Cover not available
Part of
From Pragmatics to Dialogue
Edited by Edda Weigand and István Kecskés
[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 (80)
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 (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Kiełkiewicz-Janowiak, Agnieszka & Magdalena Zabielska
2024.  Please explain what this diagnosis means because I don’t quite understand . Language and Dialogue DOI logo
Bondi, Marina & Jessica Jane Nocella
2023. Variations of polyphony in blogs. Language and Dialogue 13:1 ► pp. 103 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
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
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
Săftoiu, Răzvan
2019. The Dialogic Turn in Language Study. Language and Dialogue 9:3 ► pp. 471 ff. DOI logo
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

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 2024. 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.