Writing in the Disciplines: Research Evidence for Specificity

Academic writing, much like any other kind of writing, is only effective when writers use \nconventions that other members of their community find familiar and convincing. Essentially the \nprocess of writing involves creating a text that we assume the reader will recognise and expect, and \nthe process of reading involves drawing on assumptions about what the writer is trying to do. It is \nthis writer-reader coordination which enables the co-construction of coherence from a text. Scholars \nand students alike must therefore attempt to use conventions that other members of their discipline, \nwhether journal editors and reviewers or subject specialist teachers and examiners, will recognise and \naccept. Because of this discourse analysis has become a central tool for identifying the specific \nlanguage features of target groups. In this paper I draw on my own work, conducted over several \nyears into research and student genres, to show how some familiar conventions of academic writing \nare used in different disciplines and what these differences can tell us about the work in the disciplines \nthemselves.