Technicality and Abstraction - Language for the Creation of Specialized Texts - Annotated Bibliography Example

Introduction This annotated bibliography highlights and critically evaluates several literatures on the issue of English for general or specific academic purposes. The literatures are grouped into three topical issues on English for general academic purposes. These topical issues include a review of literatures for general academic purposes vis-à-vis those intended for specific academic purposes. The second topical issue involves a review of literatures that explore some significant features of language in at least one specific subject area of disciplinary field. Lastly, the annotated bibliography reviews the learning and teaching of academic English as discussed in selected academic English literatures. Finally, the bibliography sums lessons learn from the reviewed literatures on conceptualization and approaches to teaching English for academic purposes. Burns, A. & Coffin C. 2001, ‘Analysing English in a global context: A reader’, Routledge in association with Macquarie University and the Open University: London: Brief introduction to the purpose of the text The book’s chapter on “Technicality and Abstraction: Language for the Creation of Specialized Texts” explores the application of English in writing of formal texts in sciences and social sciences. In particular, the chapter discuss how the English concept of abstraction is used to create specialized texts in sciences and social sciences that demand a professional rather than layman or general conversance with the science or social science discipline. Summary of the content, with reference to concepts referred to in the course The chapter begins by classifying English language genres into three their taxonomical groups that is analogously compared to biological classification. English language is classified as past, present or future as well as either active or passive voice. This classification is then cited as the distinguishing feature between academic English and general English. The chapter then discusses the application of English language in writing classification, explanatory as well as technical text in science as well as social science discipline. The chapter singles out abstraction as the distinguishing feature between academic English versus general English. Evaluative reflection on the content The chapter create a precise analogy between taxonomy and nominal groupings in English language. Furthermore, the chapter provides good examples on application of English for academic purpose as illustrated by academic writing excerpts from geography and humanities. However, the chapter fails to provide the nitty-gritties of pedagogical rationality of the distinctions made between general English versus academic English. The chapter also fails to authenticate its proposition by applying genre analysis principles. Christie, F. & Martin J. R. 1997, ‘Genre and institutions social processes in the workplace and school’, Cassell: New York. Brief introduction to the purpose of the text The book’s chapter on “Learning how to mean – scientifically speaking: apprenticeship into scientific discourse in secondary school” looks at the genre of English language used for writing scientific texts particularly for secondary school learners. The chapter looks at how linguistic genres are employed to create a favoured and distinctive ways of looking at the world in scientific discourse. Several linguistic genres exploited in TEAP are explored in the chapter including descriptive, and explanation genres. Explanation genre is further classified into several functional areas like causal explanations, factorial explanations, explorations, sequential explanations, theoretical explanations and consequential explanations. The chapter hence classifies a scientific text as a descriptive report or a taxonomic report based on its organization of scientific information. It also introduces discussion and exposition genres that are employed in critiquing of challenging a scientific text. Procedural recount genre is exploited in the precise and orderly report of steps, aim, results and conclusion of scientific activity. Sequential explanation genre is exploited in explaining how something is produced or occur often observable of activities that occur continuously. Causal explanation explains why a non-readily observable/abstract process happens. Factorial explanation explains process with several simultaneous occurring effects. Theoretical explanation introduces and illustrates a paradigm and explains happenings that are counter-intuitive. Consequential explanations explain events that have several simultaneously happening causes. Exploration accounts for happenings with at least two viable explanations. Descriptive report describes properties, attributes or behaviour of one class of objects. Taxonomic report describes several classes of thing in a system of classification. Exposition persuades the audience to act or think in a specific ways. Lastly, discussion persuade the audience to accept a specific position on a topic by looking at least two perspectives. Evaluative reflection on the content Unlike the earlier chapter on “Technicality and Abstraction: Language for the Creation of Specialized Texts”, “Learning how to mean – scientifically speaking: apprenticeship into scientific discourse in secondary school” chapter employs an authoritative “genre analysis” pedagogy to characterize English for Academic Purposes (EAP). The chapter also employs good examples to supports its characterization of “genre analysis” application in TEAP. It also exploits a multitude of pedagogical models to supports its “genre analysis” of scientific texts. Among the pedagogical models exploited in the chapter include “Register genre theory”, which is discussed on our subsequent topic on ““Language, register and genre”. Despite its hybrid use of pedagogical models from other chapter like “register genre theory” and “taxonomic genres”, the chapter conducts a biased characterization of linguistic genres features in science subject and overlooks other EAP disciplines. This contrasts with “Technicality and Abstraction: Language for the Creation of Specialized Texts” chapter that characterizes application of abstraction in science as well as social sciences. Christison, M., Christian, D., Duff, P., & Spada, N. (Eds.). 2015, ‘Teaching and Learning English Grammar: Research Findings and Future Directions’, Routledge: New York. The Chapter on “Academic Literacies and systemic functional linguistics: How do they relate?” juxtaposes features of Systemic Functional Linguistic (SFL) versus Academic Literacies as the two major research and teaching approaches adopted in English for Academic Purposes. SFL approach is largely identified with the Australian EAP system, while Academic Literacies approach is recognized as the sole EAP research and teaching approach employed in the United Kingdom. The article points that the two EAP approaches draw their inferences from similar ethnographic and sociocultural background but depart from each other in terms of their emphasis on the various aspects of EAP. According to the article, SFL theory exploits linguistic analytical tools to come up with wit the phenomenology of disciplinary discourses and means of promoting students participation in such discourses. The article also points at SFL research and pedagogy concentration on language use, texts and language systems. On the other hand, academic literacies paradigm is praised as entirely dedicated to ethnographic inquiry and critiquing dominant institutional and academic practices. Academic literacies paradigm is also distinguished from SFL theory in regard to the focus of its methodology on identification of student identities, practices and conflict faced by language users individually in university writing. The first chapter of the article outlines disparities in both the pedagogical nature and application of SFL and Academic Literacies paradigms. According to the article, SFL theory is distinctively characterized by its focus on the textual aspects of language, whereas Academic Literacies concentrates on practical application of language in the various contextual scenarios. However, the article argues on textual richness of Academic Literacies postulate. According to the article, the textual deficiency of Academic Literacies is not inherent in its pedagogical construct, but is synthetically imputed by its limited application in literacy practices. Likewise, the article argues on the potential application of SFL theory in academic learning in regard to its critical pedagogy foundation irrespective of its focus on textual aspects of language. The article hence identify limitations in the application of SFL theory in academic learning as caused by unfounded perception rather than its inherent pedagogy and epistemology foundation. SFL theory is indeed has a critical pedagogy basis and hence its applicable academic learning research and teaching. The critical pedagogy basis of SFL theory is evident in its focus on the relationship between text, language and context as well as the relationship between the society and language. SFL theory is hence best suited as a strategic tool for teaching language in a culturally and dynamically diverse environment including professional, social and academic contexts. On the contrary, Academic Literacies paradigm is more of a theoretical research paradigm rather than a strategic language research and teaching tool. Academic Literacies paradigm is hence limited to critique of academic learning from a social inequality perspective and disregards other contextual influences on language acquisition process such as professional competence of the teacher. The next chapter of the article points at SFL and Academic Literacies paradigms congruent reference to the language texts. However, the two approaches departs from each other in terms of their language texts model. According to the article, SFL theory models texts from an ethnographic perspective, whereas Academic Literacies perspective adopts a social inequality perspective, whereby literacy is taken as an exclusively social practice. The other chapters concentrates on the nitty-gritties of SFL theory and Academic Literacies particularly on the questions employed in modelling SFL and Academic Literacies informed research and teaching methodology. The article’s observations on SFL theory and Academic Literacies paradigm perspectives on language texts is supported by several critical pedagogy theories. For instance, Paulo Friere “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” supports Academic Literacies postulate about a social inequality influence to the learning process. Likewise, SFL theory postulate reference to ethnographic models of language texts is supported by “Reflective Pedagogy”, which posits the learning as a transformation process that involves construction or deconstruction of reflective experiences. Coffin, C. 2010, ‘Applied linguistics methods: A reader: Systemic functional linguistics, critical discourse analysis and ethnography’, Routledge: London. Summary of the content, with reference to concepts referred to in the course The chapter on “Language, register and genre” exploits M.A.K. Halliday Systemic Functional Linguistic postulate to break down linguistic studies into two phenomenological areas. These phenomenological areas include the “register” and “genre” phenomenology of a particular language. The “register” phenomenology is further broken down into three phenomenological features – Field, Tenor and Mode. The “Field” phenomenology looks at what is happening, whereby the happening is deciphered institutionally based on some culturally established activity. On the other hand Tenor phenomenology looks at how one relates with others when performing his day-to-day chores. This relationship is in form of status, formality or power deferential between relating parties. Lastly, the mode phenomenology looks at the channel chosen for communication of speech as well as writing. On its part, genre refers to established or formal principles in linguistics that dictates how the Field, Tenor and Mode texts of a speech or text are to be interwoven in order to make a sensible meaning. The chapter Systemic Functional Linguistic model explicitly characterizes the phenomenological aspect of language as well as formal or scientific way of organizing these phenomenological constituents to create a structurally rational text. The breakdown of language into “register” and “genre” concepts is thus interpreted as an inductive way of TEAP, which contrasts with deductive authentication of language proficiency of academic and general writing. However, the chapter dwells so much on the essentialists or phenomenological aspects of language and pay little or no attention on demonstrating the application of its “register” and “genre” postulates to TEAP. The chapter does not give a single example of an academic or general writing that illustrates its “register” and “genre” postulates. Furthermore, the chapter doesn’t demonstrate how “register” or “genre” features of particular text varies across different cultural context. Hood, S. 2015, ‘Live Lectures: The Significance of Presence in Building Disciplinary Knowledge’, Lecture presented at For publication in Onomázein, 2015 Online, Sydney. Summary of the content, with reference to concepts referred to in the course The lecture characterizes the pedagogical features of the contemporary online-only resources instructional methodology as well its pedagogical benefits. It begins by criticizing a biased focus on economic and life-style benefits of online-only resources instruction with little focus on the pedagogical aspects and benefits of this new instruction approach to higher education. The lecture exploits a trans-disciplinary approach drawn from Systemic Functional Linguistic (SFL) model and Legitimation Code Theory (LCT) to characterize the pedagogical models, modes of communication, technologies and disciplinary knowledge aspects in online-only resources instruction. The lecture highlights several social semiotic contexts of online-only resources. These contexts include use of slide images, written text on slides, According to the lecture written text exploits sequence genre structure in online-only resources instruction. The lecture then explores the phasing field in online-only resources instruction. Phasing field features the phasing process itself where the lecture identifies phases within the logogenesis of the lecture’s talk. According to the lecture lecture’s talk follows explaining, describing, explaining and reporting logogenesis phases particularly in teaching health sciences. The lecture then delves into the phases and presence social semiotic context. Presence is initially defined as a metafunctional conceptualization of context dependency. Reporting and presence are further broken down into several generic categories like reporting and ideational iconicity, reporting and textual implicitness, and reporting and negotiability. Likewise explaining presence is broken down into explaining and iconicity, explaining and implicitness, and explaining and negotiability generic categories. The describing and presence is similarly broken down into iconicity, implicitness and negotiability generic categories. The lecture then introduces the generic aspect of phases and comparative presence, which hierarchically arrange the reporting, explaining and describing phases into three cline phases. Reporting is placed on the extreme positive end of the presence cline, explaining phase in the middle, while describing is to the extreme left of the presence cline. The lecture then superimposes its presence paradigm on LCT theory to derive an External language of description for semantic gravity. Other generic paradigm elaborated in the lecture include the concept of abstraction and translation, abstraction and diversity, and lastly the complementary concepts to presence and semantic gravity. Evaluative reflection on the content The lecture’s body veer off completely from the motive stated in its introductory part. The introduction states the motive of the lecture as demonstration of the pedagogical benefits of online-only resources as a novelty instructional approach. However, the lecture’s body embarks on a sophisticated characterization of the essentialists’ pedagogy of online-only resources instruction. The body does not explain the pedagogical benefits of online-only resources relative to other mainstream instruction approach as promised in the introduction. Additionally, the body’s essentialist exposition approach contrasts with the juxtaposition approach that is stated in the introduction. The lecture makes the same mistake of using a monotonously boring and limited template to explain the pedagogy of online-only resources. This template is drawn from a lecture on urine formation and its exclusively scientific. The use of a monotonous scientific template prejudices the use of online-only resources instruction as exclusively used for teaching science subjects, which is not the case. Omission of a social science template fails to capture to illustrate the relevance of SFL or LCT in teaching social science discipline. Hyland, K., & Hamp-Lyons, L. 2002, ‘EAP: Issues and directions’, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, vol 1 no. 2002, pp 1-12. Summary of the content, with reference to concepts referred to in the course The text adopts an application approach to English for Academic Purpose (EAP), where it discusses the importance and use of EAP in discourse community context. This contrasts with the essentialists’ characterization of EAP genres in previous literatures expounded in this annotated bibliography. The text begins with a historical account of EAP, where the discipline is traced back to 25 years ago to its current status as a full-fledged discipline. It then proceeds to distinguish EAP from other linguistic disciplines such as English for Special Purposes (ESP). The text posits the exclusive role of ESP in teaching English for particular application purposes, whereas EAP is posited as a full-fledged discipline or discourse with specific essentialist features as well as genres structure. It traces back the rise of EAP and ESP at the same time 20 years ago when the two discourses first emerged in the English for Specific Purpose journal, which was launched bin 1980. The text argues that EAP emerged as a sub-discipline of ESP and not vice-versa. According to the text, EAP then rose and overshadowed ESP as the exclusive linguistic learning subject in higher institutions. However, the text raises concern over the cannibalistic growth of EAP in tertiary institution due to its threats to socio-political structures in these institutions. The text also briefly delves into the issue of academic literacy and briefly attempts to juxtapose it with EAP. Academic literacy is differentiated from EAP due to its broad socio-political context that contrasts with EAP overlook of socio-political context in teaching English. The text then looks at similarities between EAP and ESP where it argues that both discourses emphasis on identification of specific texts, communicative practices and sets of skills required in linguistic analysis and systematics by practitioners. It also emphasis on the embracement of community concept in EAP whereby the discourse appreciates and expresses the cultural experiences of EAP students. Finally, the text looks at how EAP genres accommodate changes in technological and cultural genres as well as critique from other disciplines. Evaluative reflection on the content The text briefly captures the application aspects of EAP as well as its differences and similarities with other linguistic discourses such as ESP and Academic Literacies. However, the juxtaposition between EAP and Academic literacies is contradictory. Initially, the text posits the lack of socio-political context as the distinguishing feature between EAP and Academic literacies. This assertion contradicts with the text later proposition of accommodation of EAP students’ cultural context in EAP pedagogy. Culture represents the social aspects of the students and hence the text later proposition of cultural accommodation in EAP contradicts with it previous posits of EAP as exclusively concerned with application of English in the various discourse taught in tertiary institution. Conclusion The sources successfully educates me on the merits, demerits, suitability and effectiveness of the numerous instructional approaches employed in teaching English for general or specific academic purposes. This critical analysis of some sampled instructional approaches is based on their conformity to standardized pedagogical principles of teaching as well as realist effectiveness of a particular instructional approach in promoting education attainment of linguistic students. Critical analysis of the sampled instructional approaches establishes common essentialist generic features across the various linguistic subjects and disciplinary fields. Read More