Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

When required to use knowledge in a given source to answer a question, many student writers reproduce content information from the source without restructuring it to address the focal demand of the question. The result is an oblique answer. This paper analyses obliqueness as a writing problem from the perspectives of cognitive process writing theory and Halliday's functional grammar, using from the latter the concepts of Theme/Rheme (Halliday, 1985, 1994). A cognitivist study of oblique answers suggests that the lack of fit between answer and question arises from limitations in the mental processes of task interpretation and rhetorical goal setting. The student writer interprets the task posed by the teacher's question as an information recount task and consequently the writing is driven by goals that are essentially content- and sentence-based. A Theme/ Rheme analysis of oblique answers reveals that inappropriate choice of information for Theme position in sentences contributes towards the gap between an oblique answer and the question. Analysing obliqueness in students' texts from a cognitive as well as a thematization perspective uncovers insights about students' composing processes that have implications for the academic writing classroom.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bereiter, C. and Scardamalia, M. (1987). The Psychology of Written Composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Chandrasegaran, A. (1991). The composing processes of university student writers. Unpublished Ph D thesis. National University of Singapore, Singapore.

Chenoweth, A. (1995). Recognising the role of reading in writing. Paper presented at College Composition & Communication Conference. Washington, DC.

Flower, L. , and Hayes, J.R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition & Communication, 32, 365-387.

Flower, L. and Hayes, J.R. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In L.W. Gregg and E. R. Steinberg (Eds.). Cognitive Processes in Writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Freedman, A. (1995). The what, where, when, why, and how of classroom genres. In J. Petraglia (Ed.). Reconceiving Writing, Rethinking Instruction. Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Second Edition London: Edward Arnold.

Hayes, J.R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy and S. Ransdell (Eds). The Science of Writing. Theories, Methods, Individual Differences, and Applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

10.

Hult, C. (1986). Global marking of rhetorical frame in text and reader evaluation. In B. Couture (Ed.) Functional Approaches to Writing: Research Perspectives. London: Frances Pinter.

11.

Kirkland, M.R. and Saunders, A.P. (1991). Maximising student performance in summary writing: Managing cognitive load. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 105-121.

12.

Leki, I. and Carson, J. (1997). "Completely different worlds": EAP and the writing experiences of ESL students in university courses. TESOL Quarterly , 31, 39-69.

13.

Mauranen, A. (1996). Discourse competence — Evidence from thematic development in native and non-native texts. In E. Ventola and A. Mauranen (Eds.). Academic Writing. Intercultural and Textual Issues. Amsterdam : John Benjamins Publishing.

14.

Perl, S. (1979). The composing process of unskilled college writers . Research in the Teaching of English. 13, 317-336.

15.

Sommers, N. (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. College Composition & Communication, 31, 378-388.

An Analysis of Obliqueness in Student Writing

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References