https://padlet.com/grantehartley/x01dgyz81s9kpmue How formal is it? en-us 2021-03-10 09:20:55 UTC 2021-03-10 09:37:21 UTC hello@padlet.com https://padlet.com/grantehartley/x01dgyz81s9kpmue/wish/1291969795 In general, Clanchy & Ballard (1981) addresses the characteristics of general academic texts while Nesi & Gardener (2012) explores specific types of texts. Both texts highlight the elements of academic language and common ways of constructing academic texts. The first difference is that Clanchy & Ballard (1981) contrasts opposite ways of writing while Nesi & Gardener (2012) does not. For example, Clanchy & Ballard (1981) formulates 4 good criterias along with 3 things to avoid. Nesi & Gardener (2012), on the other hand, makes a very comprehensive distinction among multiple academic genres in terms of disciplines and looks at the percentage of usage. Nesi & Gardener (2012)’s statements mostly point out the characteristic of the context not the linguistical features like Clanchy & Ballard (1981). In contrast, we could also understand that Nesi & Gardener (2012)’s theory has expanded on Clanchy & Ballard (1981)’s theory. For instance, Clanchy & Ballard (1981) suggests using an analytical writing style, which is clarified by Nesi & Gardener (2012)’s literature survey aspect: analytical biography, review and overview.  To summarize, Clanchy & Ballard (1981) has a more optimal study towards methods of writing academically.  ]]> 2021-03-10 09:26:31 UTC https://padlet.com/grantehartley/x01dgyz81s9kpmue/wish/1291969795 https://padlet.com/grantehartley/x01dgyz81s9kpmue/wish/1291976619 The characteristics of academic writing include: objectivity, impersonal pronouns and register, and finally an intellectual tone (clanchy and ballard, 1981). Formality is also a cornerstone of academic writing since it facilitates other elements to be present as well. For example, without a formal writing style, it would not be suitable for a writer to use subject-specific jargon or terminology.  In comparison to the table provided by Nesy (2012), these features seem to be present in more than one academic text type. Predominantly, texts like case studies and research reports share many discernible features in common with what was identified to be the essence of formal academic writing back in 1981. However, some other academic texts in the table do not wholly resemble what (ibid.) defines as “academic”. For instance, book reviews, creative and empathy writing are all genres that are uniquely subjective, thus, usually reflect the writer’s personal point of view. Moreover, these defining attributes are instrumental to maintain a genre’s distinguishable style and to serve a specific purpose. 

]]> 2021-03-10 09:28:36 UTC https://padlet.com/grantehartley/x01dgyz81s9kpmue/wish/1291976619 eumeliachan2020_2 https://padlet.com/grantehartley/x01dgyz81s9kpmue/wish/1291977617 The Case Study is more analytical rather than impressionistic, as we usually need to analyze different statistics and sources. The tone of the writer is both subjective and objective, as there is evaluation at the end to critique the effectiveness of the study. The academic writer makes frequent use of qualifying words and phrases and specialized vocabulary. Moreover, academic writers will often use qualifying words and phrases and complex sentence structures, sometimes they will use specialised vocabularies when it is specialising on a subject.

]]> 2021-03-10 09:28:53 UTC https://padlet.com/grantehartley/x01dgyz81s9kpmue/wish/1291977617 grantehartley https://padlet.com/grantehartley/x01dgyz81s9kpmue/wish/1292002929 Clanchy and Ballard (1981) claim that academic writing is formal in that it is first objective, meaning the writer tries to approach the question from a neutral position, second, intellectual in that they avoid emotional statements, and finally, impersonal, emphasizing actions over actors. Applying Clanchy and Ballard’s claims to Nesi and Gardner (2012) we could then assume that we might observe these language choices within certain genres, including perhaps design specifications, exercise, explanations, methodology recounts, problem questions and proposals. The reason we may see them in these genres and not others, must surely be due in part to the types of knowledge and expectations within the fields or subject areas they occur. For example in subjects involving more ‘hard’ sciences we may expect to see less subjective interpretation, whereas in subjects such as history or the social sciences, where interpretation is expected and valued, we would expect to see more subjective language used.

]]> 2021-03-10 09:37:21 UTC https://padlet.com/grantehartley/x01dgyz81s9kpmue/wish/1292002929