Department of English

This paper is a pilot study on the form and function of the Arabic discourse marker ‘ṭabʕan’. Discourse markers in language have been the focus of myriad studies under a number of denotations such as discourse operators, discourse connectives, modal markers, cue phrases, amongst several others. While such markers occur in written and spoken forms of language, they are much more abundant in formal and informal conversations. ṭabʕan, for instance, is observed in media Arabic in formal and semi-formal contexts. The paper highlights its formal features, its syntactic distribution, and identifies its core pragmatic function. Although the marker does not change the truth value of utterances or alter them in any significant way, it tends to cluster around the speaker. Thus, it injects some modal features oscillating between assertiveness and evidentiality.

Latest work within the Learning Through the Arts field included a variety of visual and performing arts activities such as drama, music, dance, film, etc. Rarely do studies focus on mime as a teaching and learning tool. In this paper, the art of mime is explored through a hands-on workshop whereby participants go through the various steps of a mime activity. As such, they work in small groups to design, perform, and finally reflect on meaning and meaning production. The activity is then videotaped and features of the use of the digital camera are highlighted. Thus, the paper explicates the salient features of the mime and the use of the digital camera as educational tools.

It is a well-known fa ct that pollution is a global problem and mus t be holis ticall y ta ckled. In doing this, a dequa te knowledge of the sources of pollution is i mporta nt; therefore, the ai m of this paper is to review source a pportionment wi th reference to top-down and bottom-up methods . In this paper, dispersion modelling, emissions inventory and sa mpling methods are dis cussed. Also, anal yti cal methods invol ved in top -down source apportionment a re mentioned. The two techniques are needed to evalua te pollutants and their sources . Based on these two approa ches , pollution control s tra tegy is developed and decisions can be made on deci ding the ri ght approach to sol ve or reduce the pollution problems .

This chapter argues that in the face of proliferating communication options, writing teachers shouldn’t strive to teach either academic writing or non-academic multimodal forms. Instead, we should teach both, and do so in ways that allow for synergy between diverse resources. An embrace of generative combination can both simplify our pedagogical mandate and help students meet contemporary literacy challenges. Such combination can be achieved, I argue, by identifying the competencies, or materially grounded literacy skills, at the core of common genres and other literacy forms. After discussing some themes in the literature which might inhibit such work, I identify the material competencies at the core of two representative forms: the essay and the meme. I then show how these competencies might be generatively combined  .

Situated within the Intercultural Rhetoric (IR) framework, this study uses text linguistic analysis of Arab students’ English academic papers to investigate the transfer of the Arabic language instruction practices into ESL written texts. The analysis involves a comparison of surface linguistic features (syntactic relations and cohesive devices) in a corpus of Arab students and English-speaking students’ papers. Furthermore, the Arabic and English-speaking students completed surveys about the skills emphasized in their L1 classrooms. It is believed that the methods of writing instruction in Arabic, which are influenced by diglossia, are transferred into ESL written texts. The results show that the Arabic speaking and English-speaking students’ texts exhibit differences at the rhetorical level. The characteristics of the ESL texts are similar to Arabic native texts which suggest a transfer of L1 learned writing methods into L2 texts. The findings from the linguistic analysis and the ...

Situated within the Intercultural Rhetoric (IR) framework, this study uses text linguistic analysis of Arab students' English academic papers to investigate the transfer of the Arabic language instruction practices into English Second Language (ESL) written texts. The analysis involves a comparison of surface linguistic features (i.e., syntactic relations and cohesive devices) in a corpus of Arab and English-speaking students' papers. Furthermore, the Arabic and English-speaking students completed surveys about the skills emphasized in their L1 classrooms. It is believed that the features of writing instruction in Arabic, which are influenced by diglossia, are transferred into ESL written texts. The results show that the Arabic-speaking and English-speaking students' texts exhibit differences at the rhetorical level. The characteristics of the ESL texts are similar to Arabic native texts which suggest a transfer of L1 learned writing methods into L2 texts. The findings from the linguistic analysis and the data obtained from the surveys are discussed with reference to Arabic teaching methodology, diglossia, and learning experience transfer from Arabic into English.

The novels of Jane Austen have particularly strong claims for being studied in relation to culture from several angles. Firstly, her works still play a role in modern culture, having recently enjoyed a renewed popularity, particularly in television and film versions. During the summer of 1997 alone, three new biographies were published in England and given extensive coverage in the media. In an increasingly international world we might wonder why there is still such popular enthusiasm on both sides of the Atlantic for works set in small, isolated, rural, upper-class Georgian societies by a writer who never left her own country and never showed any desire to do so.

Imperialism and the novel fortified each other to such a degree that it is impossible, I would argue, to read one without in some way dealing with the other. (Edward Said:71) Within his encyclopedic discussion of the relationship between imperialism and western literature in Culture and Imperialism, Edward Said (80-97) refers in some detail to the novels of Jane Austen, and in particular to Mansfield Park. The reason for selecting Mansfield Park for such detailed scrutiny is the frequent reference to Sir Thomas Bertram's Antiguan estate and its role in maintaining the privileged lifestyle of Sir Thomas and his family at Mansfield Park. By suggesting a strong link between Austen and Empire, Said (83) is arguing for a much earlier, much stronger relationship than has normally been acknowledged between Empire and the novel.

This article illustrates a three-level analysis of classroom discourse as a means of examining in detail the implications of characterizing language teachers' questions as “display” questions. In particular, it attempts to demonstrate that the characterization of teachers’ questions as display questions because they are non-referential is only relevant on one level of analysis. By using a three-level analysis, it has been possible to challenge a negative characterization of the exchanges initiated by teachers' questions, which were said to be purposeless in one pedagogical setting.

The introduction to this volume is intended to be a holistic introduction to international /intercultural  communicative competence.  In this introduction and part 1, the four
chapters on the meaning of EIL competence by four different authors present very different perspectives. We do not wish to attempt to resolve differences of perception, although I will
discuss some differences in this introduction. After all, the tolerance of different perspectives is an essential part of the epistemology of EIL. As Moser, (2002, p.17) eloquently suggests in
defence of his own epistemology, meta-epistemic instrumentalism,
Within the tolerant confines of meta-epistemic instrumentalism, we can welcome even as rational, much of the remarkable divergence we see in contemporary epistemology (p.17).
When faced with a broad and divergent body of knowledge, it would have been tempting to simplify the different accounts of knowledge into some kind of coherent whole. This can
sometimes take the form of rejecting scholarship that we cannot reconcile within our own paradigm. In our own field, we might want to reconsider whether a common target for rejection
(frequently also within this volume), Chomskian linguistics, is indeed really in opposition to holistic views of competence. For Moser (2002, p.6), holism is related to ‘epistemic coherentism’ as it “finds the ultimate source of justification in a system of interconnected beliefs or potential beliefs”. However, Moser does not support the artificial creation of a tidy fixed, impervious system of interconnected beliefs. Moser (p.16) argues instead that to characterize the present state of epistemic scholarship as ‘rational’, a tolerance of conceptual divergence is
needed that might not be encompassed in a coherent holistic model (coherentism). Moser coins the phrase ‘meta-epistemic instrumentalism’ (p.16) which “enables us to explain as rational
conceptual divergence what initially looks like perennial disagreement.” In Moser’s view, “the diversity hides a deeper rational unity” (p.17). As Sivasubramaniam suggests in this volume, we must therefore view all attempts a creating ‘final’ systems as temporary. The parts may come together in apparent coherence as with a kaleidoscope, but the ‘fixed’ outcome will only be
provisional. In the case of Chomskian linguistics, might we not need to acknowledge that EIL specialists have so far struggled to come up with an adequate characterization of linguistic
competence? As a result of this conceptual divergence in part 1, there is inevitably some repetition too. On closer examination, however, I have found that similar but very important concepts are
contextualized very differently in these chapters. This is perhaps most apparent in Sivasubramaniam’s contribution, which provides a much broader challenge to the concept of competence itself. Sivasubramaniam proposes a pluricentric view of community leading to a notion of competence that is enriched by its dependence on a plurality of contexts. His suggestion that we are actually in search of context-based confirmations rather than objective and context-free affirmations underline the difficulty of providing a meaningful definition of EILcompetence at all. My co-editor therefore provides a different angle on “rational diversity” as he underlines the need to broaden our perspectives, whereas as definitions tend to summarize and reduce. His strongly expressed views of social alignment and sociolinguistic sensitivity have, I
hope, helped me avoid reductionism in my own attempt to characterize (rather than definitively or narrowly define) EIL competence in this introduction. I have nonetheless responded to my own perception that the EIL literature has spent a lot of time pointing out what EIL competence is not, but less time suggesting what it is. If readers feel we have made a first step in this regard, we will be delighted.

Grice’s maxim of quality (1989, pp.26-27 [1975, p.45]) includes the statement: “Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence”. In academic communication what we mean by “adequate evidence” in support of statements about knowledge or information is of great importance. The way to talk about the quality of evidence is through words like ‘may’, ‘might’, ‘possibly’ or ‘seems’. This area of language is called ‘modality’. 

This paper will mainly consider the importance of ‘modality’ in EAP, arguing that it is a particularly useful concept for both developing academic competence and for analysing academic texts. It can help us address some of the most critical questions in academic communication: 

• What is the relationship between language form and language use?

• What is the relationship between the language choices that academic writers make and the content of their message?

• What is the role of evidence in supporting arguments and what means are available to competent writers to express their evidence?

Definitions of ‘holism’ in applied language studies need to remain broad enough to allow for true epistemological diversity and reject prematurely coherent impermeable systems that do not reflect the present state of knowledge in our field. In Part 1 of this two-part paper, I focus on definitional issues arguing that the atomistic parts of any whole are related within a complex, but fluid, organic system and are more easily understood in relationship to other parts of that system. After considering the relationship between holistic and atomistic phenomena, I argue that ecological studies (Van Lier, 2002), while providing groundbreaking new insights into the holistic nature of applied language study, appear to exclude context-independence as a legitimate perspective. My definition above is therefore closely associated with Pappamihiel and Walser’s (2009) characterization of complexity theory. Epistemological diversity and complexity lead us to accept dynamism, unpredictability and instability as natural conditions of our field which cannot be ignored.

In ‘An Argument for Holism Part 1’ (Nunn, 2013), I focused on the meaning of holism within applied language studies considering in detail the relationship between focused atomistic studies and holistic views of epistemological diversity (Moser’s, 2002). In addition, I compared Moser’s view of holism with ecological views. While fully accepting the importance of context, I suggested that context-independence is also a legitimate focus. As such, my characterization of ‘holism’ is more closely associated with complexity theory (Pappamihiel and Walser, 2009 and Cvetek, 2008), emphasizing the need to take the unpredictable and unstable nature of complexity into account.
In part 2, I explore the implications of views of holistic diversity in relation to just a few important areas in our field: language and discourse use, motivation, assessment, task-based curriculum and materials planning. I provide evidence and specialist support for my view that all of these areas are essentially holistic and that recent scholarship in these areas seems to require us to situate focused atomistic studies within a broader framework.

p.55 in the attached volume

My paper will not have a single focus, but the unifying central theme will be the description of the method actually being enacted in particular contexts (method-in-use) to help us compare unique experiences across contexts. For cross-cultural comparison to be possible at all, we have to assume that there is something in common between even the most divergent teaching contexts. I have therefore selected the two most different situations I could find from my own experience and from my research and then used the same model to compare them. By comparing experiences of unique teaching situations across diverse contexts, we attempt
to learn from the local experience of others, help to make sense of local experience for ourselves and help others to make sense of their own experience. After briefly summarizing my model of method-in-use developed and modified from my earlier PhD study (Nunn 1996), I will narrate some of the episodes that could not be included in an examined study or in standard journal articles, but which help support the perception of the need to describe real local experience and to look below the surface of polished academic study. Anecdotal narrated experience would not normally be included in standard academic writing. I use this partly as a counterbalance to more formal writing I have already published on this same subject, but partly because I have come to believe that formal academic writing can take the life and energy out of what is a very dynamic, lived profession and can exclude
some highly relevant local data. I do not believe it is possible to understand the context I describe without the anecdotal narrative.

Education draws on such a broad range of theories and practices that important pragmatic theories based on the philosophy of language such as Grice’s theory of cooperation (1975) and Sperber and Wilson’s relevance theory (1995) have not
always been considered essential even for language teachers. McCarthy (1991, p. 2), for example, in his introduction to discourse analysis for language teachers, finds no place for Grice, classifying Gricean pragmatics as intrinsically interesting, but “of little practical adaptability to the language teaching context”, adding that, over a ten year period, he has “never met an occasion where the maxims could be usefully applied.” In contrast, as a teacher of languages for over thirty years in many different countries and contexts, I have come to see pragmatics, including Gricean pragmatics, as an essential if not the essential discipline for teachers to understand both what they are teaching and what is happening in their classrooms. As a discipline concerned,
“not with language as a system or product per se, but rather with the interrelationship between language form, (communicated) messages and language users” (Oatey and Zegarac in Schmitt, 2002, p. 74), it is difficult to see pragmatics as irrelevant to a
profession so centrally and essentially concerned with people, language and language use. Teaching and learning are always mediated through language, so theories of communication, precisely expressed by those trained philosophers who have turned
their attention to the practical use of language, could arguably be of intrinsic interest to all teachers. For language teachers, however, they are of relevance not only for insights into the process of teaching and learning through communication but also for a consideration of what is being taught.