R H ETO R IC A L FEA TU R ES A N D D ISC IPLIN A R Y CU LTU RES: A G EN R E-B A SE D STU D Y OF A CA D EM IC BO O K R EV IEW S
IN L IN G U IST IC S, CH EM ISTRY , AND ECO N O M ICS
por
D É S IR É E M O T TA -R O T H
T ese subm etida à U niversidade Federal de Santa Catarina para obtenção do grau de D O U TO R E M LETRA S
FLO RIA N O PO LIS D ezem bro/1995
D O U TO R E M LETRAS Opção Língua
B A N C A EX A M IN A DO RA :
Dr. José R oberto O ’Shea CO O R D EN A D O R
Dr. José Luiz M eurer O RIEN TA D O R
Dr. José Luiz M eurer O RIEN TA D O R
D r“. ^ x ï ^ J o s é C ò f ^ n i
D r“. Ana Zilles
t ) r “.M aria'HeÍena L o ttL a g e
d
Dr^. Carm en R osa Caldas-Coulthard
Dr® Loni Grimm-Cabral (Suplente) Florianópolis, 18 de dezem bro de 1995.
hemisfério, com a crença constante de que essa jornada valia o esforço. A os meus pais, José (IN M EM O R IA M ) e Id éia, p o r encorajar seus filhos a procurar sem pre linhas próprias de argum entação.
A C K N O W LED G EM EN TS
I w ould like to thank P rofessor José Luiz M eurer, my supervisor, for his encouragem ent, friendship, and steady supervision throughout the w hole doctoral program at the U niversidade Federal de Santa Catarina.
P rofessor John M . Swales, for having accepted me as a visiting scholar at the University o f M ichigan, at A nn Arbor, and for supervising the research developed in the US.
The staff and faculty o f the English G raduate Program at th e Universidade Federal de Santa C atarina and at the English Language Institute at th e University o f Michigan, at Ann A rbor, for providing a stimulating and fnendly academic atmosphere.
Viviane H eberle and M aria Lucia Vasconcelos, my fiiends and colleagues at th e English G raduate P rogram at the U niversidade Federal de Santa Catarina, for letting me share in their enthusiasm and bright minds.
The D epartam ento de L etras Estrangeiras M odernas, at the Universidade Federal de Santa M aria, for releasing me from my classes so that I could obtain this degree.
T o the CN Pq, for the financial support in Brazil and abroad.
CH EM ISTRY , AND EC O N O M IC S D É S IR É E M O T TA -R O T H
U N IV E R S ID A D E FED ERA L D E SAN TA CA TA RIN A 1995
Supervising Professor: José Luiz M eurer
R esearchers in the interdisciplinary area o f Applied Linguistics (and, m ore specifically, in th e field o f L anguage for A cadem ic P urposes) have often called attention to th e rhetorical aspects o f language patterns in recurrent situations, stressing the im portance o f considering, along the process o f analyzing discourse, the goals and particularities o f different communities. The main argum ent o f this study is that closer exam ination o f the interplay betw een text and context can contribute to the understanding o f different realizations o f th e same academ ic genre across three disciplines, namely, chemistry, linguistics, and econom ics. W ith th e objective o f investigating existing connections betw een rhetoric and disciplinary discourses, one hundred and eighty exem plars o f the genre academ ic bo o k review in English (divided evenly am ong the three disciplines) are analyzed for rhetorical m oves and term s o f praise and blame. The analysis is injformed by interview s w ith b o o k review editors o f reviewing journals in the chosen disciplines. The hypothesis in the study is tw o-fold: First, that the exemplars in the corpus present certain general invariable features o f rhetorical organization in content and form th at allow w riters and readers to recognize them as belonging to the same genre. Secondly, that som e variation will be verified in features m ost closely associated with the traditions and conventions o f the discipline. A t the same time that th e results point to the systematicity o f text structure across disciplines, they indicate the existence o f som e variation in description and evaluation. Thus different characteristics are em phasized in different disciplines, such as, m athem aticisation in economics, creativity in theoretical elaboration in linguistics, and speed in know ledge production in chemistry. This variability, in turn, suggests th at textual features respond to the characteristic culture o f each field, indicating th at research and teaching activities concerning academ ic w ritten genres should take into account th e specificities o f the target discipline. These results may contribute to a m ore com plete description o f th e current repertoire o f academic genres and to a m ore precise definition o f generic textual boundaries. It is suggested that disciplinary evaluative practices, as proposed in this study, should be taken into account in the teaching o f L anguage for A cadem ic Purposes.
RESUMO
RHETORICAL FEATURES AND DISCIPLINARY CULTURES:
A GENRE-BASED STUDY OF ACADEMIC BOOK REVIEWS IN LINGUISTICS, CHEMISTRY, AND ECONOMICS
DÉSIRÉE M OTTA-ROTH
UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE SANTA CATARINA 1995
P rofessor Orientador: José Luiz M eurer
C ada vez mais, evidencia-se em Lingüística Aplicada e, mais especificamente, no Ensino de Línguas para Fins Acadêm icos, o interesse pela interação entre texto e contexto. Partindo dessa visão, o ensind de leitura e produção do texto acadêmico em inglês tem se apoiado em estudos sobre práticas discursivas adotadas em contextos disciplinares específicos. Assim, com o objetivo de investigar as conexões existentes entre retórica e discursos disciplinares, desenvolveu-se um a análise textual do gênero acadêmico resenha critica em inglês, enfocando-se movimentos retóricos e term os de elogio e critica presentes em cento e oitenta exem plares coletados em revistas acadêmicas em lingüística, econom ia e química. A análise, alimentando-se de inform ações obtidas em entrevistas com um editor de resenhas de revistas acadêmicas em cada área, apóia-se sobre duas hipóteses básicas. E m prim eiro lugar, que os exemplares no corpus apresentam certos traços retóricos invariáveis que possibilitam a escritor e leitor reconhecerem esses textos com o pertencentes a um mesm o gênero discursivo. E m segundo lugar, que há alguma variação em traços mais estritam ente relacionados às tradições e convenções da disciplina. Ao mesm o tem po que regularidades de fimção, conteúdo e form a da inform ação, apontam para a existência de um mesmo gênero textual, a análise dem onstrou que, em Econom ia, m aior ênfase é dada à matem aticidade dos m odelos usados, em Lingüística, à criatividade da elaboração teórica e, em Química, à rapidez no avanço do conhecimento, na avaliação e descrição de novas publicações. E ssas variações especificas na m aneira com o resenhadores de cada disciplina realizam avaliação e descrição indicam a necessidade de se explorar, no ensino de línguas, as caracteristicas m acroestruturais de gêneros acadêmicos, sem deixar de considerar as idiossincrasias das práticas discursivas em cada disciplina. Concluiu-se que a apropriação do mesmo gênero textual em cada disciplina responde à organização epistem ológica da área de conhecimento, evidenciando-se assim as conexões entre texto e contexto de produção. A exploração da diversidade de valores e recortes epistem ológicos de culturas disciplinares pode contribuir para a form ação de leitores e escritores mais críticos em relação às práticas discursivas encontradas em textos acadêmicos em suas respectivas disciplinas. N° de páginas da tese: 311
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
1.0 Background of the study..---1.1 Purpose of the study...4
1.1.1 The choice of texts for the study...5
1.1.2 The choice of the disciplines... 9
1.2 Basic hypotheses of the study... 14
1.3 Design of the study...15
1.4 Outline of chapter content...17
Notes.
CHAPTER 2 - GENRE STUDIES AND ACADEMIC DISCOURSE
2.0 Introduction... 202.1 Origins of Genre Analysis in English for Specific Purposes... »•••••••••••••••••«••••««•a* 21 2.1.1 Process vs. product approaches to writing instruction... 21
2.1.2 A reader-oriented approach to writing instruction... 25
2.2 Genre studies... 29
2.2.1 Patterns in discourse... 30
2.2.2 Patterning of contextual features...32
2.2.3 Patterning of rhetorical structure...34
2.2.3.1 The Generic Structure Potential of discourse... 37
2.3 A move-analytical approach to academic discourse... 44
2.3.1 Move analysis of research article introductions... 44
2.3.1.1 Swales’ model of article introductions... 46
2.3.2 Application of move analysis to other academic genres... 51
2.4 Using Swales’ genre-analytical approach to study book reviews... 53
2.4.1 Book review as an academic genre...54
2.4.2 Evaluation in book reviews...55
2.5 Further comments on genre-related issues...!..S6 2.5.1 Structural boundaries... 56
2.5.2 Genre and register... 63
3.0 Introduction...67
3.1 Interviews with book review editors. ••••«•••••••«••••••«••••••••••••••••••«••••••••••••••••••••••••«««•••«•«•••••«•••••••••••a 68 3.1.1 Objectives... 68
3.1.2 Interviewees... 69
3.1.3 Procedures... 69
3.2 Book reviewing as seen by book review editors... 70
3.2.1 Book review editing... 70
3.2.2 The role of book reviews... 73
3.2.3 Reasons for reviewing books...76
3.2.4 Reasons for reading book reviews...81
3.2.5 Type of information associated with the genre... 84
3.2.6 What is evaluated in a book...89
3.2.7 Book review format... 91
3.2.8 Reasons for journals not/to cany reviews... 95
3.2.9 The ethics of book reviewing...96
3.3 Concluding remarks... 100
Notes... 103
CHAPTER 4 - METHODOLOGY
4.0 Introduction... .... 1054.1 The corpus...106
4.1.1 Selecting the sources for the data...108
4.1.1.1 Reputation... 108
4.1.1.2 Representativity... 108
4.1.1.3 Accessibihty... 109
4.1.2 Collecting the data... 110
4.1.2.1 Book review sections...I l l 4.1.2.2 Basic text features... 112
4.2 Qualitative data analysis. 114 4.2.1 Analysis of text staging...114
4.2.2 Questions to be answered by the qualitative analysis... 115
4.2.3 Linguistic clues and systematicity... 116
4.2.3.1 Explicit lexemes...117
4.2.3.2 Validity markers, attitude markers, and text connectives...118
4.2.3.3 Summary statements and adversative expressions... 120
4.4 Concluding remarks...129
Notes...130
C H A PT E R 5 - TE X T A N A L Y SIS 5.0 Introduction. •••••••••••••••••••••«■«••••••«••«•••••««•••••••••••••••••••••••••«••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••«••«•«••••«•••••••••a ... 131
■ \ 5.1 An overview of the rhetorical organization of book reviews... ....13^
5.2 Canonical moves...133
5.3 A model of the rhetorical pattern in book reviews...142
5.4 Rhetoric^ sub-functions in book reviews... •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ____148 5.4.1 Sub-fiinctions appearing in Move 1 - Introducing the book... 148
5.4.1. r Sub-fimction 1-Defining the general topic of the book... 149
5.4.1.2 Sub-fimction 2-Infonning about potential readership... 151
5.4.1.3 Sub-fimction 3-Informing about the author... 152
5.4.1.4 Su^ftmction 4-Making topic generalizations... 154
5.4.1.5 Sub-function 5-Inserting the book in the field... 157
5.4.2 Sub-fimctions appearing in Move 2 - Outlining the book... 161
5.4.2.1 Sub-fimction 6-Providing general view of the organization of the book...161
5.4.2.2 Sub-fimction 7-Stating the theme of each chapter.... ...164
5.4.2.3 Sub-fimction 8-Citing extra-text material... 171
5.4.3 Sub-fimction appearing in Move 3 - Highlighting parts of the book... 173
5.4.4 Sub-fimctions appearing in Move 4 - Providing closing evaluation... 184
5.5 Text format in the genre of book reviews... 190
5.6 Validation of the model through a quantitative analysis... 196
5.7 Concluding remarks...—--- ...--- ---— .—.—...--- ...--- ...—...201
Notes... ... 201
C H A PT E R 6 - D IS C ffL IN A R Y D ISC O U R SE S 6.0 Introduction... 203
I 6.1 Connections between disciplinary cultures and text...204
6.2.3.1 Chemistry: field, overall organization, and extra-text material...225
6.2.3.2 Economics: author and evaluation... 230
6.2.3.3 Linguistics: topic, reader, generalizations, theme of each chapter, and closing evaluation... 234
6.3 Variation in evaluation practices across disciplines...244
6.3.1 Economics: Persuasive-Unconvincing and Attractive-Uninteresting...245
6.3.2 Chemistry: Comprehensive-Specific and Recent-Outdated... 247
6.3.3 Linguistics: Clear-Undefined and Testable-Speculative... 252
6.4 Evaluation across fields: Deep-Simplistic...254
6.5 Concluding remarks... 258
CHAPTER 7 - SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS, CONCLUSION AND
SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
7.0 Introduction...2647.1 Summary of results on the academic book review as a genre... 266
7.1.1 The productivity of the gem-e...266
7.1.2 Discipline members as reviewers...268
7.2 Summary of results on the systematicity in book reviewing... 271
7.3 Summary of results on variability in book reviewing across disciplines... 275
7.3.1 Variation in text structure...275
7.3.2 Variation in choices of terms for praise and blame... 279
7.4 Theoretical implications... 283
7.4.1 Theoretical implications for ESP teaching... 284
7.4.2 Theoretical implications for EFL teaching... 286
7.5 Conclusion...288
7.6 Limitations and suggestions for further research... 291
Notes...293
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Chapter 2
Figure 2-1 Contextual Configiu-ation Variables (Halliday, 1985:12)... 37
Figure 2-2 Contextual Configuration of Service Encounters (Hasan, 1985:59)...38
Figure 2-3 Generic Structure Potential of Service Encounters (Hasan, 1985:64)...39
Figure 2-4 Contextual Configuration of BRs (Motta-Roth, 1993)... 40
Figure 2-5 Contextual elements involved in the genre of BRs... 42
Figure 2-6 Generic Structure Potential of BRs (Motta-Roth, 1993)... 43
Figure 2-7 CARS model for RA introductions (Swales, 1990:141)... 47
Chapter 3 Figure 3-1 Overall organi2ation of the academic BR according to Drewiy (1966:62)... 95
Chapter 5 Figure 5-1 Overarching four-part organization of BRs... 131
Figure 5-2 Schematic description of rhetorical sub-fimctions in BRs...142
Figure 5-3 Text focus in BRs... 192
Figure 5-4 Overall organization of the academic B R ... 193
Figure 5-5 Schematic description of most important rhetorical sub-fiinctions in BRs... 195
Chapter 6 Figure 6-1 Focus of evaluation per discipline...258
LIST OF TABLES
Chapter 5
Table 5-1- Presence of moves per discipline... 134
Table 5-2- Sample analysis of a linguistics text...144
Table 5-3- Move 1: Focus on the book in Sub-function 1... 149
Table 5-4- Move 1; Focus on the author in Sub-fimction 1... 150
Table 5-5- Move 2: Outlining the book...165
Table 5-6- Move 4; Providing closing evaluation... 185
Table 5-7- Distribution of sub-fimctions per discipline in percentages...194
Table 5-8- Distribution of move clues in the remaining 120 texts per discipline...197
Chapter 6 Table 6-1- Average number of sentences per move... 212
Table 6-2- Move 3: Highlighting parts of the book... 214
Table 6-3- Distribution of sub-fimctions per discipline in percentages...224
Appendix A
Table A-1- Questions on the role of book reviews in the academic setting...A-ii Table A-2- (^ stio n s on the role of review editors... A-ii Table A-3- (^estions on text content and organization of book reviews...A-ii
Appendix B
Table B-1- Size of the corpus in number of words... B-ii Table B-2- References of Ae texts in the chemistry corpus... B-ii Table B-3- References of the texts in the economics corpus... B-iv Table B-4- References of the texts in the linguistics corpus... B-vii
Appendix C
Table C-1- Most cited linguistics journals and correspondent book review sections...C-ii Table C-2- Most cited chemistry joiunals and correspondent book review sections... C-ii Table C-3- Most cited economics journals and correspondent book review sections...C-iii
Appendix D
Table D-1- Distribution of moves in the first 60 texts per discipline... D-ii Table D-2- Sample analysis of an economics text... D-iii Table D-3- Sample analysis of a chemistry text... D-iv Table D-4- Distribution of sub-fimctions in move 1 per discipline... D-iv Table D-5- Distribution of sub-fimctions in move 2 per discipline... D-v Table D-6- Distribution of sub-fimctions in move 3 per discipline... D-v Table D-7- Distribution of sub-fimctions in move 4 per discipline... D-v Table D-8- Distribution of moves in the remaining 120 texts per discipline...D-vi Table D-9- Chemistry; Order of sub-fimctions in each of the first 20 texts...D-vii
Table D-10- Linguistics; Order of sub-functions in each of the first 20 texts...D-viii Table D-11- Economics: Order of sub-fimctions in each of the first 20 texts...D-ix Concordance (a )... D-x Concordance (b )... ... D-xi Concordance (c )...D-xiii
Appendix £
Table E-1- Chemistry: Comprehensive - Specific...E-ii Table E-2- Chemistry: Recent - Outdated...E-ii Table E-3- Chemistry: Deep - Simplistic...E-ii Table E-4- Linguistics: Clear - Undefmed...E-iii Table E-5- Linguistics: Testable - Speculative...E-iii Table E-6- Linguistics: Deep - Simplistic...E-iii Table E-7- Economics: Persuasive - Unconvincing... E-iv Table E-8- Economics: Attractive - Uninteresting... E-iv Table E-9- Economics: Deep - Simplistic...E-iv
Appendix F
Table F-1- Distribution of BRs by senior and junior scholars... F-ii Table F-2- Distribution of reviewers’ university affiliation per discipline...F-ii Table F-3- Distribution of place of publication of reviewed books per discipline.... ... F-iii
1.0
Background o f the study
A s a language w ith 315 million native speakers and 400 million nonnative speakers all over the w orld (Phillipson, 1992:24), EngUsh has becom e the lingua fr a n c a o f the international academ ic com munity (Swales, 1985:3). In the m ainstream academic environm ent o f today, know ledge is primarily produced in English, the chosen language in w hich researchers from all nationalities are advised to w rite in order to reach a large audience. A s a result, over h alf o f recent scientific publications all over the w orld are in English (Phillipson, 1992:149), a figure that has steadily increased since th e 6 0 ’s (Swales,
1986:42)*.
C urrent m ainstream scientific publications also tend to have a specific format. Reference books — once the m ost prestigious media for scientific com m unication — have been losing ground for shorter publications in journals as a result o f the increasing speed o f scientific advances. Against this scientific scenario o f prevailing academ ic texts published at great speed, researchers all over the w orld have to cope w ith the overload o f literature in English in their respective fields, not only to read and learn about current research in the area, but also to w rite and produce disciplinary^ knowledge.
In view o f the need for w riting and reading com petencies in EngUsh in academic settings, non-English-speaking scholars are faced w ith the problem o f being affected negatively by then- lack o f adequate linguistic skills in the foreign language. B oth
journals in English as a w ay to obtain academic recognition, research fijnding, and career progression. H ow ever, w hen submitting w ritten w o rk to international journals, nonnative academ ic w riters constantly have to struggle to produce texts that can be regarded as publishable material in term s o f content and form.
G enre Analysts have been concerned w ith the problem o f how to provide inexperienced academ ic w riters (w ith little o r no academ ic literacy in English) w ith the inform ation they need to participate in academia. As a com munity that has its ow n culture in term s o f know ledge production and discursive practices (i.e., social practices expressed in language form and content), academ ia has a set o f genres that, to a certain extent, maintain conventionalized form s and fimctions. N ew com ers find it difficult to accomplish their com m unicative objectives due to the lack o f know ledge o f these generic conventions. In that respect. G enre Analysis pedagogy aims to investigate how discourse varieties fiinction as academ ic genres, w hat their textual and rhetorical characteristics are, w ho w rites to whom , in w hat situations, to w hat purpose and effect. Therefore, in this study, ‘discourse’ is considered a multifaceted social phenom enon as defined by Fairclough (1989; 1992b). This phenom enon encom passes three dimensions; an oral o r w ritten text, an interaction betw een people and the processes o f producing and interpreting text, and the social actions that result fi-om the interplay betw een text and social interaction (Fairclough, 19 9 2 b : 10).
benefits o f a literate, technologically developed society (Kress, 1993). This access is realized by the use o f the m ost pow erful form s o f w riting in a given community. Powerful form s o f w riting are inscribed in texts that are rhetorically efficient to attain the established objectives. H ence genre theories accentuate cultural and social dimensions o f text. B y stressing the im portance o f understanding the role language plays in a social interaction in specific situations, involving social needs and cultural values, genre theories propose a view o f text as a socially and contextually com plete unit o f language (ibid.). This unit o f language is recognized by its linguistic stability and repeatability in social interaction, leading to a recognized conventionality o f use. G enre Analysts w orking w ith academ ic genres thus try to explore the need and the possibility o f dealing w ith this textual conventionality: by having control over com municative conventions, participants can effectively take p art in society (and go on to maintain or change these conventions).
In order to investigate conventions in the relationship betw een text and context as elem ents that give life to genres, this study attem pts to analyze one specific type o f academ ic text (the book review), produced in a specific rhetorical context (a m em ber o f a given disciplinary com munity publishes in an academic journal th e critique o f a new publication in the field). M ore specifically, this study is devised having in mind the large university population in developing countries such as Brazil that can profit from detailed descriptions o f the repertoire o f genres used in international scientific com munication. The assum ption is that such a description can contribute to form nonnative w riters w ith
in structors’ better understanding and use o f the system o f genres adopted in the m ainstream academ ia resulting in m ore appropriate pedagogies in English for Academic o r Specific P urposes (EA P o r E S P ) courses. The relevance o f a study such as the present one becom es evident if w e consider that participants o f a com municative event in English as a Foreign o r Second L anguage (EFL or E S L ) carmot successfiilly take part in it, unless they understand th e aims that are being instantiated (Cunha 1991:61). G eneric analysis o f texts in English in specific disciplines is believed to contribute to making such aims evident to learners.
1.1
Purpose o f the study
T exts are seen here rhetorically, i.e., w riters use language to realize goals and carry ou t activities (Bazerm an, 1988:6) w ithin a com plex set o f social relationships constrained by the goals sanctioned by the disciplinary community (H aas, 1994:44). To study the rhetoric o f texts m eans to exam ine how language is put to use in the human activity type being considered. A ctivity type is here conceived as a culturally (in th e sense o f an academ ic discipline) recognized activity, ‘a goal-defined, socially constituted, bounded, event w ith constraints on participants, setting, and so on, but above all o n th e kinds o f allowable contributions’ (Levinson, 1979:368).
The purpose o f this study is to consider the activity o f book reviewing which involves a set o f elem ents such as context, the purposes and roles o f w riters and readers in th e text, and to analyze and describe how these elements are realized in tex ts produced
within different disciplinary traditions. B y developing rhetorical studies o f academic genres, w e may provide researchers, instructors, and prospective E F L academ ic w riters w ith helpful inform ation about specific w ritten genres; ‘the kinds o f allowable contributions’ expert w riters can include in their texts, the type o f inform ation expert readers expect to find in exem plars o f the genre, the linguistic choices w riters m ake to convey this inform ation, and how all these elements result from th e com plex set o f (social, epistemological, etc.) interrelations that exist within specific disciplines.
1.1.1 The choice of texts for the study
The choice o f book reviews for the present research results from the fact that, to the present state o f my know ledge, there is no detailed text analysis study focused on this academ ic genre. I f w e consider the fact that there has been a grow ing interest in the area o f discourse studies in general — and in genre studies in particular — in the last decade, and that, in surveying the literature on the topic, I have realized that the m ost extensive study on boo k reviewing is about 20 years old (Chen, 1976), it is fair to conclude that the system atization o f boo k review as an academic genre is still in need o f a com prehensive study.
So far genre analysts have tended to concentrate on key short academic genres (see, for example, D udley-Evans and H enderson, 1993; Swales, 1990; Bazerm an, 1981; 1983a; 1983b; 1988, on the research article; and Kaplan et al, 1994; Salager-M eyer, 1990, on the conference abstract). A s a result, the book review as a highly com m on short
Three aspects in b o o k review s suggest their possibilities as object o f study. The first aspect is an apparent paradox. T o a certain extent, bo ok reviews are recognized as unrem arkable because they are rarely cited as references in articles or books. A t the same tim e — and exactly because o f this ‘unrem arkable’ character — they can be w ritten by a w ider range o f academ ic staff that w ould not be in a position o f w riting higher-status tex ts such as the research article for refereed journals. Therefore, bo o k reviews open the d o o r to junior scholars, to th e non-elite, while also offering opportunities to academics in off-center places w ho are nonnative — and often inexperienced^— w riters to take p art in and give their contribution to th e m ainstream o f academia. These researchers can contribute to book review sections in international journals to criticize and/or praise other authors' texts, helping to shape their discipline through critical analysis o f the theories and research reports that are being presented in book-form . Consequently, a study that aims to explore and define the essential content (i.e., w hat kind o f inform ation about the book, th e author, the audience, is usually found in the genre) and the formal features (i.e., how
iri»
this inform ation is organized along the text) in their linguistic realizations (i.e., w hat kind o f linguistic constructions convey content and form ) in book reviews can help inform the academ ic w riting practices o f E F L writers.
Secondly, in EA P classes, the study and com prehension o f how boo k reviews in English operate can contribute, not only to writing classes, but also to th e developm ent o f m ore effective reading skills. H ence a schematic description o f the inform ation
the advanced reader use boo k reviews as a too l for a m ore critical and effective selection am ong the overload o f reading material in university courses.
A third reason is that, by definition, th e main feature o f the genre is evaluation, therefore th e study o f boo k reviews can cast light on the evaluative practices o f disciplines, revealing th e values and traditions in certain fields (see, for example, Becher, 1981, 1987). Such know ledge about disciplines may prove a relevant to ol in informed E S P reading and w riting practices, helping learners develop a m ore appropriate and contextualized understanding o f how academic genres function.
In view o f w hat has been stated above in relation to the possibilities offered by academ ic boo k review s as object o f study, one observation is due at this point. W hat is being favored here is n ot a strong version o f genre as fo r m , which emphasizes th e role o f genre param eters as ‘a set o f form s that constrain the individual’ (D evitt 1993:574). A lthough one cannot ignore that academic discourse is highly standardized, leaving little room for individual style and reflecting little o f the individuality o f the speaker/w riter (Bakhtin 1986:63), th e present study attem pts to avoid a formulaic conception o f particular texts that leaves no space for autonom y in the w riting act, or a conception o f genres as fi-ozen linguistic form s above and beyond novice w riters’ reach. K ress (1993) calls attention to the danger o f teaching the powerful genres o f the mainstream groups in an ideological fashion, i.e., uncritically, offering a hom ogenized view o f pow erful genres
A preferable view o f G enre Analysis is that o f an area o f investigation about discourse th at aims to m ake evident th e w ays that individuals, by w ay o f using conventionality and stability, can offer their particular worldviews. Therefore, this study attem pts to foster th e aw areness o f th e com municative function o f texts in its context o f production, i.e., the discipline in which book review s are being used to communicate. M odel following alone w ithout appropriate and holistic understanding o f the rhetorical context pertaining th e genre cannot guarantee E F L w riters’ success;
A lthough genre may help stabilize the m ultiform rhetorical situation o f scientific w riting and may simplify th e many rhetorical choices to be made, the w riter loses control o f th e w riting w hen he o r she does not understand th e genre. (Bazerman,
1988:8)
Likewise, in th e tradition o f philosophers o f language such as W ittgenstein and Austin, rhetoric, as the ultim ate basis o f the meaning o f linguistic expression (G arver, 1973:xxi), studies the role linguistic expression plays in human activity. H ence to understand linguistic expression, one m ust understand the activity in w hich the use o f language is em bedded, the rules involving w hen and how to use language, and finally one m ust know how to follow the rules, w hich in tu m depends on practice, on being initiated into that activity (G arver, 1973:xxi).
inform ation about how b o o k review s are constructed and construed and how the context o f each discipline is m irrored in th e genre. Awareness o f how book reviews function in th e context o f specific disciplines can contribute to learners’ better understanding and adherence to generic conventions, but m ore importantly, this understanding em powers learners to respond appropriately to given situations (D evitt 1993:577).
The choice o f linguistics, chemistry and econom ics as representative fields o f academ ia results from a few practical as well as epistemological reasons. The practical reason is that these w ere the three fields in which editors in established journals confirmed their willingness to be interview ed about w hat they understood to be the practices in bo o k reviewing in their disciplines. The inclusion o f interviews w ith book review editors in th e study stem s from the need for a contextualized study o f genres. In G enre Analysis studies, there is a general b elief that the decontextualized analysis o f text features, i.e., in w isolation from th e context in w hich text serves as interaction betw een members o f a community, will always miss the significance o f human com munication (Johns, 1993). Thus, the underlying assum ption in the present study is that, w hen analyzing text, one ‘should look further into the com munity o f readers and its values’ (ibid.:7). Interviews w ith experienced readers o f boo k reviews are expected to provide valuable insights about the disciplinary com m unities that use the genre o f book reviews as an instance o f com munication. As experienced readers, book review editors are used to reflecting about
how these texts are structured and how appropriately to the journal audience the argum entation is buih. A s stated by Johns (1993:7):
F or those o f us w ho are Social Constructionists, i.e., w ho believe that the com munity o f readers forces the w riters, particularly the novice w riters, into particular discourse form s and w riting styles, w e m ust look further into the com munity o f readers and its values and ask: w hat purposes do a genre’s form, style and other features serve for this community? Or, why do the experts w rite a text in this way?
The assum ption in the present study, therefore, is that these editors can provide further inform ation about contextual features such as w hat kind o f inform ation is im portant, w hat is th e expected form, function, and content o f the genre for the members ^ o f that community. These contextual features are then com pared, in th e text analysis proper, w ith tex t features in order to draw some generalizations regarding how one set o f features responds to th e other.
The choice o f linguistics in the study is essentially related to the obvious interest o f the author in her area o f study. The choice o f tw o m ore disciplines relates to the need for evidence o r param eters w hen discussing how book reviews reflect the fields to which they belong. The consideration o f three disciplines dismisses the pure opposition betw een extrem es, since, by com parison, results obtained in the analysis o f specific textual features in a third discipline may help clarify the role o f the same features in review s in the other tw o fields.
L/ V
Chem istry and econom ics w ere chosen for w hat could be called epistemological reasons. Chem istry is usually classified as a hard science and econom ics as a social science, consequently this classification seems to place them sufficiently apart from linguistics in the humanities for their texts to provide evidence o f contrastive disciplinary cultures. The argum ent here is that tw o disciplines which are usually placed in the same area o f academ ia as, for example, sociology and anthropology in the social sciences, can be expected to present greater similarities o r com m on points concerning body o f know ledge, object o f study, and values, than tw o others such as chemistry and econom ics, which are placed in tw o different fields.
Foucauh (1973) has developed a com parative study o f the discipUnary body o f know ledge and discourses o f three different academic fields — linguistics, biology, and econom ics — betw een the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries. H e argues that through the study o f know ledge and discourse organizations o f three unrelated fields it is possible to redraw fi-ontiers and bring closer features that are usually far apart (and vice-versa). O n one hand, he recognizes that the specificity o f th e object o f study to each discipline helps define each area as a different subset o f a broader scientific culture. On the other hand, language, as used by naturalists, economists, and grammarians to delimit their fields (object o f study, concepts, and theories), is constrained by the formal structures used by the overall academic culture and therefore presents some kinds o f similarities across fields".
To discuss the connection betw een disciplinary cultures and bo ok reviews, I will attem pt to focus on th e first aspect o f disciplinary identity, i.e., that the specificity o f the
object o f study helps define each discipline as a subset o f a broader system o f interrelated sciences. Inform ation for the study will be draw n fi-om three basic sources. Firstly, I will draw on topics related to the current literature on genre analysis, and related disciplines including rhetoric, philosophy, and sociology o f th e sciences. Secondly, I will resort to the inform ation collected in the interviews w ith book review editors o f academ ic journals and in the texts in th e corpus. And finally, I will use th e inform ation obtained in a survey o f the practices usually adopted in book reviewing in the three fields. This last survey w as developed to collect data about w ho w rites reviews and w hen or in w hat languages and w hich countries books are published, and so on, as a w ay to gain insight on the w ays the genre is adopted across disciplines.
In the traditional division o f academic fields, the Humanities (as represented by linguistics), the N atural Sciences (chemistry), and the Social Sciences (econom ics) are seen as responding to different epistemological needs and constraints and so are likely to have different characteristics regarding values and know ledge structures. Thus, an analysis o f these tw o sets o f features, i.e., field-invariant and field-dependent features, is expected to help delineate a com m on fi-amework for the genre o f bo o k reviews and, at th e same time, detect connections betw een text variation and context. It seems that both perspectives — invariant and dependent features — should be taken into account if w e w ant to have an encom passing account o f how the genre o f academic book reviews work.
The underlying assum ption here is that disciplinary groups observe generic conventions but also construct variations in genre in response to specific epistemic >
conditions in their fields, involving object o f study, m ethodology and values o f the discipline. The book review will be analyzed here across disciplinary boundaries as a way to verify the existence o f variations in the basic schematic textual structure in response to variations in context.
D ifferent genres o f w ritten discourse are considered to have different patterns o f rhetorical structure, i.e., how the w riter uses language to attain certain com municative purposes in specific parts o f the text. The conference abstract, for example, displays a pattern o f organization in functional sections that usually includes Introduction > M ethods > Results > Conclusions (Kaplan et al., 1994). Such explorations into text structure have been used for teaching purposes in academic writing courses (see, for example, Swales and Peak, 1994). In addition to m acro-structural features, genres are ^ considered to have patterns o f organization on a micro-level. R esearchers have investigated how the form and the meaning o f different functional sections in w ritten genres are realized by evaluative language (H unston, 1994) o r by unanalyzed linguistic constructions such as lexical phrases (N attinger and DeCarrico, 1992).
I will adopt a com bined approach to m acro- and m icro-structural features in order to carry out a com parative study o f generic features across the three selected disciplines. G enres have recurring form and style features that allow initiated members o f academ ic ^ com munities to identify texts as exemplars o f specific genres, i.e., engineers recognize grants, scientists recognize lab reports, scholars recognize a research article. B ased on this property, one may be able to draw generalizations about such style and form features
in book reviews in the form o f a schematic description o f the genre. Such description may be used by w riting instructors and students in developing academic skills.
This study thus seeks to obtain a detailed description and a definition o f an academ ic genre, focusing on th e relationship betw een the configurations assumed by textual and contextual features. By textual features, I mean the w ay information is organized along the tex t through specific linguistic structures that perform rhetorical moves. By context features, I mean the existing characteristic epistemological organization within disciplines, as w e m ove along the academic continuum betw een the harder sciences (represented by chemistry) and the softer sciences (represented by linguistics). In sum, the purpose o f the present study is to com pare three disciplinary realizations o f the same genre w ith th e intention o f determining the invariable schematic organization o f rhetorical m oves and lexical phrases, and o f defining the variation in evaluative practices across disciplines.
1.2
Basic hypotheses o f the study
1) The initial hypothesis is that the texts that com prehend the corpus will present certain general invariable features o f rhetorical organization (content, form, linguistic choices) that will not vary across disciplines. At the same time, some variation will be verified in those features m ore closely associated w ith the traditions and conventions o f the discipline. The results obtained may contribute to the debate about th e definition o f generic textual boundaries currently held amid G enre Analysts (see, for example. Swales,
2) The second basic hypothesis concerns the rhetorical definition o f the genre o f boo k reviews. A ccording to A ristotle (1991), there are three types o f rhetoric. D eliberative (involving deliberation about the fiiture action in the best interests o f the state). Forensic (involving speeches o f prosecution o r defense in a court o f law o f past actions), and Epideitic (speeches that do not call for any immediate action by the audience, but that characteristically praise or blame some person or thing, influencing the audience’s judgm ent o f the person or thing being talked about). The hypothesis is that the b o o k review involves an evaluative verbal action, so that the book review er will use, in A ristotle’s term s, w ords o f ‘praise and blam e’ to convey evaluation to the reader so as to influence th e potential readership’s judgm ent o f the book. The assum ption is that within th e disciplinary community, the group shares form s o f argum ent and lexicon that convey
com m on know ledge and constitute rhetorical devices (Leff, 1987:33).
3) The third basic hypothesis o f this study is that evaluation — the main function o f the genre boo k review — will be realized differently in each disciplinary culture, em phasizing differences in object o f study, epistemological organization and values. This variation will serve as evidence that textual features respond to the characteristic culture o f each field and, therefore, any suggestions for research o r teaching o f academic writing should tak e into account differences in disciplinary contexts.
1,3
Design o f the study
F o r the purposes stated above, I will develop a genre analysis o f academic book reviews across fields.
Such a general schematic description will allow for a distinction betw een field- invariant features, i.e., features that are regularly present in th e genre, and those that are field-dependent, i.e., found to be specific to chemistry, linguistics, and economics.
F o r the investigation o f generic param eters, I will rely primarily on th e literature on genre studies and the sociology o f science, as well as on the inform ation obtained in interview s w ith expert m em bers o f the three disciplines, and, in the text analysis proper, I will try to detect the rhetorical m oves commonly found in the book reviews in the corpus.
The concept o f m ove usually adopted in G enre Analysis (comm only associated with the w o rk o f Swales, 1981, 1990) relates to a given schematic structure found in the text w hich has specific rules for form and context o f use in relation to the function that it perform s in the genre. In research article introductions, for example, w riters usually adopt a three-m ove structure; they establish the field in which their research paper will be contextualized, then they point o ut to the reader a gap in current research, and finally show how their research will fill this gap in the current state o f know ledge (Swales, 1990:140). Similarly to research articles, book reviews are expected to present a certain set o f invariable rhetorical moves.
T o elaborate th e schematic description o f the rhetorical moves in the texts in the corpus, I will adopt th e genre-analytical approach put forth by Swales (1981, 1990) v^th each text being analyzed for content and form. Specifically in relation to th e latter, the analysis will concentrate on m etadiscourse markers: linguistic choices m ade by reviewers to construct tex t into a cohesive sequence th at function as guideposts for the w riter’s argum entation and the read er’s interpretation o f text content (V ande-K opple, 1985).
Specifically, I will;
a) D raw generalizations about the rhetorical organization o f the texts in the corpus; b) Elaborate a schematic description o f the characteristic and necessary textual elements o f the genre.
Afl;er developing the genre analysis o f the texts in the corpus, I will investigate field-dependent features o f the genre, focusing on how differences in textual organization respond to different epistemic organizations o f each field. Besides differences in the distribution o f rhetorical m oves across fields, the texts will be analyzed for th e evaluative term s o f praise and blam e used by reviewers to m ake a critique o f new publications in their respective fields, i.e., the vocabulary used to refer positively o r negatively to w hat is being evaluated (A ristotle, 1991). In the analysis o f field-dependent features, I will adopt th e perspective that genres act as constraining forces over new texts in the discipline;
W riters find in existing m odels the solution to the recurring rhetorical problem s o f w riting science. As these solutions becom e familiar, accepted, and molded through repeated use, they gain institutional force. (Bazerman, 1988; 8)
Therefore, I will take an approach to academic text studies that em phasizes the connection betw een text and the context that produces these texts.
1.4
Outline o f chapter content
In C hapter 2, I will present a review o f the literature in G enre Analysis, concentrating on studies o f academic genres. In Chapter 3 , 1 will report on the interviews carried ou t w ith three bo o k review editors o f w ell-know n journals, w orking in each one
o f the three selected academ ic disciplines. The procedures followed to elicit information, th e results obtained, and, w henever possible, some o f the relevant literature for the
specific issue under discussion will also appear in this chapter.
In C hapter 4 , 1 will present the m ethods adopted in the genre analysis portion o f the study. In C hapter 5, I will discuss textual features o f the genre, presenting a move analysis o f bo o k review s in chemistry, linguistics, and economics, as well as a description o f th e m ost typical linguistic choices associated w ith these moves. In C hapter 6, I will discuss the results obtained in the text analysis in term s o f features in the rhetorical organization o f texts, focusing on how this organization varies across fields, and in term s o f contextual features o f the genre, focusing on specific evaluative practices used by review ers in the th ree disciplinary cultures examined here.
Finally, in C hapter 7 , 1 will present the conclusions o f the study and will attem pt to m ake suggestions for pedagogical applications and future research.
In an interdisciplinary study such as this, description and evaluation o f current literature o f different disciplines (e.g., genre analysis and sociology o f science) along the w hole tex t is unavoidable. Also in th e vm ting o f this dissertation, it becam e clear that the planning o f each chapter could not altogether avoid reference to th e literature and to the m ethodological procedures adopted at different points o f the study. A s a resuh, references to the interviews with bo ok review editors, to the survey o f b o o k reviewing practices, and to m ethodological procedures may recur, at different points o f the discussion, as sources o f inform ation about how genre variations occur across disciplines.
Notes
’ John Maddox, the editor of Nature, in a recent congress on scientific journalism in Brazil has stated that this proportion is usually associated with the fact that approximately 75% of the world research today is developed in the US {FOLHA DE SÃO PA ULO, 26.09.94).
^ I will use the term ‘disciplinary’ to refer to ‘the common possession of the practitioners of a particular [academic] discipline’ (Kuhn, 1970 [1962]: 182).
^ Inexperienced writers often find themselves constrained by the common belief that while expert writers are allowed to introduce innovations in their texts, the same, as a rule, is forbidden to novice writers. As Johns (1993:14) puts it: experts critique and question; novices repeat.
'‘To a certain extent, analogous to what Bakhtin (1986) has called ‘centripetal force’ and ‘centrifugal force’.
CHAPTER 2
GENRE STUDIES AND ACADEMIC DISCOURSE
2.0
Introduction
C hapter 1 presented the purpose and organization o f this study. It w as pointed out th at th e study is concerned w ith th e com parative analysis o f boo k reviews in the contexts o f three disciplinary cultures in the academy, namely, linguistics, chemistry, and econom ics. Thus this is an attem pt to define the abstract representation o f tex t structure o f the genre and to verify if and how it responds to variation in context, connecting text and context through th e study o f how boo k review ers use the same genre in each discipline.
A s th e present analysis is basically a theoretical and descriptive discussion, concentrated on the relationship betw een the academic context o f production and the text itself, it does n ot aim to explore in depth the pedagogical or the psycholinguistic considerations o f w riting and reading tasks or processes. H ow ever, the present chapter will begin by setting th e scene w here th e study o f academic genres gained prom inence as an approach to w riting scholarship and instruction that resorted to other areas such as English for Specific P urposes (ESP), Applied Linguistics, Rhetoric, and D iscourse Analysis. The remaining o f th e chapter will review th e literature on genre theories and to further explain th e basic concepts used in the genre-analytical tradition th at this study purp orts to follow.
2.1
Origins o f Genre Analysis in English fo r Specific Purposes
The controversy betw een those w ho see a dichotom y betw een form vs. function has divided researchers into opposing cam ps concerning approaches to the study o f academic discourse in English. It is relevant to discuss these long-term controversies because they are situated at the basis o f G enre Analysis (G A ) and because currently adopted views o f genre attem pt to and, to a certain extent, succeed in accom m odating these and other seemingly opposing dichotom ies into a fram ew ork that analyzes discourse in academic settings in a com posite manner.
2.1.1 Process vs. product approaches to writing instruction
E S P teaching has been centralized on the academic acculturation o f nonnative learners into university systems o f English-speaking countries. E S P researchers have traditionally studied textual features o f discourse associated w ith specific academic and professional activities, using a particularly form -focused approach to w ritten discourse that gained projection and that can be traced back to the D iscourse Analysis movement (H yon, 1994).
W hereas syntactic approaches to language studies had claimed th at th e sentence w as th e highest level o f analysis in the linguistic structure (Chomsky, 1980), and that linguistic analysis could not go beyond that level due to lack o f linguistic patterns beyond sentence boundaries (Benveniste, 1974), authors favoring discursive perspectives have tried to systematize the regularities present above sentence level. A fter the heyday o f syntactic approaches in linguistic studies in the 7 0 ’s, discourse researchers have explored different types o f text in term s o f the inform ation they convey and th e patterns o f
coherence displayed in these texts (see, for example, van Dijk & K intsch (1983) in Cognitive Psychology; de B eaugrande & D ressier (1981) in Text Linguistics; CharoUes (1983), Halliday & H asan (1976, 1985), and C oulthard (1985) in D iscourse Analysis; D udley-Evans (1986), Swales (1981) in GA).
Evolving at about th e same tim e as D iscourse Analysis research program s, E S P approaches concentrated on th e explanation o f structural features o f texts to normative academ ic w riters and readers, describing the connection betw een the structure and purpose o f different types o f academ ic texts (Hyon, 1994). Em phasis w as pu t on the form ation o f science and technology international students proficient in English, w ith the assum ption that nonnative learners need to learn about the kind o f language used in their disciplines to be able to fim ction as fiill-fiedged members o f the academ ic community (Spack, 1988a:36). Furtherm ore, w ith its focus on text structure, E SP offered a shift aw ay fi'om th e practice usually adopted in th e 70’s that concentrated alm ost exclusively on th e w riter’s psycholinguistic processes involved in text production (Raimes,
1991:409).
In the w riter-centered process approach, students should focus on meaning, finding their w ay o ut o f a w ritten assignment through the use o f thinking and rew riting skills in the elaboration o f multiple drafts. W riting w as considered a vehicle for reflection and self- expression and w riting tasks usually mvolved personal self-generating essay topics (Spack, 1988a:32). The process approach w as itself a reaction against traditional prescriptive approaches to w riting instruction adopted in the 6 0 ’s (Raimes, 1991:409), w ith its emphasis on the encoding o f previously conceived thoughts into syntactically
correct sentences arranged in appropriate, static form s o r text types, such as com parison/contrast, description, narration, process, etc. (M artin, 1992:27).
E S P critics o f the cognitive process approach argued that w riting instruction that tended to concentrate on the process o f text production did not in fact prepare students to function appropriately in w hat is a social environm ent that has relatively rigid rules for acceptable scientific com munication. Therefore, focus upon th e individual (the author’s voice and purpose) instead o f th e social (the author’s aw areness o f argum entation practices in the discipline and o f audience and community), and on ‘developing students as authors w hen they aren’t yet ready to be w riters’ (Johns, 1994:1), caused a general failure in process-oriented academ ic writing programs.
Aligned w ith E S P practitioners’ view on the role o f form constraints over responses to context, Jamieson (1975:414) takes a step further tow ard a socially-oriented view o f writing, i.e. discourse form and meaning are socially constructed, and argues for a m ore encom passing view o f the im portance o f established traditions presiding w ritten conm iunication:
To hold that “the rh eto r is personally responsible for his rhetoric regardless o f ‘genres’,” is, at least in [some] cases..., to becom e mired in paradoxes.
F o r Jamieson, rhetorical choices are not freely made but, besides and above the dem ands posed by im m ediate circumstance, they obey constraints im posed by literary tradition (p .4 15) (and other established traditions for that matter).
W ith its exclusive attention to psycholinguistic aspects and lack o f attention to form, the process approach, as viewed by E S P critics, avoided other im portant concerns in relation to the social and cultural aspects o f academ ic writing in th e disciplines (H orow itz, 1986:446) and thus could not effectively prepare students for the w riting needs o f academ ic settings (Hyon, 1994:89).
In opposition, E S P practitioners concentrated on w ritten genres, viewing them as products o f an established academ ic community th at im poses certain param eters to w riting tasks (e.g., essay paper, research paper, etc.) so that students’ writing and reading abilities should respond to them within their respective fields (Silva, 1990:17). O ne o f th e main argum ents in favor o f the product approach is that international students dem onstrated special attention to form and style o f academic texts, indicating the facilitative role played by stability in second language reading and writing. Stability in form is believed to provide m ore predictability in second language situations, thus second language w riters tend to ‘follow m ore closely the “m odel texts” aheady published in the international jo urnals’ as a w ay to attain consistency w ith the academ ic com munity conventions and decrease the probability o f getting their paper rejected (Johns, 1993:10-
11
).F rom the beginning o f the 8 0 ’s, even though the process approach w as still well established in w riting classroom s (H airston, 1982), researchers began to pay attention to the role o f teaching text structure to international university students in fostering m ore critical and faster reading and w riting skills (Hill et al., 1982) and also as a w ay to em pow er these nonnative students to fimction in English in the international sphere. In
E S L reading, learners th at possessed and activated the appropriate background know ledge o r schem ata (Rum elhart, 1980:34) w hen processing text structure w ere found to retrieve m ore inform ation (Carrel, 1984:464-65). In E S L writing, students using text structure w ere found to develop a faster and m ore accurate understanding o f the hierarchical relationship betw een the ideas in the text, while citing m ore coherently and clearly, in their ow n w riting assignments, inform ation from the literature in their disciplines (Carrell, 1985; G raetz, 1985; Edge, 1985).
2.1.2 A reader-oriented approach to writing instruction
In an attem pt to fo ster students’ critical thinking, w ithout leaving aside the im portance o f discourse form, E S P researchers (e.g.. Swales, 1981; Dudley-Evans, 1986) have resorted to a social-contextual approach to academic discourse, becom ing the precursors in G A investigations o f key academic genres (Spack, 1988a:33). In the socio- contextual approach, the institutional structure o f know ledge is ‘dem ystified’ (Bizzel, 1982:196; D udley-Evans, 1994:228) through the study o f academ ic discourse conventions and the interconnections betw een discourse and community. The recent publication o f books on academ ic w riting in disciplinary contexts (Swales and Feak, 1994; B erkenkotter and Huckin, 1995; Peck M acD onald, 1994) serves as example o f the effort m ade by genre analysts in the direction o f explicating academic genre conventions .
W ith its origin closely associated to ESP research, and later incorporating concepts o f rhetoric, G A has provided a fram ew ork for the study o f academic and professional discourse patterns through the description o f the rhetorical organization o f different
genres com monly used in academ ic w riting/reading instruction (see, for example. Swales and Feak, 1994; D udley-Evans & H enderson, 1993; Bhatia, 1993). Such descriptive studies aim to provide w riters (especially novice ones) w ith know ledge about the form, content, function, and contextual features displayed by texts that are accepted as exem plars o f a given academ ic genre by expert readers in each field (e.g., refereed jo um al editors, dissertation com m ittee members).
Process-approachers have criticized genre-oriented approaches to E S L w riting in academ ic settings fo r being to o form -focused and enforcing a reader-centered view o f w riting w ith the idea that text m ust m atch an ideal academic discourse com m unity’s expectations. O ne no te o f caution has to be given here regarding th e w ord fo r m . G A does no t argue for strict attention to form as syntactically correct sentences as w as the concern o f late sixties w riting pedagogies, w ith topics assigned by th e teacher and em phasis on well w ritten paragraphs. Instead, G A approaches aim at w hat is being expressed in the tex t as a whole. The focus is on the reader and on the rhetorically stm ctured unit o f language functioning in a given context. Teachers aim to develop students’ aw areness o f ho w to respond to academ ic disciplines, w ith their argum ents and values, so that w hat students leam is a ‘socialization into the academic com m unity’ (Raimes, 1991:412).
The conceptualization o f an audience as an academic discourse com m unity impHes th at each potential reader for w hom the tex t is w ritten represents a m em ber o f a group w ith its ow n socially constm cted culture, set o f values, interests in term s o f object o f study and theories. The reader is projected as ‘an initiated expert w ho represents a faculty
audience’ (ibid.), i.e., th e reader is a professional that belongs to and at th e same time represents a given disciplinary community.
Criticism to this view o f a constraining audience with an imposing set o f values over th e individual autonom y are m ade by process-approachers w ho argue th at this is just a ‘com e-back’ o f previous form -oriented, regulatory, approaches to E S L w riting (ibid.). O n the other hand, G A practitioners tend to think that, w ithout system atized and in-depth know ledge about th e rhetoric traditions o f academic fields, novice w riters are left; with the task o f learning implicitly through experience how to use academic genres (Devitt,
1993:583).
In addition, stress on the representation o f rhetorical organization o f texts can contribute to the im provem ent o f students’ m etaaw areness o f scientific tex ts (Haas, 1994:68) in term s o f the kind o f inform ation to be included and the types o f goals aimed at in a given text, and how these can be organized cohesively and coherently. Such m etaaw areness can guide students’ writing tasks and help socialize these new com ers into th e academic com munity through th e filling o f the ‘large gap betw een w hat students bring to the academic com munity and w hat the academic community expects o f th em ’ (Spack, 1988a: 30). It is im portant th at w e realize the role o f teaching the rhetorical traditions o f disciplines in em pow ering international students in academic life, w here students need to learn ‘som e o f the secrets o f genres and com m unities’ to develop ‘a literacy repertoire that will assist them to appropriate texts and tasks within academic com m unities’ (Johns,
It is also im portant, how ever, that teachers and learners maintain a critical distance all along the process o f acculturation into th e disciplinary community. In th at respect, a mid-way, conciliatory position is advisable regarding the developm ent o f international students’ academ ic skills in English. Thus, at the same tim e that they m ust be aw are o f the conform ing tendency th at discourse communities have to conventionalize discourse according to the social forces that are considered m ost pow erful in th e group, and while these learners have to interpret th e com munity values to be able to com m unicate w ith oth er members, they have to consciously attem pt to influence, to contribute to , even to change th e values and course o f developm ent o f this target com munity fo r w hom they v m te so that a m ore pluralistic position tow ards discourse is attained.
Calling for this conciliatory view o f writing, scholars and instructors supporting a genre-oriented approach argue for an integration betw een product and process. Besides viewing tex ts as conveyers o f disciplinary know ledge, students becom e aw are o f academ ic discourse as accom plishm ents o f scientific action. Therefore, process and form are seen as relevant elements, m that w riters attain adequacy in text through a revising/rew riting process o f approxim ation to the socially constructed representation o f a genre. L earners need to understand how they m ake choices in com posing their texts in ord er to represent their goals, their choice o f an intended audience, the rhetorical tradition in their respective fields, all in accordance w ith the genre. L ater w riters can activate their revising skills as they recognize mism atches betw een their text and the schem ata o f the genre.
