After having read the text "Why I write" By George Orwell, and taking into account my previous work and knowledge about general structure text, I did not recognize initially this writing as an academic text. At that moment, it was a logical decision to me, because the text does not have an obvious structure. For example, when we are tackling an academic text is normal to expect that its structure be clear. It means that we can easily identify its abstract, arguments, references, sources, logical connectors, etc., but, when we have a text that is subjective, with a personal writing style, that is not lineal, and with many other aspects that are apparently missing, so, it is possible to think hastily, that is not an academic text.
However, when we check this text carefully, we find that it has examples, arguments, a conclusion, a subject, some personal experiences as a writer, in some parts specific or technical vocabulary, a purpose, at the same time we can identify a managerial audience and a tone that is steady, among other elements that allow us to recognize that it is an academic text too.
Something that help me to do this reflections were the statements of Barbara Schneider and Jo-Anne Andre in their text “Developing Authority in student writing through written peer critique in the disciplines”, because they said that there is no one-style-fits-all discourse and that each discipline has its own set of conventions in which particular ways of constructing and communicating knowledge.
No comments:
Post a Comment