The typicality of academic discourse and its relevance for constructs of academic literacy

The refinement of a construct for tests of academic literacy

“…Hyland (2011:177) furthermore views persuasiveness as the main rhetorical mode chosen by producers of academic discourse, which for him accounts for the prevalence of argumentation in such texts. In a previous discussion of Halliday's (2002:57) notion of rhetorical modes and concepts, we pointed out the shortcomings of such a view (Patterson & Weideman, 2013).…”

“…By a lingual sphere, we mean a distinctly different kind of language that is used within a particular social institution, so that the language of business, for example, will differ from that of an intimate relationship, or the language of worship will differ from the language of the court, or the language of literature will differ from the language of education. In a previous paper (Patterson & Weideman, 2013), we argued that the typicality of academic discourse, in being qualified by the analytical dimension of experience, constitutes just such a starting point for definitions of an ability to handle academic discourse, or what has become known as academic literacy. In this paper, we would like to set out how such an idea of the typicality of academic discourse might be practically employed to modify, in a theoretically responsible manner, the construct of tests of academic literacy.…”

“…While there is wide debate (cf. Patterson & Weideman, 2013) about an accepted definition of what constitutes academic discourse, Flower (1990:224) notes two practices that seem to be critical features of academic language: 1) integrating information from sources with one's own knowledge and 2) interpreting one's reading/adapting one's writing for a purpose. She observes (1990:251), furthermore, that what distinguishes academic writing from a more limited comprehension and response are the "goals of self-directed critical inquiry, of using writing to think through genuine problems and issues, and of writing to an imagined community of peers with a personal rhetorical purpose".…”

“…

In a previous study (Patterson & Weideman, 2013), we discussed the importance of acknowledging the typicality of academic discourse as a starting point for critically engaging with constructs of academic literacy. In this article, various attempts at identifying the typical features of academic discourse are surveyed and critiqued.

…”

“…In this article, various attempts at identifying the typical features of academic discourse are surveyed and critiqued. The preliminary conclusion is that the uniqueness of academic discourse lies in the analytical or logical language that characterises it (see Patterson & Weideman, 2013 for an extended explanation). Using this characteristic feature as a criterion allows us to sift through the various opinions on what constitutes both academic discourse and academic literacy in a way that is potentially productive.…”