Professional Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/Argumentation-In-Higher-Education.-Impr 👈

1. more nuanced and sophisticated picture than that suggested by folk understandings of e-mail as a linguistic register, which
tend to locate it more or less squarely halfway between speech and writing.
One of the consistent themes of the book is that cogent accounts of registers, genres or styles cannot emerge from ad hoc
intuitive analyses of individual texts, but must be based on a rigorous combination of quantitative and qualitative methods, and
(in the case of register and style analysis at least) on the empirical analysis of large numbers of texts or text extracts. This
argument reaches its culmination in Chapter 8, which introduces multidimensional (MD) analysis, the general methodology
developed by Biber himself in the 1980s (see e.g. Biber,1988), and with which Biber and Conrad are still most closely associated.
MD analysis is arguably the most powerful (and certainly the most ambitious and sophisticated) approach to register
analysis yet devised. Essentially, MD analysis involves using multivariate statistics to discover underlying clusters or groups of
features among a very large number of individual linguistic variables occurring in a number of different registers. Extensive
use is made of computer processing, not only in the statistical analysis itself but also in the preliminary work of identifying
and counting the linguistic features that forms the input of this analysis. This emphasis on computation confers two huge
advantages on MD analysis. First, it makes it highly scalable; there is in principle no upper limit to the number of linguistic
features, the number of different registers, or the size of the corpora that can be included within a single MD study. Second, it
allows the analysis to proceed largely inductively; that is, “[t]he researcher does not decide ahead of time which linguistic
features co-occur, or which functions are going to be the most important ones. Rather, empirical corpus-based analysis is used
to determine the actual patterns of linguistic co-occurrence and variation among registers, and subsequently the researcher
interprets those patterns in functional terms” (p. 225).
The basic principlesand proceduresofMDanalysis are presented clearly, and then illustrated indetailthrough a comparison of
severaldifferent registers of spokenand writtenacademicdiscourse. Readersshould be aware thatBiberand Conrad’s main aim is
to demonstrate the power of MD analysis, and not to provide exact details of how it is carried out. This approach is both apt and
wise, given the size, scope and target audience of the book as a whole, but it does at times result in aspects of MD analysis being
presented as somewhat more straightforward (or at least less arduous) than one suspects they actually are in practice.
Instead of concluding with a standard ‘summary and review’ wrap-up chapter, Register, Genre, and Style closes by
advancing a series of provocative and exciting claims on a wide range of topics in linguistics, all of which are motivated by the
general methodology presented in their book. Among other things, they offer fresh perspectives on the ‘speech versus
writing’ debate, on the relative importance of register and dialect, and on foreign language pedagogy (and on EAP/ESP
teaching and research in particular).
In summary, Register, Genre, and Style is an epochal, ‘game-changing’ publication, which may well turn out to have as pro-
found an impact on the EAP communityas John Swales’s Genre Analysis (1990) did two decades ago. If you have any interest at all
in linguistic variation of any kind, you simply cannot afford to ignore this book. And if you are a student or teacher looking for a
textbook on any of the topics that it covers, then look no further – every chapter of Register, Genre, and Style features a generous
selection of stimulating follow-up questions, activities and project ideas. The page layout is aesthetically very pleasing, the text is
written in prose as crisp and clear as a northern Arizona sky, and the spine of this reviewer’s copy has resisted all attempts to
break it. This is just as well, as this is a volume that is destined for some heavy-duty use in the years to come.
References
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nicholas Groom*
Department of English, The University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, United Kingdom
Tel.: þ44 121 414 3381; fax: þ44 121 414 3298.
E-mail address: n.w.groom@bham.ac.uk
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.10.006
Argumentation in higher education. Improving practice through theory and research. Richard Andrews. London:
Routledge (2010) p. 233, US$ 46.95 /UK£ 25.99, Paperback, ISBN 10: 0-415-99500-0, Hardback ISBN 10: 0-415-99501-9,
Paperback
The role of argumentation would seem to be central in academic discourse: the tools of argumentation studies could be
very useful when dealing with a social activity that is so closely linked to making claims. Academic discourse is concerned
with establishing and disseminating knowledge. Establishing knowledge implies argument, both in terms of presenting one
position in preference to others and in terms of putting forward arguments in support of assertions. The dissemination of
knowledge through education is also involved in argument: educational discourse presents a representation of scientific
Book reviews / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 12 (2013) 226–231 229

2. debate and a specific view of the discipline, while guiding the student through a process of appropriation of the
discipline with its values, beliefs and characteristic ways of communicating. Surprisingly, however, work on argumentation is
relatively limited in academic discourse studies. One of the possible explanations for this is that the issue requires to
some extent interdisciplinary approaches, drawing from the tools of applied linguistics, education, philosophy, discourse
analysis, rhetoric, writing, cognition, etc. Admittedly, dialog across these fields is not as frequent as we sometimes purport to
believe.
Richard Andrews’ book proves to be an exception to this limited interest, focusing as it does on argumentation in higher
education from an educational point of view. The author has carried out research on the teaching of argumentation for over
twenty years. The present volume centers on higher education and illuminates argumentative features of academic discourse
in ways that reflect his experience and expertise. The subtitle – Improving practice through theory and research – and the first
chapter – Why Argument? – also makes it clear that the aim of the book is to support lecturers and professors in colleges and
universities “by raising awareness of argumentation in the processes of teaching and learning, to provide theoretical and
research foundations for the improvement of practice, and to supply some practical suggestions and guidance as to how this
might be done” (p. 3). This is also reflected in the general chapter structure: each chapter concludes with activities suggested
for discussion, project work or professional development.
The book does not address EAP issues directly, but does offer interesting suggestions to EAP practice and research,
especially in its seeking “a balance between discipline-specific contexts for argument and generic knowledge about argu-
ment, that can help the student navigate the demands of higher education” (p. 9).
Chapter 1 justifies the choice of the subject, provides preliminary definitions of argument and argumentation and sketches
the relevant theoretical background, identifying major landmarks in the work of Bakhtin, Vygosky and Habermas. The pur-
pose and structure of the book are also presented in detail.
The second chapter, “The current state of argumentation in higher education”, establishes a context for the rest of the
book. The emphasis is very much on the different role played by argumentation in British and American universities, as a basis
for varying interests in rhetoric. The scope may seem a bit limited there, but the reader will appreciate the clarity with which
the basic tenets of rhetoric are presented in terms of “who is communicating to whom about what, with what purpose (why?)
and how” (p. 29). The “why” in particular is shown to identify a major problem in educational contexts where the student is
often asked to demonstrate that he or she can argue, rather than argue for a specific persuasive purpose.
The next three chapters tackle the tension between generic and discipline-specific skills. Chapter 3 focuses on generic
skills in argumentation by reviewing some of the available models of argumentation and their applicability to the composing
process in higher education, through the lens of Vygotskian theories of concept development. Chapter 4 looks at how
argumentation differs in a range of disciplines and at what can be done to guide students to understand the peculiarities of
their disciplines. Drawing on a study focusing on history, biology and electronics at American and British Universities, the
chapter advocates a clearer definition of the role of argument among lecturers and closer attention to the transition from pre-
university years to higher education.
A proposal for a balanced approach to generic and discipline-specific skills in argumentation is put forward in Chapter 5.
Starting from the stages in the development of an argument, suggestions are given on how to tackle each of them: identifying
the point of dispute, defining stance, structuring the argument, expressing it, refining it and testing its soundness. The
emphasis is on balanced academic literacies, with a special interest in interdisciplinary fields of study, requiring the student to
master a range of rhetorics.
Chapter 6 offers a different outlook, shifting the reader’s gaze to the potential of ICT and multimodality. Although the link
between the two is left somewhat implicit, the chapter draws attention to two key issues here, both related to aspects of
discourse mode: the powerful interplay between verbal and visual elements in argument and persuasion, as well as the
impact of specific communication environments like online tutorial groups on the development of argument (or lack of it).
The next set of chapters explore students’ experience of argument at different stages of their academic studies. Chapter 7
reports research on argumentation at school level; this is meant to show lecturers where students are in terms of argu-
mentation at the beginning of their university career and help them draw implications for higher education. The emphasis is
on writing models that encourage hierarchical planning, cognitive reasoning training, peer collaboration and explicit ex-
planations of the process. Suggested activities are brainstorming, arranging ideas into patterns and hierarchies to get to
sequencing, as well as dialogic attention to argument, counterargument and rebuttal. Chapter 8 explores students’ views on
argumentation, while reporting on an empirical study across a wide range of disciplines. Through seven cases, the study offers
a picture of different views of the centrality of argument in the disciplines, as well as the importance of feedback and peer
collaboration.
The book moves to textual perspectives with Chapter 9, “Students’ essays and reports in a range of disciplines”. The point
of departure of the discussion presented in this chapter is the difference between two basic types of writing: the critical
reflective writing of journals and the argumentative form of the essay. Reflective journals are seen as preliminary to more
formal academic writing, primarily identified with the essay. Special attention is paid to the opening and the ending of the
essay, its origins, variation and the importance of personal voice and in fact of a multi-voiced nature. The emphasis lies on
clear thinking and reasoned commitment. Examples from students’ essays appropriately illustrate the discussion, although
applied linguists might like to see closer attention to language choice.
Similarly, EAP teachers will greatly appreciate finding a chapter on “The significance of feedback from lecturers” (Ch.10),
and might be interested in closer and wider analyses of the types of feedback that can be provided, their impact on students,
Book reviews / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 12 (2013) 226–231
230

3. the role of negotiating feedback, and students perceptions of it. The chapter reflects critically on examples at undergraduate
and postgraduate levels showing what can be done in terms of analyzing students’ organizational structure, use of sources,
question identification, choice of approach and evidence, presence of a critical perspective. In the chapter closer attention is
paid to the structure of feedback than to its impact on learning.
The next chapter introduces methodological issues in researching argumentation, focusing in particular on the field of
educational research. The introductory sections deal with what counts as evidence, introducing a discussion on the role of
existing evidence (in reliable research reviews) and existing data (in secondary data analysis, the analysis of data collected by
someone else). Emphasis is then placed on the wide range of data that can count as evidence (images, interviews, documents,
field notes, think-aloud protocols etc.) and on a possible checklist regarding use of evidence. The final sections of the chapter
briefly touch upon methods for studies that have the teaching of argument as their object of inquiry, advocating more flexible
views of the qualitative/quantitative distinction.
The conclusion brings together some of the many separate strands dealt with in the chapters, going back to the
distinctiveness of the English argumentational tradition at postgraduate level. A few key issues are identified: the use of a
single authorial voice, the interplay between personal and impersonal voices, planning according to clear classifications and
categorizations, quasi-logical sequencing, explicit connections, a detached evidence-based tone and a critical position in
terms of conflict or consensus. Examples are drawn from four dissertations, thus showing that attention is paid to a variety of
genres, with their distinguishing and common features. Some interesting issues are mentioned in the chapter, such as the
distinction between argument and exposition, the tension between the single voice of the writer and the multiple voices
brought together from difference sources and the demonstrative nature of students’ academic writing.
In general, the book’s focus on British universities may be an asset when addressing general staff development pro-
grammes, but will probably require further interpretation and comparative discussion for readers working in the field of EAP,
who might have to relate the issue to their own varying situations. The view on argumentation studies is also somehow
constrained by its British–American perspective, and a consideration of other educational contexts or research traditions
would have added to the picture, especially for readers from other cultural backgrounds. Even when some attention is paid to
Dutch pragmadialectics, for example, there is no mention of traditions like La nouvelle rhétorique or L’argumentation dans la
langue, which have strongly influenced work on argumentation in many other countries. By the same token, the EAP scholar
might appreciate greater attention to work being done in applied linguistics and in EAP itself. It should be kept in mind,
however, that the book itself has not been written with EAP teachers in mind and does not address the problems of second
language writing specifically. Its intended readers are lecturers and professors in general, whose attention must be drawn to
all the assumptions left unstated about a discipline’s rhetoric when teaching its basics. And this is a very important objective
at higher education level.
The book moves flexibly between reporting research carried out elsewhere and presenting critical reflections on the
author’s own experience. EAP practitioners might feel they need to pay greater attention to language use and to the verbal
realization of argument across the range of genres considered, but they will benefit greatly from the perspective of educa-
tional studies and research. They will be offered tools for the study of students’ perceptions and will probably enjoy the many
specific case studies from different disciplines. They will find interesting information on the role of argument in the British
school system and ideas for small scale projects focusing on perception studies of argumentative discourse in the academic
world. Attention to practice and to research on educational practice will suggest ideas for types of research that could be
adapted to the specific context of EAP in the UK and in the rest of the world.
The book clearly originates from separate studies and reviews, but has a strong overall structure and chapter organization.
Readers will appreciate the clarity of language, the appropriate sequencing and the suggestions for reflective work. They will
also certainly appreciate having a book-length discussion of such a central issue, bringing together different types of data. All
this can be expected of a renowned expert in the teaching of argumentation, but should not be left unnoticed.
Marina Bondi
University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy
E-mail address: Marina.bondi@unimore.it
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2013.01.004
Book reviews / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 12 (2013) 226–231 231