Academic Style: Practical Examples

Formality
this piece of writing the present study (=this study)
my essayll make it clear the present paper will clarify
Impersonality
Many of my friends and colleagues say that It is commonly said that
I, you, my friend Dae the present study!author, one, "rofessor #o$ertson!#o$ertson
(%&&')
Precision
pets like cats, dogs, etc( pets, such as cats and dogs,
around half of the groupappro)imately *+, of the group
Caution
-ur study proes that .his study shows that
Im sure this is so( .here is reason to $eliee that this is so(
/e really couldnt make anything of the results( .here were difficulties in analy0ing the
results(
Lack of emotion (an objectie! unemotional stance"
I think that this idea sucks( .his idea may not $e
accurate(
In my opinion this is a wonderful topic( .his topic is worth inestigating $ecause(
Features of Academic #ritin$
Introduction
1cademic writing in 2nglish is linear, which means it has one central point or theme with eery
part contri$uting to the main line of argument, without digressions or repetitions( Its o$3ectie is
to inform rather than entertain( 1s well as this it is in the standard written form of the language(
.here are eight main features of academic writing that are often discussed( 1cademic writing is
to some e)tent4 comple), formal, o$3ectie, e)plicit, hedged, and responsi$le( It uses language
precisely and accurately(
.ry this e)ercise
Complexity
/ritten language is relatiely more comple) than spoken language( /ritten language has longer
words, it is le)ically more dense and it has a more aried oca$ulary( It uses more noun5$ased
phrases than er$5$ased phrases( /ritten te)ts are shorter and the language has more
grammatical comple)ity, including more su$ordinate clauses and more passies(
6lick for more information and e)amples on 6omple)ity
Formality
1cademic writing is relatiely formal( In general this means that in an essay you should aoid
collo7uial words and e)pressions(
6lick for more information and e)amples on 8ormality
Precision
In academic writing, facts and figures are gien precisely(
6lick for more information and e)amples on "recision
%bjectiity
/ritten language is in general o$3ectie rather than personal( It therefore has fewer words that
refer to the writer or the reader( .his means that the main emphasis should $e on the information
that you want to gie and the arguments you want to make, rather than you( 8or that
reason academic writing tends to use nouns (and ad3ecties), rather than er$s (and ader$s)(
6lick for more information and e)amples on -$3ectiity
Explicitness
1cademic writing is e)plicit a$out the relationships int he te)t( 8urthermore, it is the
responsi$ility of the writer in 2nglish to make it clear to the reader how the arious parts of the
te)t are related( .hese connections can $e made e)plicit $y the use of different signalling words(
6lick for more information and e)amples on 2)plicitness
Accuracy
1cademic writing uses oca$ulary accurately( Most su$3ects hae words with narrow specific
meanings( 9inguistics distinguishes clearly $etween :phonetics: and :phonemics:; general
2nglish does not(
6lick for more information and e)amples on 1ccuracy
&ed$in$
In any kind of academic writing you do, it is necessary to make decisions a$out your stance on a
particular su$3ect, or the strength of the claims you are making( Different su$3ects prefer to do
this in different ways(
1 techni7ue common in certain kinds of academic writing is known $y linguists as a <hedge(
6lick for more information and e)amples on =edging
'esponsibility
In academic writing you must $e responsi$le for, and must $e a$le to proide eidence and
3ustification for, any claims you make( >ou are also responsi$le for demonstrating an
understanding of any source te)ts you use(
6lick for more information and e)amples on #esponsi$ility
1dapted and reformatted from
In academic writing the writer?s approach to the topic is o$3ectie (rather than
su$3ectie), intellectual (rather than emotional), and rational (rather than polemical)(
=is!her tone is serious (not conersational), impersonal (not personal), and formal (not
informal)(
.ypical features of academic 2nglish include4
%( "recision, clarity and sentence structure that is easy to understand, i(e(
5 no sentences that stretch oer a whole long paragraph and only
confuse the reader!listener (good adice4 try to read your sentence
aloud to find out whether it is easily comprehensi$le or not),
5 no unnecessary words that only prolong the sentence and make it
$om$astic (e(g( we analysed the data , @-.4 we performed an analysis
of the data)
'( .erminology closely connected with a particular scientific discipline
e(g( dielectrics, @6 machines, fission
+( Au$technical oca$ulary, i( e( words and phrases common to academic writing in
general
e(g( analyse, compute, compare, differ
B( /ords of 9atin and Creek origin
e(g( focus, phenomenon
*( @o words!phrases common in informal 2nglish
e(g( you know, you see, a little $it, a lot of, like I said
D( 8ull forms of words instead of contracted forms
e(g( is not instead of isn?t, has not instead of hasn?t
E( 9imited use of phrasal er$s, use of formal and prepositional er$s
e(g( constitute instead of make up, compensate instead of make up for;
differ from, result in
F( 9ess usual prepositions
e(g( in addition to, unlike, despite
&( "assie constructions instead of I, you
e(g( the data were analysed
instead of4 I analysed the data
a rise in consumption can $e e)pected
instead of4 you can e)pect a rise in consumption
@otes4
5 /e is sometimes used for ariety or emphasi0ing that it was the
author(s) who (4
1lthough the method generally used for this purpose is the )) method,
we used the method deeloped in our la$oratory(
5 1n actie construction is used where the passie construction is
rather clumsy4
.his paper shows why and under what conditions computer support
for workshop schedules is necessary(
instead of4 In this paper it is shown
%G( Infinitie constructions, Hing and Hed forms replacing long phrases and clauses
.he e)periment was repeated fie times to o$tain conincing results
instead of4 so that conincing results might $e o$tained
6omparing the two e)pressions we can find that
instead of4 /hen we compare
.he results o$tained do not agree with
instead of4 the results which were o$tained!the results we o$tained
%%( 6onstructions e)pressing cause!reason, result!effect, purpose, contrast, similarity, etc(
2)ample of the cause H result relationship4
1 causes!is the cause of!gies rise to!produces I
I results from!is the result of!is due to I
%'( =edging , i(e( use of modal er$s (may, might, could, would ) and some other words
and phrases to aoid a definite statement
2)ample of definite statement4
Industriali0ation is iewed as a superior way of life(
2)ample of hedged statement4
Industriali0ation tends to!may $e iewed as ((
%+( 1ppropriate punctuation, i(e( use of commas, colons, semicolons, inerted commas(
Inappropriate use of punctuation may change the meaning or make the te)t difficult to
read(
My friend who has 3ust returned from his study stay a$road wants to 3oin
our pro3ect(
(implies that you hae more friends and one of them has 3ust returned)
My friend, who has 3ust returned from his study stay a$road,
(implies that you hae one friend)
/hen all the students left the la$ was locked for the eening(
(you hae to read the sentence twice to understand that Jthe la$K
is not the o$3ect of JleftK $ut the su$3ect of the clause Jwas locked K)
1ppropriate punctuation4
/hen all the students left, the la$ was locked ((
.hese types reflect the
o$3ecties H or functions H you are trying to achiee at different stages of your
work, and they include definition, description, classification, causeeffect, comparison
and contrast, and argumentation(
Atudents hae a tendency to apply
casual spoken language to formal
written work (=inkel 'GG', 'GG+; Ahaw L 9iu,
%&&F)(
JMost of the grammar of academic 2nglish is shared
with that of 2nglish as a whole, and there are no
special structures which are uni7ue to academic
2nglish and neer found elsewhereK (6arter L Mc6arthy,
'GGD, p( 'DE)(
J9inguists hae come to recogni0e that language
characteristics differ dramatically from one register to
the ne)tK (Ii$er, 'GGD, p( D)(
J8ocus on items and structures which are common
in academic language and which characteri0e itK
(6arter L Mc6arthy, 'GGD, p( 'DE)(
Aalient 8eatures of 1cademic "rose
@ouns and noun
phrases
Definite noun phrase
used in cataphoric
e)pression
@ominali0ation
"repositionMwhich
relatii0er
6omparatie ad3s
"assie oice
Modified noun phrases
#elatie clauses
Degree modifiers
Aingle ader$ials
Though
2)istential there
6oordination tags
6lassifiers
That/those + of Hphrase
9inking ader$ials
@on5finite, er$less
clauses
Au$ordination
#eferences
Ii$er, D( (%&&*)( Dimensions of register variation(
6am$ridge4 6am$ridge Nniersity "ress(
Ii$er, D( ('GGD)( University language: A corpusbased
study of spoen and written registers(
1msterdam4 Oohn Ien3amins "u$lishing(
Ii$er, D(, Oohansson, A(, 9eech, C(, 6onrad, A(,
8inegan, 2( (%&&&)( !ongman grammar of spoen
and written "nglish( @ew >ork4 "earson 2ducation(
6arter, #( L Mc6arthy, M( ('GGD)( #ambridge
grammar of "nglish: A comprehensive guide to
spoen and written "nglish grammar and usage(
6am$ridge4 6am$ridge Nniersity "ress
Daies, Mark( ('GGF5) .he 6orpus of 6ontemporary
1merican 2nglish (6-61)4 BGGM million words, %&&G5
present( 1aila$le online at
http4!!www(americancorpus(org(
=inkel, 2( ('GG')( $econd language writers% te&t(
Mawah, @O4 9awrence 2rl$aum 1ssociates(
=inkel, 2( ('GG+)( Aimplicity without elegance4
8eatures of sentences in 9' and 9% academic te)ts(
T"$'! (uarterly, )*+,', 'E*5+G%(
=inkel, 2( ('GGB)( Teaching academic "$! writing-
Mawah, @O4 9awrence 2rl$aum 1ssociates(
=yland, P( ('GG')( Teaching and researching writing-
=arlow, 2sse)4 9ongman(
=yland, P( L Milton, O( (%&&E)( Qualification and
certainty in 9% and 9' students writing( .ournal of
$econd !anguage /riting, 0('), %F+5'G*(
9eech, C(, L Aartik, O( ('GG') A communicative
grammar of "nglish, (+rd ed()( @ew >ork4 9ongman(
1ichigan #orpus of Upper2level $tudent 3apers(
('GG&)( 1nn 1r$or, MI4 .he #egents of the Nniersity
of Michigan(
@ealainen, .(, .yrkkR, O( L "alander56ollin, M(
('G%%)( #orpus 4esource Database )#o4D,-
4etrieved from
http://www-helsini-fi/varieng/#o4D/inde&-html
5orth American 6reshman /riting #orpus (@18/i6)(
('GG&)( 6ompiled $y Cena Iennett at the Department
of 2nglish, Nniersity of Iirmingham, NP(
#eppen, #(, Ide, @(, L Auderman, P( ('GG*)(
American 5ational #orpus )A5#, $econd 4elease-
"hiladelphia, "14 9inguistic Data 6onsortium(
Ahaw, "( L 9iu, 2( (%&&F)( /hat deelops in the
deelopment of second language writingS Applied
!ingusitics, 78('), ''*5'*B(
There are eight main features of academic writing that
are often discussed. Academic writing is to some extent:
complex, formal, objective, explicit, hedged, and
responsible. It uses language precisely and accurately.
2nglish for Apecific "urposes, Tol( %+, @o( +, pp( '+&5'*D, %&&B
6opyright G %&&B .he 1merican Nniersity
2lseier Acience 9td( "rinted in the NA1
GFF&5B&GD%&B UD(GG M (--
())*+,*(-(*,"(((.,+x
Hedging in Academic Writing and
EAP Textbooks
Kennyland
1cademic writing is rich in hedged propositions( Iy allowing writers
to e)press their uncertainty concerning the factuakty of their statements or to
indicate deference to their readers, epistemic deices are a significant characteristic
of academic writing( Many te)t$ooks and style guides adance the idea that academic
discourse is simply o$3ectie and informational, written in an impersonal style
with a minimum of oert references to the actions, choices, and 3udgments of
the authors( .his means that interactional features such as markers of epistemic
modality are fre7uently presented as conentions of an academic culture in
2A" and 21" courses( 1cademic genres, like other forms of
writing, re7uire writers to consider the e)pected audience and anticipate their
$ackground knowledge, processing pro$lems, and reactions to the te)t (/iddowson
%&FB4 ''G)( academic discourse is $oth socially situated and
structured to accomplish rhetorical o$3ecties (e(g(, Cil$ert L Mulkay %&FB;
9atour L /oolgar %&E&)( /riting is a social act performed in a specific conte)t
for a particular audience (Iruffee %&FD), and thus the impersonal style which
appears to minimise the inolement of social actors also marks the interpretie
iewpoint of the writer( #ather than $eing factual and impersonal, effectie academic writing actually
depends on interactional elements which supplement propositional information
in the te)t and alert readers to the writers opinion( Aignificant among this
interactie element are hedges(
Hedging in Academic Discourse
1cademics are crucially concerned with arieties of cognition, and cognition
is ineita$ly Jhedged(K =edging refers to words or phrases Jwhose 3o$ it is to
make things fu00ierK (9akoff %&E'4 %&*%, implying that the writer is less than
fully committed to the certainty of the referential information gien( In other
words, academic writing inoles epistemic modality( 9yons definition of this
concept is well known4
1ny utterance in which the speaker e)plicitly 7ualifies his commitment to the
truth of the proposition e)pressed $y the sentence he utters is an epistemically
modal or modalised sentence( (9yons %&EE4 E&E)
.he epistemic system is therefore concerned with the display of confidence, or
more usually lack of confidence, in the truth of propositional information( .ypically,
hedging is e)pressed through use of modal au)iliary er$s such as may,
might and could, ad3ectial, ader$ial and nominal modal e)pressions (possible,
perhaps, probability), modal le)ical er$s (believe, assume), I85clauses, 7uestion
forms, passiisation, impersonal phrases, and time reference (e(g(, "erkins
%&F+)( .hese forms imply that statements contain personal $eliefs $ased on
plausi$le reasoning, for without them the implication is that the writer has
knowledge, deduced from logical reasoning or empirical data, that the proposition
coneyed is true( Auch tentatieness aoids personal accounta$ility for
statements, reducing the authors Jdegree of lia$ilityK (=ue$ler %&F+4 %F)( In persuasie writing, hedges are an important
means of $oth supporting the writers position and $uilding writer5reader
relationships( In sum, the use of hedging deices is important for two reasons4 it allows
claims to $e made with due caution, modesty, and humility, and the status of
such claims to $e diplomatically negotiated when referring to the work of
colleagues and competitors( .heir appropriate use is, moreoer, central to deeloping an academic communicatie
competence as it assists writers in esta$lishing Ja relationship with
the reader and . . . with the authorities in the fieldK (#ichards L Akelton %&&%4
+B)(
161D2MI6 /#I.I@C IA
Formal (impersonal, no slang, formal sentence structure)
'easoned (critical thinking4 how and why)
Impartial (gies a $alanced point of iew, more than one point of iew)
Lo$ical (ideas flow logically from one to another4 signposts, topic sentences and linked
paragraphs)
Structured (keeps to the structure of an essay, report etc)
Supported (eidence and e)amples, referencing)
Losing and nding coherence in academic writing !"#"$% !&'"(
)niversity of (ydney *apers in T"(&L, +,+-, .+/0.12.
3+445 I((': .26106.72 ,*rint- 8 .261015.+ ,&nline-
The abundance of genre theory today underlines the great
importance of genres in the practical business of writing. They are,
after all, 9resources for getting things done, and we all have a
repertoire of resources we can call on for recurring situations, from
shopping lists to job applications: ,;yland, +446:.7-. In writing
courses at "nglish0spea<ing universities the notion of genre is hugely
in=uential, where 9genre: is understood to be a text type incorporating
specic features that users recognise as serving a particular
purpose. 9"xemplars of a genre:, says (wales ,.774:/2-, 9exhibit
various patterns of similarity in terms of structure, style, content and
intended audience:. In the teaching of academic writing, the genrebased
approach encourages the study of text models, thus helping
the students to understand and write in the genres that are crucial
for success in academic and professional elds. This close attention,
in class and homewor<, to the sort of prose that students desperately
re>uire may be a reason why the genre0based approach remains
strong. Indeed, researchers? and teachers? awareness of the characteristics
of genre has been refreshed by the corpus studies that have
appeared in recent years ,for instance ;yland, +444, and (wales et al,
.772-.
Insofar as the above is a theory of writing, it may be said to t
into the cognitivist view, rst propounded by ;ayes and @lower
,.726-, where planning entails higher0order thin<ing s<ills. Among
the characteristics of the teaching model that springs from
cognitivism are two that are signicant for the present research. &ne
is the 9reader0based awareness: ,Aelce0$urcia 8 &lshtain, +444: +B-,
the sense of audience that the writer needs to cultivateC the other is
the process approach to composition that the student writer needs to
adopt, that is, preparing multiple drafts of a passage, and revising
language and ideas, often through pair and group wor<. Doth these
concepts reappear later in the paper.
+. *ragmatic "A*, Aritical "A*, and Aritical *ragmatic "A* '. ;arwood, E. ;adley F "nglish for (pecic
*urposes +6 ,+441- 6//G655
*ragmatic "A* is concerned with teaching students a set of dominant academic
discourse norms, i.e., the Anglo0American type. !ohns ,.776, p. +51- summariHes
what pragmatism entails when she says that the goal of an "A* course is Ito prepare
"(LF"@L and native0spea<ing students for the literacy demands at the secondary or
collegeFuniversity levelI. It is a s<ills0based, instrumental approach that attempts to
ma<e students aware of the dominant conventions in Anglo0American writing, and
then successfully appropriate these same conventions. Aritical "A*, on the other
hand, is concerned with Icriti>uing existing educational institutions and practices, and
subse>uently transforming both education and societyI ,;all, +444, p. 6. &riginal
emphasis. (ee also Denesch, +44.C Eiroux, .722C *ennycoo<, .771a, .771b, .775,
.777, +44.-. A Aritical approach condemns *ragmatic "A* for ma<ing no attempt
to >uestion the desirability of reinforcing these predominant norms. Dy re>uiring
students to conform to them, academic conventions are implicitly seen as benign or
at least value0free, InaturalI, and worthy of imitation. #ather than obliging the
academy to adapt to L+ studentsI rhetorical styles, *ragmatic "A* expects international
students to adapt to those of the ,Anglo0American- academy. A critical
approach views most of these existing practices with suspicion: they perpetuate the
unjust status >uo that marginaliHes less powerful groups G in this case, international
students. #ather than seeing dominant discourse conventions as InaturalI, Aritical
"A* views them as InaturaliHedI, Ithe product of relations of powerI ,IvaniIc, .772, p.
2.-. @rom this standpoint, *ragmatic "A* tends to view the ideal learner as passive
and accommodating, while a critical pedagogy
is founded on a view of learners as intellectuals, as researchers and as active
participants in social struggles, not just passively receiving <nowledge and advice,
but searching for understandings which will be of direct use to them,
which will open up new elds of vision and new perspectives, and provide a
basis for their own emancipatory and transformatory action. ,IvaniIc, .772,
pp. 665G662-
&n a practical level, then, ta<ing a critical approach to "A* is to recogniHe that
academic discourse practices are neither xed nor immutable: they are socially
constructed and therefore open to contestation and change by the learners ,IvaniIc,
.772-. Aritical "A* constitutes problematiHing as fundamental to pedagogy in
general and "A* in particular ,cf. *ennycoo<, .777-.
Aritical *ragmatic "A* attempts to reconcile these seemingly irreconcilable approaches.
&n the one hand, it ac<nowledges that students should be exposed to
dominant discourse norms, in line with *ragmatic "A*C while on the other hand, li<e
Aritical "A*, it stresses that students have choices and should be free to adopt or
subvert the dominant practices as they wish. Aritical *ragmatic "A* therefore has
two objectives: Ito help students perform well in their academic courses while encouraging
them to >uestion and shape the education they are being oJeredI ,Denesch,
+44., p. xvii-. *ennycoo< ,.771b, pp. 6.5G6.2- balances the pragmatic and the
critical thus:
Academic Kriting
Across
the Lisciplines
Written by Barrie Olson
With Introduction by Eleanor Dougherty
February 2013 February 2013
Literacy Design Collaborative
The term 9academic writing: is often used to describe the <ind of writing students
are as<ed to do at
the college level. )nfortunately, genres diJer signicantly from one discipline to the
next, which means
that what is considered 9good: academic writing in one classroom may not be
considered so in another.
Ke can, however, identify three traits of 9good: academic writing. that span all
disciplines and genres:
.. #eason over emotion
The student?s claims are made with ade>uate supporting evidence.
The student isn?t hyperbolic in his or her claims.
The student presents a clear line of reasoning to support his or her argument.
+. "vidence of being open0minded and disciplined
The student, where appropriate, includes and ac<nowledges opposing views.
The student includes a variety of credible sources.
6. The written product assumes a rational reader
The reader will loo< for gaps in the student?s argument and the student
anticipates this.
The student assumes the reader is willing to be persuaded. The student,
therefore, oJers a
clear line of reasoning in an eJort to persuade.
M') !ournal of (cience, @oreign Languages +/ ,+447- ..+0..5
..+
Academic "nglish at tertiary level: Khat, why and
how
'guyen Thi ;ong 'gaN
Foreign Language Department, Qui Nhon University,
170 An Duong Vuong, Qui Nhon, Binh Dinh, Vietnam
#eceived ./ !anuary +447
There are six main features of academic
writing that students should <now. To some
extent, academic writing is complex, formal,
objective, explicit, hedged, and responsible.
Academic "nglish is relatively more
complex than spo<en language ,Diber O/P,
;alliday and ;asan OBP-. Erammatically, it has
more subordinate clauses, more QthatFtoQ
complement clauses, more long se>uences of
prepositional phrases, more attributive
adjectives and more passives than spo<en
language. Lexically, academic writing often
re>uires longer, more complex words and
phrases. That is, it has more nominalisations,
more noun based phrases, and more lexical
variation. This <ind of writing is lexically dense
compared to spo<en language 0 It has
proportionately more lexical words than
grammatical words.
Aommonly used techni>ues in academic writing
include subordinate clauses, complements clauses,
se>uences of prepositional phrases, participals,
passive verbs, lexical density, lexical complexity,
norminaliHation, noun0based phrases, modication
of noun phrases, attributive adjectives.
Formality
Academic writing is relatively formal. In
general this means that in an academic piece of writing, collo>uial words and
expressions
should be avoided. @ollowing are some
examples.
0 Aollo>uial words and expressions: "stuf",
"a ot o!", "thing", "sort o!","
0 Abbreviated forms: "#an$t", "%oesn$t",
"shou%n$t", "
0 Two word verbs: "put of", "&ring up", "
0 (ub0headings, numbering and bullet0points
in formal writings 0 but use them in reports.
0 As<ing >uestions.
Objectivity
Academic language is in general objective
rather than personal. It, therefore, has fewer words
that refer to the writer or the reader. This means
that the main emphasis should be on the
information that you want to give and the
arguments you want to ma<e, rather than you. @or
that reason, academic writing tends to use nouns
,and adjectives-, rather than verbs ,and adverbs-.
This is related to the basic nature of
academic study and academic writing, in
particular. 'obody really wants to <now what
you Qthin<Q or QbelieveQ. They want to <now
what you have studied and learned and how this
has led you to your various conclusions. The
thoughts and beliefs should be based on your
lectures, reading, discussion and research and it
is important to ma<e this clear.
0 Avoid words li<e "'", "me", "myse!","
A reader will normally assume that any idea
not referenced is your own. It is therefore
unnecessary to ma<e this explicit.
LonRt write: "'n my opinion, this a very
interesting stu%y"(
Krite: ")his is a very interesting stu%y"(
0 Avoid QyouQ to refer to the reader or
people in general.
LonRt write: "*ou #an easiy !orget ho+
%iferent i!e +as ,0 years ago"(
Krite: "'t is easy to !orget ho+ %i-#ut i!e
+as ,0 years ago"(
Explicitness
Academic writing is explicit about the
relationships in the text.
0 It is explicit in its signposting of the
organisation of the ideas in the text ,Diber,
!ohansson, Leech, Aonrad and @inegan O5P-. As
a writer of academic "nglish, it is your
responsibility to ma<e it clear to your reader
how various parts of the text are related. These
connections can be made explicit by the use of
diJerent signalling words.
0 It is explicit in its ac<nowledgment of the
sources of the ideas in the text.
Krite:
.#/rei 01177234356078 has sho+n that
though Du&iners 9n% the :ngish more
a##epta&e than the Northern 'rish, Du&iners
sti see; a soution to the Northern pro&em
+ithin an a5'rean% state(
LonRt write:
Athough Du&iners 9n% the :ngish more
a##epta&e than the Northern 'rish, Du&iners
sti see; a soution to the Northern pro&em
+ithin an a5'rean% state(
Hedging
It is often believed that academic writing,
particularly scientic writing, is factual, simply
to convey facts and information. ;owever, it is
now recognised that an important feature of
academic writing is the concept of cautious
language, often called QhedgingQ or Qvague
languageQ. In other words, it is necessary to
ma<e decisions about the stance on a particular
subject, or the strength of the claims that are
being made. LiJerent subjects prefer to do this
in diJerent ways.
Responsibility
In academic writing writers must be
responsible for, and must be able to provide
evidence and justication for, any claims you
ma<e. Kriters are also responsible for
demonstrating an understanding of any source
texts you use. &8 <etting the a##epta&e +riting &ehaviours
In academic writing, there is a standard that
we can refer to as acceptable writing behaviour.
Aneanseco and Dryd ,.727-, ;orowitH ,.72Ba,
b-, !ohns ,.72B-, #eid ,.721, .72/, .725,
.727-, (hih ,.72B-, (trauch ,.775-, #aimes
,.77+-, Erabe and Saplan ,.77B-, concur that
there is a standard of acceptable writing
behaviour. That there is standard is also evident
in the various mar<ing rubrics used to assess
academic writing at diJerent levels of
development ,in *eet O2P-.
e!erences
O.P A. (tephen, Kright, Lonald $. Taylor, !udy
$acarthur, =ourna o! :%u#ationa >sy#hoogy Mol.
7+, 'o.. ,+444- B6, (ubtractive Dilingualism and
the (urvival of the Inuit Language: ;eritage Mersus
(econd0language "ducation, American
*sychological Association.
O+P #. Eersten, (.S. Da<er, T. (hanahan, (. Linan0
Thompson, *. Aollins, #. (carcella, :fe#tive
itera#y an% anguage instru#tion !or :ngish
earners in the eementary gra%es, An ':< pra#ti#e
gui%e, LA: I"(, Lepartment of "ducation,
Kashington, +445.
O6P #. (carcella, Accelerating Academic "nglish: A
@ocus on the "nglish Learner, #egents of the
)niversity of Aalifornia, &a<land, Aalifornia, +446.
O1P I. Le<i, !. Aarson, (tudents? perceptions of "A*
writing instruction and writing needs across the
disciplines, ):<?L Quartery +2 ,.771- 2..
O/P L. Diber, Variation A#ross <pee#h an% @riting,
pp.60+5, Aambridge )niversity *ress, Aambridge,
"ngland, .722.
OBP $.A.S. ;alliday, #. ;asan, Language, #onteAt an%
teAt2 Aspe#ts o! anguage in a <o#ia <emioti#
>erspe#tive, &)*, &xford, .727.
O5P Diber, !ohansson, Leech, Aonrad, @inegan,
Longman grammar o! spo;en an% +ritten :ngish,
Longman, London, .777.
O2P S. *eet, A#a%emi# @riting, from
http:FFwww.acadwrite+I<endall.htm, +447
International "ournal o! Doctoral #tudies $olu%e 3& 200'
Editor( )it*a +eri
Develo,%ent o! English -cade%ic Writing
Co%,etence by .ur/ish #cholars
Louisa uc!ingham
"abanc# $niversity, %stanbul, &ur!eys
*revious research has identied areas of language diTculty in second language
writing, for example
;in<el ,+446- has described features of wea< writing ,commonly called vague,
simple
constructions- among ''( academics as being: overuse of &e copula as the main
verb, fre>uent use of vague nouns as well as public ,e.g. a%mit, agree- and private
verbs ,e.g. !ee, hope, reaiBe-.
In an earlier study of ''( writing at the postgraduate level, Allison, Aooley,
Lew<owicH,
and 'unan ,.772- discussed problems in organiHation on a macro0level of the thesis
and on a micro0
level of the paragraph, substantiation of arguments, strength of claims, as well as
on the surface
level of grammar and the mechanics of spelling, punctuation and bibliographic
referencing.
(haw and Liu ,.772- have described typical problem areas in undergraduate ''(
writing. Although
L+ writing problems are often ascribed to @irst Language ,L.- interference, (hi
,+44+-
and ;irose ,+446- have also discussed the in=uence of L+ writing s<ills on L. writing
ability.
These authors conclude that scholars who underta<e the majority of their research
in a second
language ,e.g. "nglish- may nd that their scholarly writing in their rst language is
in=uenced
by second language writing norms.