Sub-Theme
Building Professional Relationships
Keywords
Engagement, Authorial practices, Disciplinary differences, APPRAISAL, Voice
Category
Lightning Talks
This presentation builds on my earlier work (Choo, 2022; 2025) and discusses building professional relationships, in particular, how academics are sensitised to developing a professional
voice in writing and knowledge production.
Previous research has discussed how language use varies across different disciplines (e.g. Becher and Trowler, 2001; Berkenkotter & Huckin, 1995; Bernstein, 1971; Hyland, 2015) and genres in academic writing (e.g., Atkinson, 1999; Bazerman, 1988; Coffin, 2006; Swales, 2004). While much of the existing research on the subject of disciplinarity has focused on how we can deprivilege some traditional notions of knowledge or has commented briefly on the emergence of
a transdisciplinary mode of knowledge production, more research can be done to study the theorising, teaching and learning involved in how writers engage their readers within a discipline using words to entertain a possibility (e.g., “perhaps”, “it is probable”, “this may be”) or to acknowledge a proposition via considered word choices (e.g. “they have demonstrated” vs “they have stated”). With the growing awareness of how academic discourse is a site for interpersonal negotiation of meaning and dialogistic positioning, this study builds on the prior theories of Engagement, Genre, and Disciplinarity to examine how academics in two different disciplines (Physiology and Pragmatics) engage their readers in two different genres (Research articles and Textbooks).
The study adopts Martin and White’s (2005) ENGAGEMENT system, a subsystem of the APPRAISAL framework as an analytical scheme and employs a mixed-methods design to understand how disciplinarity and genre can influence a writer’s use of ENGAGEMENT resources and their expression of stance.
Building on the notion of genre as that of a specific text-type used by a specific community of speakers, for specific purposes, this study explores the significant differences in characteristic language use between the two disciplines (Physiology and Pragmatics) and two genres (Research articles and Textbooks) through a corpus-based investigation. The corpus comprised 80 Textbook chapters and 80 research articles sampled from the two disciplines. Both corpus-based quantitative and qualitative textual analyses were conducted, with the latter serving to explore and discuss the patterns observed from the quantitative analyses.
The study found that regardless of discipline, there were significantly more observed instances of ENGAGEMENT resources in textbooks than in research articles. Surprisingly, there were more observed instances of resources to entertain alternative voices and value positions in textbooks than in research articles. In addition, this study found statistically significant differences due to genre and discipline for how writers use justification in their writing. The results of this study have shed light on how textbooks, an under-studied academic genre, employ the use of ENGAGEMENT resources and how this differs from ENGAGEMENT resources observed in the well-established genre of research articles. The findings from this study are potentially useful to academics who are interested in exploring how to navigate the intricacies of text production, and explore how authorial practices may differ markedly across disciplines.
To augment the quantitative and qualitative textual analyses, author guidelines by the publishers of the respective textbooks and research articles were analysed in search of possible considerations for how ENGAGEMENT resources were used and to shed light on possible preferred styles of writing in academic publishing. Interviews with eight expert informants (four from each of the two disciplines) were conducted to better understand academic writers’ perceptions of writing practices in their respective disciplines. This lightning talk will primarily focus on these real-world considerations and theoretical implications which include the following: firstly, that the established dichotomy between hard and soft disciplines is still very much relevant and crucial to our understanding of how writers’ disciplinary background informs their use of ENGAGEMENT resources; and secondly, the APPRAISAL framework is useful in helping us to illustrate how discipline and genre respectively and jointly influence writers’ use of ENGAGEMENT resources.
References
Atkinson, D. (1999). Scientific discourse in sociohistorical context: The philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675–1975. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge. University of Wisconsin Press.
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Open University Press.
Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communities. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bernstein, B. (1971). On the classification and framing of educational knowledge. In M. F. D. Young (Ed.), Knowledge and Control (pp. 47–69). Collier Macmillan.
Coffin, C. (2006). Historical discourse: The language of time, cause and evaluation. Continuum.
Choo, L.L. (2022). A Cross-Disciplinary and Cross-Genre Study of Engagement in Research Articles and Textbooks. [Doctoral Dissertation, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University.] 10.13140/RG.2.2.28493.10720)
Choo, L.L. (2025) A Study of Engagement in Research Articles and [Paper presentation. In 7th CELC Symposium 2025, 21-23 May, National University of Singapore. 7th CELC-Symposium-Program-Abstracts.pdf]Hyland, K. (2015).
Academic publishing: Issues and challenges in the construction of knowledge. Oxford University Press.
Martin, J. R., & White, P. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan.
Swales, J. (2004). Research genres. Cambridge University Press.