Writing for Publication: Five Novice Taiwanese Scholars'' Composing Processes and an Analysis of Their Writings of Thesis Introductions

• Main Authors: Yi-hui Chiu, 邱怡慧
• Other Authors: Yueh-Kuey Huang
• Format: Others
• Language: en_US
• Published: 2006
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/6b34j4

博士 === 淡江大學 === 英文學系博士班 === 94 === This study explores five novice Taiwanese scholars’ experiences of writing for scholarly publication and their actual competence in academic writing. On the basis of in-depth interviews, subjects’ composing processes, their use of post-writing helpers, and the role of academic reading were investigated. Writing competence was evaluated by an analysis of published research papers, using Swales’ (1990) CARS model to determine if the rhetorical structures, as displayed by moves and steps, were consistent with the prototypes of the CARS model. Composing process: Several subjects reported relying on their first language in prewriting, and one subject wrote the entire first draft in the first language and then translated. Helpers: Several subjects felt that professional editors, even when they were native speakers of English, provided only limited help. One subject felt that editors focused only on low-level aspects of writing, and did not appear to be concerned about the overall coherence of the paper. In other cases, the copy-editor had a background in science and had a more profound impact on the paper. Advisors’ roles varied a great deal, from rewriting and reorganization, to simply telling the writer to find a copy-editor, to asking the writer to submitting a version in Chinese first for their review, and asking the writer to translate the paper later. Reading: Some subjects mentioned reading, but none mentioned it in terms of the Comprehension Hypothesis, not in terms of “acquiring” or absorbing academic language from massive amounts of reading. Rather, reading was used as a source of prefabricated chunks of language that the writers could use immediately in their own papers. Analysis of introductions to published papers showed that subjects had acquired some aspects of the Swales model, but not all, and there was considerable variability among the subjects. Of the three major Moves described by Swales, Move 1 (establish a territory) was widely used but Move 2 (preparing for the present study) was comparatively rare. Move 3 (introducing the study) was only presented briefly as a transition to the next section. Move 3 Step 2--Announcing Principal findings (APFs) was omitted by all five writers. There was some suggestive evidence that those who read more had acquired more of the academic writing style.