ISSN: 2157-4898; EISSN: 2157-4901
© 2016 IJLS; Printed in the USA by Lulu Press Inc.
Discussion and challenge: Linguistic resources
Maria Susana GONZALEZ, University of Buenos Aires, Argentina
Undergraduate students in the School of Philosophy and Letters of the Universidad de Buenos Aires attend a reading comprehension course in English divided in three levels. They read research articles in English and reformulate them in Spanish. In three semesters they have to become independent readers who may be able to read a complete research article written in English. To achieve this aim, they are trained in the use of reading strategies, text rhetorical organization and frequently-selected lexicogrammatical units. The goal of this work is to compare the lexicogrammatical units used by researchers in the abstracts and the introductory sections of two articles. One article belongs to the discussion type, whereas the other belongs to the challenge type. A qualitative and quantitative analysis of the corpus was used. The results indicated that the researcher who questions an established position selects units with a negative connotation more frequently. On the other hand, the researcher who dialogues with different positions uses modals or mood adjuncts indicating probability or inclination more frequently and the frequency of units with negative connotation decreases. Although the corpus is small, the results may be useful to improve the strategies of pedagogical intervention in reading comprehension lessons.
Keywords: Discussion; Challenge; Reading; Research Articles; English for Academic Purposes; SFL
1. Introduction
The goal of this exploratory work is to conduct a comparative analysis of the abstracts and introductory sections of two research articles, one of them exhibiting features of the discussion genre, the other the challenge. We hypothesise that the selection of lexicogrammatical elements is affected by the type of argumentative text the researcher wants to write because the discussion and challenge types have different social functions. The aim of the first is to establish a dialogue between different positions whereas the second challenges a position and presents counterarguments to destroy it.
2. Background
2.1. Context: The reading problem
The School of Philosophy and Letters at the University of Buenos Aires is the context in which this exploratory research project was developed. In order to complete their studies, undergraduate students have to pass three reading comprehension levels in which they approach academic text in two foreign languages: English or German and French, Italian or Portuguese.
In the case of English, they may sit for an independent exam if they have an intermediate knowledge of the foreign language, they may attend the distance program if they have reading problems, and those students who have an elementary or pre-intermediate knowledge of English should attend the regular courses. The Department of Modern Languages is responsible for the design, organization and evaluation of the independent exams and the regular courses undergraduate students attend. Besides, the materials used in the courses are developed by the different Reading Comprehension Chairs.
In the English Reading Comprehension Chair, reading is defined as an interactive process between the reader, the text and the writer (Grabe, 2009;
Silvestri, 2004). In this complex process, researchers consider there are two main factors that interact: factors connected with the reader and factors related to the text (Alderson, 2000). If we focus on the reader, the variables that affect the process are: motivation, interest, stable characteristics such as sex, social class, intelligence among others, schemata, and background knowledge which includes knowledge of genres and text types, subject matter or topic, culture, reading abilities and metacognitive skills. Another important variable is the reader’s purpose because it affects strategy selection and retrieval of the text content. If we focus on the text, the variables that affect the process are: text topic and content, genre and text type, rhetorical organization, conceptual and syntactic complexity, lexical density and the medium of text presentation.
Elizabeth Bernhardt (2011) points out that one of the variables that is not considered when reading in a foreign language is discussed is the distance between the mother tongue and the foreign language. Besides, she considers researchers have overestimated the dichotomy expressed in the question: is reading a language problem or a reading problem? In her opinion, the discussions around this question have resulted in attributing excessive importance to schema theory. This theory attempts to explain how new information provided by the text is integrated with old information the reader has. However, it does not explain how new information is handled and it fails to provide explicit definitions or predictions of comprehension processes. She finally distinguishes three types of influences on the process of reading in a
foreign language: proficiency in L2, reading experience in L1, and individual differences such as strategy use, motivation, and interest.
In the English Reading Comprehension Chair we work with the three steps of the reading process: before reading, while reading and after reading (Goodman, 1994). First, students read the paratextual information and the bibliographical data provided by the text in order to advance general and specific reading hypotheses guided by the teacher as facilitator. Then, they verify their hypotheses while they read the text in detail. Finally, they write a summary sentence and draw an outline to show their personal reconstruction of the text they have read. These tasks are written in their mother tongue.
Around 87% of the students who attend the regular courses have a basic knowledge of the English language and their reading experience of academic texts both in English and Spanish is uneven because they can attend these courses at any time during their studies. Taking into account these limitations, we decided to focus on genres, text rhetorical organization, general academic lexis, ideational and interpersonal grammatical metaphors, and lexicogrammatical units with negative or positive connotation in our reading comprehension lessons. Teachers act as facilitators who favor the acquisition of strategies which may help students to break with linear reading and become independent and strategic readers.
2.2. The text variable
The course is divided into three levels: elementary, intermediate, and advanced. Students begin reading fragments of academic texts which have a narrative, descriptive or comparative generic structure (Martin & Rose, 2008) in the elementary level. In the intermediate level, they concentrate on other types of expository texts and argumentative texts that belong to the genre of exposition. In the advanced level, they work with the argumentative subtypes challenge and discussion (Martin & Rose, 2008). While expositions are organized around arguments which support a thesis, discussions are scaffolded around competing positions and the goal of challenges is to destroy arguments in support of a position in order to provide counterarguments.
Martin and Rose (2008) elaborated these subtypes of argumentative genres with a corpus of history texts. In this work, the categories discussion and challenge will be applied to research articles within the area of the Social Sciences and Humanities.
To analyze texts, our framework uses a Systemic Functional approach to the study of genres. In this paper we will concentrate on two argumentative genres that Martin and Rose (2008) describe. As has been stated above, one of the variables that affect the reading process is text difficulty. In the advanced
level of the Reading Comprehension Course, both teachers and students have remarked that the subtypes of argumentative texts used in this level prove difficult for undergraduate students because they find it difficult to follow the different voices and the rhetorical organization of challenges and discussions.
Based on the work developed by the Sydney School (Rose & Martin, 2012), we decided to study and analyse the differences in the selection of linguistic resources in the argumentative subtypes discussion and challenge in order to improve our pedagogic interventions and eventually develop a genre-based academic literacy pedagogy.
3. Method
From a corpus of fifty authentic research articles from the field of Humanities, two articles were selected, one of them has the features of the challenge type and the other has the characteristics of the discussion type. The former, which belongs to the area of anthropology, was written by the anthropologist Alma Gotlieb and was published in the journal Anthropological Quarterly in 2002.
Its title is “Where Have All the Babies Gone? Toward an Anthropology of Infants (and their Caretakers)” (See Appendix A). In this article, the researcher questions her Western colleagues because babies are neglected by anthropological studies and she mentions six causes that generate this attitude. As she explains in detail each of them, she destroys the Western Eurocentric arguments used by her colleagues who suffer a strong Freudian influence. The importance of this paradigm in Western anthropology does not allow researchers to be aware of the fact that the negative aspects associated with babies are seen as positive ones in other cultures.
The second article, “Kuhn vs. Popper on criticism and dogmatism in science: a resolution at the group level”, by Darrell P. Rowbottom (see appendix B), was published in Studies in History and Philosophy of Science in 2011. In this article, the researcher dialogues with two positions but he does not destroy them. He uses what he considers the positive aspects of each of them to build his own model. He considers that both dogmatism and criticism are adequate for scientific investigation, but instead of supporting the idea of individual scientific work, he proposes working in groups so that scientists can resort either to criticism or to dogmatism and share knowledge with their colleagues.
Both articles had been used in independent exams and later they had been incorporated as material to be used in the reading comprehension lessons.
Although in both articles the abstracts and the subtitles are clear and useful to show their rhetorical organization, regular students and those who sat for an independent exam, found it difficult to distinguish the type of argumentation that is developed in each text.
In this work, we will analyse the abstracts and the introductions of both texts.
We consider abstracts are important paratextual elements that may help students advance specific hypotheses and introductions offer information about the theoretical framework the author uses and the purpose of his research. The correct understanding of these two sections will probably facilitate the reading of the complete article.
4. Corpus analysis
The selected sections will be examined so as to discover the textual patterns revealed in a Theme-Rheme analysis. Following a Systemic Functional approach, we consider that the system of Theme belongs to the textual metafunction of the language which is concerned with the organization of information within individual clauses and also with the organization of a larger text. The clause as message is organized into Theme+Rheme and in English as in many other languages, the Theme is the element which appears in initial position in the clause and Rheme follows (Halliday, 1994; Halliday &
Mathiessen, 2004). In the case of research articles, the clauses are mainly declarative therefore, the typical pattern for these clauses is when the unmarked Theme coincides with the subject. Non-subject Themes are marked Themes which are often important in structuring a larger text. However, textual, interpersonal, and marked Themes are also used.
The choice of certain conjunctions as Textual Themes is a resource which may be useful if it is appropriately focalized during the reading process. In the case of the argumentative subgenres dialogue and challenge, these linguistic resources may be helpful to anticipate the type of argumentation the author will develop.
As regards interpersonal Themes, one of its possible instantiations is a mental clause which expresses the speaker’s opinion such as “I should think…..”
(Martin, Mathiessen & Painter, 1997). Halliday (1994) considers these interpersonal Themes are interpersonal metaphors of modality because the system of the language provides a large number of possible phrases for the writers or speakers to express their opinions, or to avoid expressing it directly by using phrases such as “I believe…” or “I think….”
In English, the interpersonal resources of polarity (positive and negative) and modality (probability, usuality, obligation, inclination, ability) are realized in the Mood element, which consists of Finite, Subject and sometimes modal adjunct/s (Halliday, 1994; Halliday & Mathiessen, 2004). Besides, researchers very often choose lexicogrammatical units with positive or negative connotation to express their opinions.
This sections examines the two texts from a quantitative perspective, paying
attention to the distribution of the different types of Themes, modal adjuncts, negative polarity and lexicogrammatical units with positive or negative connotation so as to try to establish similarities and differences between the dialogue and challenge subtypes.
4.1. Where Have All the Babies Gone? Toward an Anthropology of Infants (and their Caretakers)
4.1.1. Abstract (Appendix A)
The first step of our corpus analysis was to focus on the system of Theme in order to establish the points of departure of each clause, the different types of Themes and the selection of lexicogrammatical units. In the abstract of
“Where Have All the Babies Gone? Toward an Anthropology of Infants (and Their Caretakers)” which has 146 words and five clauses, there is a textual Theme with the conjunction yet which is used to establish a contrast between the Western and non-Western conceptions about babies as possible objects of study for anthropologists (Table 1). There is only one marked topical Theme that introduces the author´s criticism to their Western colleagues. The author does not include interpersonal Themes but the Interpersonal Metafunction clearly appears in the selection of twelve lexicogrammatical units with negative connotation which are concentrated in Rheme. The selected items are a process (are neglected), an adverb (outside the scope of both the concepts of culture and disciplinary methods), and adjectives and nouns in noun-phrases: exclusion of infants, the problematic question of agency in infants, their presumed dependence on others, their routine attachment to women, their seeming inability to communicate, their inconvenient propensity to leak from a variety of orifices, their apparently low quotient of rationality. These units are selected to indicate six reasons why babies are not an object of study for Western anthropologists.
Table 1
Distribution of Themes in “Where Have All the Babies Gone? Toward an Anthropology of Infants (and Their Caretakers) "
Sections
Abstract Introduction
Clauses 5 37
Theme Textual 1 (20%) 10 (27.02%)
Interpersonal 0 (0%) 15 (40.54%)
Marked Topical 1 (25%) 13 (35.14%)
Unmarked topical 4 (75%) 24 (64.86%)
In the last clause of the abstract, the author uses three units in Rheme with positive connotation to introduce her opinion about the positive aspects of
non-Western views. She selects the adjectives relevant, beneficial and the noun desirability which are used in a long noun phrase: the desirability of considering infants as both relevant and beneficial to the anthropological endeavour. The frequency of selection of units with negative connotation (8.22% of the total number of words) compared with the choice of units with positive connotation (2.05% of the total number of words) anticipates the challenging position the author will assume in the whole article (see Table 2).
Table 2
Distribution of Words with Positive and Negative Connotation in “Where Have all the Babies Gone? Toward an Anthropology of Infants (and Their Caretakers)”
Sections
Abstract Introduction
words 145 931
words with negative connotation 12 (8.22%) 25 (2.68%) words with positive connotation 3 (2.05%) 15 (1.61%) Besides, the author avoids the use of negative polarity and instead, uses lexicogrammatical elements with negative connotation to point out the limitations or weaknesses in the Western approach. An analysis of the seven processes shows that only one has a negative connotation (neglect) and it is used to refer to the lack of interest in the study of babies.
The interpersonal resource of modality is used on one occasion (14.29%) with the modal can (can lead us to envision) to indicate the possibility of a change in the Western anthropologists’ position as regards babies.
4.1.2. Introduction
The thematic analysis of the introduction which has 931 words and thirty seven clauses shows that the author selected ten textual Themes (27.02%), five of them (50%) are conjunctions that indicate contrast (but, while) or concession (yet, nevertheless, even if), four indicate addition and the temporal conjunction as is used once. The conjunction but is used to mark a contrast between the anthropologists´ feelings about babies in their daily life and their attitude towards them in their professional life. The conjunction while is selected to contrast the exclusion of babies from anthropological studies with the interest in them in interdisciplinary literature. The conjunction yet is used to highlight the fact that although the school inaugurated by Margaret Mead was interested in children, it was not necessarily focused on babies.
Nevertheless introduces a contrast between the lack of interest in babies Western anthropologists show with the upsurge of studies on children from a political economy perspective. Finally, even if introduces a clause that admits there is development in the study of children but not so much on babies, in
spite of this, the scholarly development is important. The other textual Themes are four conjunctions that indicate addition (40%) (Moreover, and used twice) and as used as a temporal marker (10%).
In the fifteen interpersonal Themes (40.54%), four clauses introduce projections that present other researchers’ ideas. In the first clause (And critics have pointed out that…), a criticism of Beatrice and John Whiting’ work is introduced because critics consider that their model overlooked variations in time and space. In the second (As Mead herself acknowledged in her later work…), Mead’s ideas about the limitations of the Freudian model is introduced. In the third (These authors are notable for the extent to which …), the idea of two authors who work from an interdisciplinary perspective is developed. In the last one (…. two authors have recently suggested that…), the opinion of two researchers about a notable scholarly development is introduced. There are eight noun phrases, adverbs and adverbial phrases that introduce the author´s opinion and she uses negative polarity only in one of these (Of course, this does not mean that….). In these interpersonal Themes, we observe the use of modality once (tends to under-represent...), and the selection of four units with positive connotation (notably, notable, illuminating, accumulating). The analysis shows the researcher selected 13 marked topical Themes (35.14%) and twenty four unmarked topical Themes (64.86%).
Table 3
Distribution of the Interpersonal Resources of Modality and Negative Polarity in
“Where Have all the Babies Gone? Toward an Anthropology of Infants (and Their Caretakers)”
Sections
Abstract Introduction
Modality 1 (14.29%) 6 (10.25%)
Negative Polarity 0 (0%) 6 (12.52%)
Processes 7 57
There are fifty seven processes and only six of them (10.52%) are modalized (do not seem to hold out, do not seem to think, might be more appropriate, appears to be developing, tends to under-represent, may be heading) (Table 3).
The author uses negative polarity six times (10.52%) but she resorts to the use of twenty five lexicogrammatical units with negative connotation (ignored, non-subject, negative space, impervious, sidelined, marginal place, only, less attention, overlooked, precluded, blind insistence, shortcomings, infancy, only, rare, frustrating lack of information, hampered, stark contrast, mini upsurge, limited, limits, absent, challenge).
On the other hand, she includes fifteen units with positive connotation
(privilege, emerging, rich, voluminous, impact, welcome, illuminating, promising, notably, notable, developing, fertile, emerging, notable, encouraging). The frequency of appearance of these units is 1.61% for the words with positive connotation and 2.68% for the units with negative connotation.
In this section, the author uses negative polarity but also selects units with negative connotation more frequently to express her disagreement with the development of studies on children in the Western world.
4.2. Kuhn vs. Popper on criticism and dogmatism in science: A resolution at the group level
In the second step of our corpus analysis, we will concentrate on the abstract and the introduction of the research article “Kuhn vs. Popper on criticism and dogmatism in science: a resolution at the group level”. First, we will focus on the system of Theme in order to establish the points of departure of each clause and the different types of Themes. Then, we will show the results of our analysis of the frequency of use of the interpersonal resources of modality, polarity and the selection of lexicogrammatical units with positive and negative connotation.
4.2.1. Abstract (Appendix B)
The thematic analysis of the abstract of 140 words and ten clauses showed that the author used four textual Themes (40%) (Table 4), in three cases he resorts to the use of the conjunctions whereas and however which is used twice. Whereas is used to establish a contrast between the positions of the two philosophers, Kuhn and Popper. However is used first to contrast the approaches to the study of science Kuhn and Popper support and then to introduce the author’s idea about the limitations of the models. The other textual Theme is the conjunction and that indicates addition.
Table 4
Distribution of Themes in “Kuhn vs. Popper on Criticism and Dogmatism in Science: A Resolution at the Group Level”
Sections
Abstract Introduction
Clauses 10 16
Theme Textual 4 (40%) 9 (56.25%)
Interpersonal 6 (60%) 10 (62.5%)
Marked Topical 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Unmarked topical 10 (100%) 16 (100%)
In this abstract, there are six interpersonal Themes (60%) that introduce projections which explain the philosophers’ basic ideas and the author’s own reflections. The first four introduce the philosophers’ ideas (Kuhn thought that…, The former thought that…., The latter thought that…., … their apparent insistence that…). In the other two, the author introduces his ideas: doing so shows..,…. and the crucial question becomes…. In the last interpersonal Theme, the author uses an adjective with positive connotation (crucial) which appears in a noun phrase used to pose a question that will be answered in the article.
We observe that of the sixteen processes, seven (43.75%) are modalized (Table 5), and only one has a negative connotation (have missed). The author selects nine with positive connotation which represent the 6.43% of the total number of words. There are three processes with positive connotation (emphasized, developed, and defended), three adjectives (proper, legitimate, and crucial) and the nouns significance, adherence and balance. These items are used to show the positive aspects of the theories supported by Kuhn and Popper.
Table 5
Distribution of the Interpersonal Resources of Modality and Negative Polarity in
“Kuhn vs. Popper on Criticism and Dogmatism in Science: A Resolution at the Group Level”
Sections
Abstract Introduction
Modality 7 (43.75%) 14 (33.33%)
Negative Polarity 0 (0%) 2 (4.76%)
Processes 16 42
The author avoids the use of negative polarity and includes two lexicogrammatical items with negative connotation (1.43%) but uses modals because his intention is to dialogue with the positions of the two philosophers, he does not want to destroy any of them. The author only questions one aspect of the two models: the individual research. He uses the positive aspects of both models to build his own proposal about scientific research.
In this abstract there are three voices that are dialoguing: Kuhn, Popper, and the author. The author’s voice appears after the clause beginning with both which introduces the limitations of the proposals.
4.2.2. Introduction
A thematic analysis of the introduction of 423 words shows that the author
selected nine textual Themes (56.25%), three of which are conjunctions that indicate contrast or concession. In this section, the conjunction but is used three times. But is used twice to indicate the contrast between Kuhn’s and Popper’s ideas and the third time is selected to introduce the limitations of both models. In the other textual Themes, we find two enumerators on the one hand, on the other hand, two items that introduce a re-elaboration of the previous idea i.e., by this, a phrase that indicates intratextual relationship in this paper, and in fact used for clarification. The author includes ten interpersonal Themes (62.5%) which introduce projections to develop the ideas of the three voices that dialogue in the article. Only two of the interpersonal Themes introduce projections that express Kuhn’s and Popper’s ideas, the other eight introduce the author`s opinions.
Table 6
Distribution of Words with Positive and Negative Connotation in “Kuhn vs.
Popper on Criticism and Dogmatism in Science: A Resolution at the Group Level”
Sections
Abstract Introduction
words 140 423
words with negative connotation 2 (1.43%) 18 (4.26%) words with positive connotation 9 (6.43%) 18 (4.26%) In this section, there are forty two processes and fourteen (33.33%) are modalized. The author uses negative polarity only twice (4.76%) when he introduces his own ideas. He resorts to the choice of eighteen items with positive connotation and eighteen with negative connotation to describe the positive and negative aspects of the philosophical models. The units with positive connotation are ten processes (emphasised, accepting, refining, emphasised, striving, accept, contend, resolved, move, resolved) and eight adjectives (importance, importance, reasonable, right, right, fit, right, and penetrating) (Table 6). The items with negative connotation are six processes (questioned, attacking, overthrow, attack, avoided, and objecting), six adjectives (false, unfit, inconclusive, hard, difficult, and wrong), and six adverbs (at all, hardly, instead, uncritically, only, and blithely). The frequency of use of the lexicogrammatical units with positive and negative connotation is 4.26%
for each of them.
5. Comparison of results
The selection of conjunctions that indicate contrast or concession, the use of modality, and the frequency of choice of lexicogrammatical units with positive or negative connotation are linguistic cues that may be useful to differentiate argumentative genres. In this paper we tried to establish differences between
two fragments of research articles which belong to the subgenres discussion and challenge.
5.1. Comparison of abstracts
The decisions the authors make when they write abstracts anticipate the type of argumentation they will develop in the rest of the article. The Anthropology text we analyzed belongs to the challenge type and its abstract introduces clearly the contrast between the Western anthropologists’ position about the exclusion of babies from anthropological studies and other views which are not influenced by Eurocentric assumptions by using the conjunction yet at the beginning of the clause. This conjunction is the only textual Theme that is selected and this decision anticipates the contrast the author will establish throughout the article.
However, in the abstract of the Philosophy of Science article, which has the characteristics of the discussion type, the contrast between Kuhn’s and Popper’s positions and the author’s criticism to an aspect of both models is clearly shown by the choice of three conjunctions that indicate contrast (however is selected twice and whereas once) as textual Themes.
In the abstract of the challenge type, the author avoids the use of interpersonal Themes whereas in the discussion type, there is an important percentage of interpersonal Themes. This difference in the selection of textual and interpersonal Themes anticipates the author’s strategy: he will dialogue with Kuhn and Popper (Table 7).
Table 7
Distribution of Themes in the Abstracts
Text
Challenge Discussion
Clauses 5 10
Theme Textual 1 (20%) 4 (40%)
Interpersonal 0 (0%) 6 (60%)
Marked Topical 1 (25%) 0 (0%)
Unmarked topical 4 (75%) 10 (100%)
From the observation of tables 8 and 9, we can gather that the researcher who is dialoguing not only avoids the use of negative polarity but also resorts to the use of modals more frequently and selects more units with positive connotation because he wants to point out the positive aspects of the models he is dialoguing with.
Table 8
Distribution of the Interpersonal Resources of Modality and Negative Polarity in Abstracts
Text
Challenge Discussion
Modality 1 (14.29%) 7 (43.75%)
Negative Polarity 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Processes 7 16
Table 9
Distribution of Words with Negative and Positive Connotation in Abstracts Text
Challenge Discussion
words 145 140
words with negative connotation 12 (8.22%) 2 (1.43%) words with positive connotation 3 (2.05%) 9 (6.43%) On the contrary, in the abstract of the challenge type there is a higher percentage of use of words with negative connotation because the aim of the researcher is to highlight the limitations of the Western paradigm.
5.2. Comparison of introductions
The following table (Table 10) shows the differences between Themes in the introductions of the two texts. The comparison of the introductions of both articles shows similar results. In the challenge type, ten textual Themes are used and five (50%) are conjunctions that indicate contrast or concession whereas in the discussion type there are nine textual Themes and three are conjunctions that indicate contrast or concession (33.33%). In the challenge type it is necessary to reinforce the contrasts in order to demolish the position that is attacked.
Table 10
Distribution of Themes in Introductions of the Two Texts Text
Challenge Discussion
Clauses 37 16
Theme Textual 10 (27.025) 9 (56.25%)
Interpersonal 15 (40.54%) 10 (62.5%)
Marked Topical 13 (35.14%) 0 (0%)
Unmarked topical 24 (64.86%) 16 (100%)
Modals are selected more frequently in the discussion type while in the challenge type, the author resorts to the use of negative polarity more frequently and the frequency of words with negative connotation is higher than the frequency of words with positive connotation (see Tables 11 & 12).
In the discussion type, the percentage of selection of words with positive and negative connotation is the same. The writer of the discussion text is more cautious because he does not want to challenge the existing paradigms thus, he resorts to the use of modals more frequently, reduces the use of negative polarity and the number of words with negative connotation is not higher than the number of words with positive connotation. In the discussion type, the use of modality is more functional because the researcher’s aim is to dialogue with different positions instead of confronting one to destroy it. In this text type, the writer accepts some aspects of the models, indicates his criticism to another aspect and builds his own project based on the positive features of the models he dialogues with. In the challenge text, the author prefers to accumulate items with negative connotation and the use of negative polarity to demolish the hegemonic Western paradigm.
Table 11
Distribution of the Interpersonal Resources of Modality and Negative Polarity in Both Texts
Text
Challenge Discussion
Modality 6 (10.52%) 14 (33.33%)
Negative Polarity 6 (12.52%) 2 (4.76%)
Processes 57 42
Table 12
Distribution of Words with Positive and Negative Connotation in Both Texts Text
Challenge Discussion
words 931 423
words with negative connotation 25 (2.68%) 18 (4.26%) words with positive connotation 15 (1.61%) 18 (4.26%) In summary, the linguistic differences between the discussion and challenge argumentative genres contribute to the construal of the different social functions these texts fulfil. One of them aims to destroy a paradigm that is accepted by the academic community whereas the other’s goal is to dialogue with existing paradigms or models to improve them.
6. Pedagogical implications
Abstracts are very important paratextual elements to advance reading hypotheses which will be finally accepted or rejected during propositional reading. As many university students experience difficulties in processing argumentation genres, especially the discussion and challenge type, this linguistic approach to examples of these text types may be helpful for teachers’ practice.
The use of conjunctions that indicate contrast or concession at the beginning of the clauses in an abstract may be a useful tool to anticipate the type of argumentation of the article. Besides, the accumulation of items with negative connotation may also be a cue to anticipate that the text to be read belongs to the challenge type, whereas the accumulation of modals and the avoidance of the use of items with negative connotation may mark that the author is being cautious because his intention is to dialogue with other researches instead of challenging their ideas.
Undergraduate students who attend reading comprehension courses in a foreign language in Argentine Universities generally have an elementary or pre-intermediate knowledge of the target language. To compensate for this lack of knowledge, teachers need to facilitate their acquisition of reading strategies and some elements of the English language that may be useful for them. The focalization of connectors as textual Themes is a useful strategy because it helps students to detect the type of relation between ideas the connector establishes. The use of modals is also an important teaching goal because they mark an important difference with the interpersonal resource of polarity. The underlying and discussion of words with negative or positive connotation and the class discussion of their importance in the text is also another productive strategy. Most of these words are cognates, therefore it is relatively easy for the students to detect their value: positive or negative.
The introductions of research articles also play an important role at the beginning of the reading process because they situate the reader in the research context and present the different voices the writer dialogues with. As we have seen in our comparative analysis, introductions also provide clues to guide readers as abstracts do.
We think the reading process is triggered by the text which provides the clues that help the reader make the necessary inferences when the information given by the text interacts with the reader’s previous knowledge. Therefore, in the teaching of the challenge and discussion types of argumentation, teachers should focus on the linguistic differences of these subgenres.
The Author
Marí a Susana Gonza lez (Email: [email protected]) is a teacher of English, a BA in Letters and an MA in Discourse Analysis, graduated from Universidad de Buenos Aires. She was a former teacher of English, Spanish and Literature in State High Schools in the city of Buenos Aires. At present, she is in charge of the Chair of Reading Comprehension in English at the School of Philosophy and Letters (U.B.A), and she has directed research projects financed by the Ministry of Science and Technology. She also teaches postgraduate seminars at The School of Philosophy and Letters.
References
Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bernhardt, E. (2011). Understanding advanced second language reading. New York, NY: Routledge.
Goodman, K. (1994). Reading, writing and written texts: A transactional socio- psycholinguistic view. In R. Ruddell, M. Rapp Ruddell & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, (pp. 1092-1130). Newark, NJ:
International Reading Association.
Gotlieb, A. (2000). Where have all the babies gone? Toward an anthropology of infants (and their caretakers). Anthropology Quarterly, 73(3), 121- 132.
Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd edition).
London: Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Mathiessen, C. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd edition). London: Arnold.
Martin, J. R., Mathiessen, C., & Painter, C. (1997). Working with functional grammar. London: Arnold.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. London:
Equinox.
Rose, D., & Martin, J. R. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn. Sheffield:
Equinox.
Rowbottom, D. P. (2011). Kuhn vs. Popper on criticism and dogmatism in science: A resolution at the group level. Philosophy of Science, 42(1), 117-124.
Silvestri, A. (2004). La comprensión del texto escrito. In M. Alvarado (Coord.) Problemas de la enseñanza de la lengua y la literatura, (pp. 29- 44).
Quilmes, Argentina: Universidad Nacional de Quilmes.
Appendix A
Gotlieb, A. (2000). Where Have All the Babies Gone? Toward an Anthropology of Infants (and Their Caretakers). Anthropology Quarterly, 73(3), 121-132.
Abstract: In much anthropological literature infants are frequently neglected as outside the scope of both the concepts of culture and disciplinary methods.
This article proposes six reasons for this exclusion of infants from anthropological discussion. These include the fieldworker’s own memories and parental status, the problematic question of agency in infants and their presumed dependence on others, their routine attachment to women, their seeming inability to communicate, their inconvenient propensity to leak from a variety of orifices, and their apparently low quotient of rationality. Yet, investigation of how infants are conceived of beyond the industrialized West can lead us to envision them far differently from how they are conceived in the West (including by anthropologists). Confronting such comparative data suggests the desirability of considering infants as both relevant and beneficial to the anthropological endeavor (Babies/infants, childhood/youth, structure/
agency, social theory, West Africa). Where Have all the Babies Gone?
Introduction
Whatever their parenting skills at home, most contemporary cultural anthropologists do not seem to think analytically much about babies. Of course this does not mean that we do not like babies. But in our professional lives we have often ignored those small creatures, who do not seem to hold out much scholarly promise, as we have defined the ethnographic imagination. At a theoretical level babies constitute for most of us a non- subject, occupying negative space that is virtually impervious to the anthropological gaze. Moreover, those studies that do privilege infants have been sidelined from mainstream conversations in cultural anthropology.
While a new body of interdisciplinary literature is now emerging on the cultural construction of childhood and youth and their active negotiation of
their cultural life, infants occupy a marginal place even in that literature, which is itself only beginning to attract attention in cultural anthropology, especially under the rubrics of “cultural psychology” or “ethnopediatrics” (for example, Small 1998).
Earlier in this century scholars associated with the “Culture and Personality”
school inaugurated by Margaret Mead turned their attention to children – though not necessarily infants. In the United States this perspective was quite influential during mid - century (Langness 1975). In some ways the work of Beatrice and John Whiting and those who published in their “Children and Six Cultures” series continued this tradition (for example B. Whiting 1963).
Yet even in these writings infants received less attention than did older children. And critics have pointed out that the model typically overlooked variations in time (historical change) and space (ethnicity/race, class, religion and gender). Moreover, a Freudian perspective precluded alternative interpretations that might be more appropriate in a given cultural setting (for example Wallace, 1983: 213-217). As Mead herself acknowledged in her later years (1963), Eurocentric assumptions underlie the Freudian model, with its culture blind insistence on a few factors (such as toilet training) that we now know are interpreted variably in diverse cultural settings. These shortcomings continue to apply to more recent psychoanalytically oriented work on infants and children though all these works are generally quite rich in data.
In effect, the ethnography of infants is still, if you will, in its infancy. I have identified only two full length ethnographies devoted to the infants of a single society (Hewlett, 1991; Levine et al., 1994). To date, no anthropological journal exists on infancy, and the first anthropological journal on childhood (based in the UK) is just now in the planning stage. One rare anthropologist teaching a course on infants reports a frustrating lack of information through the HRAP that hampered the students’ work (Peters, 1995). All this poses a stark contrast to our sister field of psychology, with its voluminous canon on infants, including a journal devoted to infancy, and many others routinely featuring articles on them.
Appendix B
Rowbottom, D. P. (2011). Kuhn vs. Popper on criticism and dogmatism in science: A resolution at the group level. Philosophy of Science, 42(1), 117-124.
Abstract: Popper repeatedly emphasised the significance of a critical attitude, and a related critical method, for scientists. Kuhn, however, thought that unquestioning adherence to the theories of the day is proper; at least for
‘normal scientists’. In short, the former thought that dominant theories should be attacked, whereas the latter thought that they should be developed and defended (for the vast majority of the time).
Both seem to have missed a trick, however, due to their apparent insistence that each individual scientist should fulfill similar functions (at any given point in time). The trick is to consider science at the group level; and doing so shows how puzzle solving and ‘offensive’ critical activity can simultaneously have a legitimate place in science. This analysis shifts the focus of the debate.
The crucial question becomes ‘How should the balance between functions be struck?’
Introduction
Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge was the flashpoint for a well-known debate between Kuhn and Popper, in which the former emphasised the importance of ‘normal science’ qua puzzle solving and the latter (and his supporters) questioned the very idea that ‘normal science’, so construed, could count as good science at all.
Kuhn’s basic idea was that science would hardly get anywhere if scientists busied themselves with attacking what they already had, rather than accepting and refining it. But Popper instead emphasised the importance of striving to overthrow theories that might very well, for all their designers and users knew, be false (or otherwise unfit for purpose). The debate was inconclusive because each side clearly had a perfectly reasonable point.
The natural solution would have been to take the middle ground—i.e. to suggest that scientists should feel free to attack or to uncritically accept—but both Popper and Kuhn appear to have avoided this option because they ultimately considered the matter, I will contend, only at the level of the individual scientist. By this, I mean that each thought about how one particular scientist ought to behave, and then extrapolated from this to determine how they thought a group of scientists should behave. And on the one hand, it is hard to see how it can be right for an individual (and by extrapolation every) scientist to blithely assume that what everyone else is
doing is basically right, and that the theories she is given are fit for purpose.
On the other, it is difficult to see how it could be right for a (and by extrapolation every scientist to treat the canon of her science as fundamentally wrong, and to spend all her days object-ing to the basic metaphysical principles underlying it.
In this paper I will explain how thinking at the level of the group, using a functionalist picture of science, provides a means by which to resolve the tension. I do not claim that this notion is entirely new—Hull (1988); Kitcher (1990) and Strevens (2003) all discuss the importance of the division of cognitive labour, although not with emphasis on attitudes—but I would venture to declare that the subsequent analysis is far more penetrating than that recently offered by Domondon (2009) in this journal, and previously by Fuller (2003).1 In fact, it shows precisely how we can resolve, and move beyond, the kind of ‘Kuhn vs. Popper’ problems with which they are concerned. I shall begin by explaining the positions of Popper and Kuhn in greater depth.
