There is more to academic writing than mere writing

Writing in academic contexts requires a special skill on the part of the writer. Formal style requirements for the communication of ideas should be carefully respected if a paper is to be shared in a discourse community. The American Psychological Association (APA) manual is one of the various resources scholars can consult when it comes to writing according to set standards. The purpose of this paper is to analyze an article published by Myles (2002) and decide to what extent it meets the style and format requirements established by the 5^th edition of the APA manual.

The first aspect to be analyzed in this paper is the crediting of sources. The APA manual (2010) provides “the ground rules for acknowledging how others contributed to [the writer’s] work” (p.169). Direct quotations which take less than 40 words, for example, must be included in the text with double quotation marks; whereas reference to the author, year and page number must be provided between brackets. In Myles’ (2002) article, these requirements are properly fulfilled when he credits other authors’ words: “A two-way interaction between continuously developing knowledge and continuously developing text” (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987, p.12) (as cited in Myles, 2002, Introduction section, ¶1) and “The L1 can have a direct effect on interlanguage development by influencing the hypotheses that learners construct” (Ellis, 1994, p.342) (as cited in Myles, 2002, Cognitive Factors section, ¶8).

Another aspect to be considered when quoting in academic writing is that scholars should be faithful to the author’s original words. According to the APA manual (2001), writers should “Use three spaced ellipsis points (. . .) within a sentence to indicate that [they] have omitted material from the original source” (p. 119). Similarly, when information which is not in the source text is inserted in the quotation, it must be duly acknowledged by means of square brackets. Rules governing the omission or insertion of words/letters are also followed in Myles (2002) article: “students’ strategic knowledge and the ability of students to transform information . . . to meet rhetorically constrained purposes” (as cited in Myles, 2002, Models of L1 and L2 Writing section, ¶3).

Finally, writers should be careful with the use of reporting verbs and introductory phrases. Instead of everyday non-academic words, scientific writing is characterized by the systematic manipulation of rich vocabulary. Reporting verbs like say should be avoided in favour of more formal synonyms such as argue, reveal, and so on. The following examples are but some of the many instances in which Myles (2002) shows skill and conscious use of language:

“Wells (2000) argues that writing approached writing approached in this way is also an opportunity for knowledge building” (Implications for Teaching: Proficiency, Instruction and Response to Error, ¶11).

“Cunning also points out the benefits of cognitive modeling in writing instruction” (Implications for Teaching: Proficiency, Instruction and Response to Error, ¶12).

In conclusion, there are many aspects to take into account when writing academic texts. They are meant to express and – what is more – to transform knowledge. Unless they are skillfully organized, academic texts may fail to produce the expected effects on their readers, all the scientific work carried out by the writer being reduced to light non-effective reading, and Myles (2002) seems to understand this very well.

References

Myles, J. (2002). Second language writing and research: The writing process and error analysis in student texts. TESEL-EJ, 6, (2). Queen’s University. Retrieved November 2010, from  http://www-writing.berkeley.edu/TESl-EJ/ej22/a1.html

Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5^th Ed.). (2001). Washington, DC.

Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6^th Ed.). (2010). Washington, DC.