Cover not available
Part of
From Pragmatics to Dialogue
Edited by Edda Weigand and Istvan Kecskes
[Dialogue Studies 31] 2018
► pp. 137–170

Dialogicity in written language use

Variation across expert action games

The chapter looks at dialogicity in written language use, focusing on how expert knowledge is recontextualized in different action games. Using a corpus of journal articles, newspaper columns and blog posts by the same author (Paul Krugman), the analysis centres on: (a) participants (the expert community, the writer and the reader), (b) communicative action and (c) the evaluative dialogue between writer and reader. The study highlights that research action games take scholarly debates as their starting point and involve the expert community, while knowledge dissemination recontextualizes expert argument in a wider participation framework: columns highlight the authority of the writer by presenting a self-contained argument; blogs present the post as the opening move of a polylogue addressing different participants.
Keywords: dialogicity, academic language use, research and knowledge dissemination, journal articles, columns, blog posts
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background: The dialogicity of academic writing
  • 3.A case study of Paul Krugman
  • 4.Dialogicity in research articles
    • 4.1Focus on Krugman (1991)
    • 4.2Participants-oriented perspective
      • 4.2.1The community
      • 4.2.2Self-reference and reference to the reader
      • 4.2.3Interrogatives and imperatives
    • 4.3Action-oriented perspective
    • 4.4Evaluative dialogue
    • 4.5The journal articles corpus
  • 5.Dialogicity in research and in knowledge dissemination
    • 5.1Comparing research and knowledge dissemination
    • 5.2Focus on columns
    • 5.3Focus on blog posts
  • 6.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgment
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 5 October 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.31.08bon
References
Bakhtin, Mikhail
1981 The Dialogical Imagination. ed. by Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Barrotta, Pierluigi and Marcelo Dascal
(ed.) 2005 Controversies and Subjectivity. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay
1993 Analysing Genre. Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bolander, Brook
2012 “Disagreements and agreements in personal/diary blogs: A closer look at responsiveness.” Journal of Pragmatics 44 (12): 1607–1622. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bondi, Marina
1997 “Reported argument in economics textbooks. A meta-pragmatics of argumentative dialogue”. In Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of linguists, ed. by Bernard Caron, Paper 41 (CD). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
2010 “Metadiscursive practices in introductions: Phraseology and semantic sequences across genres.” Nordic Journal of English Studies 9(2): 99–123.Google Scholar
2014 “Integrating corpus and genre approaches: Phraseology and voice across EAP genres.” In Corpus Analysis for Descriptive and Pedagogic Purposes: English Specialised Discourse, ed. by Maurizio Gotti and Davide Simone Giannoni, 43–62. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Bondi Marina
2017 “Corpus Linguistics.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Dialogue, ed. by Edda Weigand, 46–61. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bondi, Marina
Forthcoming. “ Try to prove me wrong: Dialogicity and audience involvement in economics blogs.” Discourse, Context and Media.DOI logo
Bondi, Marina and Giuliana Diani
2015 “ I am wild about cabbage: Evaluative ‘semantic sequences’ and cross-linguistic (dis)continuities.” Nordic Journal of English Studies (NJES), 14(1): 116–151.Google Scholar
Bondi, Marina and Corrado Seidenari
2012 “ And now I’m finally of the mind to say I hope the whole ship goes down …: Markers of subjectivity and evaluative phraseology in blogs.” In Corpus Linguistics and Variation in English, ed. by Joybrato Mukherjee and Magnus Huber, 17–27. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charles, Maggie
2003 “ This mystery: A corpus-based study of the use of nouns to construct stance in theses from two contrasting disciplines.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2: 313–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 “The construction of stance in reporting clauses: A cross-disciplinary study of theses.” Applied Linguistics 27(3): 492–518. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crismore, Avon
1989 Talking with Readers: Metadiscourse as Rhetorical Act. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Dascal, Marcelo
1989 “Controversies as quasi-dialogues.” In Dialoganalyse II, ed. by Edda Weigand and Franz Hundsnurcher, 147–159. Tubingen: Narr. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dascal, Marcelo and Han-Liang Chang
(ed.) 2007 Traditions of Controversy. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dascal, Marcelo and Victor Boantza
(ed.) 2011 Controversies Within the Scientific Revolution. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diani, Giuliana
2009 “Reporting and evaluation in English book review articles: A cross-disciplinary study.” In Academic Evaluation, ed. by Ken Hyland and Giuliana Diani, 87–104. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Dontcheva-Navratilova, Olga
2016 “Rhetorical functions of citations in linguistic research articles.” Discourse and Interaction, 9(2): 51–74.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feng, Jiang and Ken Hyland
2015 “ The fact that: Stance nouns in disciplinary writing”. Discourse Studies 17(5): 1–22.Google Scholar
2016 “Nouns and academic interactions: A neglected feature of metadiscourse.” Applied Linguistics 1–25.Google Scholar
Fløttum, Kjersti
2005 “The self and the others: polyphonic visibility in research articles.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 15(1): 29–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fløttum, Kjersti, Trine Dahl, and Torodd Kinn
2006 Academic Voices: Across Languages and Disciplines. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fritz, Gerd
2010 “Controversies”. In Historical Pragmatics, ed. by Andreas Jucke and Irma Taavitsainen, 451–481. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gil-Salom, Luz and Carmen Soler-Monreal
2014 Dialogicity in Written Specialised Genres. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harwood, Nigel
2005a “ Nowhere has anyone attempted … in this article I aim to do just that: A corpus-based study of self-promotional I and we in academic writing across four disciplines”. Journal of Pragmatics 37(8): 1207–1231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005b “ We do not seem to have a theory …the theory I present here attempts to fill this gap: Inclusive and exclusive pronouns in academic writing”. Applied Linguistics 26(3): 343–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herring, Susan, Dieter Stein, and Tuija Virtanen
(ed.) 2013 Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication. Berlin: DeGruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hewings, Anne, Theresea Lillis, and Dimitra Vladimirou
2010 “Who’s citing whose writings? A corpus-based study of citations as interpersonal resource in English-medium national and English-medium international journals.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9(2): 102–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunston, Susan and Geoffrey Thompson
(ed.) 2000 Evaluation in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan
1993 “Professional conflict-disagreement in academic discourse.” In Text and Technology: in Honour of John Sinclair, ed. by Mona Baker, Gill Francis and Elena Tognini-Bonelli, 115–134. Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994 “Evaluation and organization in a sample of written academic discourse. In Advances in Written Text Analysis, ed. by Malcolm Coulthard, 191–218. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2000 “Evaluation and the planes of discourse: Status and value in persuasive texts”. In Evaluation in Text, ed. by Susan Hunston and Geoffrey Thompson, 176–207. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2004 “ It has rightly been pointed out: Attribution, Consensus and Conflict in Academic Discourse.” In Academic Discourse, Genre and Small Corpora, ed. by Marina Bondi, Laura Gavioli and Marc Silver, 15–33. Rome: Officina.Google Scholar
2005 “Conflict and consensus: Construing opposition in applied linguistics.” In Strategies in Academic Discourse, ed. by Elena Tognini Bonelli and Gabriella Del Lungo, 1–15. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 Corpus Approaches to Evaluation: Phraseology and Evaluative Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken
1999 “Academic attribution: Citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge.” Applied Linguistics 20(3): 341–367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000 Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. London: Longman.Google Scholar
2002a “What do they Mean? Questions in Academic Writing.” Text 22(4): 529–557. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002b “Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing.” Applied Linguistics 23(2): 215–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005a “Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse.” Discourse Studies 7: 173–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005b Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
2014 “Introductory chapter: Dialogue, community and persuasion in research writing.” In Dialogicity in Written Specialised Genres, ed. by Luz Gil-Salom and Carmen Soler-Monreal, 1–20. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken and Giuliana Diani
2009 Academic Evaluation: Review Genres in University Settings. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken and Jiang Feng
2016 “ We must conclude that …: A diachronic study of academic engagement.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 24: 29–42.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kwan, Becky and Hang Chan
2014 “An investigation of source use in the results and the closing sections of empirical articles in information systems: In search of a functional-semantic citation typology for pedagogical purposes”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14: 29–47.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lillis, Theresa
2003 “Student writing as ‘academic literacies’: Drawing on Bakhtin to move from critique to design.” Language and Education 17(3): 192–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 “Legitimizing dialogue as textual and ideological goal in academic writing for assessment and publication”. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 10(4): 401–432. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Livnat, Zohar
2012 Dialogue, Science and Academic Writing. Amsterdam: Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lorés Sanz, Rosa
2008 “Genres in contrast: The exploration of writers’ visibility in research articles and research article abstracts.” In English as an Additional Language in Research Publication and Communication, ed. by Sally Burgess and Pedro Martín Martín, 105–122. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Luzón, Maria José
2013 “Public communication of science in blogs: Recontextualizing scientific discourse for a diversified audience.” Written Communication 30(4): 428–457. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John
1977 Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, Jim and Peter White
2005 The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mauranen, Anna
2010 “Discourse reflexivity: A discourse universal? The case of ELF”. Nordic Journal of English Studies 9(2): 13–40.Google Scholar
2013 “Hybridism, edutainment, and doubt: Science blogging finding its feet.” Nordic Journal of English Studies 13(1): 7–36.Google Scholar
Mur Dueñas, Pilar
2008 “Analysing engagement markers cross-culturally: The case of English and Spanish business management research articles.” In English as an Additional Language in Research Publication and Communication, ed. by Sally Burgess and Pedro Martín Martín, 197–213. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Nølke, Henning, Kjersti Fløttum, and Coco Norén
2004 La ScaPoLine. La théorie scandinave de la polyphonie linguistique. Paris: Kimé.Google Scholar
Pecorari, Diane
2006 “Visible and occluded citation features in postgraduate second-language writing.” English for Specific Purposes 25(1): 4–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, Michael
2012 WordSmith Tools version 6. Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John Mc. H.
1982 “Planes of discourse.” In The Two-fold Voice: Essays in Honour of Ramesh Mohan, ed. by S. N. A. Rizvi, 70–89. Hyderabad: Pitambar Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John
1985 “On the integration of linguistic description”. In Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. by Teun van Dijk, 13–28. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1996 “The search for units of meaning.” Textus 9(1): 75–106.Google Scholar
2004 Trust the Text. Language, Corpus and Discourse. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John and Anna Mauranen
2006 Linear Unit Grammar. Integrating Speech and Writing. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Soler-Monreal, Carmen and Gil-Salom, Luz
2011 “A cross-language study on citation practice in PhD theses”. International Journal of English Studies 11(2): 53–75.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Soler-Monreal, Carmen and Luz Gil-Salom
2014 “Academic Voices and claims: Reviewing practices in research writing.” In Dialogicity in Written Specialised Genres, ed. by Luz Gil-Salom and Carmen Soler-Monreal, 23–54. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swales, John
1990 Genre Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Swales, John and Christine B. Feak
2004 Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Skills and Tasks, 2nd edition. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah
1989 Talking Voices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2002 “Agonism in academic discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 34(10–11): 1651–1669. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Geoff
2001 “Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader.” Applied Linguistics 22(1): 58–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Paul
2012 “Achieving a Voice of Authority in PhD Theses.” In Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres, ed. by Ken Hyland and Carmen Sancho-Guinda, 119–133. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Paul and Chris Tribble
2001 “Looking at Citations: Using Corpora in English for Academic Purposes.” Language Learning and Technology 5(3): 91–105.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H. and Bart Garssen
(ed.) 2008 Controversy and Confrontation: Relating Controversy Analysis with Argumentation Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vande Kopple, William J.
1985 “Some exploratory Discourse on Metadiscourse”. College Composition and Communication 36: 63–94.Google Scholar
Weigand, Edda
2009 Language as Dialogue. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010a Dialogue: the Mixed Game. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010b “Language as Dialogue”. Intercultural Pragmatics 7(3): 505–510. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yus, Francisco
2011 Cyberpragmatics: Internet-mediated Communication in Context. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Załęska, Maria
2014 Retorica della linguistica: scienza, struttura, scrittura. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 8 other publications

Bondi, Marina
2018. Blogs as interwoven polylogues. Language and Dialogue 8:1 ► pp. 43 ff. DOI logo
Bondi, Marina
2022. Dialogicity in Individual and Institutional Scientific Blogs. Publications 10:1 ► pp. 9 ff. DOI logo
Bondi, Marina & Jessica Jane Nocella
2023. Variations of polyphony in blogs. Language and Dialogue 13:1 ► pp. 103 ff. DOI logo
Lee, Carmen & Dennis Chau
2021. ‘I’m not a tech person’. Pragmatics and Society 12:5 ► pp. 805 ff. DOI logo
Malavasi, Donatella
2021. Metadiscourse in Academic Research Articles Versus Blogs: Paul Krugman as a Case Study. In Metadiscourse in Digital Communication, ► pp. 65 ff. DOI logo
Pascual, Daniel & Pilar Mur-Dueñas
2022. Dialogic interaction with diversified audiences in Twitter for Research Dissemination Purposes. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación 90 ► pp. 61 ff. DOI logo
Săftoiu, Răzvan
2019. The Dialogic Turn in Language Study. Language and Dialogue 9:3 ► pp. 471 ff. DOI logo
Trushchelev, Pavel N., Elena V. Petrenko & Larisa A. Piotrovskaya
2023. Conceptualizing emotions through discourse: a pragmatic view on the reader's interest. Slovo.ru: Baltic accent 14:2 ► pp. 93 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 november 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.