No abstract

Argument construction is an important aspect of academic writing. Although literature presents a number of theoretical and pedagogical models of argument, research is lacking into authentic argument construction in expert writing. Moreover, it is not clear how disciplinary variation affects the construction of argument. Therefore, this paper analyses argument in four disciplines -philosophy, literature, chemistry, and computational science. The results show a degree of variation among disciplines. Three models of argument have been found, called here premise-based argument (found in philosophy and literature), hypothesis-based argument (found in computational science and to a lesser degree in literature) and exposition-based argument (in chemistry). These models differ from the theoretical and/or pedagogical models proposed in the literature, suggesting that EAP students might be asked to produce arguments very different from arguments encountered in the reading in their discipline. Given the disciplinary variation observed, the paper supports applying English for Specific Academic Purposes (ESAP) as well as English for General Academic Purposes (EGAP) approach to teaching argument construction.

The tension between the need to present oneself in academic discourse unobtrusively on the one hand and promotionally on the other hand results in a range of options of hiding and revealing authorial presence in the text. The choice from among these options is, among other factors, determined by cultural background. This paper explores how Anglophone writers and Slovak authors writing in Slovak and in non-native English position themselves in linguistic research papers as individuals or as part of a society, and as participants or non-participants of the given communicative exchange. The study concludes that English academic culture is largely individualistic while Slovak academic culture is largely collectivist, a trait that Slovak authors also transmit into their writing in English for a mainly local audience.

To test situation aspect (lexical aspect, aktionsart), especially telicity, and/or to classify situations into Vendlerian classes (states, activities, accomplishments, and achievements), aspectual literature has been standardly relying on Dowty's (1979) diagnostic tests. These are of three kinds -lexical co-occurrence, grammatical co-occurrence and logical entailment tests. This paper points out problems associated with implementing the tests. It argues that Dowty's tests can give false results, mainly due to two factors. First, some of the tests are based on volition rather than aspectual features. Second, upon reviewing the various workings of the phenomenon of aspect shift and coercion, I show how it can affect the results of Dowty's tests. Coupled with the fact that some of the tests are not applicable to some Vendlerian classes and with the problem of varying judgments among native speakers, Dowty's tests for Vendler classes are far from being watertight. Awareness of these problems is imperative when testing situation aspect.