The intertextuality of argumentation: a semiotic approach to academic writing in higher education

4.1 Peircean semiosis as a conceptual device for the intertextuality of argumentation in academic writing

In Peirce’s theory of signs, semiosis is constructed as a trichotomic system of signs in which an instance of signification denotes an interconnection of representamen (the sign vehicle or the form the sign takes), referent (an object the sign signals to) and interpretant (the meaning the sign signifies). The production and interpretation of signs results from the ‘interplay between signs and interpretants that tends towards a discovery of true meaning, the object’ (Bergman 2009: p. 114). The signified meaning as a concept (interpretant) serves as a new sign in relation to a new object and a new interpretant. This forms the distinctiveness of Peircean semiosis. The sign reasserts itself continuously through the dynamism of sign action, that is, semiosis perpetuates itself through signification in which ‘signs mostly function each between two minds, or theatres of consciousness, of which the one is the agent that utters the sign (whether acoustically, optically, or otherwise), while the other is the patient mind that interprets the sign’ (Peirce 1998: p. 403). This provides a conceptual device for the intertextuality of argumentation, with the use of sign action as a unit of analysis. By attending to sign action as pertinent to instances of signification that mediate and coordinate propositions, the role of intertextuality in argumentation may be more perceptively comprehended.

4.2 Mediated discourse analysis as an approach to textual relations and functions in composition

This article takes Saussure’s (1959) epistemological position for the linguistic sign to elucidate syntactical compositionality (textual relations and functions involved in composition), along with Scollon’s (2001) notion of mediated discourse as a nexus of practice informed by theoretical constructs and concepts. This implies that text composition is a semiotic act, and that as a sign-maker in the context of a given situation, the writer needs to consider the most apprehensible textual resources at hand as the signifier to indicate what needs to be expressed as the signified. Equally important is Peircean semiosis (sign action) by which meaning (interpretant) mediates between the signified (referent) and the signifier (representamen), together with the writer’s semantic intents and logical awareness. This brings into focus two realms of written discourse as an interactive system of signs, that is, the realm of syntax and semantics, and the realm of values and beliefs. Mediated discourse approach may thus be helpful in analysing text and content in the former, and revealing what is hidden or concealed as the underlying meaning in the latter.

4.3 Author provisos

To engage with the following analysis more effectively, author provisos may be considered: (1) the author is concerned with how a semiotic awareness can be developed to help illuminate the intertextuality of argumentation, rather than simply critiquing or delineating the vicissitudes of language use in composition; (2) by scrutinising the details of an argument, the author alludes to what can be learnt from ways in which textual relations and functions are approached by the writers; (3) rules and conventions of argumentation are ubiquitous and algorithmic; and (4) the author maintains a pursuit of knowledge and democracy in and through the analysis, and hence unconditional assent and solicitude is sought for audience to contemplate the reason and justification given.

(1) Dissertation extract 1

5.1 Author analysis (1)

The argumentation sets out with an overriding premise: ‘It is important to consider approaches to the literacy practices in countries other than the UK’ (lines 1–2). This premise includes at least two underlying suppositions: (a) literacy approaches developed in other countries will be beneficial to the UK, and (b) in effect the reader is expected to accept or agree with the author’s proposition. It is then followed by a subordinate premise as an interpretative proposition: ‘This is because other countries may have successful strategies in place to involve boys in literacy, which could then be adopted by England to improve their practice’ (lines 2–4). What is stressed in this premise are the ‘successful strategies’ used in other countries to involve boys in literacy. As textual relations and functions demand, this premise needs to bridge the preceding premise and the succeeding one, with each of the premises taken to be a sign action. However, the reference to Tafa (2008) seems ineffectual for this purpose as it has little logical implication for its preceding premise by means of categorisation. To differentiate approaches used in the UK and those used in other European countries requires the notion of mutual exclusivity, that is, different categories should neither overlap nor entail elements of each other. The follow-up claim, ‘It has been found that all of the EU countries discussed now base their teaching guidelines in the kindergarten curricula around the emergent literacy approach’ (lines 7–9), becomes logically inconsecutive as it lacks reference to the strategies for involving boys in literacy. While the reference to Clay (1966) exemplifies the ‘emergent literacy approach’, there is yet little bearing on the possible impact of this approach on boys’ engagement with literacy. Further elaborations (lines 12–16) leave the reader in doubt – where are the grounds for accepting this approach as beneficial to the involvement of boys in literacy? The proposition, ‘all 10 EU countries discussed (including the UK) have similar literacy strategies and practices in place’ (lines 17–18), comes to seem a problematic signifier if it is to indicate that ‘other countries may have successful strategies in place to involve boys in literacy’ (lines 2–3). This strays even further from the point, given that this proposition fails to warrant the truth of the main and subordinate premises (lines 1–4).

Such deficiency in recourse to textual relations and functions makes the argument plunge further into a logical turmoil within the second paragraph. The premises established in support of the concluding proposition are seemingly inadequate in providing necessary textual continuity and consistency as the grounds for the conclusion. This is observed through an absence of a chain of instances of signification, i.e., compositional moves in argumentation from one proposition to another and to the conclusion. The concluding proposition centres on the claim ‘emphasis must be placed on kindergarten education’ (lines 23–24). Though this may be inferred as having implication for involving boys in literacy, little attempt is made to specify the ‘approaches to the literacy practices in countries other than the UK’ (lines 1–2). Moreover, given that this proposition entails an early proposition – ‘It has been found that all of the EU countries discussed now base their teaching guidelines in the kindergarten curricula around the emergent literacy approach’ (lines 7–9) – it begs the question on logical legitimacy. Rather than being proved, this proposition is simply granted, that is, the author simply assumes what he or she should be proving. This renders further evaluative propositions (24–31) untenable, albeit with an attempt to strengthen what has already been put forward in the argumentation.

Entangled with problematic instances of signification in textual relations and functions, the interdependence of signifying codes is at stake in terms of syllogistic ordering of premises and conclusion. This makes the argument even more disordered. The proposition in the subordinate premise (lines 2–4) entails a hypothetical form of syllogism explaining that one thing leads to another, with ‘if’ to introduce an antecedent and ‘then’ a consequent. That is, if other countries have successful strategies in place to involve boys in literacy, then these strategies can be adopted by England. In compliance with this hypothetical syllogism, a valid argument would have been constructed as follows:

Unfortunately, this fails to materialise itself in argumentation in terms of its function. There is a lack of attention to intertextual moves in terms of sign action by affirming that other countries have successful strategies in place to involve boys in literacy. This triggers a logical impasse to such an extent that the grounds for a deduction-based conclusion are absent, that is, the concluding proposition does not follow from the premises. Consequently, it leaves the reader in doubt as to (a) the claim serving as a consequent of the argument, (b) the warrant for this claim, and (c) the case to be made for the conclusion.

5.2 Pointers for reflection (1)

1. The properties of the sign cause to mind an awareness of sign action in composition.

2. Propositions can be more effectively arranged through sign action emerging from instances of signification in textual relations and functions.

3. Sign action mediates and sustains the role of intertextuality in governing interpretative, evaluative, and concluding propositions.

4. The term argument denotes a reason or collection of reasons and hence is used as a countable noun.

(2) Dissertation extract 2

5.3 Author analysis (2)

The first paragraph commences with a leading premise or proposition in argumentation: ‘The use of various ways of experiencing nature in order to stimulate and support the whole self is further extended by the use of nature’s features and processes as metaphors of the self’ (lines 1–3). What is subsequently required as a secondary or subordinate premise is the literature on this topic to substantiate the primary premise. References to Worsham and Goodvin (2007), Berger (2004), and Berger and McLeod (2006) are relevant and blended through textual relations (lines 3–11). The use of ‘moreover’ (line 11) is apposite in introducing an additional proposition (lines 11–13). However, considering that a self-evident proposition that humans are conceptual beings is already captured in the primary premise in term of ‘the whole self’, this additional proposition with the quotation of ‘a parallel process of building a safe, personal, inner home’ (lines 12–13) becomes superfluous in effect. Moreover, resorting to such quotation – rather than paraphrasing in the student’s own words – is perhaps suggestive of some uncertainty in understanding the quoted author’s meaning. As it stands, this additional proposition does not provide a compelling account of the intrapersonal dimension of metaphorical thought in eliciting personal change. From an intertextual viewpoint, this adds little weight to what the subsequent proposition contends: ‘In this way, creation of metaphors from nature may prompt personal change’ (lines 13–15). This proposition, as mediated by sign action, is not self-explanatory but conditional as it needs to be endorsed by the evidence presented in the previous proposition; it would otherwise remain a supposition rather than a proposition. From a syntactical compositionality viewpoint, this proposition is such that the sense is elusive with an intertextual leap from the additional proposition (lines 11–13).

As the argument proceeds through to the second paragraph, the use of ‘in particular’ is intertextual as it forges a link between what is previously mentioned and what is now introduced as an example of personal transformation (lines 17–18). Three consecutive premises as evaluative propositions (lines 18–26) lead to a concluding proposition: ‘Making connections between ourselves and natural processes in these ways is powerful because nature provides the necessary distancing but also an opportunity for the normalising of experiences’ (lines 26–29). Given the a priori nature of deductive argumentation, the validity of this conclusion lies in a causal connection, rather than a transitory succession prompted by intuitive or wishful thinking. This concerns whether the instance of signification, ‘nature provides the necessary distancing but also an opportunity for the normalising of experiences’ (lines 27–29), can serve as a prerequisite that are both necessary and sufficient to uphold that humans make connections between themselves and natural processes. Yet, the three consecutive premises (lines 18–26) cannot be fully identified as the necessary conditions for what is claimed in the subordinate clause, ‘because nature provides the necessary distancing but also an opportunity for the normalising of experiences’ (lines 27–29). It is apparent that these premises do not form the sufficient conditions for the concluding proposition. This raises a question of how the logical sequence of argumentation can be justifiably established to be both necessary and sufficient.

As it stands, the composition is descriptive in style and exploratory in disguise. An overall sense of intertextuality comes to seem tenuous, haphazard, and less filtered through an awareness of the interdependence of signifying codes in textual relations and functions. This may result from an unfledged construal of how such relations and functions are semiotically united with the aid of sign action to accomplish a cogent line of argument. In addition, circuitous references to Berger and the co-authors in a skimpy, unscrupulous manner have lessened the effect on the reader to engage in a more succinct and reasoned approach to thematic analysis in a literature review.

5.4 Pointers for reflection (2)

1. Sign action helps enhance cohesion and coherence in argumentation through intertextual moves that are sequentially organised into interpretative, evaluative, and concluding proposition.

2. The properties of the sign determine sign action as motivated, and henceforth the sequence of propositions for argumentation as deliberate and intentional.

3. Sign action lends itself to instances of signification in mediating and coordinating propositions in argumentation.

4. Sign action helps ward off disjuncture or incoherence in composition, e.g., intertextual leap.

6.1 Sign action as an engagement with textual relations and functions in academic writing

Sign action leads the way for intertextual moves through textual relations and functions, preventing unconnected or isolated propositions in argumentation. Each proposition, as indexed to syntactical compositionality, requires intertextual thinking – a previous proposition elicits a present one that awaits a future one, thus forming an argument. There are misconceptions among students about differences between conclusion and summary due to a lack of intertextual understanding. Conclusion is where premises culminate to forge an ending proposition, whereas summary is a mere reiteration of key positions or points of views from the main text. If the conclusion is to be handled as a summary, then argumentation becomes intertextually inconsistent. That is, the writer should not conclude something to be valid simply by assuming that something to be the case. As required in logical syllogism, the concluding proposition should not contain any of the supporting propositions, or it begs the question. A valid argument is a set of incremental propositions logically developed and syntactically organised. Without appreciation of this, an argument can be muddled or derailed, resulting in falsehood or absurdity, as elaborated in Section 5.1.

Further, syntactical compositionality requires a sentence to be constructed by sub-sentential components, e.g., words and phrases. However, the ways these components are combined are not only syntactical but semiotic in nature. Linguistic representation manifests itself as instances of signification through which words and phrases are organised into a syntactic structure, e.g., the logical form of an argument. While the linguistic meaning of a sentence is encoded and decoded by means of the grammar of a given language, the complexity of such meaning lies not only in the grammar, but also in the sign action of both the speaker or writer and the listener or reader. The latter may be further discussed by referring to the mediated discourse approach to the two realms of text composition, as outlined in Section 4.2. Sign action assists in analysing text and content within the realm of syntax and semantics, as well as revealing what is hidden or unrecognised as the underlying conception within the realm of values and beliefs. The writer as a sign-maker creates meaning in a written text by means of sign action, and herewith the reader makes sense of meaning through the sign-object and signifier-signified relation. This points to the assumption that text composition, as the act of sign making, is indicative of not only the writer’s engagement with the reader, but also a commitment on the writer’s part to instances of signification involved in human interactions with the world. As evidenced in the second extract, weight is given to the direct quotation ‘a parallel process of building a safe, personal, inner home’, with an intertextual leap from the additional proposition introduced by ‘moreover (line 11), thus making the reader wonder about the writer’s intention. This may be implicative of a misconception of both realms involved in composition.

Moreover, the intentionality of semantic and pragmatic meaning in composition is noteworthy. Semantics concerns the relationship between linguistic utterances and the syntactic rules deployed to govern such utterances. Semantic structure involves a part-whole relationship, that is, the meaning of a sentence as determined by what the constituent words and phrases are meant and how they are combined. Pragmatics nevertheless concerns the relationship between the speaker or writer and what he or she says or writes. As shown in Author analysis (1) and (2), semantic meaning can yield answers to questions of how understanding of meaning can be obtained and what significance of such understanding may be for the writer. In contrast with the intrinsic nature of semantic intentionality with which the writer encodes or decodes a sentence based on grammatical rules of a given language, pragmatic intentionality implies the meaning of a sentence beyond what is logically manifested by that sentence, that is, ‘what is done with language beyond saying’ (Korta and Perry 2007, p. 170). This reflects interpersonal relationships through which utterances are encoded or decoded. The assumption that pragmatic intentionality stands in relation to its context suggests that meaning change because of the interaction of a sentence with the context out of which it arises. Such contextual factors can be subtle and nuanced, give the connection between what is said and what is conveyed. Thus, intertextual engagement requires the writer to make pragmatic inferences, that is, pragmatic meaning can be obtained by the implicature located in an utterance.

6.2 Critical thinking in studies in higher education

Considering ‘intellectualism as central to the ethnography of university life’ (Ma 2017, p. 227), students and teachers are to understand that ‘the university world is generally associated with rationality, methodological principles, objectivity and logical argument’ (Bloch 2012, p. 2). Critical thinking helps develop students’ capacity for challenging assumptions and perceptions through theorisation, rational thinking, and evaluation (e.g., Halpern 1999; Paul and Elder 2003; Mason 2008). How thoughts and words come together is important to critical thinking in academic writing due to the connection between instances of signification and propositions in argumentation. To broaden students’ horizon as to what there is to be known in social, cultural, and historical context, critical thinking needs to be exercised as a mode of activity with deliberate thought and rationality. Though perceived as ubiquitous in higher education, why has critical thinking come to seem more routinely expected by institutions than habitually exercised by students? To what extent can it be sustained through a semiotic awareness of the intertextuality of argumentation? Arguably, students’ greater engagement with critical thinking can be achieved if such endeavour is cultivated as a collective endeavour as well as an individual disposition or temperament.

Research activities involving undergraduate students in various disciplines across humanities and social sciences are often tutor-dependent or involuntarily actualised, particularly when assigned to them as a mere task-based activity. Critical thinking involved appears to be channelled towards certain directions by external forces, e.g., tutors’ consistent or contingent intervention, rather than through students’ own commitment and dedication. This results in their cognizance less than discerning and theory-informed to the point where little is undertaken with a proactive manner, as reflected in academic writing. With a semiotic understanding of the intertextuality of argumentation, critical thinking may be more successfully integrated into academic writing wherein words and thoughts are indispensable for ‘the centrality of intellectual well-being in higher education’ (Ma 2017, p. 239).