Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
1.Academicdiscourseanditsrhetoric
13
lectingcertainaspectsofuobjectivefacts”andbackgroundingothers,selecting
amethodofanalysisandgroundingitwithinonetheoryratherthananoth-
er,selectingtextsandauthorstoconversewithwhileomittingothers.Hence,
anacademictextissomuchaselectiverepresentationofaportionofreality
asitisofthewritersthemselves,asonesthatuhavesomethinginterestingand
plausibletosay”(Hyland,2005:66).Constructingplausibilityinvolvesweigh-
ingpossiblecounterarguments,anticipatingcriticismordoubt,makingcon-
cessionstootherpossibleviewsand,generallyspeaking,admittingandcapi-
talisingonpolyphonytopersuadethereaderthattheauthor)sargumentsare
wellthoughtout.AsSwales(1990:175)observes,actsofreportingonthere-
searchdoneareinfactucomplexlydistancedreconstructionsofresearchac-
tivities,atleastpartofthisreconstructiveprocessderivingfromaneedtoan-
ticipateanddiscountenancenegativereactionstotheknowledgeclaimsbeing
advanced.”Thepresenceoftheauthorandoftheothers—readers,fellowac-
ademics,otherresearchersandauthors—isthereforeaninherentpartofthe
complexprocessofcreationofknowledgeintheactofcommunication.
Thisviewofacademicdiscourseasessentiallypolyphonicisrootedin
Bakhtiniantraditionofdialogue,wherewordsarebornnotinthevoidbut
incontactwiththewordsofothers,withwhichtheyinteract(Bakhtin,1982:
101ff).Theyareseenasuresourcesforinterpersonalnegotiationandposi-
tioning”(White,2000:71)—aperspectivewhichshiftsemphasisfromthe
individualistictothesocial,fromimpersonaltointerpersonal,andfromthe
monoglossictothedialogicinacademicpractices.Meaningsemergeasare-
sultofcomplexinteractionsandnegotiationbetweenacademicauthors,their
readers,andotherauthorsandresearchersworkingonsimilarproblemsbut
notnecessarilyoperatingwiththesamemethodologiesorwithinonetheoret-
icalparadigm.Academictextsthereforeembodytheideaofheteroglossicen-
gagement,thatisofprincipalinvolvementwithdialogicalternatives(White,
2003).
Thedependenceonfastandunimpededexchangeofinformation,which
marksacademicdiscourseandconditionsthedevelopmentofknowledge,
meansthatitisindispensableforscholarstodevelopatoolforeffectivecom-
municationacrosslanguageborders.Sharingacodemeans—intheory,ifnot
alwaysinpractice(see,e.g.,Flowerdew,2008)—thatthemembershipinapar-
ticularspeechcommunitydoesnotprecludeparticipationinacademicdiscus-
sionontheinternationalarenaandthereforedoesnotdisadvantageascholar
whosefirstlanguageisnotoneofacountryknownfordynamictechnolog-
icalandscientificadvances.Intoday)sworlditisEnglishthatplaystherole
ofthegloballanguageofscience(Swales,1990,2004;Duszak,1997a;Wood,
