Multiple Approaches to Analysing Academic Discourses: Similarities and Differences

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 1 Sayı: 1, 1 - 14, 27.11.2019

Nayef Jomaa

Öz

Within the previous
two decades, a considerable variety of approaches has been utilised to
understand and explore the complex, multifaceted essence of academic discourses.
These approaches are guided by either pedagogical needs and/or based on the emic
or etic perspectives of writers. Consequently, due to the increasing numbers of
teachers and scholars who are interested in investigating and exploring academic
discourses, it could be probably helpful to obtain knowledge about the
approaches employed for studying academic discourses. Hence, this article
compares definitions and analyses of the main approaches, specifically textual,
contextual and critical ones, to studying academic discourses by novice
researchers and highlights the similarities and/or differences in the analysis procedures.
 As a result, researchers could identify which
approach can be appropriately used to achieve their research goals and interests.

Anahtar Kelimeler

academic discourse, approaches

Kaynakça

• Bazerman, C. (1988), Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
• Bhatia, V. K. (1982), An Investigation into Formal and Functional Characteristics of Qualifications in Legislative Writing and Its Application to English for Academic Legal Purposes. A Ph.D thesis submitted to the University of Aston in Birmingham, UK.
• Bhatia, V. K. (1993), Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.Bhatia, V. K. (2013), Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. Routledge.
• Blommaert, J. (2005), Discourse: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Bruce, I. (2008), Academic Writing and Genre: A Systematic Analysis. London, GBR: Continuum International Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com
• Coffin, C., & Donohue, J. P. (2012), Academic Literacies and Systemic Functional Linguistics: How Do They Relate? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, Vol. 11, No 1, pp. 64-75.
• Coxhead, A. (2000), A New Academic Word List, TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 213-238.
• Dudley-Evans, T. (1989), An Outline of the Value of Genre Analysis in LSP Work. In C. Lauren & M. Nordman (Eds.), Special Language: From Humans Thinking to Thinking Machines (PP.72-79). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
• Dudley-Evans, T. (1994), Genre Analysis: An Approach to Text Analysis in ESP. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis (pp.219-228). London: Routledge.
• Eggins, S. (1994), An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Pinter.
• Eggins, S. & Martin, J. R. (1997), Genres and Registers of Discourse. In van Dijk, T.A. (Ed.) Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Vol.1 (Discourse as Structure and Process) (pp.230-256). London: SAGE.
• Fairclough, N. (1989), Language and Power. London: Longman.
• Gardner, S. (2012), ‘’Genres and Registers of Student Report Writing : An SFL Perspective on Texts and Practices’’, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 52–63. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.002.
• Gledhill, C. (1996), Science as A Collocation: Phraseology in Cancer Research Articles. In S. Botley et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Teaching and Language Corpora Conference 1996 UCREL (Vol. 9, pp. 108-126), University of Lancaster, UK.
• Halliday, M. A. K. (1985), An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
• Halliday, M. A. K. (1994), An Introduction to Functional Grammar. (2nd Edition). London: Edwrad Arnold.
• Halliday, M. & Hasan, R. (1985), Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social Semiotic Perspective. Victoria: Deakin University Press.
• Halliday, M. & Hasan, R. (1989), Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993), Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. London: The Falmer Press.
• Halliday, M. & Webster, J. J. (Eds.) (2009), Continuum Companion to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London, GBR: Continuum International Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com.
• Hyland, K. (1998), Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Hyland, K. (2006), English for Academic Purposes: An Advanced Resource Book. UK: Routledge.
• Hyland, K. (2009), Academic Discourse: English in a Global Context. London and New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
• Hyland, K. & Tse, P. (2007), ‘’Is There an “Academic Vocabulary”?’’, TESOL QUARTERLY, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 235-253.
• Hyon, S. (1996), ‘’Genre in Three Traditions: Implications for ESL’’, TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 693–722.
• Ivanic, R. (1998), Studies in Written Language and Literacy, Volume 5: Writing and Identity: The Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic Writing. Amsterdam, NLD: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com
• Jayalakshmi, R. (2017), ‘’An Integrated Approach to Business English’’, IUP Journal of English Studies, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 70-73.
• Jomaa, N. J., & Bidin, S. J. (2016), ‘’Roles of the Cited Author in Citations of the Literature Review by EFL Postgraduates’’, International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, Vol. 5, No. 7, pp. 213-225.
• Jomaa, N. J., & Bidin, S. J. (2017), ‘’Perspectives of EFL Doctoral Students on Challenges of Citations in Academic Writing’’, Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 177-209.
• Kennedy, G. (1998), An Introduction to Corpus Linguistics. London: Longman.
• Lillis, T. (2001), Student Writing: Access, Regulation, Desire. Routledge.
• Martin, J.R. (1992), English Text: System and Structure. Philadelphia; Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Martin, J. R. (1996), Working with Functional Grammar: A Workbook. Arnold.
• Martin, J. R. (2000), Beyond Exchange: Appraisal Systems in English. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds), Evaluation in Text. Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. (pp.75-142). UK: Oxford University Press.
• Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008), Genre Relations: Mapping Culture. UK: Equinox.
• Miller, C. (1984), ‘’Genre as Social Action’’, Quarterly Journal of Speech, Vol. 70, pp.151-176.
• Moessner, L. (2001), ‘’Genre, Text Type, Style, Register: A terminological Maze?’’ European Journal of English Studies, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 131-138.
• Prior, P. A. (1998), Writing/Disciplinary: A Sociolinguistic Account of Literate Activity in the Academy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum.
• Ramanathan, V. & Atkinson, D. (1999), ‘’Individualism, Academic Writing, and ESL Writers’’, Journal of Second Language Writing, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 45-75.
• Sawaki, T. (2016), Analysing Structure in Academic Writing. Springer. Schryer, C. F. (1993), ‘’Records as Genre’’, Written Communication, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 200-234.
• Swales, J. M. (1990), Genre Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Swales, 1. M. (1981), Aspects of Article Introductions. Aston ESP Research Report No.1, Language Studies Unit, University of Aston in Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
• Swales, J. M. (2009), World of Genre—Metaphors of Genre. In C. Bazerman, A. Bonini, and D. Figueiredo, (Eds.) (2009). Genre in a Changing World. (pp.3-16). USA: The WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press.
• Viana, V., Zyngier, S., & Barnbrook, G. (Eds.) (2011), Perspectives on Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam, NLD: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com
• Widdowson, H. (2000), ‘’The theory and practice of critical discourse analysis’’, Applied Linguistics, Vol. 19, pp. 136-51.
• Woodward-Kron, R. (2004), ‘’Discourse Communities’ and ‘Writing Apprenticeship: An Investigation of These Concepts in Undergraduate Education Students’ Writing’’, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, Vol. 3, pp. 139-161.
• Young, L., & Harrison, C. (2004), Introduction to the Collection. In L.Young and C. Harrison (Sds), Systemic Functional Linguistics and Critical Discourse Analysis: Studies in Social Change (pp.1-11). UK: Continuum.