scholarly journals Mind your writing: how to be a professional academic writer

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-1
Author(s):  
Stefan T. Siegel
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Sharon McCulloch ◽  
Tania Horak

Two main groups of staff currently provide writing support to students in British universities. These staff typically enter their roles from a range of professional backgrounds and, consequently, may hold different professional identities and understandings of what academic writing is. Although there is a body of research on teacher identity and on lecturers’ conceptualisations of writing, few studies have compared the views and identities of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) teachers and learning developers. The current study set out to investigate whether these two groups perceive academic writing in similar or different ways, and why. We undertook a small-scale study, interviewing eight participants at two universities, half from a post-1992 institution and the others from a research-intensive, high-ranking university. While participants varied in their definitions of writing, common themes emerged, lying on a spectrum from an autonomous, text-based, to an academic literacies perspective on writing. To establish the influences on these perspectives, we investigated the participants’ sense of identity as an academic writer, how they learned writing themselves and any influences on them from theory. Neither the EAP teachers nor the learning developers identified strongly as academic writers, despite all holding postgraduate qualifications and some having published their writing. Most reported little to no training in how to write academically themselves, and few mentioned any theoretical stance in their approach to helping students. Although some clustering around particular conceptualisations of writing was observed, we did not find strong evidence that the participants belong to two different ‘tribes’.


Corpora ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 115-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefanie Wulff ◽  
Ute Römer

Recent corpus studies have shown that learners of English are aware of systematic associations between verbs and their preferred argument structures to an extent that is similar to that of a native speaker of English (e.g., Gries and Wulff, 2005 ). Given evidence for similarly systematic associations in native speaker data at the lexis–morphology interface (e.g., Römer, 2005a ), the question arises whether, and to what extent, learners of English are also sensitive to lexical dependencies at the level of morphology, and how their verb-aspect associations compare with those of native speakers. In order to address this question, this study focusses on the potential associations between verbs and progressive aspect in German learners' academic writing. On the basis of the German component of the International Corpus of Learner English and the Cologne–Hanover Advanced Learner Corpus, learners' significantly preferred verb-aspect pairs are identified using an adaptation of collostructional analysis ( Stefanowitsch and Gries, 2003 ). The results are complemented with corresponding analyses of a subset of the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers on the one hand and published research articles from the Hyland Corpus on the other hand. The findings indicate that upper-intermediate and advanced German learners of English exhibit clear lexical preferences in the use of progressives. Furthermore, comparative analyses suggest that verb-aspect preferences shift as a function of writers' mastery of text type-specific conventions rather than language proficiency at large.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Basbøll

Academic writing is the art of writing down what you know for the purpose of discussing it with other knowledgeable people. In so far as students and scholars approach it in these terms, they often tend to focus on the role of knowledge. Students imagine that they must demonstrate what they know to their examiners (who know more than they do) and scholars imagine that they must communicate what they know to their colleagues (who don’t yet know their results). This is completely understandable since knowledge is at the core of academic work, but both scholars and students sometimes lose sight of the discussion. They think of the discourse as a performance rather than a conversation. In this paper, therefore, I will explore the formation of academic discourse and the building of academic competence in terms of the rhetorical situation (not just the epistemic resources) of academic readers and writers.  This shift of focus has some important implications. Academic writing is not merely the communication of ideas or the transmission of facts; much more importantly, it is the exposure of ideas to criticism. The academic writer is not interested in “ideas worth spreading,” to invoke the famous slogan of TED talk, but in ideas worth testing. To sharpen the point, we might say that academic writers are always writing for people who are qualified to tell them that they are wrong. As writing consultants and information specialists, we help scholars and students face this situation squarely. 


Author(s):  
Patrick Hayes ◽  
Jan Wilm

At its heart, what Socrates called the ‘ancient quarrel’ between literature and philosophy turns on whether literature should be thought of as a useful supplement to philosophy, or whether it is in some sense a rival form of discourse. In this introductory chapter we orient readers in the contemporary contexts for this debate, and define why Coetzee’s fiction is a particularly salient way of exploring its parameters and its limits. Mindful that the boundaries between literature and philosophy are as much institutional as they are intellectual, here we situate Coetzee as an academic writer, and explain why this is important in understanding the particular way his work challenges disciplinary boundaries.


1984 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 231-231
Author(s):  
Rheba de Tornyay
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
pp. 197-218
Author(s):  
Christine Jackson

Highly educated seventeenth-century noblemen and gentlemen frequently studied theology, history, and philosophy privately for pleasure; wrote verse; and acquired libraries, but rarely wrote books and treatises. Chapter 9 builds upon the literary, philosophical, and theological interests identified in earlier chapters and provides the intellectual context for Herbert’s emergence as a respected gentleman scholar and published academic writer. It introduces the scholarly circles with which he was associated in London and Paris, his membership of the European Republic of Letters, and his links with scholarly irenicism. It establishes his scholarly connections with John Selden, William Camden, Sir Robert Cotton, Hugo Grotius, Marin Mersenne, René Descartes, Pierre Gassendi, Thomas Hobbes, Tommaso Campanella, Fortunio Liceti, Gerard Vossius, John Comenius, and others. It examines Herbert’s scholarly practices and rebuffs claims that he was a dilettante. It browses the collection of books he accumulated in his substantial libraries in London and Montgomery, which ranged across the academic spectrum from theology, history, politics, literature, and philology through the various philosophical and mathematical disciplines to the natural and physical sciences, jurisprudence, and medicine, but also included works on architecture, warfare, manners, music, and sorcery and anthologies of poetry and books of romance literature. It suggests that Herbert’s scholarship was motivated as much by intellectual curiosity and the need to reduce religious conflict as by a desire to secure personal recognition and approval.


2017 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olle Pahlm ◽  
Cees A. Swenne ◽  
Sumche Man ◽  
Yama Fakhri ◽  
Brett D. Atwater ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Maria J. Grant ◽  
Penny Bonnett ◽  
Anthea Sutton ◽  
Audrey Marshall ◽  
Jeannette Murphy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document