On Investigation Of Academic Discourse
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14738/assrj.49.3118Abstract
The article deals with the investigations of academic discourse. The definition of discourse and text, as well as the explanation of academic discourse, research questions, and the comparison about the stated problem are presented in the article. The author presents her attitude toward various definitions of academic discourse. For instance, cited by A.Weidman and R.Patterson the academic discourse is analyzed like this: “Academic discourse, which is historically grounded, includes all lingual activities associated with academia, the output of research being perhaps the most important. The typicality of academic discourse is derived from the unique distinction making activity which is associated with the analytical or logical mode of experience (Weideman 2006, p.81-101). The scientists consider academic discourse to be more than grammar. It is the kind of discourse which has its functions such as exposition, clarification, and conclusion. Academic discourse requires the doers to perform things with language like explanation, definition, comparison, contrast, classification, agreement, disagreement, illustration, elaboration, making claims, seeing implications, inference, exemplifying, anticipating, and conclusion. The article states that this kind of discourse has also its cognitive and analytical processing. The competence is considered to be handling academic language is far more the “skills” of listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Academic discourse encourages the participants to do something about low levels of academic literacy, and in this case a participant should be able to measure that ability accurately and reliably. It is because of that academic discourse is a complex ability which encompasses many subcomponents; a language test that is multifaceted is preferable to a monotone test design and is likely to be more reliable. It is necessary to mention that language courses can be applied to improve academic literacy (Weidman 2014, p.13-22). The three theories such as the speech act theory by Austin and Searle, the frame theory by Goffman and Tannen and the politeness theory by Brown and Levinson have been touched upon in the article as well.
References
Adamson H.D. (1993). Academic Competence: Theory and classroom practice: Preparing ESL students for content courses. New York and London: Longman University Press.
Austin J. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Barthes R. (1970). La Linguistique du discourse – In: Sign, Language, Culture. The Hague-Paris, pp.580-587.
Brown G. and Yule G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Backman L. and Plamer A. (1996). Language Testing in Practice. Oxford: oxford University Press.
Bateson G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine.
Brown P. and Levinson S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Enkvist N.E. (1989). From text to Interpretability: A Contribution to the Discussion of Basic Terms in Text linguistics. Connexity and Coherence: Analysis of Text and Discourse. Ed. By W.Heydrich. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp.369-382.
Elbow P. (1995). "Being a Writer vs. Being an Academic: A Conflict in Goals." College Composition and Communication 46, pp.72-83.
Ferris D. (1998). Students’ views of academic aural/oral skills: A comparative needs analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 32 (2), pp.289-315.
Goffman E. (1986). Frame analysis. New York: Harper and Row.
Goffman E. (1969). Interaction ritual. New York: Anchor Books.
Gumpers J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Geis L.M. (1995). Speech acts and conversation interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grice H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole and Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech acts (pp.41-58). New York: Academic Press.
Garfinkel H. (1969). Studies in ethnomethology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Harris Z. (1956). Discourse Analysis. In: “Language”, 28, pp.1-30.
Halliday M.A.K. and Hassan R. (1971). Linguistic Function and Literary Style: An Inquiry into the language of William Golding’s “The Ingeritors”. “Literary Style: A Symposium”. Ed.Seymour Chatman, London-New York: Oxford University Press, pp.330-368.
Kuhn M.S. (1984). A discourse analysis of discussion in the college classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Harvard University. (UMI No.84211215).
Lyons J. (1995). Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Pomerantz A.(1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/disprefered turn shapes. In M.Atkinson and J.Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action, pp.57-101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales J.M. (1969). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle J. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sack K., Schegloff E.A., and Jefferson G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50, pp.696-735.
Sinclair J., Brazil D. (1982). Teacher Talk. Oxford: OUP.
Tannen D. (Eds.) (1993). Framing in discourse. Oxford-Oxford University Press.
Tannen D. (1984). Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Nowwood, NJ: Ablex.
Tannen D. (2002). Agonism in academic discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 34, pp.1651-1669.
Veyselli.F.Y. (2006). Linguistic Encyclopedia. I Volume. Baku: Mutarjim.
Watanabe S. (1990). Framing in American and Japanese group discussions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. George town University, Washington D.C. (UMI No 414199).
Waring H.Z. (2000). Discourse strategies used in seminar discussion: A conversation analytic approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York: Columbia University Press. (UNI No.9976768).
Weideman, A. (2006). Assessing academic literacy in a task-based approach. Language matters 37(1):81-101. Columbia University, New York: Columbia University Press.
Weideman, A. (2014). Innovation and reciprocity in applied linguistics. Forthcoming in Literator 35(1). Available DOI: Columbia University, New York: Columbia University Press http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/lit.v35i1.1074.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2017 Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
