Academic Writing 1- Why do you write? 2- How do you write? 3- To whom do you write? The Paragraph 4- Paragraph Format Some Notes on Punctuation Punctuation and other graphic conventions have to be formally taught while learning to read and write. Punctuation has two main functions: • It separates units of grammar: for example, words are separated by a space, sentences by a combination of mark + space, paragraphs by a new start to a line. • It indicates a specific grammatical or other function: for example, the apostrophe indicates the genitive ending or the omission of a letter. There are many differences in punctuation practice. American and British publishing traditions differ, as do individual publishers. Individual writers also differ in their preference for light or heavy punctuation, especially in the amount of the use of the comma. • In fact I’ll go in the old red bus this time. (light) • In fact, I’ll go in the old, red bus, this time. (heavy) 5- Types of Paragraphs Narrative Paragraphs Descriptive Paragraphs Expository Paragraphs 6- Organisation of Paragraphs The Topic Sentence Supporting Sentences The Concluding Sentence 7- Coherence David Crystal defines COHERENCE as ‘the underlying functional or logical connectedness of a use of language.’ M.A.K. Halliday states that ‘for a text to be coherent, it must be cohesive; it must be systematically appropriate, with lexico-grammatical realisations to match, i.e. it must make sense; and it must have a structure.’ Chronological Ordering Spatial Ordering Explanatory Ordering Types of Reasoning There are two types of reasoning: INDUCTION and DEDUCTION (or inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning). Virtually any piece of reasoned discourse involving more then one or two logical steps will ordinarily include both types. The two are interdependent, and the two are basically different. In order to deal systematically with the elementary principles of logic, we shall consider each one separately. INDUCTION. Induction is that kind of reasoning which proceeds from the particular to the general. That is, in induction we begin with a number of particular facts and formulate a general statement or principle which covers them or indicates what they all have in common. Thus induction is commonly based directly on facts. These may be drawn from personal experience, or they may be derived from second-hand sources. More often both kinds of facts enter into the process: our own experiences are corroborated by those of others, and the inductive conclusion is reinforced by the additional evidence. Two special types of induction are reasoning by analogy and reasoning by cause and effect. In reasoning by analogy we follow the inductive method in a special way. We observe particular similarities between two things and then we generalise: we infer that the two things are similar in other ways, too. We should remember that reasoning by analogy never constitutes genuine proof, but only indicates that the conclusion is likely to be true. Closely related to reasoning by analogy is reasoning by cause and effect. This is based on the assumption that like causes produce like effects, or that if we have often previously seen cause A followed by effect B, the next time we see A we may expect to see B again. Here we observe particular connections between things and infer a more general relationship. In other words we may reason from cause to effect. We may reason also from effect to cause. The classic illustration is a doctor diagnosis: from the symptoms (effect) the doctor infers the nature of the disease (cause). Another example is a crime investigation. Furthermore, we may reason also from effect to effect. We do not know what the cause is, but we reason that if the effect has appeared frequently, the effect is likely to appear again. DEDUCTION. Deduction is that kind of reasoning which proceeds from the general to the particular. That is, in deduction we begin with a general statement or principle and apply it to a particular case. Presumably this generalisation was itself arrived at previously on the basis of observed particulars; that is, the generalisation was the product of induction. But the generalisation itself is the starting-point for deduction. Deduction, as well as induction, is based on facts. A single specimen of deductive reasoning can be expressed in the form of a syllogism. The syllogism consists of three parts: (1) the major premise, stating the general principle on which the reasoning is based; (2) the minor premise, indicating the particular case to which the general principle is applied; (3) the conclusion, which completes the logic of the application. The bulk of all possible mistakes in reasoning, i.e. fallacies, actually fall under a comparatively small number of types. Common Fallacies in Inductive Reasoning Common Fallacies in Deductive Reasoning Inadequate Sampling or Hasty Generalisation The fallacy may occur when we generalise on the basis of too few particulars or we ignore other particulars which may show our generalisation to be unsound. Faulty Analogy The fallacy may occur when from particular similarities between two things we infer a further or more general similarity which does not really exist. Faulty Casual Relationship The fallacy may occur when the cause-andeffect relationship that is inferred does not actually exist or, more frequently, when more complex relationships are involved. Faulty Premises If there is something wrong with either or both of the premises in a syllogism, then the conclusion may be false even if the logic itself is airtight. Non Sequiturs (Latin for ‘it does not follow’) Unlike the use of false premises, fallacy is an error in the logic itself, in the relationships among the ideas. In other words the conclusion does not follow from the premises. False and Irrelevant Issues The fallacies which belong to this category occur (1) when, although a piece of reasoning may be logically sound, it proves something else besides the point at issue, or (2) when it does not really prove anything at all because the reasoner assumes in his argument the truth of what he is trying to prove. The reasoner argues in circle. 8- Cohesive Devices David Crystal defines COHESION as ‘the formal linkage between the elements of a text or discourse.’ COHESION GRAMMATICAL COHESIVE DEVICE REFERENCE Function Endophoric Reference Anaphoric Reference Cataphoric Reference Exophoric Reference Category Personal Reference Demonstrative Reference Comparative Reference SUBSTITUTION Nominal Substitution Verbal Substitution Clausal Substitution ELLIPSIS Nominal Ellipsis Verbal Ellipsis Clausal Ellipsis LEXICAL COHESIVE DEVICES REITERATION Repetition Synonym Superordinate and Hyponym General Words COLLOCATION Opposites Related Words LEXICO-GRAMMATICAL COHESIVE DEVICES CONNECTIVES Additive Connectives Adversative Connectives Causal Connectives Temporal Connectives 9- Unity 10- Completeness 11- Bibliography Crystal, D. (2003). The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP. Crystal, D. (2004). Rediscover Grammar. London: Pearson Education. Frydenberg, G. & Boardman, C.A. (1990). You're in Charge!: Writing to Communicate. New York: Addison Wesley Publishing Company. Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold Ltd. Low, O. (1986). Proficiency in English Course. London: Edward Arnold Ltd.
