English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Drawing on a cross-disciplinary framework combining insights from dis- course analysis, pragmatics, critical educational theory, cultural theory, and new literacy studies, this article describes how two American handbook series—the MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers and the (Chicago) Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses and Dissertations— construct academic writing and articulate their educational ideology. On the basis of a close analysis of content, language, and textual patterns, the article shows how the two series are nearly antithetical. Through their liberal instructive discourse, the MLA handbooks aim at socializing writers and guiding them towards membership in the community of academic writers, while the more conservative Chicago manuals strive to protect the institutionally valued research text from its writers. However, the handbooks are also similar in certain respects: in addition to providing instructions that can be quite empowering, they also delimit the options writers can have. From this perspective, the article also argues that particularly for non-native writers of English, handbook discourse can be quite problematic. The article concludes by arguing that in today's heterogeneous academia, the purposes and aims of handbook discourse merit critical reevaluation so that they show more awareness and tolerance of difference and plurality.

Universalistic handbook discourse and the local needs of writers