Discourse competence in english academic writing

inLibrary
Google Scholar
Выпуск:
CC BY f
62-64
1
Поделиться
Сахиева, Н. (2024). Discourse competence in english academic writing . Наука и инновации, 1(1), 62–64. извлечено от https://inlibrary.uz/index.php/ilm-fan-va-innovatsiya/article/view/32713
Crossref
Сrossref
Scopus
Scopus

Аннотация

Discourse competency is fundamental to academic writing proficiency and a crucial part of communicative competence. In academic writing, discourse competency is the capacity to produce written texts that are cohesive, logical, and successfully communicate ideas to readers. In order to ensure fluid flow and idea organization, it entails using discourse connectors, such as logical connectives, to establish relationships between sentences and paragraphs. Discourse competence also includes topic development, local and global coherence, and reader-writer interactions, all of which support the text's overall organization and clarity. It also entails understanding academic writingspecific genre conventions and composition techniques, in addition to proficient time management for research, writing, and editing. For students to improve their writing and effectively convey their ideas in academic settings, they must develop discourse competence.


background image

62

5.

Об образовании / Закон Республики Узбекистан / Вестник Олий Мажлиса УзР, 1997.-9, ст. 225;
2013.-№ 41, ст.543. 3

DISCOURSE COMPETENCE IN ENGLISH ACADEMIC WRITING

Saxiyeva Nodira Bahtiyor qizi

The Uzbek State of World Languages University

ms.nodira05@mail.ru

Annotation

: Discourse competency is fundamental to academic writing proficiency and a

crucial part of communicative competence. In academic writing, discourse competency is the capacity
to produce written texts that are cohesive, logical, and successfully communicate ideas to readers. In
order to ensure fluid flow and idea organization, it entails using discourse connectors, such as logical
connectives, to establish relationships between sentences and paragraphs. Discourse competence also
includes topic development, local and global coherence, and reader-writer interactions, all of which
support the text's overall organization and clarity. It also entails understanding academic writing-
specific genre conventions and composition techniques, in addition to proficient time management for
research, writing, and editing. For students to improve their writing and effectively convey their ideas
in academic settings, they must develop discourse competence.

Keywords

: discourse competence, academic writing, EFL

Intercultural communicative competence requires DC as a fundamental component. When used

broadly, DC refers to the information and abilities required to create a compelling discourse. DC
focuses mostly on "the ability to use and discover strategies for the production and interpretation of
monologue or dialogue texts which follow the conventions of the culture," according to Byram (1997)
(p. 84). Byram's explanation focused on the customs of a particular culture in relation to the writings
that were about to be written. Three competencies—linguistic, discourse, and sociolinguistic—make
up Grab and Kaplan's (1996) concept of writing as communicative language use with relation to the
act of writing. Their understanding of coherent text construction, including the identification of major
subjects, structuring schemes, transitional markers, informative structure, and semantic relationships
between phrases, is referred to as their discourse knowledge. According to Byram (1997) and Grab and
Kaplan (1996), identifying the primary subject is thought to be crucial to creating both local and global
coherence in a discourse. Topic identification and its successful construction in writing are intimately
tied to the norms of a particular discipline or subject domain in academic writing in English, where
discipline or domain standards are crucial. As a result, topic development in DC provides writing
instructors and researchers with a practical way to encourage "legitimate peripheral participation"
(Flowerdew, 2016, p. 9) in the academic writing process. As a result, topic development is seen in this
study as the initial DC component. Bachman and Palmer (1996) introduced two categories of language
competence within the communicative language perspective: organizational competence and
pragmatic competence. The former focused on grammatical precision, while the latter focused on
appropriateness in context.

Grammatical competence (vocabulary, syntax, phonology/graphology) and textual competence

(cohesion and rhetorical organization) are two more categories of organizational competence. Except
for topic development and reader–writer interaction, the main elements of DC as defined in the current
study were influenced by Bachman and Palmer's (1996) "textual competence." Put otherwise, the
fundamental elements of DC are cohesiveness and rhetorical order. These two essential elements are
mutually included and dependent on one another, yet they also serve different priority purposes.

Rhetorical organization, or global and local coherence, can generally be described at both the

global and local levels. Three categories of cohesive devices—grammatical, lexical, and conjunctive—
are primarily responsible for achieving cohesiveness in English (Halliday and Hasan, 1976). By
revealing thematic development patterns regarding the distribution and linking of given/new
information between sentences, the three methods work together to promote local coherence at the
paragraph level (Weigle, 2002). Conversely, global coherence refers to a text's general conceptual


background image

63

structure and communicates the rhetorical pattern typical of the intended communication goal
(Bachman and Palmer, 1996; Lee, 2002; Tardy and Swales, 2008). According to Bachman and Palmer's
(1996) paradigm, teaching cohesive devices and global structure include teaching students how to
arrange material in paragraphs using subject sentences, supporting sentences, and conclusions.
Furthermore, the development and perception of literary elements depend heavily on reader-writer
interaction (Bruce, 2016; Bruce andHamp-Lyons,2015;Hyland,2008;Knoch,2011).

The primary source of information for writers' use of linguistic devices like hedges, boosters,

reader-pronouns, and self-pronouns in their writing is reader-writer interaction. Pronouns that indicate
oneself or the reader might indicate interaction, while hedges and boosters reveal attitude and level of
commitment to a notion. These elements of the reader-writer interaction contain a wealth of
information that is useful in forming and analyzing people's perspectives. Writing can be understood
as the fabrication of meaning between the presumed writer and the intended reader/audience, or as an
imagined conversation/interaction (Bazerman, 1988; Hyland, 2008; Johns, 1986). This implies that
coherence is reader-based as well as text/writer-based, with the goal of satisfying the expectations of
the intended audience. Bruce and Hamp-Lyons (2015) emphasized the importance of reader-writer
interaction characteristics in writing assessment studies and categorized them as DC components in
their rubrics for grading undergraduate academic writing. The allocation of new or provided
information between sentences in accordance to theme progression patterns is a common component
of local coherence. In order to demonstrate the logical or semantic relationships between sentences and
paragraphs, logical connectives explore the use of conjunctions and adverbial adjuncts. Writers use
common language devices like hedges, boosters, self-mentions, and reader-pronouns to position
themselves and their readers based on their interactions with readers. Wang and Xie (2022) further
verified 10 distinct discourse elements for understanding EFL undergraduates' DC in academic writing
based on these five categories. The primary constructs for the diagnostic assessment of students'
discourse level difficulties in the current study are provided by Wang and Xie (2022) because of its
particular focus on the assessment of DC. However, the learning-oriented goals of diagnostic
assessment cannot be met by a detailed evaluation of written elements alone.

Discourse competence (DC) is seen as a crucial part of communicative competence and

essential to the mastery of academic writing because of its substantial contribution to the text's
coherence, cohesion, and overall flow (Bachman and Palmer, 1996; Bruce, 2008; Canale and Swain,
1980; Evans and Morrison,2011;Widdowson,2015).

The knowledge and abilities required to manage linguistic elements and their semantic purposes

in creating a connected and coherent discourse within a particular language environment are referred
to as DC in linguistics and applied linguistics research. The creation of sufficient DC is crucial but
difficult since it requires the deft handling of certain linguistic and semantic elements that are relevant
to particular writing tasks. As first-year university students transition from the secondary to the tertiary
level and lack familiarity with the academic genres needed for university study, they frequently face
significant challenges at the discourse level when writing in an English as a second language (L2) or
foreign language (EFL) context. Meeting the requirements of lengthy academic writing is likely to
cause them great frustration. Therefore, in order to better facilitate L2/EFL learners' acquisition of this
ability, it is extremely valuable to understand the unique challenges they face when developing DC in
academic writing. Prior to pursuing further education, a significant amount of Chinese students' English
writing coursework consists of guided practice producing timed, short compositions (e.g., 250 words)
on broad subjects. But as soon as they enroll in an English-medium university, they have to produce
lengthy academic essays (between 1500 and 2500 words) that are discipline-specific. The difficulties
first-year students encounter could be excessive. Discourse-level elements are especially challenging
because academic articles are typically lengthy and complex. It would be beneficial to have instruments
designed specifically to assess discourse-level characteristics. In particular, for an activity as complex
as L2/EFL academic writing, diagnostic assessment—that is, the process of accurately assessing a
problem and identifying its causes for effective treatment—provides helpful assistance for the
development of such tools (Rupp et al., 2010).

Reference list:


background image

64

1.

Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: designing and developing
useful language tests (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press.

2.

Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article
in science. University of Wisconsin Press.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Multilingual
Matters.

3.

Bruce, E., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2015). Opposing tensions of local and international standards for EAP
writing programs: Who are we assessing for? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 18, 64–77.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jeap. 2015. 03. 003

4.

Bruce, I. (2016). Constructing critical stance in university essays in English literature and sociology.
English for Specific Purposes, 42, 13–25. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. esp. 2015. 10. 005

5.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language
teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ applin/ I.1.1

6.

Evans, S., & Morrison, B. (2011). Meeting the challenges of English-medium higher education: The
first-year experience in Hong Kong. English for Specific Purposes, 30(3), 198–208. https:// doi. org/
10. 1016/j. esp. 2011. 01. 001

7.

Flowerdew, J. (2016). English for specific academic purposes (ESAP) writing: Making the case.
Writing & Pedagogy, 8(1), 5–32. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1558/ wap. v8i1. 30051

8.

Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. (1996). Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic perspective.
Longman.

9.

Halliday, M., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman.

10.

Hyland, K. (2008). Disciplinary voices: Interactions in research writing. English Text Construction,
1(1), 5–22.

11.

Johns, A. M. (1986). Coherence and academic writing: some definitions and suggestions for
teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 20(2), 247–265. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 35865 43

12.

Knoch, U. (2011). Rating scales for diagnostic assessment of writing: what should they look like and
where should the criteria come from? Assessing Writing, 16(2), 81–96. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.
asw. 2011. 02. 003

13.

Tardy, J. M., & Swales, J. M. (2008). Form, text organization, genre, coherence, and cohesion. In C.
Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing (pp. 565–582). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

14.

Toraskar, H. B., & Lee, P. K. L. (2016). Hong Kong undergraduate students’ academic writing: 21st
century problems, solutions and strategies. Journal of Asia TEFL, 13(4), 372–380. https:// doi. org/
10. 18823/ asiatefl. 2016. 13.4. 9. 372

15.

Wang, Y., & Xie, Q. (2022). Diagnosing EFL undergraduates’ discourse competence in academic
writing. Assessing Writing,53, 100641. Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge
University Press.

16.

Widdowson, H. (2015). Competence and capability: rethinking the subject English. Journal of Asia
TEFL, 12(1),

СОВЕРШЕНСТВОВАНИЕ КОММУНИКАТИВНОЙ ТОЛЕРАНТНОСТИ У

СТУДЕНТОВ КАК ВАЖНАЯ ПЕДАГОГИЧЕСКАЯ ПРОБЛЕМА

к.п.н., доцент Азимова Машхурахон Ходжиевна

Государственное образовательное учреждение «Ходжандский государственный

университет имени академика Бабажана Гафурова»

Аннотация:

в статье рассмотрено совершенствование коммуникативной толерантности у

студентов как важная педагогическая проблема.

Ключевые

слова:

актуальные

проблемы

современности,

образование,

совершенствование, толерантность, педагогика, преподаватель, студент.

Библиографические ссылки

Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: designing and developing useful language tests (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press.

Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. University of Wisconsin Press. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Multilingual Matters.

Bruce, E., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2015). Opposing tensions of local and international standards for EAP writing programs: Who are we assessing for? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 18, 64-77. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jeap. 2015. 03. 003

Bruce, I. (2016). Constructing critical stance in university essays in English literature and sociology. English for Specific Purposes, 42, 13-25. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. esp. 2015. 10. 005

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ applin/1.1.1

Evans, S., & Morrison, B. (2011). Meeting the challenges of English-medium higher education: The first-ycar experience in Hong Kong. English for Specific Purposes, 30(3), 198-208. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. esp. 2011.01.001

Flowerdew, J. (2016). English for specific academic purposes (ESAP) writing: Making the case. Writing & Pedagogy, 8(1), 5-32. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1558/wap. v8il. 30051

Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. (1996). Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic perspective. Longman.

Halliday, M., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman.

Hyland, K. (2008). Disciplinary voices: Interactions in research writing. English Text Construction, 1(1), 5-22.

Johns, A. M. (1986). Coherence and academic writing: some definitions and suggestions for teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 20(2), 247-265. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 35865 43

Knoch, U. (2011). Rating scales for diagnostic assessment of writing: what should they look like and where should the criteria come from? Assessing Writing, 16(2), 81-96. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. asw. 2011.02. 003

Tardy, J. M., & Swales, J. M. (2008). Form, text organization, genre, coherence, and cohesion. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing (pp. 565-582). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Toraskar, H. B., & Lee, P. K. L. (2016). Hong Kong undergraduate students’ academic writing: 21st century problems, solutions and strategies. Journal of Asia TEFL, 13(4), 372-380. https:// doi. org/ 10. 18823/ asiatefl. 2016. 13.4. 9. 372

Wang, Y., & Xie, Q. (2022). Diagnosing EFL undergraduates’ discourse competence in academic writing. Assessing Writing,53, 100641. Wcigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge University Press.

Widdowson, H. (2015). Competence and capability: rethinking the subject English. Journal of Asia TEFL, 12(1),

inLibrary — это научная электронная библиотека inConference - научно-практические конференции inScience - Журнал Общество и инновации UACD - Антикоррупционный дайджест Узбекистана UZDA - Ассоциации стоматологов Узбекистана АСТ - Архитектура, строительство, транспорт Open Journal System - Престиж вашего журнала в международных базах данных inDesigner - Разработка сайта - создание сайтов под ключ в веб студии Iqtisodiy taraqqiyot va tahlil - ilmiy elektron jurnali yuridik va jismoniy shaxslarning in-Academy - Innovative Academy RSC MENC LEGIS - Адвокатское бюро SPORT-SCIENCE - Актуальные проблемы спортивной науки GLOTEC - Внедрение цифровых технологий в организации MuviPoisk - Смотрите фильмы онлайн, большая коллекция, новинки кинопроката Megatorg - Доска объявлений Megatorg.net: сайт бесплатных частных объявлений Skinormil - Космецевтика активного действия Pils - Мультибрендовый онлайн шоп METAMED - Фармацевтическая компания с полным спектром услуг Dexaflu - от симптомов гриппа и простуды SMARTY - Увеличение продаж вашей компании ELECARS - Электромобили в Ташкенте, Узбекистане CHINA MOTORS - Купи автомобиль своей мечты! PROKAT24 - Прокат и аренда строительных инструментов