The grammar of academic discourse

Task 4: Study Table 2, which shows some types of language commonly associated with academic and non-academic writing. Note that individual writers do not always use these ‘correctly’: some academic writers tend towards informality, while some personal writing can seem quite formal.

Table 2: Key attributes of academic and non-academic texts

One kind of academic writing that you will read frequently is the abstract. When an academic article is quite long, an abstract serves as a summary or an overview of it. Some lecturers will ask you to write an abstract of your own work. Read the abstract below, then do the tasks that follow.

The underlined parts are examples of non-academic language: put each into the correct column, using Table 2 for reference. (Note: Some of them may fit into more than one column.)

Although the text is non-academic, there are a few elements of academic language use. Work in groups and find three examples of academic language in it.

Features of academic writing [2]

Introduction

Academic writing in English is linear, which means it has one central point or theme with every part contributing to the main line of argument, without digressions or repetitions. Its objective is to inform rather than entertain. As well as this it is in the standard written form of the language. There are eight main features of academic writing that are often discussed. Academic writing is to some extent: complex, formal, objective, explicit, hedged, and responsible. It uses language precisely and accurately.

Complexity

Written language is relatively more complex than spoken language (Biber, 1988; Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad & Finegan, 1999; Chafe, 1982; Cook, 1997; Halliday,1989).

Written texts are lexically dense compared to spoken language - they have proportionately more lexical words than grammatical words. Written texts are shorter and have longer, more complex words and phrases. They have more noun-based phrases, more nominalisations, and more lexical variation.

Written language is grammatically more complex than spoken language. It has more subordinate clauses, more "that/to" complement clauses, more long sequences of prepositional phrases, more attributive adjectives and more passives than spoken language.

The following features are common in academic written texts: Noun-based phrases, Subordinate clauses/embedding, Complement clauses, Sequences of prepositional phrases, Participles, Passive verbs, Lexical density, Lexical complexity, Nominalisation, Attributive adjectives

Formality

Academic writing is relatively formal. In general this means that in an essay you should avoid colloquial words and expressions.

You should avoid:

a. colloquial words and expressions; ""stuff", "a lot of", "thing", "sort of",

b. abbreviated forms: "can't", "doesn't", "shouldn't"

c. two word verbs: "put off", "bring up"

d. sub-headings, numbering and bullet-points in formal essays - but use them in reports.

e. asking questions.

Precision

In academic writing, facts and figures are given precisely. Do not use "a lot of people" when you can say "50 million people".

Objectivity

Written language is in general objective rather than personal. It therefore has fewer words that refer to the writer or the reader. This means that the main emphasis should be on the information that you want to give and the arguments you want to make, rather than you. This is related to the basic nature of academic study and academic writing, in particular. Nobody really wants to know what you "think" or "believe". They want to know what you have studied and learned and how this has led you to your various conclusions. The thoughts and beliefs should be based on your lectures, reading, discussion and research and it is important to make this clear.

1. Compare these two paragraphs:

The question of what constitutes "language proficiency" and the nature of its cross-lingual dimensions is also at the core of many hotly debated issues in the areas of bilingual education and second language pedagogy and testing. Researchers have suggested ways of making second language teaching and testing more "communicative" (e.g., Canale and Swain, 1980; Oller, 1979b) on the grounds that a communicative approach better reflects the nature of language proficiency than one which emphasizes the acquisition of discrete language skills.

We don't really know what language proficiency is but many people have talked about it for a long time. Some researchers have tried to find ways for us to make teaching and testing more communicative because that is how language works. I think that language is something we use for communicating, not an object for us to study and we remember that when we teach and test it.

Date: 2016-04-22; view: 2706