We are pleased to announce that the following keynote speakers have confirmed their participation at the Sixth Brno Conference:

Prof. Dr. Anita Fetzer
University of Ausburg, Germany

The Structuring of Discourse 

This paper examines the linguistic representation of discourse relations across genres and contexts, and argues that the signalling of discourse relations with discourse connectives is not only interdependent on language-specific preferences but also on discourse genre. It compares and contrasts the linguistic representation of coordinating and subordinating discourse relations in two different genres: editorials and personal narratives, paying particular attention to those contexts in which discourse relations are signalled by discourse connectives. 

The methodological framework is an integrated one, supplementing Systemic Functional Grammar (Halliday 1994) with Segmented Discourse Representation Theory (Asher and Lascarides 2003), and applying them to a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the data at hand. In the editorials, only the coordinating discourse relation of Continuation and the subordinating discourse relation of Elaboration are positioned non-adjacently while the non-adjacent positioning of discourse relations is less constrained in the personal narratives. Moreover, the signalling of discourse relations by discourse connectives is also more pronounced in the personal narratives. While contrast is signalled overtly across the discourse genres under investigation, only elaboration is signalled overtly more frequently. In the narratives, almost all of the discourse relations under investigation (except for Background) are preferably signalled by discourse connectives.

References:

Asher, N. and Lascarides, A. (2003) Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fetzer, A. and Speyer, A. (2012) ‘Discourse relations in context. Local and not-so-local constraints’, Intercultural Pragmatics 9/4, 413 – 452.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1994) Introduction to English Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.

Dr. Karen Bennett
University of Lisbon Centre for English Studies (ULICES)

Deconstructing English Academic Discourse

English academic discourse (EAD) has always presented itself as a neutral vehicle of objective fact. Through the use of clearly defined terms and straightforward syntax, and the studied avoidance of forms of overt manipulation of the reader, it claims to offer a transparent window onto some pre-existing external reality. 

Today, however, most linguists agree that objectivity is a linguistic construct, achieved by the systematic use of grammatical forms such as nominalizations and the passive voice which mask human agency (Halliday & Martin 1993). Similarly, it is now generally understood that even the most positivistic science texts contain a certain amount of rhetorical manoeuvring designed to convince the reader of the truth value and utility of the claims made. For example, the rhetorical structure used extensively in research article introductions (Swales 1990, p.140-166), is clearly a form of self-promotion, influenced by the discourse of marketing (Mauranen 1993); while the manipulation of epistemic modality (Hyland 1999b) and citation (Hyland 1999a) allows a writer to effectively upgrade claims into "facts", or vice versa. Indeed, as Swales (1990, p.112) puts it, “the art of the matter…lies in deceiving the reader into thinking that there is no rhetoric...and that the facts are indeed speaking for themselves”. 

This paper draws upon a range of linguistic, historical and philosophical sources to question this discourse’s status as the hegemonic vehicle of knowledge in the modern world, suggesting that what keeps it in place is less its capacity to reflect the truth about things than its associations with technology, industry and capitalism, the power structures of the modern world.

References: 

Halliday, M.A.K and Martin, J.R. (eds) (1993) Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. Pittsburgh and London: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Hyland, K. (1999a) ‘Academic Attribution: Citation and the Construction of Disciplinary Knowledge’, Applied Linguistics 20/3, 341-367.
Hyland, K. (1999b) ‘Disciplinary Discourses: Writer Stance in Research Articles’. In: Candlin,C. and Hyland, K. (eds) Writing Texts: Processes and Practices. London and New York: Longman. 99-121.
Mauranen, A. (1993) Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Swales, J. M. (1990) Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Prof. Dr. Aleš Klégr
Charles University, Czech Republic

Publisher’s Descriptions of Linguistic Publications: Comparison of Czech and English Strategies

Publisher’s descriptions are a special kind of text, they describe books, yet they are not book reviews in the true sense. They have a particular agenda (to advertize and sell the book), and presumably more than one particular models and structures. The paper presents their (meta-)analysis which hopes to uncover how the agenda is achieved and which models are the most common ones: those focusing on the author or the text, the form or the content, the novelty or the scope, etc. And although the Czech and the anglophone publishers’ descriptions will basically pursue the same goal, the wider context (different markets, readerships, history and position of the publishing house, etc.) may result in different customs and strategies. In order to explore both the specific properties of the descriptions and their cross-linguistic differences, a Czech and an English sample were collected from three Czech and three anglophone commercial publishers’ web pages. The total of 120 descriptions were subject to analysis to identify their distinctive features and patterns and the qualitative and quantitative differences between the Czech and English publishers. 

References:

Biber, D. (1995) Dimensions of register variation. A cross-linguistic comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bruce, I. (2008) Academic Writing and Genre. A Systematic Analysis. London-New York: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2004) ‘Praise and criticism: interactions in book reviews.’ In: Hyland, K. Disciplinary Discourses. Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. and Paltridge, B. (eds) (2011) Continuum Companion to Discourse Analysis. London-New York: Continuum.
Martin, J.R. and Rose, D. (2008) Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox.
Taboada, M. (2011) ‘Stages in an online movie review’, Text & Talk 31–2, 247–269.
Lindholm-Romantschuk, Y. (1998) Scholarly Book Reviewing in the Social Sciences and Humanities. Westport, Connecticut-London: Greenwood Press.