This paper presents an analysis of patterns of textual citation in university seminars in Great Britain and Italy, drawing on a comparative corpus collected at the University of Sussex and the University of Siena as part of a research project focusing on ‘literary practices’ in British and Italian academia. Two parallel corpora of undergraduate seminar interaction (c. 20 hours) were collected and transcribed using CA norms (Jefferson 1978). All citations of primary and secondary texts in the corpora were considered. Formal characteristics were examined in terms of (i) “production format”; (ii) degree of conformity of embedded segment to source text; (iii) type of reporting frame. Sequential characteristics were examined using the tools of conversation analysis. Contextual parameters considered included (i) field of study; (ii) speech activity (text summary, textual exegesis, topic exploration, etc.); (iii) participation structure (student presentations, collective discussion etc.); (iv) conditions of intertextuality (primary/secondary texts; number and accessibility of texts cited). The paper presents a detailed analysis of cultural variation in patterns in textual citation in two key discourse activities: summarising an unshared scholarly contribution (section 4.1) and doing an exegesis of a mutually-accessible primary text (section 4.2). The analysis highlights differences traceable to culturally-specific definitions of discourse activities, to broader patterns of participation (relative monologicity/dialogicity), and to implicit pedagogic theories (“conduit”/”knowledge construction”) typical of the two settings. In student summaries of scholarly contributions, patterns of citation differ in the range of production formats utilised and in the extent to which the speaker’s “persona” is foregrounded/backgrounded. In the Italian data, citations usally occur in reported speech format, and students rarely refers to tmemselves explicitly, thus essentially taking on a “conduit” function. In the British seminars, student summaries include citations in both direct and reported speech formats; the former (in which the student "animates" the words of the cited author) are routinely followed by the expression of a personal opinion. In the English corpus, summaries by professors/tutors in the English corpus are usually presented as readings by an “informed reader” (thus eliciting student contributions), while in the Italian corpus they are mainly monologic and take the form of “reported argument” (Bondi 1997). In doing an exegesis of a mutually-accessible primary text, participants in both contexts make ample use of direct speech. However, in the Italian context, most citations by students in direct speech format are not verbatim and devoid of page/line references, while in the English seminars, they are usually verbatim and prefaced by page/line numbers, a practice which allows listeners to “read along”. On the basis of a comparative sequential analysis, it is argued that citations in the Italian context serve as the first element in a “claim-warrant” pair, while in the British context they function as the first part of an “assessment-assessment” pair (Pomerantz 1984) which creates a opportunity for listener participation. The final section of the paper argues that participating successfully in a given academic setting presupposes an ability to refer to texts in contextually-congruent ways. This claim is supported by (i) the presence of greater “second-order metadiscourse” (Silverstein 1993) among upper-level undergraduates and (ii) an in-depth analysis of the difficulties encountered by one non-native seminar participant in implementing context-specific discourse conventions. Note: R. Piazza (Sussex) is responsible for collecting the English corpus and for sections 1 & 3 (4 pages); L. Anderson (Siena) is responsible for collecting the Italian corpus, for transcription and analysis, and for sections 2, 4, 5 (26 pages).

Anderson, L.J. (2005). Talking about texts: Production roles and literacy practices in university seminars in Britain and Italy. In Dialogue within discourse communities: Metadiscursive perspectives on academic genres (pp. 147-178). TUBINGEN : Max Neimeyer Verlag.

Talking about texts: Production roles and literacy practices in university seminars in Britain and Italy

ANDERSON, LAURIE JANE
2005-01-01

Abstract

This paper presents an analysis of patterns of textual citation in university seminars in Great Britain and Italy, drawing on a comparative corpus collected at the University of Sussex and the University of Siena as part of a research project focusing on ‘literary practices’ in British and Italian academia. Two parallel corpora of undergraduate seminar interaction (c. 20 hours) were collected and transcribed using CA norms (Jefferson 1978). All citations of primary and secondary texts in the corpora were considered. Formal characteristics were examined in terms of (i) “production format”; (ii) degree of conformity of embedded segment to source text; (iii) type of reporting frame. Sequential characteristics were examined using the tools of conversation analysis. Contextual parameters considered included (i) field of study; (ii) speech activity (text summary, textual exegesis, topic exploration, etc.); (iii) participation structure (student presentations, collective discussion etc.); (iv) conditions of intertextuality (primary/secondary texts; number and accessibility of texts cited). The paper presents a detailed analysis of cultural variation in patterns in textual citation in two key discourse activities: summarising an unshared scholarly contribution (section 4.1) and doing an exegesis of a mutually-accessible primary text (section 4.2). The analysis highlights differences traceable to culturally-specific definitions of discourse activities, to broader patterns of participation (relative monologicity/dialogicity), and to implicit pedagogic theories (“conduit”/”knowledge construction”) typical of the two settings. In student summaries of scholarly contributions, patterns of citation differ in the range of production formats utilised and in the extent to which the speaker’s “persona” is foregrounded/backgrounded. In the Italian data, citations usally occur in reported speech format, and students rarely refers to tmemselves explicitly, thus essentially taking on a “conduit” function. In the British seminars, student summaries include citations in both direct and reported speech formats; the former (in which the student "animates" the words of the cited author) are routinely followed by the expression of a personal opinion. In the English corpus, summaries by professors/tutors in the English corpus are usually presented as readings by an “informed reader” (thus eliciting student contributions), while in the Italian corpus they are mainly monologic and take the form of “reported argument” (Bondi 1997). In doing an exegesis of a mutually-accessible primary text, participants in both contexts make ample use of direct speech. However, in the Italian context, most citations by students in direct speech format are not verbatim and devoid of page/line references, while in the English seminars, they are usually verbatim and prefaced by page/line numbers, a practice which allows listeners to “read along”. On the basis of a comparative sequential analysis, it is argued that citations in the Italian context serve as the first element in a “claim-warrant” pair, while in the British context they function as the first part of an “assessment-assessment” pair (Pomerantz 1984) which creates a opportunity for listener participation. The final section of the paper argues that participating successfully in a given academic setting presupposes an ability to refer to texts in contextually-congruent ways. This claim is supported by (i) the presence of greater “second-order metadiscourse” (Silverstein 1993) among upper-level undergraduates and (ii) an in-depth analysis of the difficulties encountered by one non-native seminar participant in implementing context-specific discourse conventions. Note: R. Piazza (Sussex) is responsible for collecting the English corpus and for sections 1 & 3 (4 pages); L. Anderson (Siena) is responsible for collecting the Italian corpus, for transcription and analysis, and for sections 2, 4, 5 (26 pages).
2005
3484750286
Anderson, L.J. (2005). Talking about texts: Production roles and literacy practices in university seminars in Britain and Italy. In Dialogue within discourse communities: Metadiscursive perspectives on academic genres (pp. 147-178). TUBINGEN : Max Neimeyer Verlag.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Niemeyer Anderson-Piazza preprint _pdf_.pdf

non disponibili

Tipologia: Post-print
Licenza: NON PUBBLICO - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione 172.43 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
172.43 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11365/13012
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo