It is principally a matter of scrutinising the application of academic writing conventions what boosts the following comprehensive examination of an article by Myles (2002). In the present study, this work will be mainly analysed from a stylistic point of view, comparing it to the layout rules set by the American Psychological Association (APA) style, which is defined as “A complete resource for writing and publishing in the social and behavioral sciences” (APA 2010) The standing rules are compiled in the APA manual, which is regularly updated, and that aims at providing guidance to achieve a simple, powerful and concise academic writing style.
A basic norm specified by the 6th version of APA manual states the avoidance of accidental plagiarism. In this respect, Myles (2002), who introduces a remarkable amount of in text citations to substantiate her views on the subject of second language (L2) writing, depicts a balanced usage of such tool. Above all, this author resorts to a combination of spare, though compelling, direct quotations, smoothly integrated in her paragraphs by making use of resources such as paraphrasing and summarising. By means of this strategy, Myles (2002) ensures the arguments exposed are hers, in other words, that they are the result of her reflecting on the sources she referred to. For instance,
The first two stages have been described as setting goals and searching memory for information, then using production systems to generate language in phrases or constituents (O'Malley & Chamot, 1990, p. 42). Writers vascillate [sic] between these processes as they actively develop the meaning they wish to express in writing.
The citation above is a case of what in APA style is called block quotation, used when the citing more than 40 words. This probably decision arises from her intention to maintain the grip expressed in the original source. It is also possible to find more APA stylistic tools: the inclusion of square brackets to insert a capital letter, as well as a good use of various reporting verbs Myles (2002)
As Yau (1991) points out:
[A]lthough we should not cripple our students' interest in writing through undue stress or grammatical correctness, the influence of second language factors on writing performance is something we have to reckon with and not pretend that concentrating on the process would automatically resolve the difficulty caused by these factors (p. 268) (as cited in Myles, 2002, p.14)
Further evidence from the diversity of reporting verbs employed, in a rich merge with paragraph linkers, is shown in the introductory sentences that follow. Myles (2002) exposes some of her ideas with phrases like “In fact, Bereiter and Scardamalia criticize formal schooling. . . (p. 361).” (p.3) “In addition, the models do not account for. . .” (p. 4) “Cazden (1992) advocates. . .” (p.12)
Moreover, it is worth noting the manner in which Myles (2002) makes reference to a series of synonyms proposed by other authors for the concept she states as “rhetorical and cultural preferences for organizing information and structuring arguments” (p. 2). Such paragraph exemplifies an appropriate usage of APA conventions when citing more than one author.
These include textual issues . . . commonly referred to as contrastive rhetoric (Cai, 1999; Connor, 1997; Kaplan, 1987; Kobayashi & Rinnert, 1996; Leki, 1993; 1997; Matalene, 1985), knowledge of appropriate genres (Johns, 1995; Swales, 1990), familiarity with writing topics (Shen, 1989), and distinct cultural and instructional socialization (Coleman, 1996; Holliday, 1997; Valdes, 1995).
Despite responding to most of the APA stylistic aspects, in the article there are still instances of the absence of some of them. After discussing about the influence which motivation can have in L2 learning, Myles (2002 p.4) proposes “See Lambert, 1975; Schumann, 1978; (…) and Hamers & Blanc, 1982 for examples of other models . . .” By acknowledging other authors’ works, Myles (2002) encourages the reader to broaden their notion of the topic being argued. The layout in the citation of sources is appropriate; however, in accordance to APA Style, there should be a separate section for suggesting further reading. Similarly, a layout flaw can be found in the reference section, where the title is not centred, but appears margined to the left. These two illustrations could be seen as Myles (2002) failing to appropriately use APA writing style features. What is more, the author may be judged as either unaware of these items from the standing rule, or simply unconcerned about them, or even as being inattentive to her work. Yet, there also exists the possibility that this format choice is not to her own, though responds to the requirements that her editors or publishers might have established.
References
American Psychological Association (APA) 2010 Publication manual section, para. 1. Retrieved November 2010 from http://www.apastyle.org/index.aspx.
Myles, J. (2002). Second language writing and research: The writing process and error analysis in student texts. TESEL-EJ, 6, (2). Queen’s University. Retrieved November 2010 from http://www-writing.berkeley.edu/TESl-EJ/ej22/a1.html
University of Minnesota Center
University of Minnesota Center
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario