Peter Grundy


This paper takes the view that varieties of writing represent agreed ways of mediating content that are recognized by discourse communities such as the academy who constitute their expectable readerships. These mediations make use of language-specifi c default affordances that are not only syntactic but also pragmatic and represent thinking for speaking categories (Slobin 1996) which, I argue, have greater explanatory power than the more abstract concept of virtual English (Seidlhofer 2011). In this context, I make a few preliminary comments on what appear to be the pragmatic affordances identifi able in parallel English texts generated by two native Chinese and a native English student writer faced with the same academic task, and make some consequent observations about teaching academic writing.


indexicality; pragmatic strengthening; thinking for speaking; virtual English

Full Text:


Show references Hide references

Cheng, W. and Grundy, P. (2007) ‘Thinking for writing.’ In: Blitvich, P. G.-C., Cruz, M.
P., Moron, R. G. and Amaya, L. F. (eds) Studies in Intercultural, Cognitive and Social
Pragmatics. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 2-36.

Ghosh, A. (2011) River of Smoke. London: John Murray Publishers.

Grundy, P. (1998) ‘Parallel texts and diverging cultures in Hong Kong.’ In: Niemeier, S.,
Campell, C. P. and Dirven, R. (eds) The Cultural Context in Business Communication.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 167-183.

Grundy, P. and Jiang, Y. (2001) ‘The bare past as an ideological construction in Hong
Kong discourse.’ In: Dirven, R., Frank, R. and Ilie, C. (eds) Language and Ideology:
Vol II. Descriptive Cognitive Approaches. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 117-134.

Ishihara, N. and Cohen, A. D. (2010) Teaching and Learning Pragmatics. London:

Jenkins, J. (2000) The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

Jenkins, J., Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. (2011) ‘Review of developments in research into
English as a lingua franca.’ Language Teaching 44/3, 281-315. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000115

Kay, P. (1990) ‘Even.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 13/1, 59-111. http://link.springer.com/
journal/10988/13/1/page/1. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00630517

Levelt, W. J. M. (1989) Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press.

Levinson, S. C. (1997) ‘From outer to inner space: Linguistic categories and nonlinguistic
thinking.’ In: Pederson, E. and Nuyts, J. (eds) With Language in Mind:
The Relationship between Linguistic and Conceptual Representation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. 13-45.

Levinson, S. C. (2000) Presumptive Meanings. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Roever, C. (2009) ‘Teaching and testing pragmatics.’ In: Long, M. H. and Doughty, C. J.
(eds) The Handbook of Language Teaching. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 560-573.

Rose, K. R. (2005) ‘On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics.’ System 33/3,
385-399. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0346251X05000370
Rose, K. R. and Kasper G. (eds) (2001) Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.06.003

Seidlhofer, B. (2005) ‘English as a lingua franca.’ ELTJournal 59/4, 339-341.

Seidlhofer, B. (2011) Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Slobin, D. I. (1996) ‘From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”.’ In:
Gumperz, J. J. and Levinson, S. C. (eds) Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. 70-96.

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (2011) ‘The mapping between the mental and the public
lexicon.’ In: Archer, D. and Grundy P. (eds) The Pragmatics Reader. London:
Routledge. 147-160.

Verschueren, J. (2000) ‘Notes on the role of metapragmatic awareness in language use.’
Pragmatics 10(4): 439-456. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.10.4.02ver


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.