Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
12
1.Academicdiscourseanditsrhetoric
byothers,andthroughinteractionwithcolleaguesinwhichuscholarlyways”
arerehearsedandinstantiated(Petersen,2007:477).
TheperspectiveadoptedherefollowsDuszakandherunderstandingof
academicdiscourse,oruscholarlyways,”asuvariouscommunicativeactivities
undertakentogenerateandlordistributescientificknowledgeandknowledge
derivedfromit,andtoconsiderintellectuallyissueswhichconstitutearemark-
ablecomponentofsociallife”(Duszak,1998a:313-314,trans.KW).Thisdef-
initionlaysemphasisonthefollowingaspectsofacademicinteraction:thein-
tellectual,rationalattitudeofthecommunicator;theobjectiveofgenerating
knowledgeintheactofcommunicationratherthanmerelyreportingit;thede-
pendenceondistributionandexchangeofinformation;andthefocusonnon-
imaginaryobjectsofconsiderationwhichdemandattention.Whiletheration-
alattitudecallsforanuninvolved,logical,factualandimpersonalapproachto
thepresentationandanalysisofdatawhichconstitutethebuildingblocksof
knowledge,thefactthatknowledgeisconstructedintheinteractionwithoth-
ersimpliestheneedfortakingstance,negotiatingconcepts,weighingargu-
ments,hypothesisingandpersuading,whichturnsacademiccommunication
intoadeeplyinterpersonalendeavour.Theclashbetweenthesetwoforcesrep-
resentsthetensionbetweentwoviewsonwhatconstitutesanacademictext.
Ontheonehand,thereisthetraditionalview,wherelanguageisatrans-
parenttoolforreportinguobjective”factsandtransmissionofknowledge,dep-
ersonalised,withthewriterandscholarvirtuallyabsentfromthetext.Thisat-
titude,consolidatedbytheCartesiannotionofrationalityandthestandards
ofevidenceandcertainty(Taylor,1989),isdirectlygroundedintheclassical
Aristotelianconceptsoflogic,dialecticandrhetoric,withlogicstudyingthe
formallinksbetweenpremisesandconclusions,dialecticconcernedwithex-
aminingthesoundnessofarguments,andrhetoricidentifiedwithpersuasion
andtreatedwithsuspicionandreserve(Walton,2007).Ontheotherthough,
thereisthemorerecentrhetoricalperspective,accordingtowhichacademic
communicationisloadedwithinterpersonalmeanings,withtheauthorsaim-
ingnotonlytodescribethesmallfractionofrealitywithwhichtheyarecon-
cerned,butalsotoengagecriticallywithotherwritersandpointsofviewin
ordertoarriveatabetterunderstandingoftheprobleminabroadercontext
andtoconvincethereaderthattheissueisindeedworthaddressing,thattheir
conclusionsarewellsupportedbydata,thattheanalysisismethodologically
flawlessandthattheyhavethenecessaryexpertiseinthefieldtotakeastand
onthematter.Academictexts,asHyland(2005:66)pointsout,arethere-
forenotsimplerepresentationsofrealitybutrepresentationsualwaysfiltered
throughactsofselectionandforegrounding.”Reportinginvariablyinvolvesse-
