Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
18
1.Academicdiscourseanditsrhetoric
disagreementontheother(Myers,1989;Swales,1990;Hunston,2005;Łyda,
2007a,b;WarchałandŁyda,2007;Warchał,2010b).Thebalancebetweenthese
twoforces—theextenttowhichthedisagreementisovertlyproclaimed—
isbothculture-anddisciplinary-bound(asshown,amongothers,byDuszak,
1994;Čmejrková,1996;ČmejrkováandDaneš,1997;Hyland,1999a;Sam-
raj,2002;Salager-Meyeretal.,2003;Shaw,2003;Adnan,2008),addingtothe
internalcomplexityanddiversityofacademicdiscourseanditscommunity.
Swales(1990:24)observesthatdiscoursecommunitiesarecentrifugal,that
istheydefyhomogeneityandtendtobeinternallydivideddependingonspe-
cificinterestsoftheirmembers.Thisinternaldivisionofacademicdiscourse
communityisreflectedindisciplinarydifferences,which,aswehavealready
notedinSection1.1,areoneofthesourcesofvariationwithinacademiccom-
munication.AsHyland(2005:140)observes,u[discourse]communitiesare,
infact,notmonolithicandunitarybutoftenhybrid,characterizedbyvaried
valuesanddiscoursesandbyindividualswithdiverseexperiences,interests
andinfluence.”Anothersourceofvariationisculturalbackgroundofdiscourse
participants,anissuediscussedinmoredetailinthenextsection.
1.2Theculturalfactorinacademiccommunication
Writingin1966,Kaplanobservedthatdifferencesbetweenlanguagesgo
beyondindividuallanguagesystemsandresidealsointheirrhetoricalstruc-
ture—inthepreferredwaysoftopicidentificationanddevelopmentand
henceinthevaluestheirusersattachtosuchfeaturesasadirectstatement
oftheproblem,astraightforwardannouncementofthecommunicativegoal,
linearargumentation,andexplicitformulationofconclusions(Kaplan,1987).
Theseearlyobservationssparkledinterestinthewaysrhetoricalpatternsand
discourseexpectationsofone)smothertonguemayinfluencethecomposition
inanotherlanguage,whichhasdevelopedotherformsofdiscourseorgani-
sationanddifferentrhetoricalmodels(see,e.g.,ConnorandKaplan,1987;
Connor,1996).Forexample,ithasbeennoticedthatthereareconsiderable
differencesinthewaysapparentlyequivalentgenresareutilisedindifferent
cultures(e.g.,apologyinAmericanandJapanesecontexts;Smith,1987),in
discourseexpectationsandnormssetupforcorrespondingtexttypes,suchas
schoolessaysinEnglish,GermanandPolish(Clyne,1987b;Duszak,1998b),in
thepreferredargumentationpatternsusedinstudentcompositions(Connor,
