Academic Writing Workshop (3)

1. Academic Writing Workshop (3) Organisation and planning Institute of English, University of Silesia May 5th, 2009

2. Plans for AWW meetings • In-text citation, list of references • Main text editing, quotations • Organisation and planning • Peer reviewers’ comments

3. Helpful sources: Arnaudet, Martin L. and Mary E. Barrett. 1984. Approaches to academic reading and writing. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Murray, Rowena. 2005. Writing for academic journals. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press. Swales, John M. and Christine B. Feak. 2004. Academic writing for graduate students: A course for non-native speakers of English. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press Swales, John M. 1990. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: CUP.

4. „Język utworu science fiction realizuje ciążącą na nim funkcję kreacyjną nie tylko poprzez paralelne do prezentowanego novum innowacje w zakresie swej własnej materii. Może tę funkcje realizować również przez zmianę znaczeń tworów zachowujących na poziomie leksyki swój dotychczasowy kształt. Będziemy tu mieli do czynienia z klasycznymi niejako neosemantyzmami i przypadkami, kiedy zmiana znaczenia nie odbywa się na linii nazwa – desygnat, lecz w rezultacie współwyznaczania treści i zakresu znaczenia przez dwa lub więcej zestawione ze sobą składniki wypowiedzenia.” (H-1969)

5. I have something interesting and/or important to say. I want you to understand that this matter is extremely complex and it did take some ingenuity to unravel the problem. It is understood that I am the expert here, so you’d better brace up and pay attention, and if you get lost on the way, you go back to the reading room. Culture-based approaches to academic writing?

6. I understand that you appreciate the fact that I have written downthese insightful thoughts that are now here for you to absorb. I understand that you read this text in order to learn from somebody who knows more. I hope I have shown conclusively how things stand and there is no reason to split hairs now. I understand that if you do not see the point I am making, you are either a poor learner or a poor reader, or both. Culture-based approaches to academic writing?

7. I have something interesting and/or important to say. I want you to understand that the matter is extremely complex and it did take some ingenuity to unravel the problem. It is understood that I am the expert here, so you’d better brace up and pay attention and if you get lost on the way, you go back to the reading room. I want to tell you something you may find interesting and/or important. I ask you for your time and attention and promise not to take more of these than truly necessary to present my point. Since it is MY point I am making, and I understand that you do not necessarily read my thoughts, I take it upon myself to provide you with all the data I believe you need to see my point. Culture-based approaches to academic writing?

8. I understand that you appreciate the fact that someone has written down all those profound observations that are now here for you to absorb. I understand that you read this text in order to learn from somebody who knows more. I hope I have shown conclusively how things stand and there is no reason to split hairs now. I understand that if you do not see the point I am making, you are either a poor learner or a poor reader, or both. I understand that if you embark on reading, you will do it with good will so as to see the point I am making. I do expect you to have your own thoughts on the matter, which may be different from mine. I hope that what I have to say will bring you closer to my way of thinking. I hope that presenting my point does not close the topic but that it may inspire you to investigate it further. I understand that if you do not see the point I am making, I am either a poor scholar or a poor writer, or both. Culture-based approaches to academic writing?

9. Author and Reader are partners; • A and R are fellow scholars who negotiate points of view 1. to develop their own understanding of a problem and 2. to contribute to the development of their discipline or area; • Knowledge is created in a dialogue, it is a process rather than an object one may possess or transfer.

10. Formal outline: Division into sections Based on Arnaudet and Barrett (1984: 107).

11. Outline of a research paper

12. The IMRD structure of a RP • Introduction • “to provide the rationale for the paper, movingfrom general discussion of the topic to theparticular question or hypothesis being investigated” (Swales and Feak, 2004: 156); • “to attract interestin the topic – and hence readers” (Swales and Feak, 2004: 156). • Methods • to describe the theoretical approach, the material analysed and the procedure applied (Swales and Feak, 2004). • Results • to describe the findings with “variable amounts ofcommentary” (Swales and Feak, 2004: 157). • Discussion • to offer “an increasinglygeneralized account of what has been learnedin the study” (Swales and Feak, 2004: 157), usually through references to issues raised in the introduction and points established in the results. May subsume concluding remarks or be followed by a separate concluding section.

13. Sections of a RP

14. Title • A working title helps to focus on the goal; • It is practical to start with the keywords and to decide which keywords MUST appear in the title; • The Title: Subtitle structure • Catchy part: Descriptive part • Jocular part: Serious descriptive part • A quote or an example: Descriptive part (Murray, 2005)

15. Introduction • “to provide the rationale for the paper, movingfrom general discussion of the topic to theparticular question or hypothesis being investigated” (Swales and Feak, 2004: 156); • “to attract interestin the topic – and hence readers” (Swales and Feak, 2004: 156). Create-a-Research-Space Model (Swales, 1990) Move 1: Establishing a research territory a. by showing that the general research area is important,central, interesting, problematic, or relevant in someway (optional) b. by introducing and reviewing items of previous researchin the area (obligatory) Move 2: Establishing a niche a. by indicating a gap in the previous research, raising aquestion about it, or extending previous knowledge insome way. (obligatory) Move 3: Occupying the niche a. by outlining purposes or stating the nature of thepresent research (obligatory) b. by announcing principalfindings (optional) c. by indicating the structure of the RP (optional) (Swales and Feak, 2004: 176).

16. Move 1 Establishing a research territory A note on tense (Swales and Feak, 2004: 182-184): • Past: researcher activity as agent X (2000) investigated Y. • Present Perfect: researcher activity not as agent Such investigations have been carried out under several different labels, including ‘evaluation’ (Hunston, 1994; Humston & Thompson, 2000), ‘intensity’ (Labov, 1984), ‘affect’ (Ochs, 1989), ‘evidentiality’ (Chafe, 1986; Chafe & Nichols, 1986), ‘hedging’ (Holmes, 1988; Hyland, 1996a, b), and ‘stance (Barton, 1993; Beach & Anson, 1992; Biber & Finegan, 1988, 1989; . . .[B-2006] • Present: no reference to researcher activity Currently there are over 62 Sudanese medical schools and research institutions, conductiong most of their research in collaboration with international medical organisations (NERH, 2000).[TEN-2008] • Citational present Li and Flowerdew (2007) also report how Chinese writers of scientific papers are often requested by editors and reviewers to enlist the help of native-speakers . . .[F-2008]

17. Move 2Establishing a niche • establishes the motivation for the studyby indicating that the research so far is incomplete However, previous research in this field hasconcentrated on x; disregarded x; failed to consider x; ignored x; been limited to x; overlooked x; been restricted to x; 1. underestimated x (selected from Swales and Feak, 2004). Nevertheless, these attempts to establish a link between x and y are at present controversial; incomplete; inconclusive; unconvincing; unsatisfactory(selected from Swales and Feak, 2004). Little information/ attention/ work/ data/ research . . . Few studies/ investigations/ researchers/ attempts . . . No studies/ data/ calculations . . . (Swales and Feak, 2004) Yet while studies point to the considerable variation of bundles in different genres (e.g. Biber, 2006 . . .), how far they differ by discipline remains uncertain. [H-2008] Recent recearch (Clark, 1992; . . .), however, suggests a growing trend away from the traditional notion of academic writing as distant and impersonal, towards a recognition that academic writing need not be totally devoid of the writer’s presence. The issue of how writers create identities for themselves in their academic writing thus emerges as a very pertinent area of research. [TJ-1999]

18. Move 3Occupying the niche • to make an offer to fill the gap that has been created in Move 2 by outlining purposes or stating the nature of the present research (Swales and Feak, 2004). Purposive variant • The author specifies his or her main purpose. Descriptive variant • The author specifies the main features of his or her research. The aim of the present paper is to give . . . This paper reports on the results obtained . . .In this paper we give preliminary results for . . . The main purpose of the experiment reported here wasto . . .This study was designed to evaluate . . .The present work extends the use of the last model by . . . We now report the interaction between . . .The primary focus of this paper is on . . .The aim of this investigation was to test . . . It is the purpose of the present paper to provide . . . (Swales and Feak, 2004) Secondary goals or sub-goals: In addition, . . .Additionally, . . .A secondary aim . . .A further reason for . . . (Swales and Feak, 2004) Text organisation

19. Yet while studies point to the considerable variation of bundles in different genres (e.g. Biber, 2006 . . .), how far they differ by discipline remains uncertain. This is the isuue I address in this paper, examining a 3.5 million word corpus to identify the forms and functions of 4-word bundles across four contrasting disciplines. [H-2008] • Recent recearch (Clark, 1992; . . .), however, suggests a growing trend away from the traditional notion of academic writing as distant and impersonal, towards a recognition that academic writing need not be totally devoid of the writer’s presence. The issue of how writers create identities for themselves in their academic writing thus emerges as a very pertinent area of research.Recognising that a writer’s identity in any text is created by and revealed through a combination of his or her many discoursal choices, we have decided to focus on just one of these aspects – the writer’s use of first person pronouns. [TJ-1999] • The present study extends previous research in two ways: 1) it compares and contrasts the use of a wide range of lexico-grammatical features used for the expression of stance (rather than focusing on a particular feature), and 2) it describes major patterns of register variation within the university, comparing the marking of stance in academic and ‘student management’ registers, within both speech and writing. [B-2006]

20. Textorganisation The rest of this study will be structured as follows. In section 2, we will present an overview of our basic findings about the marking of counterfactuality in simple clauses in our sample. In section 3, we will try to interpret these findings, focusing mainly on the different types of combinations of markers, and the question how the feature of polarity reversal has become associated with this combination of markers. In section 4, finally, we will draw some more general conclusions about the nature of counterfactuality, and discuss how our findings about counterfactuality in simple clauses might be extended to other counterfactual contexts, specifically in conditional constructions. [VLV-2008]

21. Methods • to describe the theoretical approach, the material analysed and the procedure applied (Swales and Feak, 2004). • is explicit about what the author(s) did; • gives reasonsfor actions, explains procedures, specifies categories etc., may give examples; • procedures normally written in the past tense; • packed with terminology, which is often repeated; • sometimes subdivided into sections.

22. 4. Methodology 4.1 Macro-Functions 4.2 Other features (CTRJ-2008) 4. Corpus and procedures (D-2004) 2. Methodology 2.1 The construction of the corpus 2.2 Approach to the analysis of rhetorical structure / move structure 2.3. Approach to the analysis of linguistic realizations of moves and authorial stance (P-2008) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- this study is based; data for the study consist of; this study takes a conservative approach we examined; we included; we counted; each occurrence was identified; the category was interpreted; it was designated; it was classified (Swales and Feak, 2004) WordSmith Tools 4 (Scott, 1996) was used to generate were sampled from; were categorised in terms of; is shown in Table 1; is given in Appendix 1 were chosen to represent I decided to focus on . . . because they are far more common [H-2008; B-2006]

23. Results • to describe the findings with “variable amounts ofcommentary” (Swales and Feak, 2004: 157). • It goes beyond factual recount of the findings; • It often merges into discussion; • It may involve: • Justifying the methodology; • Interpreting the results; • Citing agreement with previous studies; • Commenting on the data; • Admitting difficulties in interpretation; • Pointing out discrepancies (Swales and Feak, 2004: 171).

24. The overall distribution of; There were 240 different . . . In general, . . . but At the same time, In particular, In contrast, On the other hand, At the other end of the table, . . . Although both . . . tend to occur with inanimate subjects, they differ There are, however, some interesting disciplinary differences Again, the reasons for for these differences are unclear, but . . . More interesting is the difference between . . . In classroom teaching, . . . In classroom management, . . . As noted above, . . . are by far the most common . . . As can be seen Fig. 1 shows that; Table 1 above shows[H-2008; B-2006]

25. Discussion (Conclusions) • to offer “an increasinglygeneralized account of what has been learnedin the study” (Swales and Feak, 2004: 157). • must address the research question(s) asked in the introduction; • focuses on points rather than facts; • is interpretive rather than descriptive. As Swales and Feak (2004: 196) observe, it should be more theoretical or more abstract or more general or more integrated with the field or more connected to the real world or more concerned with implicationsor applications

26. Concluding moves: • Move 1:consolidate your research space (obligatory) "phrasesof generality” Overall, . . . In general, . . . On thewhole, . . . In the main, . . . (Swales and Feak, 2004) The overall results indicate . . .The results indicate, overall, that . . .In general, the experimental samples resisted . . . (Swales and Feak, 2004) The basic purpose of this paper was twofold: first, to find out how counterfactuality is markedin simple clauses across languages, and second, to discuss what these patterns of marking tell usabout the nature and origins of counterfactuality.[VLV-2008] My mainpurposeinthisstudyhasbeen to exploretheextent to whichphraseologycontributes to academicwriting by identifyingthe most frequent 4-word bundlesinthekeygenres of fourdisciplines. [H-2008]

27. Move 2:indicate the limitations of your study (optional) It should be noted that this study has examined only . . ., This analysis has concentrated on . . ., The findings of this study are restricted to . . ., This study has addressed only the question of . . ., The limitations of this study are clear: . . ., We would like to point out that we have not . . ., However, the findings do not imply . . ., The results of this study cannot be taken as evidencefor . . ., Unfortunately, we are unable to determine from thisdata . . ., Notwithstanding its limitations, this study does suggest . . ., Despite its preliminary character, the research reported herewould seem to indicate . . ., However exploratory, this study may offer some insight into . . . (Swales and Feak, 2004) The results need to be treated with some caution, of course. I have not discussed . . . [H-2008] • Move 3:identify useful areas of further research (optional) It remains our conviction that more descriptive and explanatory work needs to bedone on even the basic overall structures of RAs, and that text analysis still has aplace in this enquiry. Finally, it can be hard to reconcile clear accounts with broadcoverage, but we still think it is important to do justice to the range of genre productsfound within a single field, not least that of applied linguistics itself. [RA-2004]

28. Sources of examples (other than Swales and Feak, 2004): B-2006 Biber, Douglas. 2006. Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5: 97-116. F-2008 Flowerdew, John. 2008. Scholarly writers who use English as an Additional Language: What can Goffman’s “Stigma” tell us? Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7: 77-86. H-2008 Hyland, Ken. 2008. As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes 27: 4-21. RA-2004 Ruiying, Yang and Desmond Allison. 2004. Research articles in applied linguistics: Structures from a functional perspective. English for Specific Purposes 23: 264-279.

29. TEN-2008 Tambul ElMalik, Abdullahi and Hilary Nesi. 2008. Publishing research in a second language: The case of Sudanese contributors to international medical journals. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7: 87-96. TJ-1999 Tang, Ramona and Suganthi John. 1999. The ‘I’ in identity: Exploring writer identity in student academic writing through the first person pronouns. English for Specific Purposes 18: S23-S39. VLV-2008 Van Linden, An and Jean-Christophe Verstraete. 2008. The nature and origins of counterfactuality in simple clauses. Cross-linguistic evidence. Journal of Pragmatics 40: 1865-1895.

30. Thank you!