Cover not available
Part of
Corpora and Rhetorically Informed Text Analysis: The diverse applications of DocuScope
Edited by David West Brown and Danielle Zawodny Wetzel
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 109] 2023
► pp. 191–212

DocuScope Write & Audit as an early feedback machine in genre-based writing

Topical progression and information focus
in proposal writing

| Simon Fraser University
The recent addition of Write & Audit, to the DocuScope family offers the promise of helping students revise their own texts by providing early feedback before submitting a draft. This potential is examined in the context of proposal writing, a quintessential example of genre writing. Actual standards brought to bear on students’ drafts were developed from a long-standing proposal writing course and applied to a small, stratified sample of proposals in the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP). Early feedback focused on the element of proposal themes using Write & Audit’s analysis of topical progression and information focus, and a template for early feedback was developed. The strengths and limitations of Write & Audit as an early feedback machine are examined with the conclusion that it may indeed have the potential to provide early feedback to writers working in specific genres, helping them to see what they have done and what they might still want to do before turning in a draft.
Keywords: genre analysis, proposal writing, topical progression, information focus
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1The proposal writing genre
    • 1.2Brief overview of DocuScope Write & Audit
  • 2.Methods
    • 2.1Articulating standards
    • 2.2Choosing proposals
    • 2.3Annotating proposals
    • 2.4Focusing on a standard for Write & Audit analyses
  • 3.Providing early feedback: The example of themes
  • 4.Tracking theme in the coherence panel
    • 4.1Detecting a theme
    • 4.2Providing early feedback to identify a theme
    • 4.3Providing early feedback to evaluate a theme
    • 4.4Provide early feedback on invoking a theme
    • 4.5Revising to invoke a theme
  • 5.Tracking information focus in the clarity panel
    • 5.1Given-new expectations for information focus
    • 5.2Early feedback on information focus
  • 6.DocuScope Write & Audit as an early feedback machine
    • 6.1A model of early feedback using Write & Audit
    • 6.2Limits of Write & Audit as an early feedback machine
    • 6.3Potential for Write & Audit as an early feedback machine
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 29 June 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.109.09gei
References (34)
References
Al-Malki, A., Kaufer, D., Ishizaki, S., & Dreher, K. (2012). Arab women in Arab news: Old stereotypes and new media. Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Allison, S., Heuser, R., Jockers, M., Moretti, F., & Witmore, M. (2011). Quantitative formalism: An experiment. In Stanford Literary Lab Pamphlet 1. Stanford University, Literary Lab, Department of English.Google Scholar
Brannon, L., & Knoblauch, C. H. (1982). On students’ rights to their own texts: A model of teacher response. College Composition and Communication, 33, 157–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. (2001). The analysis of discourse flow. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 673–687). Blackwell.Google Scholar
Collins, J., Kaufer, D., Vlachos, P., Butler, B., & Ishizaki, S. (2004). Detecting collaborations in text comparing the authors’ rhetorical language choices in the Federalist Papers. Computers and the Humanities, 38(1), 15–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Connor, U. (1990). Linguistic/rhetorical measures for international persuasive student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 24 (1), 67–87.Google Scholar
Connor, U., & Mauranen, A. (1999). Linguistic analysis of grant proposals: European Union research grants. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 47–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Connors, R. J., & Lunsford, A. A. (1993). Teachers’ rhetorical comments on student papers. College Composition and Communication, 44(2), 200–223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daneš, F. (1974). Functional sentence perspective and the organization of the text. In F. Daneš (Ed.), Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective (pp. 106–127). Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ding, H. (2008). The use of cognitive and social apprenticeship to teach a disciplinary genre: Initiation of graduate students into NIH grant writing. Written Communication, 25(1), 3–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 315–339. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flowerdew, L. (2016). A genre-inspired and lexico-grammatical approach for helping postgraduate students craft research grant proposals. English for Specific Purposes, 42, 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freed, R. C., Romano, J. D., & Freed, S. (2011). Identifying, selecting, and developing themes (Ch. 7). In Writing Winning Business Proposals. McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 2. Journal of Linguistics, 3(2), 199–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hope, J., & Witmore, M. (2004). The very large textual object: A prosthetic reading of Shakespeare. Early Modern Literary Studies, 9(3), 1–36.Google Scholar
Hawes, T. (2015). Thematic progression in the writing of students and professionals. Ampersand, 2, 93–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39, 83–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johns, A. (1986). Coherence and academic writing: Some definitions and suggestions for teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 247–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaufer, D., & Hariman, R. (2008). A corpus analysis evaluating Hariman’s theory of political style. Text & Talk, 28(4), 475–500. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaufer, D., & Ishizaki, S. (2006). A corpus study of canned letters: Mining the latent rhetorical proficiencies marketed to writers. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 49(3), 254–266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022). Computer-aided close reading: Visualizing contrastive persuasion strategies. In J. Fahnestock & R. Harris (Eds.), Routledge handbook of language and persuasion. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaufer, D., Ishizaki, S., Collins, J., & Butler, B. (2004). The power of words: Unveiling the speaker and writer’s hidden craft. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moeller, R. M., & Christensen, D. M. (2009). System mapping: A genre field analysis of the National Science Foundation’s grant proposal and funding process. Technical Communication Quarterly, 19(1), 69–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Römer, U., & O’Donnell, M. B. (2011). From student hard drive to web corpus (Part 1): The design, compilation and genre classification of the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP). Corpora, 6(2), 159–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scinto, L. F. (1978). Relation of eye fixations to old-new information of texts. In J. W. Senders, D. F. Fisher, & R. A. Monty (Eds.), Eye movements and higher psychological functions (pp. 175–194). Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Shabana, N. O. (2018). Topical structure analysis: Assessing first-year Egyptian university students’ internal coherence of their EFL writing. Assessing EFL Writing in the 21st Century Arab World: Revealing the Unknown, 53–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sommers, N. I. (1982). Responding to student writing. College Composition and Communication, 33, 148–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tardy, C. M. (2003). A genre system view of the funding of academic research. Written Communication, 20(1), 7–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tardy, C. M., Sommer-Farias, B., & Gevers, J. (2020). Teaching and researching genre knowledge: Toward an enhanced theoretical framework. Written Communication, 37(3), 287–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1989). Clear and coherent prose: A functional approach. Scott Foresman.Google Scholar
(1991). Themes, thematic progressions, and some implications for understanding discourse. Written Communication, 8(3), 311–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. (1990). Style: Toward clarity and grace. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Witte, S. (1983a). Topical Structure and Writing Quality: Some Possible Text-Based Explanations of Readers’ Judgments of Student Writing. Visible Language, 17, 177–205.Google Scholar
(1983b). Topical Structure and Revision: An Exploratory Study. College Composition and Communication, 34(3), 313–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar