Practices, theories, and traditions: Further thoughts on the disciplinary identities of English and communication Studies (original) (raw)
Related papers
Rhetoric and linguistics: forms of connection in the interdisciplinary research
Res Rhetorica, 2021
Most studies of the relationship between rhetoric and linguistics primarily take the content perspective, i.e., the overlapping subject areas of the two disciplines, as the main basis for interdisciplinary research involving them. This study adopts instead the perspective of the forms of connection between the disciplines. The object of the study concerns the microforms of interdisciplinary connections, visible in concrete texts, analyzed on the background of such macroforms as interdisciplinarity, among others. The proposed model shows a broader issue of connections of rhetoric with other disciplines, interesting in the context of the often unequal level of formal education of researchers in the disciplines they combine: for one is acquired formally, in the process of education, the other-usually rhetoric-informally, in the process of their own academic lifelong learning. This paper adapts Bloom's (1956) taxonomy of ways to achieve cognitive goals in learning, in this case learning an interdisciplinary approach relevant for rhetoric and linguistics. Using excerpts from texts, the proposed model provides insight into the process of combining rhetoric and linguistics from the perspective of the authors undertaking interdisciplinary research.
As academic disciplines have advanced the integration of disciplines interdisciplinary collaborative structures have become increasingly important and desired. In particular, wholly interdisciplinary disciplines such as environmental science have developed representing a growing class of emergent sciences. Yet interdisciplinary work presents some very real challenges to cherished academic traditions, including the way writing and communication in and across the disciplines are taught. A primary challenge is that interdisciplinary work is entangled in social, political, and public concerns, and greatly distanced from the ideals of an imagined fundamental and apolitical science. This dissertation presents research on some of the common communicative barriers that emerge when professionals from divergent disciplines collaborate to address applied public concerns, such as sustainability. Some of the primary barriers that emerge in interdisciplinary work include discrepancies rooted in divergent disciplinary frameworks, divergent methodological frameworks, divergent beliefs about the social context of research, disagreements regarding disciplinary terminology, and inequities rooted in the design and management of collaborations. A central cause of these communicative barriers that emerge in interdisciplinary work is the absence of a rhetorical dialogue. Without a rhetorical dialogue, this dissertation shows, collaborators act more or less within their own disciplinary framework, which impedes the ability to collaborate effectively. This dissertation contributes to ongoing work in disciplinary writing research by revealing how cherished practices in Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) and Writing in the Disciplines (WID) may serve to reinforce disciplinary assumptions that impede interdisciplinary work. This dissertation concludes with suggestions for utilizing existing rhetorical theories such as activity systems theory, conceptual metaphor theory, genre awareness pedagogy, and the analysis of hybrid forums to provide an improved rhetoric curriculum for professionals that will participate in interdisciplinary work. The dissertation also suggests ways that WPAs can use interest in innovation, leadership, and critical thinking to promote this type of rhetoric curriculum.
This chapter starts by outlining, in broad terms, the relationship between disciplinarity and academic discourse, discussing how dominant knowledgeknower structures found in different disciplines may shape the rhetorical and discourse strategies used by members of these disciplines in academic communication. It then presents the findings of six recent studies on crossdisciplinary differences in various aspects of academic discourse and rhetorical practices and relates these findings to disciplinary epistemologies. By way of conclusion, the chapter discusses pedagogical implications that follow from the findings of the reviewed studies and proposes pedagogical strategies for socializing students into the academic discourse of their chosen disciplines.
2008
This anthology, edited by Ken Hyland and Marina Bondi, comprises 12 articles comparing academic discourse in different academic disciplines. It deals with various types of written texts, such as journal articles, abstracts, acknowledgements, textbooks and book reviews. It also includes three papers on spoken academic discourse, which gives the book a larger scope than most earlier genre volumes. Somewhat surprising, however, is that none of the papers deal withdor even refer todstudies on other languages than English. For scholars interested in academic discourse more generally, a more lucid title of the anthology would therefore have been ''English academic discourse across disciplines.'' This, however, should not discourage scholars with other focuses than English from reading the book, as it presents a number of interesting and inspiring studies on academic discourse. The first chapter, written by Ken Hyland, introduces important analytical concepts and gives an overview of studies of English academic discourse across disciplines. Hyland also brings up one of the key issues of the volume, namely, what the relationship is between discourse and discipline. He sketches a constructivist perspective on writing, claiming that every discourse community is composed of individuals who differ in how far they subscribe to its various goals and methods. Actions and understandings in human institutions are influenced by the personal and biographical as well as by the institutional and sociocultural. Nevertheless, Hyland writes, there are common ways in which we construct our writing, and our textualizing work as members of a discipline can be seen as a way of 'doing biology' or 'doing sociology.' This discussion on the relationship between discourse and discipline is indeed very interesting and valuable as a guide-and request-for future studies on academic discourse. For the purpose of the current volume, however, it is less obvious what its relevance is, as most of the studies presented in the papers are based on large-scaled corpora, which do not allow the analyst to use a constructivist perspective. Another focus in relation to this issue is what counts as a discipline. Most academic scholars know that it is not always clear what we actually mean by terms like 'discipline,' 'domain,' 'area' and 'field'. And looking at the structuring of the academic world, it is also unclear what actually is delimited by a 'discipline.' Using chemistry as a case for her discussion, Anna Mauranen shows how the subdivision of chemistry as a disciplinary area varies from one university to the other. Her conclusion is that there are diverse understandings of how the 'discipline' divides up. The reader of Academic Discourse Across Disciplines, and of this review, should have her conclusion in mind, given that the authors of this volume seem to have somewhat different understandings of what counts as a discipline. After Hyland's introductory chapter 10 chapters follow, organized in three sections. The first section deals with written argument and reasoning. Marina Bondi analyses the interplay between narrative and argumentative structures in research articles in two closely related disciplines, namely economics and business management. Among other things, she is able to show the different role played by empirical research. Her analysis shows that narrative inserts are usually meant for model-testing in economics, while they are more often seen as tools for model-developing in business management. Marc Silver explores differences across four academic disciplines, two representing the 'hard' or exact sciences and two the 'soft' or social sciences. Within each 'domain' he chooses one discipline representing a highly theoretical, speculative discipline and one which is more empirical, experimentally guided. Focusing on the most frequently occurring verbs and using the 'world of reference' distinction, Silver is able to highlight affinities between disciplines which are not usually treated as similar, such as those between physics and economics, whereas there is a lack of affinities across economics and business. Philip Shaw presents a small investigation into the mathematical language of engineering, physics and pure mathematics. He compares textbook examples used in teaching in classes with Swedish students with these students'
The genre of disciplines: Explorations in disciplinary writing and rhetoric and composition
2002
This dissertation is a combination of three loosely connected projects: First it discusses the disciplinary history of genre traced back to literary, linguistic, and rhetorical studies to argue that this diverse body of knowledge contains valuable elements of articulating knowledge about writing. This portion of the dissertation postulates that genre is both a metaphorical and a rhetorical concept, which implies that all genre concepts whether they are defined as classifications, strategies, or descriptions can only partially grasp the nature of discourse. Nevertheless, all genre concepts provide useful guidance for writers and readers about texts in so far as they are applied for a valuable purpose to highlight and articulate rhetorical, linguistic, or discursive features. Second, two chapters discuss the relationship between genres and disciplinary knowledge, arguing that this diffuse connection provides valuable insight into the nature of writing and knowledge making that can help writers better grasp the nature of relevant discourse m their disciplinary areas. Finally, the dissertation illustrates the potential of genre analysis as a combination of linguistic, literary, and rhetorical analysis to highlight the discursive and epistemological preferences of disciplinary texts by analyzing two significant articles from the discipline of rhetoric and composition. The pedagogical implications of these explorations are stated in the first and last chapters of this work implying that the complex analysis of texts as socially embedded patterns of knowledge making can be an important component of writmg instruction both on elementary and on advanced levels, and need not be seen as an outmoded alternative or a purely theoretical supplement to the currently dominant process model of composition pedagogy.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2008
This anthology, edited by Ken Hyland and Marina Bondi, comprises 12 articles comparing academic discourse in different academic disciplines. It deals with various types of written texts, such as journal articles, abstracts, acknowledgements, textbooks and book reviews. It also includes three papers on spoken academic discourse, which gives the book a larger scope than most earlier genre volumes. Somewhat surprising, however, is that none of the papers deal withdor even refer todstudies on other languages than English. For scholars interested in academic discourse more generally, a more lucid title of the anthology would therefore have been ''English academic discourse across disciplines.'' This, however, should not discourage scholars with other focuses than English from reading the book, as it presents a number of interesting and inspiring studies on academic discourse.
A STUDY OF NEW RHETORICAL TERMS AS INTERDISCIPLINARY FEATURES OF LANGUAGE
1 A STUDY OF NEW RHETORICAL TERMS AS INTERDISCIPLINARY FEATURES OF LANGUAGE Ivanka Mavrodieva Sofia University Abstract. The present paper is based on a research into the interdisciplinary nature of contemporary rhetoric seen as a cluster of theories, practices, applied studies, and training methodologies, through approaching some of its newly-adopted terms as carriers of interdisciplinary features. New rhetorical terms are analysed on three levels: derivation, academic education and arts. The first part of the paper comprises a survey of the processes of inventing and recognising terms, which consist of the word ‘rhetoric’ and a word from another field of knowledge, for example: virtual rhetoric, digital rhetoric, electronic rhetoric, Web 2.0 rhetoric, visual rhetoric, gender rhetoric, business rhetoric, media rhetoric. The second part examines twenty university programs, curricula and syllabi, which include interdisciplinary approach and which offer courses in Rhetoric and Speech Communication, Rhetoric and Academic Writing, Rhetoric and Criticism, Rhetoric and PR, Rhetoric and Composition, etc. The third part presents the efficiency of rhetoric as a part of an interdisciplinary approach to the study of the arts and particularly movies including speeches and debates. Key words: rhetoric, interdisciplinary, terminology, syllabi, arts