse • All utterances are dialogic – they occur against a “background of other […] utterances on the same theme, a background made up of contradictory opinions, points of view, and value judgments” (Bakhtin 1981: 281). • => all utterances are thus stanced, attitudinal, or evaluative in some way (Martin & White 2005: 92; Hunston & Thompson 1999: 2; Hyland 2005: 174). • Way in which researchers engage with other voices in the discourse, i.e. the literature and the reader, is integral part of social practice of communicating research – important implications for academic literacy programs such as EAP • How is this dialogism realized in academic discourse?

  4. PhD Project: “Intersubjective Positioning in Medical Research Discourse” • Case in point: medical research discourse – ELF in research and education in this field, tradition of EMP, large research output ≈> interdiscursive influence on other domains; medical research articles (RAs) – primary site for construction/negotiation of knowledge in field (MacDonald 2002) • Previous related studies on medical research discourse focus on specific linguistic resources such as modality, hedging, and attribution (e.g. Salager-Meyer 1994,1999, Thomas & Hawes 1994). Generally little emphasis on potential interrelation of these and other resources and esp. on their dialogic relevance (White 2003; cf. Hyland 2005, interaction in academic discourse)

  5. PhD Project: “Intersubjective Positioning in Medical Research Discourse” • Criticisms of some research approaches to resources dealt with under headings of hedging, modality, attribution: • “accounts of epistemic modals and similar resources […] often assume that the sole function of these wordings is to reveal the speaker/writer’s state of mind or knowledge, to indicate that the speaker/writer is uncertain or tentative and is not committed to the truth value of the proposition” (White 2003: 261) • These resources “have largely only been considered from a perspective of theories of language which view the individual, psychological, and self-expressive function of language as primary and as fundamental, and which, in many cases, see meaning as ultimately a matter of ‘truth conditions’ and not of social relationships” (Martin & White 2005: 94) • Could these comments also apply to EAP teaching material?

  6. Fig 1. System Network for Engagement/Heterogloss; features in bold, glosses in italic Theoretical framework: SFG, appraisal (Halliday 1978; Halliday & Matthiessen 2004; Martin & White 2005) Adapted from Martin & White (2005: 134)

  7. The Dialogic Perspective in EAP: A Brief Example • Example from a semester-long course in academic writing at OUC • Five full-day sessions, over 10-wk period, plus exam (submission of revised text + reflection statement + presentation) (6 ECTS) • Nine participants, mixed-discipline group, PhD candidates and other academic staff • Core material: participants’ work-in-progress RAs and reference RAs • Session 4: Stance and Engagement • Pre-session preparation: read Hyland (2005) and selected pages in Swales & Feak (2004) – other supportive material provided and discussed during session: uefap.com, Hyland (2004)

  8. The Dialogic Perspective in EAP: A Brief Example • Hyland’s (2005: 177, fig. 1) model of “interaction,” inspired by Bakhtin’s dialogism and intertextuality (ibid. 176) – a middle ground between “truth value” approaches and dialogism modeled by appraisal framework? • Overlap among categories, multifunctionality • Extensive examples of category realizations

  9. The Dialogic Perspective in EAP: A Brief Example In-session work: • Discussing Hyland (2005): questions, thoughts, summarizing of main points • Identifying markers of interaction in reference RAs, using lists compiled from Hyland (2004, 2005) • Describing function of these markers: Why are they used? Similar/different functions within and across texts? Alternative ways of expressing these interaction markers? • Same/similar procedure and questions for participant’s own writing • How do ref RAs and participant’s RA compare? • Participants talk about what they found, comparing with each other

  10. The Dialogic Perspective in EAP: A Brief Example • Participants’ responses: • Usually positive to Hyland (2005) – easy to read, accessible, particularly after having read relevant sections in Swales & Feak (2004) • Some participants focus on single resources across RAs/own writing, others focus on identifying as many interaction markers as possible • Some compare frequencies of features in ref RA with those in their own writing – equate frequency with quality, e.g. “they had 12 mays, and I only had 2” – rather than looking at functionality • Interesting discussions based on unexpected findings and cross-disciplinary differences/similarities: How do different authors/disciplines use interaction markers?

  11. Concluding Remarks • Dialogic perspective: • seems to complement existing approaches to modality, hedging, attribution • also complements notions of discourse community, social practice, social construction of knowledge • may be intuitive for learner: accounts for language and communication as social phenomena • “I find the perspective [of Hyland 2005] interesting, maintaining that writers use language to position themselves and interact with the reader, not only trying to present an external reality” (comment by course participant in reflection statement). • Dialogic approach meant to complement other approaches – but different dialogic approaches proposed (e.g. Hyland 2005, Martin & White 2005). Assuming dialogic approach is a valuable one, what would be best-suited model for EAP? Group differences?

  12. THANKS! References • Bakhtin MM. 1981. The dialogic imagination. Emerson C, Holquist M (trans). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. • Halliday MAK. 1978. Language as social semiotic. London: Arnold. • Halliday MAK, Matthiessen CMIM. 2004. Introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold. • Hunston S, Thompson G (eds). 1999. Evaluation in text: authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford, Oxford University Press. • Hyland K. 2004. Disciplinary discourses: social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbor, MA: University of Michigan Press. • Hyland K. 2005. Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies 7: 173-192. • MacDonald MN. 2002. Pedagogy, pathology and ideology: the production, transmission and reproduction of medical discourse. Discourse & Society 13: 447-467.

  13. References • Martin JR, White PRR. 2005. The language of evaluation: appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. • Salager-Meyer F. 1992. A text-type and move analysis study of verb tense and modality distribution in medical English abstracts. English for Specific Purposes 11: 93-113. • Salager-Meyer F. 1994. Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes 13: 149-170. • Swales JM, Feak CB. 2004. Academic writing for graduate students: essential tasks and skills. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. • Thomas S, Hawes TP. 1994. Reporting verbs in medical journal articles. English for Specific Purposes 13: 129-148. • White PRR. 2003. Beyond modality and hedging: a dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text 23(2): 259-284.

More Related