Citation, stance taking and engagement are important academic writing practices and research has revealed that how they are used influences grades awarded to students’ work. This study examines the extent to which MA and PhD students in the humanities disciplines of English and Linguistics (EL) and Development Studies (DS) at the National University of Lesotho differ from one another, and also from writers of research articles (RAs) in their fields, regarding the use of these resources.
An electronic corpus was compiled from MA dissertations, PhD theses and a selection of RAs. An analytical framework was developed essentially from Hyland’s (2005) interactional metadiscourse together with aspects of Martin and White’s (2005) Appraisal engagement. For the main quantitative study, WordSmith Tools was used to search for citations, stance and reader engagement markers across the three genres and two disciplines. The qualitative study involved interpreting aspects of the quantitative results in terms of how the metadiscourse markers functioned, including with respect to dialogic engagement. To gain more insight into the students’ choices when using these academic writing practices, a sample of postgraduate writers and supervisors was interviewed.
Cross-discipline results showed that the DS postgraduates used more non-integral and assimilation citations than the EL ones, while cross-genre analyses showed that the MA writers used more integral citations. Particularly among the EL groups the use of non-integrals increased with genre level. Qualitative investigation of citation led to the proposal of ‘chain’ and ‘split’ categories of citation, and their relationship with quality in writing is considered. Stance marker comparisons revealed that the MA writers used more acknowledge and distance reporting verbs and that the use of these verbs decreased progressively with genre level, so the MAs seemed generally to report information more tentatively than the PhDs. Reader engagement cross-genre comparisons showed that in both disciplines, the RA writers used significantly more markers than the postgraduates, mainly because of genre differences: while the former wrote for peers, the latter wrote for assessors. The particular analytical framework of this study, combined with its qualitative aspects, facilitates more fine-grained findings that are also relevant to further research and to pedagogical application.
Aanhaling, skrywershouding en relasie is belangrike akademiese skryfpraktyke. Navorsing het aangetoon dat die manier waarop hierdie praktyke aangewend word die beoordeling van studente se skryfwerk beïnvloed. Hierdie studie ondersoek tot watter mate MA en PhD studente aan die Nasionale Universiteit van Lesotho in die Geesteswetenskappe dissiplines Engels en Taalwetenskap (EL) en Ontwikkelingsstudies (DS) van mekaar, en van skrywers van navorsingskartikels (RA) verskil, ten opsigte van die gebruik van bogenoemde akademiese skryfpraktyke.
‘n Elektroniese korpus is saamgestel uit MA verhandelings, PhD tesisse en ‘n seleksie van navorsingsartikels. ‘n Analitiese raamwerk is ontwikkel uit Hyland (2005) se interaksionele metadiskoers en uit aspekte van Martin en White (2005) se ‘Appraisal engagement’. ‘WordSmith Tools’ is in die hoofstudie (wat kwantitatief van aard is) gebruik om aanhalings, skrywershouding en leserrelasie merkers in die drie genres en twee disiplines te identifiseer. Die kwalitatiewe deel van die studie omvat ’n interpretasie van sekere aspekte van die kwantitatiewe resultate, spesifiek hoe die metadiskoers merkers funksioneer, ook ten opsigte van dialogiese relasie. Om ‘n beter beeld te vorm oor die keuses wat studente uitoefen wanneer hul van die spesifieke akademiese skryfpraktyke gebruik maak, is onderhoude met ’n steekproef van die nagraadse skrywers en studieleiers gevoer.
Kruisdissipline resultate dui daarop dat die DS nagraadse studente meer nie-integrale en assimilasie aanhalings gebruik het as die EL studente, terwyl kruisgenre analises bevind het dat skrywers van MA verhandelings meer integrale aanhalings gebruik het. Veral in die EL groep het die gebruik van nie-integrale aanhalings na gelang van die genrevlak toegeneem. Kwalitatiewe ondersoek het gelei tot die voorstel van twee kategorieë van aanhalings, naamlik ‘ketting’ en ‘verdeelde’ aanhalings, en hul verwantskap met die kwaliteit van skryfwerk is ondersoek. ‘n Vergelyking van houdingmerkers het onthul dat die MA skrywers meer erkenning- en afstand verslaggewende werkwoorde gebruik het, en dat die gebruik van hierdie werkwoorde afgeneem het met genrevlak; dus MA skrywers is klaarblyklik meer tentatief in hul rapportering van inligting as PhD skrywers. ’n Kruisgenre vergelyking van leserrelasie het gewys dat, in beide dissiplines, RA skrywers beduidend meer merkers gebruik het as nagraadse studente, hoofsaaklik as gevolg van genreverskille: eersgenoemde skryf vir hul portuurgroep en laasgenoemde skryf vir assessors. Die spesifieke analitiese raamwerk van hierdie studie, asook die kwalitatiewe beskouing, fasiliteer gedetailleerde resultate, en is ook relevant vir verdere navorsing en vir pedagogiese toepassings.
Tsebeliso ea mehloli e meng, ho ba le ntlhakemo esita le ho sekaseka lintlha tsa bohlokoa tabeng ke litsiea tse kholo litabeng tsa bongoli thutong e phahameng. Liphuputso li senotse hore tsela eo mehloli e sebelisoang ka teng e susumetsa phano ea matsoao mosebetsing oa baithuti. Phuputso ena e shebana le hore na tsebeliso ea mehloli baithuting ba MA le PhD lekaleng la Humanities ba etsang English and Linguistics (Senyesemane le Qapoliso ea puo) EL le Development Studies (Lithuto tsa Ntlafatso) Unifesithing ea Sechaba ea Lesotho e fapana joang le hore na lipampiri tsa liphuphutso tsa mafapha a bona li fapane ho ipapisitsoe le lintlha tse amang tsebeliso ea mehloli e meng. Ho entsoe pokello ea marangrang ea liphuputso tsa MA, PhD le Lipampiri-phuputso (RAs). Ho entsoe leoa la manollo ho ikamahantsoe le leoa la Hyland (2005) le bitsoang interactional metadiscourse hammoho le leoa la Martin le White (2005) le bitsoang Appraisal engagement. Bakeng sa moralo oa phuputso (qualitative study), ho sebelisitsoe WordSmith Tools bakeng sa ho sebelisa mehloli, ntlhakemo le matsoao a ho kenyeletsa babali lintlheng tse tharo tse boletsoeng le mafapheng a mabeli. Moralo oa phuputso (qualitative study) o ne o kenyeletsa botoloki ba karolo ea liphetho ho ipapisitsoe le tsela eo matšoao a metadiscourse a sebetsang ka teng ho kenyeletsoa le likarolo tsa dialogic engagement. Ho fumana lintlha tse feletseng khethong ea baithuti ha ba sebelisa mokhoa ona oa ho ngola, sehlotsoana sa baithuti ba MA, PhD le batataisi ba ile ba botsoa lipotso. Liphetho tsa mafapha a litsebo tse fapaneng li bontšitse hore baithuti ba MA le PhD ba DS ba sebelisitse mehloli e sa amaneng haholo le litaba, ba mpa ba e hapeletse hoba e e-na le ho amanang le seo ho buoang ka sona ho feta baithuti ba EL, athe manollo ea mefuta ea lingoloa tse fapaneng e bontsitse hore baithuti ba MA ba sebelisitse mehloli e bohlokoa haholo. Ka ho khetholoha ka hara sehlopha sa EL tsebeliso ea mehloli e seng bohlokoa haholo e phahama ho latela boemo ba sengoloa. Lipatlisiso li lebisetse tsitsinyong ea mefuta ea mehloli e bitsoang ‘chain’ le ‘Split’ ’me kamano ea eona le boleng ba ho ngola e etsoe hloko. Lipapiso tse hlahisitsoeng ke Stance marker li sibolotse hore baithuti ba MA ba tlaleha litaba ka mokhoa oa ho sebelisa mantsoe a sa ba kenyeletseng maikutlong kapa tlhahisong ea sengoli (ke hore ha ba lumellane le sengoli ka ho phethahala). Hape mantsoe ana a lula a fokotseha ho latela mofuta oa sengoloa kahoo, baithuti ba MA ba bonahala ba tlaleha litaba ka tsela e hlokang boitsepo ho feta ba PhD. Lipapiso tsa mefuta ea lingoloa tse fapaneng mmoho le maikutloa a mmali mafapheng ka bobeli li sibolotse hore lipampiri-phuputso li sebelisa mehloli ka mokhoa o nepahetseng ho feta baithuti ba MA le PhD. Mabaka a sena e ka tlisoa ke hore lipampiri-phuputso li ngolloa batho ba boemo bo tsoanang ka litsebo athe baithuti ba ngolla batataisi ba bona. Mofuta oa manollo o sebelisitsoeng boithutong bona hammoho le lintlha tse itseng tsa moralo oa phuputso li fana ka karoloana feela ea linnete tse bonoang lingoloeng tse amehang kahoo liphuputso tse ling li lokela ho etsoa ho ntšetsa taba ena pele.
