Loyalty to Traditional Prescriptions or Facing the Challenge of Realities: An Investigation into the Status of Metadiscourse Awareness in Academic Writing Coursebooks
محورهای موضوعی : language teaching
داوود کوهی
1
(
گروه آموزش زبان انگلیسی، واحد مراغه، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، مراغه، ایران
)
کلید واژه: Metadiscourse, academic writing, Metadiscourse awareness, academic writing coursebook,
چکیده مقاله :
The well-established affiliation of metadiscourse research tradition to the philosophy of ESP raises some inevitable expectations on how much and how well the concept has been geared to meet the practical necessities of academic writing pedagogy. In light of such an expectation, a corpus of 35 academic writing coursebooks published during the last three decades was evaluated in terms of the possible realizations of key resources of interaction in pedagogical tasks. Due to its theoretical rigor and analytically operationalized nature, Hyland’s model of metadiscourse (2005a) was taken as the guiding framework for the current evaluation. The quantitative findings emerging from the analysis of the corpus did not sound sufficiently promising, suggesting that those theoretical developments have not yet been ideally translated into pedagogical designs; however, the rich range of resources identified in the tasks (i.e., the 55 categories emerging from the evaluation of the corpus) suggest that the rigorous tradition of research in metadiscourse has contributed to the effective operationalization of the concept for pedagogical objectives. It has been argued that through the effective introduction of the concept of metadiscourse into pedagogical designs and its appropriate operationalization, novice participants of academic/scientific discourse communities would be enabled to redefine the nature of academic communication and get rid of a large number of misconceptions which have become fossilized through long years of the dominance of positivistic thinking.
ارتباط تنگاتنگ سنت پژوهشی فراگفتمان با فلسفه ی "آموزش زبان انگلیسی با اهداف ویژه"، انتظارات اجتناب ناپذیری در مورد نحوه ی استفاده از این عناصر در آموزش نگارش آکادمیک ایجاد نموده است. در پرتو چنین انتظاراتی، تحقیق حاضر به بررسی جایگاه و نمودهای عینی این عناصر در فعالیتهای آموزشی 35 کتاب آموزش نوشتار آکادمیک منتشر شده در طول سه دهه گذشته پرداخته است. نتایج این ارزیابی که بر اساس الگوی فراگفتمان پیشنهاد شده توسط هایلند 2005 a انجام گرفت نشان میدهد که علیرغم ناکافی بودن (به لحاظ کمی) توجه به این عناصر از سوی مولفان کتب آموزشی، فرایند عملیاتی شدن مفاهیم انتزاعی حوزه ی نظری و تبدیل این مفاهیم به ویژگیهای ملموس و عینی مورد استفاده در متون در وضعیت مطلوبی قرار دارد و سنت پژوهشی حوزه ی فراگفتمان آکادمیک به عملیاتی شدن موثر این مفهموم جهت تامین نیازهای عملی آموزش کمک فراوانی کرده است. مولف مقاله حاضر معتقد است که معرفی مفهوم فراگفتمان و عملیاتی نمودن آن برای اهداف آموزشی باعث تغییر نگرش در میان مولفان متون آکادمیک نسبت به اهمیت معنای بین فردی در چنین متونی خواهد شد و به زدوده شدن سوء تفاهم ناشی از حاکمیت نگرشهای اثبات گرا کمک خواهد کرد.
Adel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Afsari, S., & Kuhi, D. (2016). A functional investigation of self-mention in soft science master theses. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(18), 49-64. Akbas, E. (2014b). Commitment-detachment and authorial presence in postgraduate academic writing: A comparative study of Turkish native speakers, Turkish speakers of English and English native speakers. Unpublished PhD, University of York, York. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.2922.6240 Babapoor, M., & Kuhi, D. (2018). Popularization of scientific discourses and penetration of informal elements. The Journal of Applied Linguistics and Applied Literature: Dynamics and Advances, 6 (2), 49-97. https://doi.org/10.22049/JALDA.2019.26353.1090 Bunton, D. (1999). The use of higher level metatext in PhD theses. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 41-56. Chang, Y., & Swales, J. (1999). Informal elements in English academic writing: threats or opportunities for advanced non-native speakers? In C. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: texts, processes and practices. London: Longman. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315840390-8 Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10 (1), 39-71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088393010001002 Dobbs, C. L. (2014). Signaling organization and stance: academic language use in middle grade persuasive writing. Reading and Writing, 27(8), 1327–1352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013-9489-5 Gholami, J., Rafsanjani Nejad, S., & Looragipoor, J. (2014). Metadiscourse markers misuse: A study of EFL learners’ argumentative essays. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98(6), 580–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.454 Halliday. M.A.K. (1993/2004). Writing science: literacy and discursive power. In J.J. Webster (Ed.), The language of science (pp. 119–225). London/New York: Continuum. Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Surging the pill. Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 185-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00038-8 Hyland, K. (1998). Exploring corporate rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEO’s letter. Journal of Business Communication, 35 (2), 224-245. https://doi.org/10.1177/002194369803500203 Hyland, K. (2002). Directives: argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23 (2), 215–239. https://doi.org/10.1093/APPLIN/23.2.215 Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London and New York: Continuum. Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7 (2), 173-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365 Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse. London: Continuum. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2016a). Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance. Written Communication, 33 (3), 251-274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088316650399 Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2016b). We must conclude that…: A diachronic study of academic engagement. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 24, 29-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.09.003 Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2017). Is academic writing becoming more informal? English for Specific Purposes, 45, 40-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2016.09.001 Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2018a). In this paper we suggest‖: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse. English for Specific Purposes, 51, 18-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.02.001 Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2018b). Changing patterns of self-citation: cumulative inquiry or self-promotion? Text & Talk, 38(3), 365-387. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2018-0004 Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005). Hooking the reader: a corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 123–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2004.02.002 Ifantidou, E. (2005). The semantics and pragmatics of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 37 (9), 1325-1353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.11.006 Jaworsky, A., & Coupland, N. (1999). Introduction in A. Jaworsky and N. Coupland (Eds), The discourse reader (pp. 1–44). London and New York: Routledge. Kuhi, D. (2010). A comparative exploration of the nature of interpersonal resources in academic written discourse: Research genre vs. teaching genre. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Islamic Azad University, Tabriz Branch. Kuhi, D. (2017a). Towards the development of a socially-informed and process-oriented model of research in metadiscourse. In C. Hatipoglu, E. Akbas & Y. Bayyurt (Eds). Metadiscourse in Written Genres: Uncovering Textual and Interactional Aspects of Texts (pp. 23-56). Peterlang. Kuhi, D. (2017b). Hybridity of scientific discourses: An intertextual perspective and implications for EAP pedagogy. The Journal of Applied Linguistics and Applied Literature, 5(2), 61-80. https://doi.org/10.22049/jalda.2018.26150.1048 Kuhi, D. (2020). Facing the challenge of generic hybridity in EAP research and pedagogy. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Applied Literature, 8 (2), 23-27. https://doi.org/10.22049/JALDA.2020.26894.1187 Kuhi, D., & Behnam, B. (2011). Generic variations and metadiscourse use in the writing of applied linguists: A comparative study and preliminary framework. Written Communication. 28 (1), 97–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088310387259 Kuhi, D., & Dustsadigh, Z. (2012). A cross-cultural diachronic study on hedging devices diversity in chemistry research articles. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sarajevo. Kuhi, D., & Mousavi, Z. (2015). A diachronic study of interpersonality in research article discussion section: The field of applied linguistics. International Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Studies, 2 (4), 6– 13. Kuhi, D., & Rezaei, S. (2020). Diachronic analysis of stance markers in research articles discussion section. Khazar Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 23 (4), 33-46. https://doi.org/10.5782/2223 2621.2020.23.4.33 Kuhi, D., Yavari, M., & Sorayyaei. A. (2012). Metadiscourse in applied linguistics research articles: a cross-sectional survey. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 3 (11), 405–415. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2012.v3n11p405 Mei, S. W., & Allison, D. (2005). Evaluative expressions in analytical arguments: Aspects of appraisal in assigned English essays. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2 (1), 105-127. https://doi.org/10.1558/jal.v2i1.105 Moreneo, A. (2003). Matching theoretical descriptions of discourse and practical applications to teaching: The case of causal metatext. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 265-295. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00021-2 Latawiec, B. M. (2012). Metadiscourse in oral discussions and persuasive essays of children exposed to collaborative reasoning. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Urbana: Illinois. Rezaei, S., Kuhi, D., & Saeidi, M. (2020). Gearing discursive practice to the evolution of discipline: Diachronic corpus analysis of stance markers in research articles’ methodology section. The Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice, 12 (25), 219-235. https://doi.org/10.30495/JAL.2020.675864 Rezaei, S., Kuhi, D., & Saeidi, M. (2021). Diachronic corpus analysis of stance markers in research articles: The field of applied linguistics. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 8 (1), 1872165. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2021.1872165 Rodriguez-Junior, A. S. (2003). Facework, writing and interaction in the FL classroom. Linguagem and Ensino, 6 (2), 163-189. Thue Vold, E. (2006). Epistemic modality markers in research articles: a crosslinguistic and cross-disciplinary study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16 (1), 61–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2006.00106.x Wong, A. (2005). Writers’ mental representations of the intended audience and of the rhetorical purpose for writing and the strategies that they employed when they composed. System, 33, 29-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.06.009 Vande Kopple, W. (1988). Metadiscourse and the recall of modality markers. Visible Language, XXII, 233-272. Widdowson, H. G. (2003). Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University press.
