Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
1.1Academicdiscoursecommunity:itsgenresandvalues
17
resultingfrommisunderstanding(Hinds,1987;Myers,1989;Swales,1990;
Hyland,1994).
2
Theyallemphasisethecollective,collaborativeandconsensu-
alaspectofacademicefforts,withindividualresearcherstryingtofitinwith
theexistingstateofdisciplinaryknowledgeandwidelyestablishednormsof
academicdialogue,tryingtopresentthemselvesascompetent,credibleand
reliablepartnersinthisinteraction,buildingontheworkofothersandinso
doingseekingacceptancefortheideastheyputforwardforconsiderationand
evaluation.AsnotedbyMyers(1989:5),uthewritermuststaywithinacer-
tainconsensustohaveanythingtosaytomembersofhisorherdiscipline.”
Thesearchforconsensusisthereforeanimportantmotivationunderlying
muchoftheuscholarlyways”Petersen(2007)referstoinheressayonnego-
tiatingacademicity.
Ontheotherhand,foranacademictexttoappearinprint,itmustof-
fersomethingnewandinthiswaychallengetheexistingknowledgeinthe
field.Toconvincethereviewersthattheircontributiondeservespublication,
andreadersthatitisworthfurtherattention,scholarscreatearesearchspace
(Swales,1990)eitherbyacademiccriticism(asshown,e.g.,byMyers,1989;
Hyland,2000;Martin-MartinandBurgess,2004;Hunston,2005)orbypro-
vidingadditional,sofarunconsidereddata,whichmayshednewlightonthe
objectofstudy.Inthisway,whileinprinciplestayingwithintheestablished
disciplinaryconsensus,academicauthorssetthemselvesapartfromotherre-
searchersandpreviousliterature,theultimateaimoftheirexpositionbeing
notonlythepresentationofnewdata,analternativeapproachoranovelmeth-
odofanalysisbutalsopersuadingthereadership—andthewholediscourse
community—thattheclaimsthatarisefromthesenewperspectivesmerit
seriousconsideration,furtherdiscussionandpromotingtothestatusoffacts.
AsnotedbyHyland(1994:241),aneffectiveacademiccontributionshould
beubothoriginalandcloselyrelatedtotheconcernsandmethodsofcurrent
research,achievingabalancebetweentheprofound,buthazardous,andthe
correct,butinsignificant.”Asaresult,muchoftheargumentationpatternsin
academiccommunicationproceedfromtheneedtoreconcilethetwomoti-
vations:thesearchforconsensusontheonehand,andtheneedtostructure
2Thatthesevaluesarenotabsolutebutsubjecttoculturalvariationhasbeenconvincing-
lyshownbyauthorsengagedwithEnglishforAcademicPurposesandContrastiveRhetoric.
Forexample,Hinds(1987)pointsoutthatwhileintheEnglishacademictraditiontheprime
responsibilityforeffectivecommunicationliesonthespeakerlwriter,intheJapanesetradition
itisthelistenerlreaderwhobearstheresponsibilityforsuccessfulinteraction.Clyne(1987a)
hasdemonstratedthatevenlessdistantculturesmanifestconsiderabledifferencesinthisre-
spect—apointfurtherdevelopedinSection1.2.
