La presente ricerca, che si inserisce negli ambiti della pragmatica, della linguistica testuale e della linguistica applicata, analizza il fenomeno della mitigazione all’interno di un corpus di 25 articoli scientifici in italiano, con l’intento di comprendere meglio questo fenomeno pragmatico nel suo contesto di azione. Si cerca quindi di rispondere ad alcune domande riguardanti forme, funzioni e domini testuali della mitigazione. Per riuscire in ciò, si è elaborato un approccio pragmatico integrato, derivato dal modello tripartito di Caffi (2007), basato sulla nozione di scope (contenuto proposizionale, dimensione illocutiva e origine deittica dell’enunciato), e dalla lunga tradizione di studi di stampo funzionalista. Si presentano quindi i primi risultati di questa ricerca originale, sia da un punto di vista qualitativo sia qualitativo. Infine, tale ricerca investiga alcune possibili implicazioni per l’insegnamento dell’italiano LS in ambito accademico, offrendo a quanti coinvolti nell’insegnamento, sia in qualità di ricercatori che di insegnanti, alcune prime conclusioni, strumenti e risorse immediatamente utilizzabili per la progettazione di percorsi formativi volti allo sviluppo di sensibilità testuali e di genere e di abilità come quella di scrittura accademica, definibili comunicative, accademiche e transferable, , abilità cruciali per qualunque studente universitario che intenda completare con successo il proprio percorso di studi. / This research, framed into the domain of pragmatics, textual linguistics and applied linguistics, aims to analyse mitigation phenomena within a 25 Italian RA’s corpus, to contribute to a better comprehension of these phenomenon in its context of action. More in details, this work attempts to answers to some questions regarding forms, functions and text domains of mitigation. In order to do so, an integrated pragmatic approach was elaborated, derived from Caffi’s tripartite model (2007), based on the notion of scope (propositional content, illocutionary dimension and deictic origin), and on the tradition of literature in a functionalist perspective. The first results of this original investigation, both qualitative and quantitative, will be presented. Furthermore, this research investigates some possible implications in the domain of Italian as FL teaching, and some potential implementations. It provides then, to those involved in teaching Italian LS in academic context, as both teacher and researcher, some first conclusions, tools and resources immediately expendable to design language formation paths, meant to develop textual and genre sensibility as well as competences and skills, like academic writing, defined communicative, academic and transferable, which are crucial for any kind of student to achieve success in their studies.

Many students who come to universities and colleges find it difficult to acquire a well-functioning academic language, especially in writing. This is confirmed in several studies (Ahlm m.fl. 2009, Ask, 2005, 2007, Hoel 2010). One measure that is called for is concerted activities, which help to socialize students into the academy. The aim of this essay is to use the students’ experiences to elucidate and analyse the conditions for peer response in process-oriented writing in higher education, the difficulties it entails, and its consequences for teach-ing and learning. The students’ experiences of and attitudes to peer response in relation to academic literacy are studied and analysed critically in a course on the use of academic lan-guage. The empirical section presents the implementation and results of the selected methods – a questionnaire and interview with 30 and 5 students respectively on a professional educa-tion programme during their first year of study. The result shows a close correspondence be-tween the students’ experiences of peer response linked to their experiences of their develop-ment of academic writing, but also between their experiences of peer response and attitudes to and experiences of their knowledge of academic writing. The study also demonstrates the students’ experiences of success factors and pitfalls of peer response. The success factors concern metalanguage, working with a clear structure, reading and discussion of texts, and the need for an open, secure climate. The students’ experiences of the pitfalls of peer response concern, on the one hand, socio-emotional and psychological aspects in relation to the other students, for example the difficulty of balancing the response, and especially of daring to crit-icize a text sharply. On the other hand, it concerns the fear of not being good enough because of inadequate knowledge of academic language and academic text.

Synen på vad som utgör akademisk skrivkompetens varierar över tid och i olika kulturer. Förmågan att strukturera texter på ett logiskt och begripligt sätt kan dock ses som en universell vetenskaplig kompetens oavsett skrivmiljö, liksom förmågan att värdera kunskap och ta ställning i relation till olika källor. Denna studies syfte är att undersöka och kategorisera förekomsten av markörer för textuell organisation och ställnings­tagande i en grupp gymnasieelevers utredande texter samt att undersöka sambandet mellan bruket av dessa markörer och texternas betyg. Studiens korpus består av 18 utredande elevtexter, jämnt fördelade mellan betygen A, C och E. Texterna har analyserats genom kvalitativ närläsning med en analysmodell avsedd att fånga uttryck för textuell organisation och ställningstagande. Resultatet visar att elevernas bruk av organisations- och ställningstagandemarkörer varierar, men att det finns mönster i användandet som har kopplingar till texternas betyg. A-texterna utmärker sig genom en större variation av organisations- och ställningstagandeuttryck än texterna med lägre betyg. Markörer för textuell organisation och ställningstagande används i A- och C-texterna främst för att belysa och jämföra olika perspektiv, medan E-skribenterna i högre grad använder samma markörer för att förklara och ge uttryck för personliga åsikter om ämnet. I materialet som helhet finns få exempel på källkritiska värderingar. En slutsats av resultatet är att eleverna befinner sig olika långt ifrån de normer som kännetecknar akademiskt skrivande. Framförallt E-texterna innehåller drag som inte är funktionella i vetenskapliga sammanhang. Detta väcker frågor om hur undervisningen om akademiskt skrivande bör utformas för att möta elevernas utvecklingsbehov – på såväl språklig som innehållsmässig nivå. / The idea of what constitutes academic writing competence varies through time and in different cultures. However, the ability to structure texts in a logical and comprehensible way can be seen as a universal scholarly competence regardless of writing context, like the ability to appraise knowledge and take a stance concerning different sources. The aim of this study is to investigate and categorize the occurrence of textual organizational markers and stance markers in explanatory texts written by a group of high school students, and to investigate the relation between the use of these markers and the grading of the texts. The corpus of the study consists of 18 explanatory student texts, equally divided between grades A, C and E. The texts have been analyzed through qualitative close reading using an analytical model designed to capture organizational markers and stance markers. The result shows that the students’ usage of these markers varies, but that patterns of usage connected to the grades of the texts can be identified. The A-texts excel through a larger variation of organizational markers and stance markers than the texts given lower grades. In the A- and C-texts organizational markers and stance markers are used primarily to illustrate and compare different perspectives, while in the E-texts the students use the same markers to explain and express personal opinions on the subject. The material as a whole contains very few examples of critical evaluation of sources. A conclusion of the result is that the students are at different distances from the norms that distinguish academic writing. Especially the E-texts contain many features that are not functional in academic contexts. This raises questions about how the teaching of academic writing should be designed to suit the students’ needs for writing development – on the level of language as well as content.

Purpose and research questions- This research was based on students enrolled on courses at Rhodes University's Centre for Social Development, an Institute delivering Early Childhood Development courses in the Grahamstown area. Having provided the students with access to a career path and its courses, it was imperative to assist the students to develop a standard of academic literacy comparable to that of in-service education students, in the Intermediate and Senior Phases. This study was influenced by Gee's (2004) definition of literacy as 'mastery over a discourse'. Gee (1990) termed discourse as the socially accepted way of thinking, believing and being. The study therefore investigated the enablers which assisted students to produce academic texts. This was achieved by finding out how the students and the course facilitators construct academic literacy; in other words what their discourses were regarding academic literacy. In order to ascertain this information, the students and the course facilitators were asked what reading and writing the students had done prior to enrolling on the course, what they had brought to the course, what the students and the course facilitators thought comprised a successful academic assignment, and how the students were supported in their academic literacy during the course. Data was gathered through interviews with both students and course facilitators, analysis of course assignments, and assessment reports written by the course facilitators. This data was analysed, looking for discourses on similarities and contradictions. Critical Discourse analysis was used to investigate the discourses that the course facilitators and students were using. Findings: It was evident from the data that the autonomous view of literacy was predominantly used. The course facilitators and, to a limited extent, the students, saw literacy as a set of technical skills that needed to be mastered. The students and course facilitators did not take into account that literacy is a social practice, and that literacy occurs within a particular social context and cultural context. The course facilitators tended to hold a deficit discourse related to the perception of inferior education under Bantu Education, which was seen as an inhibiting factor to academic literacy and academic success. The discourse of second language was also an issue that both the course facilitators and the students noted which prevented students' academic literacy. Christie's (1985) Received Tradition of Literacy, which focused on the forms and functions of literacy, was a discourse that both the students and the course facilitators ascribed to. Conclusions and recommendations: The course facilitators' and students' discourses were very similar, both being embedded within the autonomous and deficit models of literacy. It is recommended that course facilitators become cognisant with the models of academic literacy and that they become aware of the various discourses evident on the course and articulate these discourses for themselves. Furthermore they should assist the students by clearly articulating and unpacking the course requirements regarding academic literary.

Academic writing is generally regarded as the most important communication medium through which people in the tertiary academic context choose to communicate their ideas. It is also well known that it is sometimes an arduous process for students to become accustomed to the requirements (the conventions and conditions) that hold for the production of appropriate written texts in this context. The initial impetus for the current study was provided by what appeared to be a significant problem that some supervisors at the University of Pretoria identified in terms of the academic writing ability of their postgraduate students. This study therefore investigates postgraduate academic writing with regard to a number of such issues, and does so within the broader confines of academic literacy. The ultimate purpose of this investigation is to discover how writing interventions may be designed that offer appropriate assistance to students who experience difficulty with their writing. The study commences with an attempt to find support for treating 'academic discourse' as a potentially productive area of academic enquiry. It therefore presents an account on the nature of a 'discourse community', and attempts to ascertain whether there are any grounds on which 'academic discourse' may be regarded as a unique type of discourse used for specific communicative functions in the tertiary academic environment. It further discusses critically some of the traditional features of academic texts. The research then proposes thirteen design principles that serve as injunctions that should be considered in the development of writing courses, and proceeds to a critical discussion of the most important approaches in the teaching and learning of writing. What is evident from this discussion is that none of the historical approaches will, on their own, enable one to design justifiable writing courses. As a result, an eclectic approach is required in order to integrate the strengths of these approaches into a strategy for writing course design that is theoretically and practically justifiable. Subsequently, the critical interpretation of the literature in the first part of the study is used in the design of a framework for writing course design in tertiary education. This framework consists of six focuses that stand in a relationship of dynamic interaction towards a description of the context in which tertiary students write. Thus, relevant aspects concerning the writer, text, reader, institutional context and one's approach to writing are all essential elements that should be carefully considered in terms of their potential influence on the eventual design of materials that will constitute a writing course. The rest of the study consists of an application of the proposed framework that addresses firstly, the perceptions of supervisors at the University about the academic literacy ability of their postgraduate students, as well as their requirements for academic writing. It then proceeds to an investigation of a specific group of students' (from the Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences) perceptions about their own academic literacy ability and a determination of their perceptions and expectations of academic writing at university. Because the information that was collected (by means of questionnaires) in both cases mentioned above is mainly perceptual in nature, it was considered essential to determine the academic literacy ability of students in the study group by means of a reliable testing instrument. A written text that these same students produced was further analysed in order to establish possible writing difficulties they experienced. In addition, it was important to confirm certain findings from the supervisor questionnaire, and more specific information had to be collected on particular writing issues that could inform discipline specific writing course design (this was accomplished through focus group interviews with supervisors of the School of Agricultural and Food Sciences). A combination of all the prominent findings of the empirical work mentioned above, as well as insights gained in the literature survey, is then used to make justifiable suggestions for the design of writing course materials for students in the study group. Finally, a number of issues were identified that could not be addressed by this study and, therefore, suggestions are made for future research that may investigate these matters. / Thesis (DPhil ( Linguistics))--University of Pretoria, 2007. / Unit for Academic Literacy / DPhil / Unrestricted

在英文學術論文寫作上，引述動詞在文獻的重述、引用等方面扮演著重要的角色。透過引述動詞的使用，寫作者能更清晰、有力的陳述其論點。目前雖有許多關於引述動詞在句子中表達評論語氣與修辭功能的探討，但卻少有研究提及短語詞組的使用情形。引述動詞短語詞組的進一步探究能使學生在建構學術論述寫作的同時，對於經常與之共現的搭配字詞、句構有更敏銳的覺察能力。本研究從語意及句式兩方面著手，觀察常與PROPOSE和SUGGEST兩個高頻近義引述動詞共現的字詞與詞組。此二動詞所具有的共通點為：(一)字義上皆可表示「提出某事以作進一步考量」、(二)經常用於降低或弱化陳述句中的肯定語氣。本研究的目的在於釐清這兩個近義引述動詞的特點，並更完善地歸納出它們各自所偏好的短語詞組。 本研究的研究工具為擁有近四十五億詞彙的當代美式英文語料庫(Corpus of Contemporary American English)，蒐集了其中PROPOSE 和SUGGEST於學術寫作中的相關語料，以觀察此二動詞的不同詞形(V-base型、V-s型、V-ed型與V-ing型)在句子中的表現。至於本研究的分析則分成了三個部分：(一) PROPOSE 和SUGGEST的語法模組、(二) PROPOSE 和SUGGEST的搭配中，有生命性或無生命性的主詞在主要語法模組中的分布情形、(三) PROPOSE 和SUGGEST後的受詞語義分類。量化分析之餘，本研究也引進了語料庫中的索引行(concordance line)以進一步展示PROPOSE及SUGGEST出現的語言環境，分析模組在不同語境中的特點。 研究結果顯示此二動詞的用法有許多相異之處。SUGGEST具有強烈明確傾向與that子句共同出現，而PROPOSE和that子句共現的機率與其和名詞片語共現的機率相近；除此之外，PROPOSE較常與有生命性的主詞共現，SUGGEST則是偏好與無生命性的主詞共現。至於受詞方面，我們發現PROPOSE後的受詞，多屬「認知觀點」、「方法」、「規則」等語義類別，而 SUGGEST後的受詞則多與「可能性」、「狀態」、「性質特徵」有關，以上的對比結果使我們發現，在學術英文寫作中，PROPOSE通常表「提供計畫或行動供他人參考決定」，而SUGGEST則通常表「傳達可能的推論或概念」。我們也發現此二動詞若是以不同詞形呈現時，偏好的字詞也不同。舉例來說，[suggest that-clause]偏好與表達「研究結果」意義相關的主詞共現，[suggests that-clause]則多與表「研究文獻」有關之主詞一同出現。整體而言，若我們從功能的角度出發，PROPOSE通常用於表示某人提出、建議某事項，SUGGEST則多用於詮釋解讀本研究結果或先前文獻中所提出之觀點。 本研究結果揭示了近義詞間短語詞組使用上的不同，並且也證實了當動詞以不同詞形呈現時會選擇不同的搭配，產生不同的語境。本研究透過系統化分析近義引述動詞的搭配情形，期許能為語言教學教材設計及未來與動詞共現詞組相關之研究帶來啟發與助益。 / Reporting verbs are important in academic research papers for paraphrasing and reviewing previous studies to support a writer’s positions. While a large number of studies have been carried out to investigate the evaluative potential and rhetorical functions of reporting verbs in citations, comparatively little research has focused on the phraseological patterns of particular common reporting verbs, the exploration of which can be beneficial in raising student awareness of the recurrent associations of words and structures of reporting in academic written discourse. This study aims at examining the syntactic and semantic environments of two frequent near-synonymous reporting verbs, PROPOSE and SUGGEST. According to Hyland (1998a) and Hinkel (2016), PROPOSE and SUGGEST both can mean ‘putting forward something for consideration’ and are frequently applied to mitigate the certainty of a statement (e.g., Hyland, 1998a; Hinkel, 2016). We expect to distinguish the two verbs from each other and offer a more comprehensive phraseological profile of them in academic writing. We used the subcorpus of academic writing in the 450 million-word Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) as the source data to investigate the performance of PROPOSE and SUGGEST in V-base form, V-s form, V-ed form, and V-ing form. Based on the corpus, the analysis focused on three aspects: (1) the grammatical patterns of PROPOSE and SUGGEST; (2) the distribution of animate and inanimate subjects of the dominant patterns of PROPOSE and SUGGEST; (3) the semantic classification of the objects of PROPOSE and SUGGEST. In addition to the quantitative methods, qualitative-based concordance line analysis was also implemented to reveal the characteristics of the broader stretches of discourse where PROPOSE and SUGGEST occur. The results show that the two reporting verbs are distinct from each other. While SUGGEST has a rather strong propensity for co-occurring with that-clause, for PROPOSE, the possibilities of co-appearing with a simple noun object and with a that-clause are similar. In addition, PROPOSE is more likely to have animate subjects, whereas SUGGEST prefers inanimate subjects. As for the simple noun objects of the two verbs, a large number of instances occurring with PROPOSE systematically belong to the semantic groups of COGNITION, METHOD, and STANDARD; SUGGEST shows more preference for POSSIBILITY nouns, STATE nouns, QUALITY nouns and RELATION nouns. The inter-comparison of the results of PROPOSE and SUGGEST suggests that, in academic writing, PROPOSE usually carries the sense of ‘to offer a plan or action for others to consider’, whereas SUGGEST tends to mean ‘to communicate or show an idea, which is likely to be true’. Moreover, the differences across four word forms of PROPOSE and SUGGEST were also identified. It was found that [suggest that-clause] prefers subjects referring to research results, but [suggests that-clause] occurs with the subjects referring to articles or studies on a particular topic more frequently. Overall, in terms of functions, PROPOSE is mainly used for describing the action of offering something as a choice for people to think carefully; SUGGEST, in contrast, serves to interpret a research finding or present an argument suggested by previous studies and literature. The present study sheds light on the phraseological difference between synonyms. It has also proved that different word forms of the same lemma have different choices of collocations and phraseologies. The research findings will contribute to the teaching and research of English for academic purposes since they provide a systematic analysis of the different habitual collocations of two frequent and similar reporting verbs in research articles. We believe this study will bring some insights to the designs of language teaching materials and can serve as the basis for future studies on the co-occurrence patterns and phraseologies of verbs.

As more international students who are not expert users of English come to the United States to study at university, the field of teaching English for Academic Purposes grows. There are many important skills these international students must learn to become successful university students in America, but writing for academic purposes is of particular importance for these students to join the academic conversation in their respective disciplines. Corpus research has identified the grammatical features which are frequently found in different registers, and from this work it is known which structures are important in different types of academic writing. Grammatical structures frequently found in the academic register must be taught to these university-bound students. However, many English Language Learners (ELLs) are infrequently using, or inaccurately using, some of these grammatical features in their writing when compared to L1 writers. This study focuses on three of those under-used, and/or inaccurately used structures: passive voice, reduced relative clauses, and modal would. At an Intensive English Language Program (IELP) in the Pacific Northwest, an experimental group of advanced ELLs were given extended instruction--extra time and practice--on these three features. The control group received the standard amount of time and practice students typically receive at this IELP. 25 essays from the experimental group and 44 essays from the control group were tagged for presence, accuracy, and appropriacy of the three grammatical features (passive voice, reduced relative clauses, and modal would). The experimental and control group essays were compared to see if the treatment instruction had a significant effect on the frequency, accuracy, and/or appropriacy of these features. Results from an independent t-test on the frequency of passive voice showed no significant difference between the experimental group essays and the control group essays. Results from a Mann-Whitney U test on the frequency of reduced relative clauses and modal would showed no significant difference between the two groups. In regard to accuracy and appropriacy, a Mann-Whitney U test found no significant difference between the experiment group and control group. The analysis of the two groups showed that students in the treatment group did use passive voice on average more than students in the control group, but it was not enough to be significantly different. The frequency of reduced relative clauses and modal would was low, yet accuracy and appropriacy of these features was very high for both groups. These findings reveal that different, or perhaps more focused, approaches must be taken beyond extra time and practice to increase ELLs' use of passive voice, reduced relative clauses, and modal would in their writing.

Within the system of modality, modalization builds an area of uncertainty. It is an intermediate point between positive polarity (it is) and negative polarity (it is not), which has various degrees of indeterminacy (Halliday and Matthiessen 2014: 176). This indeterminacy includes probability and is expressed through items that Holmes (1990) and Hyland (1998) termed hedges and boosters. However, hedges and boosters can also function within intensity, where they convey a certain level of degree. Through them, writers achieve approval by finding the right balance between the reinforcement of statements with the assurance of reliable knowledge and the tentativeness to convey doubt and adequate social interrelations (Hyland 1998b: 349). The aim of this comparative study is to investigate the usage of hedges and boosters in Italian and Albanian student academic writings in their L1 and L2. Author-related and proposition-related hedges (e.g. suppose, approximately) and boosters (e.g. show, completely) as well as interrelated aspects such as their positioning, orientation, manifestation, and prosody of modalization will be analysed. My paper will interweave Prince et al.’s (1980) categorization of hedges, Quirk et al.’s (1985) model of boosters, Lafuente Millán’s (2008) categorization of approximative meanings and related concepts of the Systemic Functional Grammar (henceforth SFG) (Halliday and Matthiessen 2014) to create an innovative combination. I have compiled two corpora of Italian student writings (around 3 million words each) respectively in Italian and English and two corpora of writings by Albanian students in Albanian (around 2.2 million words) and in English (around 600.000 words). All corpora include a similar number of words and genres for each disciplinary domain as well as a balance of male and female writers. Disciplinary domains pertain to both soft and hard sciences (Social Sciences, Languages and Literature, Medicine, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics and Informatics). As Toska (2015) stated, very little research has been conducted on academic writing in Albania. Thus, it is essential to initiate research in this field. Results of the quantitative analysis show that hedges were favored by Albanians and boosters were favored by Italians. The neutral position (in-between the clause complex, next to the verb, temporal or finite operator) of hedges and boosters was the most frequently encountered position in my corpora, followed by medial (in-between the clause complex, not next to verb, temporal or finite operator) and thematic position (at the beginning of the clause). Lastly, the same hedge (probably) and booster (significantly) appeared as author-related (shield) and proposition-related (approximator). This overlap between author-related and proposition-related categories demonstrates the importance of context in ranking these items and suggests relevant modifications to the original categorization by Prince et al. (1980). From my findings, I conclude that Italians show more commitment than Albanians, who appear more tentative in their writings. / Da Sprache (nach Halliday/Matthiesen 2014: 25) ein Mittel des persönlichen Ausdrucks und der fachlichen und gesellschaftlichen Verständigung ist, beinhalten unsere Texte unsere persönlichen und pädagogischen Erfahrungen, unseres alltäglichen Umfeldes und unserer Kultur. Die vorliegende Dissertationsschrift ist ein Beitrag aus der Perspektive der systemisch-funktionalen Grammatik und des wissenschaftlichen Schreibens. Sie befasst sich mit pragmatischen, semantischen und syntaktischen Aspekten von Hedges und Booster. Dafür wurden vier Korpora albanischer und italienischer wissenschaftlicher Arbeiten von Studenten in deren Muttersprache sowie ihrer Zweitsprache Englisch erstellt und untersucht. Die fünf Forschungsfragen beziehen sich größtenteils auf die qualitativen und quantitativen Unterschiede in der Verwendung von Hedges, Booster und deren semantischen und pragmatischen Unterkategorien in den albanischen und italienischen Korpora. Zudem wurde untersucht, welche Rolle Geschlecht und Genre bei der Verwendung von Hedges und Booster spielen.

Writing for an academic purpose is not an easy skill to master, whether for a native English speaker (L1) or an English language learner (ELL). In order to better prepare ELL students for success in mainstream content courses at the university level, more must be known about the characteristics of student writing in the local context of an intensive English program. This information can be used to inform ELL writing instructors of which linguistic features to target so that their students produce writing that sounds appropriate for the academic written register. Two corpora of 30 research essays each were compiled, one of L1 student writing done in various departments at Portland State University, and the other of ELL writing produced in an advanced writing course in Portland State University's Intensive English Language Program. The corpora were compared for the frequencies of 13 linguistic features which had been previously found in significantly different frequencies in L1 and ELL essays (Hinkel, 2002). The tokens of each feature in each essay were counted, and the frequency rate was calculated in each case. The results of the Mann-Whitney U test found 6 features with significantly different frequency rates between the two corpora. The following features were more frequent in L1 essays than in ELL essays: modal would, perfect aspect, passive voice, reduced adjective clause, and it-cleft. In addition, the type/token ratio was found be significantly higher in L1 essays than in ELL essays. An analysis of how each of the significant features was used in the context of ELL and L1 essays revealed the following: Both student groups were still acquiring the appropriate use of modal would; the majority of students in both groups did not utilize it-clefts; the lower type/token ratio in ELL essays meant that these students used a more limited vocabulary than did L1 students; and ELL students were still acquiring the accurate and appropriate uses of perfect aspect, passive voice, and reduced adjective clauses, whereas L1 students used these features grammatically and for the standard uses. To apply these findings to the ELL writing classroom, instructors should help students raise their awareness of these six features in their own academic writing by leading students in identifying grammatical and ungrammatical uses of these features and providing practice in differentiating between uses which are standard to the register of academic writing and uses which are appropriate only in conversation. Two sample activities are included to illustrate how to implement these recommendations.

No description available.