Ebook Enhancing Student Support in Higher Education A Subject Focused Approach 1St Edition Nick Pilcher Online PDF All Chapter

Enhancing Student Support in Higher
Education: A Subject-Focused
Approach 1st Edition Nick Pilcher
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/enhancing-student-support-in-higher-education-a-subj
ect-focused-approach-1st-edition-nick-pilcher/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Designing Effective Feedback Processes in Higher

Education A Learning Focused Approach 1st Edition Naomi
Winstone
https://ebookmeta.com/product/designing-effective-feedback-
processes-in-higher-education-a-learning-focused-approach-1st-
edition-naomi-winstone/
Student Plagiarism in Higher Education 5th Edition

Diane Pecorari
https://ebookmeta.com/product/student-plagiarism-in-higher-
education-5th-edition-diane-pecorari/
Supporting Student Mental Health in Higher Education

1st Edition Samuel Stones
https://ebookmeta.com/product/supporting-student-mental-health-
in-higher-education-1st-edition-samuel-stones/
Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: A

Practical Approach 1st Edition Prathamesh Padmakar
Churi
https://ebookmeta.com/product/artificial-intelligence-in-higher-
education-a-practical-approach-1st-edition-prathamesh-padmakar-
churi/
The Law of Higher Education Student Version Student
Version 6th Edition William A. Kaplin
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-law-of-higher-education-
student-version-student-version-6th-edition-william-a-kaplin-2/
The Law of Higher Education Student Version Student

Version 6th Edition William A. Kaplin
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-law-of-higher-education-
student-version-student-version-6th-edition-william-a-kaplin/
Critical Religious Pluralism in Higher Education A

Social Justice Framework to Support Religious Diversity
1st Edition Jenny L. Small
https://ebookmeta.com/product/critical-religious-pluralism-in-
higher-education-a-social-justice-framework-to-support-religious-
diversity-1st-edition-jenny-l-small/
Understanding Writing Transfer Implications for

Transformative Student Learning in Higher Education 1st
Edition Randall Bass
https://ebookmeta.com/product/understanding-writing-transfer-
implications-for-transformative-student-learning-in-higher-
education-1st-edition-randall-bass/
Applying Student Development Theories Holistically

Exemplar Programming in Higher Education 1st Edition
Katherine Branch (Editor)
https://ebookmeta.com/product/applying-student-development-
theories-holistically-exemplar-programming-in-higher-
education-1st-edition-katherine-branch-editor/
Enhancing Student
Support in Higher
Education
A Subject-Focused
Approach
n ic k pi l c h e r
k e n da l l r ic h a r ds
Enhancing Student Support in Higher Education
Nick Pilcher • Kendall Richards
Enhancing Student
Support in Higher
Education
A Subject-Focused Approach
Nick Pilcher Kendall Richards
The Business School, Craiglockhart School of Computing, Merchiston
Edinburgh Napier University Edinburgh Napier University
Edinburgh, UK Edinburgh, UK
ISBN 978-3-030-81723-7 ISBN 978-3-030-81724-4 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81724-4
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2022
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
List of Figures
Fig. 5.1 Rhizome. (Source: David Richards) 63

Fig. 5.2 Teapot. (Source: David Richards) 73
ix
Contents
1 Introduction 1
2 Context 5
References 19
3 The Roots and Branches of Linguistics 23

The Birth of Linguistics 23
The Parameters and Stipulations Underpinning the Birth
of Linguistics 25
The Implications of Having the Parameters for Analysing
and Teaching Language 27
How Student Support Is Guided by the Parameters of
Linguistics 30
Systemic Functional Linguistics and Genre Analysis 30
Corpus Linguistics 34
Academic Literacies 35
The Benefits of Using Non-text Language Based Approaches
Alongside Written Text Ones 36
References 38
v
vi Contents
4 The View of Language Through the Paradigm of Linguistics 41

Introduction 41
Defining a Paradigm 42
Outline of Kuhn’s Paradigm Theory; Critiques and
Incommensurability 43
The Paradigm of Linguistics—Foundations and Characteristics 45
The Sources of Our Rejections 46
The Paradigm of Linguistics 59
References 60
5 Our Projects and Data 61

Introduction 61
Rhizome 62
A Rhizome Is Planted 64
References 75
6 Examples Considered from Our Past and Present

Perspectives 79
Introduction 79
Approaches Through Written Text Informed and Based
Materials 80
Approaches That Focus on the Subject and Draw on
a Range of Languages 81
Conclusion 91
Additional Examples 93
References 96
7 Implications with the Different Approaches 97

Introduction 97
References 108
8 Focusing on the Subject111

Introduction 111
Establishing Relationships with Students and Lecturers 114
Promotion and Communication of the Nature of Subject
Based Support 119
Contents vii
Evaluating Impact 124

Resource Implications 125
Separate In-sessional and Pre-sessional Classes 128
References 129
9 Conclusion133
Introduction 133
Reference 144
Appendix: Chapter 6 Examples and Our Suggestions145
Author Index153
Subject Index155
1
Introduction
It is the central argument of this book that support for students has, to
date, always started from the outset of written text based and informed
approaches and products, whereas we argue that it should instead start
from the outset by looking at the subject assignments and tasks the stu-
dents are asked to do. By written text based and informed approaches we
mean support that is developed from theories, such as Systemic Functional
Linguistics, and encompasses areas such as English for Academic Purposes
and Academic Literacies. What we are not arguing is that written text
based and informed approaches are useless, quite the opposite, we draw
on and use our knowledge from such approaches ourselves and describe
so in the book. Rather, we are arguing that such approaches, if seen as the
only ones that students need, have a danger of being unable to see and
acknowledge the importance of other languages, such as visual languages
and emotional languages, and of mathematics. What is more, we argue
that if the approach is centred on written text based and informed
approaches and gets students to learn these, there may be adverse impli-
cations, for example, of cognitive overload, where the students are unable
to memorize subject content because they are being asked to do too many
tasks at the same time (e.g. textual analytical methods as well as content
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 1

N. Pilcher, K. Richards, Enhancing Student Support in Higher Education,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81724-4_1
2 N. Pilcher and K. Richards
identification). Also, there may be tasks that students need to do where

written text is not important or grammar and spelling do not signifi-
cantly impact on the grade they receive.
Instead, what we are arguing for is a subject focused approach to sup-
port that draws on appropriate written text based and informed
approaches as well as other languages and underlying elements to focus
on the subjects and assignments that students are asked to do. In order to
argue the case for such an approach we need to make the following argu-
ments. First, we need to provide a context and justification for how we
have developed in how we support students in the way we now do, and
this is outlined in Chap. 2. Second, we need to make the case for why
current approaches start from the outset of written text based and
informed approaches and what the parameters for these are, and this we
do in Chap. 3 where we look at the roots and branches of how linguistics
as a science was established. Third, to outline how these roots and
branches mean that support is seen through the ‘paradigm’ or ‘lens’ of
linguistics, what these are, and how these mean that other approaches to
support will be seen as unnecessary. We make this argument in Chap. 4
where we outline what we call the ‘paradigm of linguistics’ and highlight
a number of tenets that are held to in order to support the idea that writ-
ten text based and informed approaches are, alone, what students need.
Fourth, we make the argument that there is much more to what students
need to communicate and do than written text alone (such as the use of
visual language and emotional language) and, critically, that it is not pos-
sible to find out what students need to do through analysing written texts
alone. Rather, lecturers and students need to be consulted, and critically,
key psychological and ideological elements will exist under the surface of
the written text that can only be discovered through dialogue with sub-
ject lecturers (and students). We make this argument in Chap. 5 where,
by drawing on theory and our own research projects, we describe how we
have changed in our approaches to support students by focusing on the
subject rather than on written text based and informed approaches (which
we previously did) alone.
Fifth, we then substantiate this theoretical argument and present a
number of examples from our own practice. In these examples, we first
present what the situation or scenario is (e.g. Music students doing one of
1 Introduction 3
their assignments) and then outline how (previously) we would have

approached these scenarios from using written text based and informed
approaches and how (currently) we approach the situation and scenario
from a subject focused approach. We present 10 examples and add another
10 for consideration and discussion in the Appendix. We illustrate how
the subject based approach better encompasses what the students need to
do by drawing on both written text informed and based approaches and
also by considering other languages and key elements. This is in Chap. 6.
Sixth, we argue that there are a number of additional considerations
that may impact on student success from approaches to support that start
from and rely on written text based and informed materials alone. Here
we make the case that such an approach could create cognitive overload
on students, meaning they cannot learn and retain their subject material
as effectively, and that it opens the door for, we argue, erroneous and
mythical approaches such as Study Skills. Here we mean whether Study
Skills are stand alone or whether they are ‘embedded’. We argue that
philosophically and practically it is not possible to ‘embed’ Study Skills,
rather, students should be supported in the subject itself. In this chapter,
we also outline some practical considerations such as resources, and class
sizes and compositions. This is in Chap. 7.
In Chap. 8, we make suggestions for how others can approach support-
ing students through a greater focus on the subject. Although we cannot
create templates and materials that can be applied to all, in other words,
we cannot create products as such, what we can do is make suggestions
for processes that others can follow. In this chapter, we make suggestions
for establishing dialogue with students and lecturers, for promoting and
communicating the nature of the support, for evaluating its impact, and
for considering the resource implications of the approach. We will argue
that the approach is far more economical in cost and time than a written
text based and informed approach and that in the evaluation of its impact
has no need to consider the degree of ‘transferability’ of the approach.
In Chap. 9 we draw together the key points and conclude, and also
briefly consider, drawing on the work of James C. Scott, the Ancient
Greek concept of context specific knowledge and experience by the name
‘mêtis’ and how it works alongside and with a subject focused approach
to supporting students.
2
Context
In the beginning was the word … and the word was God.
—John 1:1
Language, unlike speaking, is something that we can study separately …
whereas speech is heterogeneous, language, as defined, is
homogeneous … language is concrete.
—De Saussure (1959, p. 76)
Here, in order to provide context for what we are suggesting in terms of

student support, we present a number of scenarios and outline what we
did and afterwards we describe what happened. These scenarios are from
a number of years and illustrate some of the reasons why we have changed
in how we support students, even if we did not realize so at the time.
Here are the scenarios and an outline of what we did:
(a) You are teaching support for students doing their degrees in a range
of subjects. The course leader for the undergraduate degree in Design
instructs a number of students from China to come along to a writing

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81724-4_2
workshop you are leading. You do the workshop as you have always
done and ask the students to do a number of tasks relating to aca-
demic writing such as how to approach using references.
(b) You are teaching a writing workshop for students. And a number of
students come along to the workshop and ask you if you can look at
their dissertations for Biology. You say you will do your best, but
these are large documents and you might not be able to look at every-
thing in the two hours of the workshop.
(c) You are teaching a writing workshop and an undergraduate student
studying Finance brings you their work for an assignment where they
have to construct an investment portfolio for a client who has inher-
ited a sizeable amount of money. They outline how they would invest
some in shares, some in a deposit account, and some in property—
you correct their language and see that they have aligned their answer
with the question and comment on how well you think they
have done.
(d) You are invited to join a Design module for undergraduate students
doing ethnographic research. You start to teach about writing and try
to engage students in a dialogue about what they had to do—you get
no response. The lecturers are there; they try to get responses and are
again faced with no or little response. You then think it may work if
you brought in an object to focus on—so you go and fetch a brightly
coloured teapot to focus on.
(e) You are teaching on a pre-sessional course for direct entrant engi-
neers. You are using Bob Jordan’s textbook on academic writing and
asking them to write about a task on the process of the production of
paper. The students look at you and say, ‘What has this got to do with
engineering?’ And you reply, ‘It’ll make sense later when you start
your course.’
(f ) You are approached by a small group of Computing students who
have to create a report in code and then talk about the code they had
created. You have no experience of this language and have never seen
a report like the one they are expected to do. It contains two lines to
start with in English, then lots of code, and then some comments. It
contains no references or conclusion. You asked why there were no
references, no introduction, and no conclusion and then asked them
2 Context 7
about how they judged whether the structure worked and asked them
to tell you about the code, what it actually means, and what they had
to do; you later went to talk to their lecturer about the students and
what you had suggested.
Here is what happened:
(a) The Design students never came back; perhaps it was not writing
they needed help with.
(b) You wonder about suggesting a number of sources to do with dis-
sertations, after all, you did your PhD on dissertations, but you do
not. Instead, you ask the students to give you the dissertations. They
do. The dissertations are 3000 words long and have radically different
methodology sections to ones you are accustomed to. These are the
guidelines the students have been given so you work with those and
do not mention the other ones except to express your surprise at how
unique they were for that subject.
(c) The student does not do as well as you thought. The student tells you
that they had written about property as an investment, but this did
not qualify. Never again do you suggest something as being good
without saying it is only your opinion and that the student should
check with the lecturer.
(d) You got very little response from the students, and neither did the
lecturers. When you brought in the teapot, the atmosphere com-
pletely changed, everybody talked about the teapot and passed it
around, the lecturers became fully engaged, and it enabled you to
make a direct link to what the students were expected to do.
(e) You have no idea what happened. Twenty years later, you realized
why they were asking you the question they did and on reflection
would have got materials from the course lecturers to help the stu-
dent. The ideal, you realize, would have been to team teach with
the lecturer.
(f ) You chatted with the lecturers and joined the module where you
could; you still know nothing about code and couldn’t code yourself,
but you now know more about its importance, what the students
need to do, and how to make suggestions on the coursework they
need to do.
We are lecturers in our respective schools. One of us (Nick Picher) was

originally employed with the job title of ‘Lecturer in In-Sessional Support’
and the other (Kendall Richards) was originally employed as a ‘Lecturer
in Academic Support’. We taught English as a foreign language abroad
prior to this, then taught English for Academic Purposes on pre-sessional
and in-sessional courses, and did a Master’s in English Language Teaching
(Nick) and a Master’s in Applied Linguistics (Kendall). Nick did a PhD
in Languages (2007), and Kendall did a PhD by publication (Richards &
Pilcher, 2018). Over the last 20 (Nick) to 25 (Kendall) years, we have
been involved in supporting students across a wide range of different
subjects such as Business, Accounting, Tourism, Nursing, Biology,
Psychology, Design, and Engineering. We have undertaken a number of
studies with lecturers in different subject areas regarding their perceptions
of what students need to help them succeed in their assignments and
coursework. It is these studies that this book is based on. The book
describes our journey(s) from supporting students with purely linguistics
based written text focused approaches and materials to an approach that
goes beyond the text and uses only subject based assignments and
materials.
We stress here at the outset that this is not a book about Academic
Literacies, this is not a book about writing materials to be used online to
support students, this is not a book about identifying the most common
terms for students to study, and this is not a book about developing mate-
rials to help them with writing. Rather, this is a book about how we sup-
port students to learn in their subjects through drawing on whatever
languages are key to what they need to do, be they written text based,
visual, philosophical, or mathematical. It is a book about the process of
how we do this, and from this we suggest ways for others to follow a simi-
lar process.
2 Context 9
Does this mean we have discarded all knowledge of linguistics based

approaches? No, quite the opposite, we draw on much of our knowledge
of these when we support students. In addition, however, we incorporate
and consider two aspects: non-text based languages (such as visual, emo-
tional, and mathematical) and other ideological and psychological ele-
ments beneath the surface of the written text that were only revealed to
us through speaking to subject experts. These could be emotional or
philosophical elements underpinning the written text, or they could be
mathematical or visual elements intertwined with and key to the text.
Alternatively, they could be elements that have nothing to do with writ-
ten text. So what do we do? And what do we use? And what don’t we do?
And what don’t we use? Although that is what this book is about, we feel
it useful to provide a very brief example here to set the scene and provide
a context.
Regarding what we do, one example is for students doing Graphic
Design, of a dissertation Kendall was helping a student with about the
use of tattoos to remove the stigma of physical difference and, in particu-
lar, scarring. Here for part of it the student went out and approached
people with visible tattoos, asked them if they could photograph them
and chat to them about the tattoos. Writing was used here to inform the
student’s design choices and to find out what would inform a design
approach. The final product for the student’s grade could be a tattoo
design or a cultural probe (a designed object that others provide feedback
on). Here, writing plays a role, but visual and emotional semiotics is key.
As another example of what we do, Nick was recently giving feedback
to postgraduate students studying hospitality management who were
writing essays. The students emailed Nick a draft of their essay and Nick
gave feedback on the drafts, specifically on whether the students’ essay
drafts were linked to the question. Nick made suggestions to them to link
their answers to the question using the words of the question and to out-
line clearly at the ends of the introductions how their essay is structured
using the words ‘first’, ‘second’, ‘third’, and so on. Here again, writing
plays a role, but it is one of linking the content specifically to the question
and incorporates a knowledge that the students in hospitality need to
consider psychological elements of making money and of empathy for
the customers.
In both of these examples we draw on our knowledge of aspects of

linguistics such as genre analysis (Swales, 1990), but we do not use any
linguistics based materials. We incorporate into the support we give an
awareness of the key languages that students need (visual, empathetic)
and of the underlying elements in any writing (e.g. income generation)
that linguistics may not be able to access. What we do not use is any lin-
guistics or English for Academic Purposes based materials with the stu-
dents, nor do we ever suggest to them that they go to these for help.
We realize that such an approach may, on the one hand, feel very dis-
empowering and disconcerting, perhaps it may even be perceived as
shocking and insulting, to colleagues who help students by using (and
perhaps writing) materials grounded in linguistics based approaches. We
also realize that there is a widely held perception that what we are doing
is considered to be in the realm of the subject specialist and that any
‘English’ is separate. However, what we have found is that the ‘English’ is
inextricably connected to the subject and not separate from it—to the
extent that examination systems such as IELTS are, we argue, subjects in
themselves (see Pilcher & Richards, 2017). In addition, we note that we
do not profess to be subject specialists with the students. Indeed, we do
not give categorical directions on the subject as subject specialists, rather,
and based on our own experience as lecturers and academics, we give sug-
gestions for students to consider and to check with their subject lecturers.
The key focus in this approach is on the subject, with the aim being to
support students in their subjects in the best way possible. This involves
helping with written text, but recognizing that this help also requires help
with other elements, in short, it needs, we argue here, to go beyond the
text. Specifically, what we mean when we say focus on the subject is work-
ing with students and lecturers as part of the subject, not as ‘writing’
experts per se, but as a key element in the subject teaching team. We do
not see writing and the subject as two separate or distinct entities; it is not
that one can be used to help the other, rather, they are intrinsically linked.
We do not ‘embed’ writing, as this sees writing as separate; rather, we
teach in the subject, and sometimes writing is part of that and sometimes
it is not, but it is always unique to each subject. We do not see ourselves
2 Context 11
as subject experts and do not profess to be subject experts; rather, we

make suggestions that we ask students to check with their lecturers or
team teach in tandem with the lecturers. Here, we see writing and other
forms of communication as integral to each subject and engage in dia-
logue with students and lecturers to identify precisely what it is they need
help with. This is what we mean when in the title we say ‘Using Non-text
Related Languages to Complement Text Based Approaches’. ‘Non-text
related languages’ could relate to intonation and tone, empathy, and
physical communication as a language, as this Learning Disability
Nursing lecturer comments (from Richards & Pilcher, 2018): “with our
guys, the people we care for, we have to give as many clues as possible as to our
meaning so it’s not just the speech, it’s the face, it’s the proximity, it’s the ges-
tures you know … it’s total communication and speech is really only one part
of it.” This would be a ‘non-text related language’ we would be thinking
of. Similarly, in other subjects such as Design, the ‘non-text related lan-
guage’ we are thinking of is more visual in nature, as one Design lecturer
commented (from Richards & Pilcher, 2018) of the language students
need to use in Design, “It is a visual language in a lot of ways.” Another
‘non-text related language’ is mathematical, as another lecturer (from
Richards & Pilcher, 2020a) noted, of their students, “They are writing
Mathematics. Some people would say that is a language.”
Critically for us in our support of students are two aspects related to
the ‘non-text related language’ elements. Firstly, the ‘non-text related lan-
guage’ is often intrinsically linked to and intertwined with any ‘written-
text language’. As one Accountancy lecturer (from Pilcher & Richards,
2016) commented, “obviously the numbers can help the students … they
can actually … then sort of tie their words into it.” Secondly, however, we
find that often the written-text language takes second place to the non-
text related language. In the words of this Design lecturer (from Richards
& Pilcher, 2016), spelling and grammar are not the key priority many
times: “the students can prepare boards with their Design work which may
be fantastic … full of spelling mistakes … grammar mistakes … doesn’t make
sense at all you know … but designers are not terribly concerned with that.”
Similarly, in the words of this Learning Disability lecturer (from Richards
& Pilcher, 2018), “for some of our people … even the English itself probably
isn’t that important. The tone and the empathy and the warmth you could
probably almost speak gobbledygook and it wouldn’t matter as long as a tone

is engaging you are still communicating something.” It could even be the
case that silence was preferable to speaking, as this Mental Health Nursing
lecturer noted: “there was a term … and I think it’s still used in fact, called
‘presencing’ so the role of silence [if] … somebody was very distressed … inac-
cessible in some way or couldn’t verbalize how they were feeling so just being
present was enough.”
What then, do we mean by ‘Text Based Approaches’ and by ‘Written
Text’. For us, such ‘Text Based Approaches’ and ‘Written-Text’ languages
are constituted by words formed in English (or French, etc.) from the
Greco-Roman alphabet of 26 letters from A to Z. These languages are the
foundation and base of the science of linguistics, established and set in
motion by the father of linguistics, Ferdinand de Saussure (see Chap. 1),
and his lectures that were published posthumously by his students from
his Lecture Notes as the ‘Course in General Linguistics’ (Saussure, 1959).
Saussure’s work was revolutionary and established the science of linguis-
tics, independently outlining the value of a written semiotics that sat
alongside the more visual semiotics outlined by Charles Sanders Peirce
(Peirce, 1931). Critically, and in his own words, Saussure limited his
work to the contemporary alphabet and to the system of writing: “our
survey here will be restricted to the phonetic system of writing and in
particular to the system in use today, of which the prototype is the Greek
alphabet” (Saussure, 1959, p. 30). This then cemented linguistics along a
path that based all discoveries on written text produced with the letters
A–Z, a path which adhered to the ability to discover meaning and lan-
guage, through the phonetic system of writing. Undoubtedly, and unde-
niably, huge developments have been made along this path since the time
of Saussure, and in our context of Higher Education, huge developments
in advocating for the need for discipline specific help for writing (Hyland,
2002, 2004, 2006, 2012, 2017; Prior, 1998; Wingate, 2006, 2011;
Deane & O’Neill, 2011; Ganobcsik-Williams, 2006; Flowerdew &
Costley, 2017) have been made. What is more, there have been many
developments in accounts of discipline specific writing instruction for
students (Baik & Greig, 2009; Gimenez, 2012). All these developments
have continued along the path that the work of Saussure set out with in
the early twentieth century and have all focused on the importance of
2 Context 13
writing and on how to develop writing. It is writing that is considered the

key outcome students need to produce and the key material from which
to gather knowledge and to then impart such knowledge to students (see
Richards & Pilcher, 2018).
Such discipline specific work is grounded in wider literature that talks
about how different subjects see themselves as tribes and have their own
territories (Becher & Trowler, 2001), and also how generic attributes
should be ‘re-disciplined’ rather than taught outside the subject (Prior,
1998). Such work claims that generic attributes and ‘Study Skills’ should
be revised or even done away with (Wingate, 2006), yet at the same time
maintains they can be embedded (Wingate, 2006) or that they still have
generic qualities even when taught in the subject (Prior, 1998). Thus
there is a body of work that highlights that elements such as Study Skills
should be done away with—but then claims that Study Skills should be
embedded with the subject (Wingate, 2006). Alternatively, there are
indeed generic attributes such as ‘critical thinking’, but they are done dif-
ferently in different subjects and so these generic attributes should be
taught in a ‘re-disciplined’ way in their specific subjects (Prior, 1998;
Jones, 2009). In other words, something should be ‘done away’ with yet
embedded, or something is ‘generic’ but can be taught specifically. Our
standpoint and approach are that there are no generic elements, all are
unique to the subject, and consequently, they cannot be embedded,
rather, the subject is what must be taught (Richards & Pilcher, 2020b).
Our approach comes from a realization we had that to help students
purely with producing written text, or through approaches based on ana-
lysing written text alone, is not enough. We had a number of key moments
with students over the years that led us to this realization. Kendall remem-
bers teaching engineers who failed to see the relevance to their future
degrees of activities asking them to write about the process of making
paper. Nick remembers saying to students that they may not see the rel-
evance now of learning about English for Academic Purposes (EAP)
based genre analysis patterns (e.g. Alexander et al., 2008) of cause and
effect and problem solution example patterns, but they would in the
future. Kendall remembers teaching a doctor in his 50s from Bosnia who
had given talks and presentations in Australia but was then not allowed
to practice there as he could not pass a required English test. Nick
remembers being at a bus stop with a student from a country in the

Middle East who had narrowly failed an English test required for the
United Kingdom Border Authority that had a content focus about festi-
vals. The student had already passed the first six months of their degree
subject engineering modules but now had to go home as they had nar-
rowly failed this English test. Nick remembers the student being rightly
crestfallen and deeply depressed and saying words to the effect of ‘What
is the point of me doing a test on festivals? I’m an Engineer.’ Nick also
remembers teaching a student who had received a score of 7.0 in an
International English Language Testing System (IELTS) test for the writ-
ing part, something rare and considered extremely impressive, but this
student then performed very poorly in written assignments on their sub-
ject degree, when others with lower ‘IELTS’ scores performed perfectly
well. Kendall can remember being met with utter amazement from a
Writing Support expert regarding why he would not possibly want to
help support Engineering students by using the findings from a corpus
based study that showed how engineering texts used the word ‘I’ to refer
to the author.
All these memories are accompanied by the feeling that there was
something missing in our approaches to helping students using written
text based resources and techniques alone. We wanted to find out more,
and we were in jobs that had (and have) a requirement to undertake
research. So we did, and we found there was more needed to support
students than the text alone and that this more often was intrinsic to the
text or made the text redundant. Not only this, but we also found that
when we tried to publish what we had found, we encountered resistance,
sometimes bewildered and sometimes intense resistance, from the lin-
guistics and writing communities. We were met with confoundment,
confusion, and often accusations of what we were doing was utter rub-
bish, or would in fact mean students were not supported as well as they
are now. We learned huge amounts from these reviews and reviewers,
they gave their time reviewing our work, and it was often the case that the
more intensely rejecting their reviews were, the more we learned from
them. And we greatly appreciate this, for us the process represents every-
thing that works best with academic knowledge. We also add that we
responded to their reviews by revising and developing our papers and
2 Context 15
that in every case our work (and the work we draw on in this book) is
published in peer reviewed journals or peer reviewed book chapters. It is
also, we feel, far stronger as a result of the reviews we received, and the
reviews greatly helped us move forward with our ideas and approaches.
Notably, we reached a stage where we had received so many rejections
on various papers from writing and linguistics focused reviewers that we
began to see a pattern emerging in these reviews. This led us over time to
realize that we were dealing with what Thomas Kuhn (see Chap. 4)
described as a paradigm. A paradigm is a way of approaching something
with a given set of rules that then sees the world in a particular way, and
is often connected to subjects. We began to suspect that the subject of
writing and text was grounded in a paradigm that it is linguistics that
discovers and helps, through using the alphabet and through analysis and
pedagogy of written texts and linguistics, and that any alternatives that
questioned this were resisted. We also came to recognize that we ourselves
had seen that students should be helped through this paradigm, but had
by chance, and with the repeated experiences and studies we had under-
taken, broken out of it. This process had both instantaneous moments of
realization (see Chap. 5) and been one of ongoing slow and steady change.
It is this process that we here describe and focus on in this book, and it
does so as a backdrop to recommendations and suggestions for individu-
als helping students with work in Higher Education. In essence, the cen-
tral argument of the book is that student support needs to move to an
approach that incorporates and draws on both ‘written text based
approaches’ and ‘non-text related languages’ to support students in the
subject, through dialogue about specific assignments.
It is not our intention to dismiss all the work and study done in linguis-
tics, we fully adhere to the fact that the written word is of fundamental
importance to student success and are fully in agreement that students (on
many occasions) need to be helped with the production of the written
word. These approaches are not without their place and their merit. They
not only recognize subject differences (e.g. Hyland, 2004, 2012) they con-
sider key aspects such as internationalization (Bond, 2020), international
students (Kettle, 2017), culture (Turner, 2011), and inclusivity (Wingate,
2015). In addition, as we note again, we ourselves are schooled in the
fields of linguistics, of EAP, and previously of TEFL. And yet, we have had
the experience with helping students study a range of subjects where not
only do such textual analysis tools such as genre analysis, discourse analy-
sis, and Academic Literacies help us in our understanding of how to help
students do well, but in addition, we need to know about elements that
are not based in, or derived from, the written text. For example, to help
engineers be critical we need to think about particular ways of viewing and
seeing models and incorporating mathematical calculations into their cri-
tiques. Their reports may indeed look entirely different to the reports pro-
duced for a marketing assignment and, as such, be in fact very different
products (see Richards & Pilcher, 2018). So different in fact that even
though the word ‘report’ is used, it is so varied in appearance and purpose
in the different subjects as to defy any logic to the use of the same word
(Richards & Pilcher, 2014, 2016, 2020b).
We also know that from studies we have undertaken over the past
10 years that beyond and underpinning the written text, there are key
ideological and psychological elements to particular subjects that can
only be gleaned from speaking to lecturers (see Pilcher & Richards, 2016)
in the context of the subject (Richards & Pilcher, 2020a) and not from
written text. Furthermore, there are times in many subjects and in many
assignments when text itself is not considered important, or is not used,
as in the subjects of Design where the visual will often override any tex-
tual elements or in Nursing and Learning Disability Nursing where emo-
tion and empathy outweigh the importance of the text (Pilcher &
Richards, 2016).
However, what our experience has also shown us is that academic sup-
port for students in HE, whether they are native speakers of English or
non-native speakers of English, has been grounded in and driven by
text—specifically, written text. This grounding and targeting is informed
by the very roots of linguistics and the work of Ferdinand De Saussure,
and subsequent text based work in branches and areas of linguistics such
as Systemic Functional Linguistics, Genre Analysis, and Corpus
Linguistics. Inevitably, three assumptions must be integral to such
approaches: firstly, that this written text, and the analysis of it, can lead to
the revelations that will help students in their academic subjects; sec-
ondly, that written text is of fundamental importance to students in their
academic subjects; and, thirdly, that because the written text and its
2 Context 17
functions and vocabulary and phraseology will benefit all students in all
subjects, it can thus be taught and delivered separately from the subject
as core material for all. In this way we began to recognize that written text
becomes almost ideologically reified as part of a paradigm that sees writ-
ten text as the fount of all knowledge: from which all knowledge can be
gained and from which everything can be learned to inform the produc-
tion of other texts. However, through our experiences helping students
where other languages (visual, emotional, mathematical) were also key,
we began to question the actual value of this approach and to question
whether actual text is useful in itself. Further, using non-text related lan-
guages is necessary to help students with their assignments and also to
complement text based approaches.
With the fundamental goal of enhancing support for students and
helping and showing others how to move beyond a sole paradigmatic
focus on the text, this book challenges these three assumptions outlined
above. As noted above, it does so not to dismiss and disregard the wealth
of linguistics based approaches; rather, it does so to attempt to reveal to
others the importance of learning about other approaches and ways to
understand what is required for these by using methods and learning that
are not solely based in the text. It challenges the first assumption that
written text alone can yield the necessary information to help support
students and the second assumption that the written text is the only fun-
damentally important thing for students. It challenges these assumptions
by drawing on data that show how written text based support can be
enhanced and complemented both through drawing on and raising
awareness of key non-text based elements, such as mathematical and
visual language, and by illustrating the key role played by underlying
psychological and ideological elements such as making money, empathy,
or active listening and emotional intelligence. Concomitantly and subse-
quently, it challenges the assumption that such written text can be taught
and delivered outside the subject context, by illustrating how different
subjects appropriate and use particular words in unique ways and also by
illustrating how these words are then intertwined with non-text based
elements such as mathematical or visual language. Critically it also sug-
gests ways in which those helping students can learn about such non-text
based language aspects and then draw on them to target the support they
provide more effectively.
It is distinctive as a project in that it provides a theoretical basis and
empirical evidence to underpin such approaches to supporting students
and suggests alternative approaches to recalibrate the system of support
to be more subject based. Concomitantly, we also argue that a new sys-
tematic approach and hierarchy and structure of personnel is required to
do this—one which is more based on the faculty, which undertakes
research, and which employs lecturers rather than support staff to do this.
On the one hand, this can be argued to be costly and runs counter to the
global wave of the last 50 years of encroaching neoliberal approaches to
governance (Peck, 2010; Plant, 2011; Piketty, 2020) and within Higher
Education (Olssen & Peters, 2005). On the other hand, however, it
requires little in the way of extra materials development, it helps aid mas-
sification of the student body (McCarthy, 2009) by providing more sub-
ject based support, and it helps with student retention through giving
more effective support, which in turn alleviates workloads on lecturers as
well. Ironically, therefore, we wonder that such an approach can be argued
(cf. Richards & Pilcher, 2019, 2020b), paradoxically, to help support
those specifically neoliberal end goals that the current neoliberal means
are much argued to prevent.
In essence, the book is about the rationale for viewing language in a
new way, through illustrating the key role played by languages in addi-
tion to the written text and drawing on these to better help support stu-
dents in HE communicate academic messages. Following this first chapter
in which we have aimed to give a context to the book, Chap. 3 argues
that the foundations of linguistics, established by the father of linguistics
(Ferdinand de Saussure), contained specific text based parameters that
Saussure established linguistics as a science. Chapter 4 then outlines what
we see as the paradigm of linguistics that is guided by the parameters set
out and established by Saussure, and here we draw on a number of blind
peer rejections of our own (later published) work that we feel illustrate
the key tenets of this paradigm. Chapter 5 then describes our journey in
breaking out from the paradigm of linguistics and seeing it as a paradigm
and how we came to realize elements underneath the text and beyond it
within specific subjects were key to supporting students. Chapter 6 then
2 Context 19
presents a number of examples of our own where we have been asked to

help students and considers these both from the paradigm of linguistics
(using written text based approaches alone) and from a beyond the text
approach (using both written text based and non-text based approaches).
Chapter 7 focuses on what we describe as being ‘additional’ consider-
ations such as the area of ‘Study Skills’. We outline here why we see ‘Study
Skills’ as something which does not exist and that what students need is
support in the subject in the approach we are arguing for here. Then in
Chap. 8, as far as possible we talk about approaches others could adopt.
We say ‘as far as possible’ as we are not others and so do not know in what
contexts others are operating. Nevertheless, we do try to suggest possible
approaches in possible scenarios that may resonate with ones we ourselves
have been in. Chapter 9 is a conclusion and summary, in which we end
with a description of what we would change if we could in relation to
how support for students can be approached and implemented using the
subject focused approach we outline here.
References
Alexander, O., Argent, S., & Spencer, J. (2008). EAP essentials: A teacher’s guide
to principles and practice. Garnet Education.
Baik, C., & Greig, T. (2009). Improving the academic outcomes of undergradu-
ate ESL students: The case for discipline-based academic skills programs.
Higher Education Research & Development, 28, 401–416.
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual
enquiry and the culture of disciplines. SRHE/Open University Press.
Bond, B. (2020). Making language visible in the university: English for academic
purposes and internationalisation. Multilingual Matters.
Deane, M., & O’Neill, P. (Eds.). (2011). Writing in the disciplines (pp. 122–137).
Palgrave Macmillan.
Flowerdew, J., & Costley, T. (Eds.). (2017). Discipline-specific writing: Theory
into practice. Routledge.
Ganobcsik-Williams, L. (2006). General introduction: Responding to the call for
academic writing theory and pedagogy. Teaching Academic Writing in UK
Higher Education: Theories, Practices and Models. Basingstoke, Hampshire:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Gimenez, J. (2012). Disciplinary epistemologies, generic attributes and under-

graduate academic writing in nursing and midwifery. Higher Education,
63, 401–419.
Hyland, K. (2002). Specificity revisited: How far should we go? English for
Specific Purposes, 21, 385–395.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writ-
ing. University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. (2006). Disciplinary differences: Language variation in academic
discourses. In K. Hyland & M. Bondi (Eds.), Academic discourse across disci-
plines (pp. 17–45). Peter Lang.
Hyland, K. (2012). Disciplinary identities: Individuality and community in aca-
demic writing. Cambridge Applied Linguistics.
Hyland, K. (2017). English in the disciplines: Arguments for specificity. ESP
Today, 1, 5–23.
Jones, A. (2009). Redisciplining generic attributes: The disciplinary context in
focus. Studies in Higher Education, 34, 85–100.
Kettle, M. (2017). International student engagement in higher education:
Transforming practices pedagogies and participation. Multilingual Matters.
McCarthy, C. (2009). The new neoliberal cultural and economic dominant:
Race and the reorganization of knowledge in schooling in the new times of
globalization. Power and Education, 1(2), 238–251.
Olssen, M., & Peters, M. A. (2005). Neoliberalism, higher education and the
knowledge economy: From the free market to knowledge capitalism. Journal
of Education Policy, 20(3), 313–345.
Peck, J. (2010). Constructions of neoliberal reason. Oxford University Press.
Peirce, C. S. (1931). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Harvard
University Press.
Piketty, T. (2020). Capital and ideology. Harvard University Press.
Pilcher, N., & Richards, K. (2016). The paradigmatic hearts of subjects which
their ‘English’ flows through. Journal of Higher Education Research and
Development, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1138455
Pilcher, N., & Richards, K. (2017). Challenging the power invested in the
International English Language Testing System (IELTS): Why determining
‘English’ preparedness needs to be undertaken within the subject context.
Power and Education, 9(1), 3–17.
Plant, R. (2011). The neo-liberal state. Oxford University Press.
Prior, P. (1998). Writing/disciplinarity: A socioliterate account of literate activity in
the academy. Erlbaum.
2 Context 21
Richards, K., & Pilcher, N. (2014). Contextualizing higher education assess-

ment task words with an ‘anti-glossary’ approach. International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education, 27(5), 604–625.
Richards, K., & Pilcher, N. (2016). An individual subjectivist critique of the use
of corpus linguistics to inform pedagogical materials. Dialogic Pedagogy: An
International Online Journal, 4.
Richards, K., & Pilcher, N. (2018). Academic literacies: The word is not enough.
Teaching in Higher Education, 23(2), 162–177.
Richards, K., & Pilcher, N. (2019). How a view of language underpins
approaches to supporting higher education students that facilitate neo-
liberalism, and how to resist this. Power and Education, 11(1), 51–68.
Richards, K., & Pilcher, N. (2020a). Using physical objects as a portal to reveal
academic subject identity and thought. The Qualitative Report, 25(1), 127–144.
Richards, K., & Pilcher, N. (2020b). Study skills: Neoliberalism’s perfect
Tinkerbell. Teaching in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/1356251
7.2020.1839745
Saussure, F. (1959). Course in general linguistics. Philosophical Library [orig-
inal 1919].
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings.
Cambridge University Press.
Turner, J. (2011). Language in the academy: Cultural reflexivity and intercultural
dynamics. Multilingual Matters.
Wingate, U. (2006). Doing away with ‘study skills’. Teaching in Higher
Education, 11, 457–469.
Wingate, U. (2011). A comparison of ‘additional’ and ‘embedded’ approaches
to teaching writing in the disciplines. In M. Deane & P. O’Neill (Eds.),
Writing in the disciplines (pp. 65–87). Palgrave Macmillan.
Wingate, U. (2015). Academic literacy and student diversity: The case for inclusive
practice. Multilingual Matters.
3
The Roots and Branches of Linguistics
The Birth of Linguistics

Linguistics has not always existed, it is not something concrete and eter-
nal, and it was established. Furthermore, from this establishment it has
grown and branched out, changing and developing. Nevertheless, this
change and development has been guided and framed from its estab-
lished roots, the roots established by its founding father just over a hun-
dred years ago. The recognized father of linguistics and the person at the
very root of its establishment as a ‘science’ is Ferdinand de Saussure. As
Harris writes: “Saussure’s standing as the founder of modern linguistics
remains unchallenged more than half a century after his death” (Harris,
2013, p. xiv). His work is considered to herald the linguistic turn and
structuralism (Walton, 2012). Indeed, “the revolution Saussure ushered
in has rightly been described as ‘Copernican’” (Harris, 2013, p. xv). The
revolution Saussure created was to see language as being individually psy-
chological, rather than existing as a preformed entity, created for the indi-
vidual between a bond in the brain of the speaker between the linguistic
‘signifier’ (the word in its written or spoken form), and the psychological

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81724-4_3
association between this word and the object or idea that it ‘signified’ (the
concept associated with it).
Saussure posited that language operated in a structural system and dif-
fered according to each individual language system, for example, the
word as signifier in French of ‘mouton’ being associated with the signified
concept of both ‘lamb’ and ‘sheep’ in French, but in English, ‘mutton’
being associated only with the idea of sheep and of the meat of adult
sheep in particular. One of Saussure’s key points was that the language
itself was not a pre-existing substance, but rather was a form, and criti-
cally, its formation was purely arbitrary. Depending on where an indi-
vidual was born, and when they grew up (in that language could change
slightly from generation to generation) the language they learned would
be formed in their head accordingly. If they were born in France this
would be one way, if they were born somewhere else it would be another.
However, despite this rather shifting and arbitrary formation of lan-
guage in the head of the individual, Saussure is nevertheless acclaimed as
the founder of structuralism in language. Whilst at first this may seem
somewhat at odds with the idea of a language forming arbitrarily for each
individual, it isn’t when it is realized that for the individual, this language
is formed in their head from the existing structure of the language in the
location of their birth. Thus, for Saussure, language was acquired almost
through an apprenticeship by an individual amongst a group or commu-
nity of other speakers. Critically, once the individual had acquired the
language and its structure, it was fixed and did not change; hence the
structural foundations and hence the idea of the language as a system,
even if it is psychological and arbitrary and a form and not a substance in
nature. To quote Saussure: “Putting it another way, language is form and
not a substance. This truth could not be overstressed, for all the mistakes
in our terminology, all our incorrect ways of naming things that pertain
to language, stem from the involuntary supposition that the linguistic
phenomenon must have substance” (1919, p. 89).
he Parameters and Stipulations Underpinning

T
the Birth of Linguistics
From these insights, discoveries, and innovations in thinking, Saussure
has rightly been considered the father of modern linguistics and, as Harris
rightly says, to have ushered in a revolution in the field that was
‘Copernican’ in scale and nature. Nevertheless, in order to be able to set
the scene for this revolution, or perhaps set the grounds and parameters
for this revolution, there were a number of stipulations that Saussure
made. Some of these stipulations were later critiqued by other thinkers
who we will turn to below (e.g. Valentin Voloshinov and Jacques Derrida)
and we ourselves will also critique these stipulations here.
However, we note for now that these stipulations created the founda-
tions from which support materials for students in English for Academic
Purposes (EAP) (Pilcher & Richards, 2017) and sub-fields such as Corpus
Linguistics (Richards & Pilcher, 2016) and Academic Literacies (Richards
& Pilcher, 2018) are grounded. They even underpin the rationale and
drive to encourage students to work as linguistic analysts themselves to
determine linguistic ‘moves’ (Swales & Feak, 2004) in texts or to use
online corpus tools to identify ‘word’ usage, even if the students are
studying fields such as Nursing (Hafner & Candlin, 2007). Indeed, many
academic support sites emphasize the importance of linguistics to other
subject disciplines. The statement made on Monash University’s Academic
Language Feedback guide (Monash, 2020) is a very common one: “The
ability to demonstrate an understanding of discipline content at univer-
sity is closely linked to English language proficiency and academic lit-
eracy. This guide can be used for reviewing and proofreading your
assignments.” Thus, support for students at HE today closely adheres to
the parameters established at the birth of linguistics by Saussure.
What then were the parameters Saussure set out for the new science of
linguistics on which these further materials are guided by? First is that the
structure of language is unchanging across time in the short term. In other
words, language can change from one generation to the next, over time
(diachronically), but it does not change for individuals within the same
generation, at the same time (synchronically). This was key, as, in Saussure’s
words—for the linguist, “if he takes the diachronic perspective, he no

longer observes language, but rather a series of events that modify it”
(1919, p. 90). Moreover, “the synchronic and diachronic ‘phenomenon’ …
have nothing in common. One is a relation between simultaneous events,
the other the substitution of one element for another in time, an event”
(1919, p. 91). Thus, to study change over time was to study something
separate and different from language, and that language for the individual
remained constant and concrete for each generation—was therefore solid
and unchanging and could therefore be drawn upon for analysis and peda-
gogy. Such a parameter that language remained the same for each indi-
vidual is essential to claiming language as a system is homogeneous; because,
conversely, if it is constantly evolving for the individual, it is constantly
changing. In turn, if it is constantly changing, it cannot be pinned down
as a solid object from which to develop materials from.
This parameter therefore underpinned Saussure’s claim that language
itself is homogeneous as a system. In support of this, Saussure contrasted
language as a system, with speech, which could assume many different forms
and was heterogeneous. In Saussure’s words, “Language is a well-defined
object in the heterogeneous mass of speech facts” (1919, p. 14). Thus, whilst
speech could assume many forms, it did so out of, and only after the indi-
vidual, had acquired the homogeneous system of language. Critically, as part
of this stipulated parameter, language itself was said by Saussure to be “out-
side of the individual who can never create nor modify it by himself” (1919,
p. 14). Thus, for Saussure, “Whereas speech is heterogeneous, language, as
defined, is homogeneous. It is a system of signs in which the essential thing
is the union of meanings and sound-images, and in which both parts of the
sign are psychological” (1919, p. 14). Another parameter that Saussure stip-
ulated was the nature of the resource from which language was constructed,
and this was stipulated by Saussure to be the Greek alphabet. Indeed, whilst
noting the existence of a range of dialects and systems including those of
Chinese, Saussure stipulated that “I shall limit discussion to the phonetic
system, and especially to the one used today, the system that stems from the
Greek alphabet” (1919, p. 26).
Thus, for Saussure, firstly, language was a form and not a substance,
but once gained by an individual, this language system did not change for
that individual over time. Secondly, the system could not be altered by
the individual, as although the individual could make heterogeneous

speech, this came from a homogeneous system of language fixed in their
heads through an almost apprenticeship-like process of learning it from a
group of speakers. Thirdly, the science of linguistics drew on the Greek
alphabet to study language.
Critically, what these parameters allowed Saussure to conclude was that
“Language, unlike speaking, is something that we can study separately”
(1919, p. 14). In other words, it could be taken away and studied and
taught as a separate object, even if it were no longer spoken; in Saussure’s
words: “although dead languages are no longer spoken, we can easily assim-
ilate their linguistic organisms. We can dispense with the other elements of
speech” (ibid.). Perhaps crucially, Saussure then goes on to say, “indeed, the
science of language is possible only if the other elements are excluded”
(ibid.). In other words, linguistics is established using the Greek alphabet as
a system of resource, as a system that is said not to change over time, and is
independent of the individual using it, and whilst not a substance in itself
and more of a form, nevertheless “Language is concrete … and this is a help
in our study of it” (ibid., p. 14); “language stands out as a well-defined
entity … external to the individual, who by himself is powerless either to
create it, or to modify it” (Saussure, 1919, p. 31). From these parameters,
linguistics developed forth, based on the theory of Abstract objectivism
whereby language could be abstracted from its context of use as it was
homogeneous and objective, with many implications for the analysis and
teaching of language, and in turn for how support for students was viewed
regarding what students needed to succeed and also regarding how much
the written text could be relied on to do this.
he Implications of Having the Parameters

T
for Analysing and Teaching Language
This established set of parameters has remained broadly impervious to
critique in terms of how such critique has impacted upon how written
text and analysis of written text can help students and be the basis from
which materials can be developed to support them. Again, we note briefly
here that Saussure has not been without his detractors and has been much
critiqued. Jacques Derrida’s (1976, 1982) post-structuralist critiques of

Saussure argued that a transcendental meaning for every case was an
impossibility for the sign to convey. However, some noted that this was
more a critique of structuralism itself rather than a critique of Saussure
(Daylight, 2011). Other critiques that emerged in the early twentieth
century and which we ourselves have drawn on greatly in the body of
work we have undertaken over the past decade (see Chap. 3) centred on
the critique that language was individual creativity and, as such, could
not be taken away for the purposes of analysis and pedagogy, as this
would be to ignore the unique ideological and psychological elements
underpinning the words used (Voloshinov, 1929).
We go into detail with these critiques below (Chap. 4) but note here
that, as far as we can surmise, the roots and branches of linguistics have
remained perennially unassailable to any critiques and have on the whole
contained apace. Indeed, the idea that language is a concrete system that
remains independent of the individual and which can be taken away and
studied separately for the purposes of research and teaching underpins
entire fields of linguistics and also sub-fields such as genre analysis (Swales,
1990), corpus linguistics (McEnery & Hardie, 2012), and much of
Academic Literacies (Lea & Street, 1998).
Notably, it informs much of EAP and ESP, both in research and in
teaching materials. Not only this, but as we will argue below (see here but
mostly Chap. 3), it informs and delineates a paradigm of linguistics
which both provides a gaze and a lens through which student support is
delivered based on a written text informed approach, and is resistant to
any critiques, even to the extent of entering into dialogue about their
usefulness or appropriacy. Indeed, when the literary critic William
Empson wrote in the preface to the Third Edition of his book The
Structure of Complex Words which attempted to inform linguistic thought
through literary analysis and individual critique of the language, that is,
outside the parameters stipulated by Saussure for the entity of language,
it was largely ignored. We quote Empson at length here:
This book was partly intended as a contribution to linguistic theory, and to

that extent is a failure, as it has not been accepted. The basic idea is that, as
the various meanings within one word, and their interactions, are often
tricky to analyze out, and yet the speakers often interpret a use of them
with confidence and speed, there is likely to be an inner grammar of com-
plex words like the overt grammar of sentences; and I tried to arrive at
some of the rules. The attempt, I thought, would probably come under
severe attack from professional linguists, but I would probably learn things
through trying to defend myself. Nothing of the kind occurred; on the
literary side the book was well received, though with various disagree-
ments, but on the linguistic side it fell like a stone. (Empson, 1977, p. viii)
In other words, when Empson attempted to contribute to linguistic

thought through approaching the field outside the idea of language being
homogeneous, the work was not even discussed. After all, presumably
this was somewhat akin to telling rugby players that they could improve
their game if they used cricket balls. We expect, and hope, that the reader
at this point could well be considering whether what we are proposing is
doing the same thing, and if so, then inevitably what we are writing here
will also suffer the same fate as that of Empson’s work, and on the linguis-
tic side ‘fall like a stone’. Perhaps it will, nevertheless, we hope that for
two reasons it will not.
Firstly, whilst we undoubtedly critique current approaches, we do so
by suggesting they be complemented and discussed with subject lecturers
and students regarding their relevance. Secondly, however, we will attempt
to outline what we call the ‘paradigm’ of linguistics, and in this way, we
both provide an explanation for the failure of Empson’s book to make any
headway in the linguistic field and attempt to illustrate what precisely it
is that underpins the world-view of current approaches to supporting
students and how they can be supplemented.
We illustrate this paradigm in two ways. First, we outline how current
approaches to help students are guided by the stipulated parameters out-
lined above from the work of Saussure, which are embedded within these
approaches Second, and in the subsequent chapter, we pinpoint what
characteristics this paradigm has, and how these characteristics are reverted
to when current approaches are challenged. We do this through selecting
from a large expanse (approximately 20 examples) of rejections of our own
(later published) journal or chapter submissions where we questioned the
limits of written text based and linguistics informed approaches. From
these rejections, we slowly learned much about how such written text
based approaches are defended as being accurate and appropriate to the
degree that no other approaches are needed nor should be adopted. Thus,
our outlining of what we describe as the paradigm of linguistics helps to
illustrate, we argue, how approaches that are currently adopted miss out
on the benefits of drawing on what they can help with alongside and
complemented by the use and acknowledgement of other non-text based
languages and approaches. It also is integral to describing how we our-
selves moved to recognize this paradigm of linguistics and to work with it
and beyond it in supporting students and then in turn describing how we
do this for others to adopt similar practices and processes.
ow Student Support Is Guided by

H
the Parameters of Linguistics
As far as we can see, almost without exception, the branches of linguistics
that have continued from the roots established by Saussure and including
key branches such as systemic functional linguistics, corpus linguistics,
genre theory, and Academic Literacies all follow the guiding parameters
set out by Saussure. These branches are connected to the root by their
assertion and guiding principle that language can be studied through the
products of the written texts constructed using the Greco-Roman alpha-
bet—whether they have been constructed through text alone or have had
other elements to inform the text. In turn, these approaches underpin
and inform materials written to help support students.
ystemic Functional Linguistics

S
and Genre Analysis
A key branch of linguistics that informs student support and particularly
ESP and EAP is that of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) and the
work of Michael Halliday and others (e.g. Halliday & Matthiessen,
2013). SFL is integral to many (perhaps all) an MSc in Applied Linguistics
and its theory underpins materials designed to support students on pre-

sessional and in-sessional courses who are studying in the medium of the
English language but who may have another language as their first one.
At its root, SFL involves the study of language outside its context of use,
it is taken away for analysis to do this and to understand it, and the lan-
guage that it is based upon is written text.
Although SFL promotes a functional view of language as opposed to
the traditional view of language, which detaches grammar from context,
it relies on written text to do this. Further, although SFL adopts semiotic
and multi-dimensional approaches of language teaching, stressing the
systemic links between context and text, it still involves the analysis of
text taken from its context of production to do so. Thus, SFL is written
text based, takes the language as being produced somewhere but analys-
able anywhere, and is based on the Greco-Roman alphabet. Indeed, simi-
larly to Corpus Linguistics, SFL is often considered to be seeing language
in context as the written text is sourced from a particular place. Yet, this
can only be a valid claim if indeed it is assumed that the written text, in
line with the parameters set for linguistics, does allow such access. And,
we stress again, we are not suggesting SFL be discarded. In many ways we
find SFL is extremely valuable and helpful for students. Many students
need to produce texts that will be marked as assignments, and thus they
need to be able to know how such texts are organized. Yet, what we have
found (see Chap. 5) is that considering and asking about the written text
inside its specific subject context with lecturers and students provides an
analysis that can complement SFL with core underlying elements that
inform the text which we, using a linguistic analysis, would not even
know existed and would not be able to access.
These underlying elements could be mathematical, empathetic, or
visual, but in every case we have found it is only by working with and
engaging in dialogue with lecturers and students proficient in the subject
area, that we can access and understand the importance of these elements.
In other words, as we will show below, the text is in many cases key, but
it is perfectly possible for a Design student to follow the same textual
organization as a Nursing student or an engineer and even to use the
exact same words but to have highly different meanings and
understandings of the words and also highly different interpretations of

the value of them.
As SFL has expanded, it has done so guided by the parameters of lin-
guistics, as it has done so through access to text and through use of text.
Indeed, although SFL theory has expanded a great deal as the appraisal
system has been incorporated into the language system of ‘evaluation’
(ref, Martin & White, 2007; Martin & Rose, 2007), it is nevertheless still
underpinned by the notion that answers can be found in the text.
Engagement systems within appraisal theory have also incorporated
‘Bakhtin and Voloshinov’ views of language (see Chap. 5) into academic
writing areas such as referencing under the terms of dialogism, intertex-
tuality, and interdiscursivity (White, 1998; Hall et al., 2004), yet again
all are grounded in the idea that dialogue can take place from the spring-
board and from the source of the text. Even in Appraisal theory, which
again represents a development of SFL towards a functional appraisal of
the text, (Appraisal Theory, 2020) links exist to ‘texts under discussion’
and to ‘group members’ texts’.
Notably, SFL informs a wide range of materials that students follow on
pre-sessional and in-sessional courses, and a number of books used. SFL
guides EAP teacher training materials (e.g. Alexander et al., 2008) and
also student material books such as Access EAP (Argent & Alexander,
2013). It has arguably guided texts that students follow on such courses
for many years; the notable example that springs to our mind as authors
is that of Bob Jordan’s Academic Writing (2003), but also supplementary
type dip in resource texts such as Stephen Bailey’s Academic Writing: A
Handbook for International Students (2017). In all cases, the guiding prin-
ciple is that students can be helped to produce what they need to for their
subject degrees through instruction grounded in the science of linguistics
and the parameters established by Saussure over a hundred years ago.
Another key branch of linguistics that has underpinned and guided
much support for students is that of genre analysis (Swales, 1990). In
many ways genre analysis has broad similarities with SFL in that it
involves the analysis of texts to attempt to ascertain whether they
constitute a particular type of text through conforming to certain criteria

such as following a specific class of communicative events or adhering to
a specific nomenclature, vocabulary, and norms of ending and starting
(Swales, 1990). In this way students can be helped to analyse a text away
from its context of production and be encouraged to focus on elements
such as whether an ‘introduction’ follows certain ‘moves’. Thus, similarly
to SFL, genre analysis aims to involve both investigating and helping
students to make sense of academic practices in their studies context,
notable also for its interdisciplinarity (Bawarshi & Reiff, 2010;
Wingate, 2015).
What is more, within the UK English for Academic Purposes (EAP)
community, there has been growing interest in forms of knowing within
our own and other academic disciplines, also oracy in its widest sense and
has been advocated for a number of years, especially in the North
American Rhetorical Genre and the co-construction of knowledge via
discussion (cf. BALEAP Professional Issues Meeting re Speaking June
2018, and re Knowledge June 2019). Yet again, however, this has very
much involved a focus on the importance of the text or in the use of dis-
cussion to help produce text. Further, within the Critical EAP movement
(Benesch, 2001; Morgan, 2009) there has also been much work under-
taken to move EAP ahead to take on different perspectives, again very
much grounded solely in the text.
Again, genre analysis has involved the creation of books and resource
materials for students, for example, Swales and Feak’s Academic Writing
for Graduate Students (2004) and also many of the texts mentioned above.
Once again, these resources and materials are all guided by the parame-
ters stipulated by Saussure more than a hundred years ago, that the lan-
guage is a system that can be analysed and studied outside and away from
its context of production, based on the Greek alphabet, and grounded in
texts. Once more, we stress that we draw on these approaches, and we
even describe how we do so with students, but when we do so we try to
build on them by talking to students and lecturers about what precisely
is key in their own subject areas.
Corpus Linguistics
One branch or sub-field of linguistics that is very closely grounded in the
parameters stipulated by Saussure, and perhaps more so than all the sub-
fields we argue, is that of corpus linguistics. Corpus linguistics is the prac-
tice of gathering a body of text and then analysing it for ‘frequency’ of
words. We put the word frequency in single inverted commas as we ques-
tion whether corpus linguistics is counting the same thing (see Chap. 5).
In other words, if one subject area approaches ‘critical analysis’ in a man-
ner that differs from another subject area (cf. Prior, 1998, also Chap. 4),
then when corpus linguistics finds ‘critical analysis’ to be the most impor-
tant word from a range of subject areas (cf. Coxhead, 2000) then philo-
sophically, it is counting different things. Unless, that is, it is assumed the
written text can be removed for analysis and is homogeneous.
Indeed, corpus linguistics is both very closely wedded to the parame-
ters Saussure stipulated, and also very much used to inform the develop-
ment of materials to support students. Despite claiming to see language
‘in context’, McEnery and Hardie’s (2012, p. 35) reference to “key word
in context (KWIC) concordancing” showing the “context in use” (ibid.),
corpus linguistics analyses language by taking it away or extracting it
from its context of production, it does so based on language created in
the alphabet, and it assumes the language, if it can be analysed, is con-
crete and homogeneous, as if it were not, then analysis would not be
possible. In its approach to language, the larger the corpus, the more it is
relied upon, so, for instance, when compiling the PHRASE list aimed to
identify key vocabulary of value for students to use in their writing,
Martinez and Schmitt (2015, p. 452) accessed the full 100 million words
of the British National Corpus “for a number of reasons, including its
size, diversity, and reputation”. Similarly, for the Academic Word List
(Coxhead, 2000) Averill Coxhead drew on a 3.5 million word corpus
from a range of subjects to compile the most ‘frequent’ words. Also, in
their supplementary textbook Academic Vocabulary in Use, McCarthy and
O’Dell (2008) went through the process of highlighting key words, as
described by Coxhead (2010, p. 463) as follows: “by identifying aca-
demic vocabulary in the Cambridge International Corpus of written and
spoken English and the CANCODE corpus, as well as checking the

Cambridge Learner Corpus for common learner errors”.
We note that Martinez and Schmitt (2015) actually use the word
‘diversity’, suggesting that this range of areas from which the words are
taken is a benefit. This can only be done if the parameter Saussure stipu-
lated as the language being concrete and homogenous is adhered to. This
is similarly the case for Coxhead’s Academic Word List. For the words to
be counted as being the same even if they come from different subject
areas has to be based on the idea that the language is concrete and homo-
geneous. Similarly, McEnery and Hardie’s approach of seeing the lan-
guage in context by taking it away has to be based on Saussure’s stipulated
parameter that the language is independent of the user and can be taken
away for the purposes of analysis. Thus, in this branch of linguistics that
is key in informing significant amounts of materials to help students,
Saussure’s parameters are strong guidelines that are closely followed and
adhered to.
Academic Literacies
Another branch of student support, that we argue is again very heavily
grounded in these parameters, is that of Academic Literacies. Academic
Literacies as an approach informs much student support, with the aim of
helping students unfamiliar with the literacy required of Higher Education
become familiar with it. Notably, Academic Literacies also claims to be able
to see language in its production of context, to go beyond the text and to
see the importance of other factors (see Lea & Street, 1998; Ivanič, 2004;
Lillis & Scott, 2007; Wingate, 2015). And yet, Academic Literacies also
operates, and explicitly states that it operates (Richards & Pilcher, 2018), in
a textually mediated world because this is the type of world we live in
(Barton, 2001). Notably, it is guided precisely by these text informed
parameters, as, even when Academic Literacies claims to go beyond the text
in areas such as Design, it does so to help inform written text production
(Richards & Pilcher, 2018), even if this may not be what students need.
With regard to any new developments, we find that when they are
introduced into the world of EAP or student support, invariably they
rapidly and wholeheartedly assume the mantel of following the parame-

ters stipulated by Saussure. For example, the recently growing approach
of Legitimation Code Theory (LCT) is an approach to understanding
how subjects legitimize the language and concepts that they use. In this
way it has huge potential for helping students and resonates greatly with
what we argue for below (Chap. 7). However, when subsumed into EAP,
it becomes anchored in a written text grounded approach guided by the
parameters Saussure established. For example, given its focus on the spe-
cific semantic waves of understanding in different subject areas LCT
shows how the appropriation of the term gold is understood differ greatly
(Maton, 2014) according to whether the subject is Chemistry for instance.
However, in a linguistics type view, and taking LCT on board, the
approach is often to use LCT to legitimize text based approaches of
Systemic Functional Linguistics to EAP students (Monbec, 2020) rather
than to illustrate to students the semantic complexities of the subjects
they will be going on to study. In this way, its take up appears extremely
similar to the reception William Empson’s Structure of Complex Words
received. In other words, when taken up by written text informed EAP
approaches, it is adopted to help underline the value of texts and of tex-
tual analysis and techniques such as SFL. In addition, although we feel it
does so extremely well and agree entirely with its findings and arguments,
LCT teaches about the subject rather than teaches in the subject, which
is what we advocate here.
he Benefits of Using Non-text Language

T
Based Approaches Alongside Written
Text Ones
As highlighted above, we readily draw on our own linguistic experience
and knowledge from having followed the traditional EFL to EAP to stu-
dent support route. What this means is that when we are helping stu-
dents to produce assignments we will talk about how they should look at
the function of what they are producing. We highlight here, however,
that the terminology we are using is ‘produce assignments’ not ‘write

essays’ or ‘write reports’.
The reason for this is twofold: firstly, in many cases students are not
expected to write essays or write reports, instead they may have to pro-
duce a portfolio of written work, they may have to interact with a patient,
or they may be undertaking complex mathematical calculations and sur-
rounding these with focused written text to target a particular goal, such
as working out the safety factors around a supporting wall. Or, they may
be writing an essay in relation to Corporate Social Responsibility in the
Global Hospitality Industry. In short, they may be doing work which
requires the production of text, or they may be doing work which does
not require the production of text.
If the work does not require the production of text, we work with
them on what they need to produce instead, but we would not try to
teach them how to write a text. If the work requires the production of a
text, we would help them try to identify key constituent parts to that text,
but we would not do this out of the context of the subject. So, for exam-
ple, we do not teach them an argumentative essay outside the context of
their subject on, say, animal rights or whether smoking should be banned.
Instead, we would work with them on the essays they needed to write for
their subjects, or, failing that, we would work with them on a subject-
related piece of work suggested perhaps by their lecturer.
The reason why we would do this we go into greater detail later as we
outline some of our own work and what we have found. Here, we simply
state that all the study we have done with lecturers in subject areas has
demonstrated to us the key role that the subject context plays for stu-
dents, and this could be to emphasize elements underneath the language.
These elements were ones that we only realized existed after we had expe-
rienced what Kuhn (2012) refers to as a ‘paradigm shift’ where we real-
ized that despite all our schooling and training and teacher development,
there was far more to student support and help than the written text
alone. We describe this paradigm shift in Chap. 5, for now, and in
Chap. 4, we outline what we will argue is the paradigm of linguistics,
identifying its key characteristics and attempting to demonstrate, through
drawing on a range of our own journal and chapter rejections, how this
paradigm sees the world of helping students with their academic work.
Only by identifying this paradigm is it possible to see alternatives to it

that can complement it, and to realize that support may need to be
approached by supplementing it.
References
Alexander, O., Argent, S., & Spencer, J. (2008). EAP essentials: A teacher’s guide
to principles and practice. Garnet Education.
Appraisal Theory. (2020). Appraisal theory homepage. Retrieved August 2020,
from https://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/
Argent, S., & Alexander, O. (2013). Access EAP: Frameworks—Course book with
audio DVD. Garnet Education.
Bailey, S. (2017). Academic writing: A handbook for international students.
Routledge.
Barton, D. (2001). Directions for literacy research: Analysing language and
social practices in a textually mediated world. Language and Education,
15(2–3), 92–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780108666803
Bawarshi, A. S., & Reiff, M. J. (2010). Genre: An introduction to history, Theory,
research, and pedagogy. Parlor Press and the WAC Clearinghouse.
Benesch, S. (2001). Critical English for academic purposes. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly,
34(2), 213–238.
Coxhead, A. (2010). What can corpora tell us about English for academic pur-
poses? In A. O’Keeffe & M. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of
corpus linguistics (pp. 458–470). Routledge.
Daylight, R. (2011). What if Derrida was wrong about Saussure? Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Derrida, J. (1976). Of grammatology (G. C. Spivak, Trans.). Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Derrida, J. (1982). Positions. University of Chicago Press.
Empson, W. (1952 [1977]). The structure of complex words (3rd ed.).
Chatto & Windus.
Hafner, C. A., & Candlin, C. N. (2007). Corpus tools as an affordance to learn-
ing in professional legal education. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,
6(4), 303–318.
Hall, J. K., Vitanova, G., & Marchenkova, L. A. (Eds.). (2004). Dialogue with
Bakhtin on second and foreign language learning: New perspectives. Routledge.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. (2013). Halliday’s introduction to

functional grammar. Routledge.
Harris, R. (2013). Introduction. In F. De Saussure (Ed.), Course in general lin-
guistics (pp. xiv–xxii). Bloomsbury.
Ivanič, R. (2004). Discourses or writing and learning to write. Language and
Education, 18(3), 220–245.
Jordan, R. R. (2003). Academic writing course: Study skills. Pearson Education.
Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
Lea, M., & Street, B. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic
literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157–172.
Lillis, T. M., & Scott, M. (2007). Defining academic literacies research: Issues
of epistemology, ideology and strategy. Journal of Applied Linguistics,
4(1), 5–32.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Interacting with text: The role of dialogue in
learning to read and write. Foreign Languages in China, 4(5), 66–80.
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2007). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in
English. Springer.
Martinez, R., & Schmitt, N. (2015). Vocabulary. In D. Biber & R. Reppen
(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of English corpus linguistics (pp. 439–459).
Cambridge University Press.
Maton, K. (2014). A TALL order? Legitimation Code Theory for academic
language and learning. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 8(3),
A34–A48.
McCarthy, M., & O’Dell, F. (2008). Academic vocabulary in use: 50 units of
academic vocabulary reference and practice; Self-study and classroom use. Ernst
Klett Sprachen.
McEnery, T., & Hardie, A. (2012). Corpus linguistics: Method, theory and prac-
tice. Cambridge University Press.
Monash. (2020). The academic language feedback guide. Retrieved April 9, 2021,
from https://alf-tool.monash.edu/
Monbec, L. (2020). Systemic functional linguistics for the EGAP module:
Revisiting the common core. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,
43, 100794.
Morgan, B. (2009). Fostering transformative practitioners for critical EAP:
Possibilities and challenges. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8, 86–99.
Pilcher, N., & Richards, K. (2017). What is the ‘academic purpose’ of ‘English’
in ‘English for academic purposes’? In L. T. Wong & W. L. H. Wong (Eds.),
Teaching and learning English for academic purposes: Current research and prac-
tices (pp. 3–20). Nova Science Publishers.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Világok harca
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States
and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this
ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the
United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.
Title: Világok harca

Mars-lakók a földön
Author: H. G. Wells
Translator: Lajos Mikes
Release date: January 2, 2024 [eBook #72588]
Language: Hungarian
Original publication: Budapest: Franklin, 1925
Credits: Albert László
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK VILÁGOK

HARCA ***
H. G. WELLS MŰVEI
H. G. WELLS MŰVEI
FRANKLIN-TÁRSULAT KIADÁSA, BUDAPEST
H. G. WELLS
VILÁGOK HARCA
MARS-LAKÓK A FÖLDÖN
FORDÍTOTTA MIKES LAJOS

MÁSODIK KIADÁS
FRANKLIN-TÁRSULAT KIADÁSA, BUDAPEST

«De hát ki lakik e világokban, ha laknak
bennök?… Mi vagyunk-e urai a világnak,
avagy ők?… S mi módon teremtetett minden
az ember számára?»
Kepler.
FRANKLIN-TÁRSULAT NYOMDÁJA.
I. RÉSZ.
A MARS-LAKÓK MEGÉRKEZÉSE.
I.
A harc küszöbén.
A XIX. század utolsó éveiben nem hitte volna senki sem, hogy a
földi életet oly értelmes lények kísérték beható, éles figyelemmel,
akik bár halandók, mint az ember, ennél hatalmasabbak; hogy az
embereket, mialatt saját ügyeikkel voltak elfoglalva, körülbelül oly
gondosan vizsgálták és tanulmányozták, mint a vízcseppben
nyüzsgő, szaporodó, mulékony teremtményeket szokás
mikroszkópiumon keresztül vizsgálni.
Az emberek, apró-cseprő ügyeiket végezve, határtalan
elégedettséggel jártak-keltek a föld hátán s boldogokká tette őket az
a tudat, hogy föltétlenül uralkodnak az anyagon. Lehet, hogy az
ázalagok is így érzik magukat a mikroszkópium alatt. Nem volt
ember, aki úgy gondolt volna e térben lebegő régebbi világokra, mint
az emberi nemet fenyegető veszedelem forrásaira s aki gondolt
reájuk, azon a gondolaton, hogy élet van rajtuk, csak keresztülsiklott,
mint olyasmin, ami lehetetlen vagy valószínűtlen.
Érdekes dolog ennek a kornak szellemi világából egyet-mást
föleleveníteni. A földi emberek legfölebb azt képzelték, hogy a
Marson lehetnek emberek, akik azonban alsóbbrangú lények, mint
ők s bizonyára örömmel üdvözölnének holmi hittérítő vállalkozást.
Pedig a tér örvényein keresztül oly lények irígy szeme tekintett
földünk felé, akiknek szelleme úgy aránylik a mi szellemünkhöz, mint
a mienk a veszendő barmokéhoz s akiknek hatalmas, hideg, önző
értelme lassan, de biztosan kovácsolta a terveket ellenünk. A XX.
században nemsokára bekövetkezett a nagy kiábrándulás.
Aligha szükséges az olvasót arra emlékeztetnem, hogy a Mars
bolygó 140.000,000 mérföldnyi1) középtávolsággal forog a nap körül
és hogy csupán félannyi fényt és meleget kap a naptól, mint a föld. A
Mars, ha a ködelméletben van valami igaz, szükségszerűleg
öregebb a mi világunknál s földünk folyékony állapota még javában
tartott, mikor a Mars felszínén már jórégen meg kellett kezdődnie az
élet körforgásának. Az a tény, hogy a Mars alig egy hetedrésze a
föld térfogatának, mindenesetre gyorsította lehűlését arra a
hőmérsékletre, amelyben az élet megkezdődhetett. Van vize és
levegője s van rajta minden, ami az állati lét fentartásához
szükséges.
De az ember oly hiú és hiúságában annyira vak, hogy a XIX.
század legvégeig nem akadt író, aki kifejezte volna azt a gondolatot,
hogy ott a Marson a földi élet színvonalán esetleg messze
túlemelkedő értelmes élet fejlődhetett. Általán véve nem látták be azt
sem, hogy a Mars, minthogy földünknél öregebb, alig egy
negyedrésznyi felületű, mint a föld s a naptól is messzebb van:
szükségszerűleg nemcsak az élet kezdetétől van távolabb, hanem
az élet végéhez is közelebb jár.
A százados kihűlés, amely valamikor bolygónkat is meg fogja
dermeszteni, szomszédunkon már valóban nagy arányokat öltött.
Fizikai alkata reánk nézve ugyan nagyjában még mindig titok; de azt
már tudjuk, hogy hőmérséklete déltájban még egyenlítői vidékén is
csak a mi leghidegebb telünk hőmérsékletét közelíti meg. Levegője
sokkal ritkább, mint a mienk; tengerei annyira kiapadtak, hogy
felszínének csak egy harmadát borítják el s amint évszakai lassan
váltakoznak, sarkvidékein rengeteg hótömegek gyűlnek össze s
olvadnak meg, amelyek időközönként elárasztják mérsékelt égöveit.
A kimerülésnek az a foka, amely tőlünk még hihetetlen
messzeségben van, a Mars-lakókra nézve aktuális problémává lett.
Az örökösen szorongató kényszerűség elméjüket megvilágosította,
hatalmukat megnövelte és szívüket keményre edzette. S amint a
téren keresztül néznek, eszközeikkel s értelmi képességükkel,
aminőkről mi nem is álmodtunk, ott látják közvetlen közelükben,
csupán 40.000,000 mérföldnyire, a nap felé, a remény
hajnalcsillagát, a mi melegebb bolygónkat, zöldelő növényzettel,
szürkélő víztömegekkel, amelynek felhős levegőege temékenységről
szól ékesen s amelynek kergetődző felhőfoszlányain benépesített
tájak széles csíkjai s hajójárta tengerek csillámlanak keresztül.
És mi, emberi teremtmények, akik ezt a földet lakjuk, rájuk nézve
legalább is oly idegenek s annyira alsóbbrendű lények vagyunk, mint
reánk nézve a majmok és a lemurok. Az emberi értelem
belenyugszik már abba, hogy az élet szakadatlan küzdelem a létért;
de miért legyen más a Marsbeli elmék hitvallása? Az ő világuk már
nagyon is kihűlőfélben van; ezen a világon pedig még élet nyüzsög,
csakhogy az ő szemükben ez a nyüzsgő élet alsóbbrendű állati lét.
Hadjáratot indítani a nap felé, valóban ez az egyetlen módja a
menekülésnek az elől a pusztulás elől, amely nemzedékről-
nemzedékre egyre közelebbről fenyegeti őket.
De hogy nagyon is kemény ítéletet ne mondjunk róluk, jusson
eszünkbe, mily szörnyű kegyetlenséggel pusztította saját nemünk
nemcsak az állatokat, mint a most már ki is pusztult bölényt és a
dodó-madarat, hanem még saját alsóbbrendű fajtáit is. Tasmánia
lakóit, minden emberi hasonlatosságuk mellett, teljesen elsöpörte a
föld színéről az az irtóháború, melyet az európai bevándorlók ötven
évig folytattak ellenük. Nem vagyunk mi sem az irgalmasság
apostolai és nincs jogunk panaszkodni a Marsbeliekre, ha éppen úgy
háborúskodnak, mint mi.
A Marsbeliek, akiknek matematikai tudása nyilvánvalóan sokkal
tökéletesebb a mienknél, úgy látszik, csodálatos finomsággal
kiszámították támadó útjukat és csaknem tökéletes egyöntetűséggel
végezték előkészületeiket. Ha eszközeink tökéletesebbek, a reánk
gyűlő bajt láthattuk volna már jóval a XIX. század vége előtt. A vörös
bolygót – mellesleg mondva, különös dolog, hogy a Mars számtalan
századon keresztül a háború csillaga volt – oly emberek figyelték
meg, mint Schiaparelli; de azokat a változó tüneményeket, melyekről
kitünő térképeket készítettek, nem tudták megmagyarázni. Bizonyos,
hogy a Marsbeliek az egész idő alatt készülődtek.
Az 1894. évi oppozició tartama alatt először a licki
obszervatóriumban, majd Nizzában Perrotin és később más
megfigyelők a korong megvilágított részén nagy fényt vettek észre.
Az angol olvasóközönséget erről először a Nature augusztus
második száma értesítette. Én azt hiszem, ennek a tüneménynek az
a magyarázata, hogy hatalmas üreget vájva bolygójukba, akkor
öntötték azt az óriási ágyút, amelyből felénk lövöldöztek. A
következő két oppozició alkalmával sajátságos és mindeddig szintén
megfejtetlen jelek voltak láthatók az említett kitörés közelében.
A fergeteg most hat éve szakadt reánk. Mikor a Mars az
oppozició felé közeledett, Lavelle Jáva szigetéről azzal a csodálatos
hírrel remegtette meg a csillagászati érintkezést közvetítő
távírósodronyokat, hogy a bolygón rettenetes, izzófényű gázkitörést
észlelt. Tizenkettedikén történt éjfél tájban s a nyomban megejtett
szinképbontás főleg hidrogént tartalmazó égő gáztömeget mutatott,
amely rengeteg gyorsasággal földünk felé mozog. Ez a tűzfolyam
negyedegy körül éjfél után láthatatlanná vált. Az egész, a Marsról
hirtelen erőszakossággal kilökött hatalmas láng lobbanásához
hasonlított, «mintha valami ágyúból égő gáz lökődött volna ki».
Ez a mondás fölöttébb találónak bizonyult. De az újságok, kivéve
a Daily Telegraph egy rövid közleményét, a rákövetkező napokon
semmit sem írtak e tüneményről, úgyhogy a világ nyugodtan forgott
tovább, tudomást sem véve arról a veszedelemről, melynél nagyobb
sohasem fenyegette az emberi nemet. Én sem hallottam volna
egyáltalában semmit az egész kitörésről, ha nem találkozom
Ottershawban Ogilvyval, a híres csillagásszal. Az újság
mérhetetlenül felizgatta és heves izgatottságában felszólított, vegyek
részt vele éjjel a vörös bolygó megfigyelésében.
Bár azóta sok minden történt, világosan emlékszem erre a
virrasztásra: a fekete, néma obszervatóriumra, az elsötétített
lámpásra, amely a sarokból gyönge fényt árasztott a padlóra, a
teleszkóp óraművének állhatatos ketyegésére, a tető kis hasadékára
– s túl rajta arra a hosszúkás mélységre, amely mintha csillagporral
lett volna behintve. Ogilvy ide-oda járt. Hallottam, de nem láttam őt.
A teleszkópba nézve, mély kékségű kört láttam, melyben ott úszott a
kis, kerek bolygó. Oly parányinak látszott, oly ragyogónak,
gyöngédnek és nyugodtnak. Halovány sávok keresztezték és kissé
laposabb volt a teljes körnél. De oly parányi volt, oly ezüstös, szelíd
világú: egy fényes, kis gombostűfej! Mintha egy kissé rezgett volna;
de ez tulajdonképpen a teleszkóp volt, amelyet meg-megrezdített az
óramű működése, amint a bolygót szembefogta.
Figyelés közben úgy tetszett, mintha a kis csillag hol megnőne,
hol elfogyna, hol közelednék, hol meg távolodnék; de ezt csak fáradt
szemem látta így. Negyven millió mérföldnyire volt tőlünk, – több,
mint 40.000,000 mérföldnyi űr volt köztünk! Csak kevesen tudják az
űrnek azt a mérhetetlenségét elképzelni, amelyben az anyagvilág
porszemei rajzanak.
Úgy emlékszem, hogy a bolygó közelében három kis fénypont
volt, három végtelen távolságban lengő teleszkóp-csillag s a bolygó
körül nem volt egyéb az űr feneketlen sötétségénél. Tudjátok milyen
ez a sötétség egy-egy fagyos csillagos éjtszakán? Teleszkópban
sokkal mélységesebb. És szemben velem, parányiságában a
messzeség miatt láthatatlanul, gyorsan és szünet nélkül törve felém
e hihetetlen távolságon keresztül, minden percben ezer meg ezer
mérfölddel közeledve, rohant az a valami, amit onnan küldtek, az a
valami, aminek annyi küzdelmet, annyi csapást, annyi halált kellett
hoznia a földre. Álmodni sem tudtam volna róla, amint ott
virrasztottam; és senki a földön nem is álmodott arról a lövegről,
amely célját el nem téveszthette.
Ez éjjel újabb gázfolyam tört ki a távoli bolygóról. Láttam. Hirtelen
vöröses lobbanás volt, körvonalaiban hosszúkás lövedékhez
hasonló, midőn a kronométer éppen éjfélt ütött. Megmondtam
Ogilvynek és ő elfoglalta helyemet. Meleg éjszaka volt;
megszomjaztam. Mialatt a sötétben esetlenül nyújtózkodva
tapogatództam a kis asztalka után, ahol a szódavíz állt, Ogilvy a
felénk közeledő gázlobogás láttára felkiáltott.
Ez éjjel a második láthatatlan löveg indult útnak a Marsról a föld
felé. Csaknem másodpercnyi pontossággal számítva, huszonnégy
órával az első után. Emlékszem, ott ültem az asztal mellett a
sötétségben; szemeim előtt zöld és piros foltok úszkáltak. Tüzet
szerettem volna, hogy rágyujthassak, nem is sejtve, mit jelent az a
percnyi fény, amit láttam és mi mindent hoz számomra nemsokára.
Ogilvy egy óráig figyelt. Ekkor abbahagyta a figyelést. Felcsavartuk a
lámpást s átmentünk házába. A sötétségben Ottershaw és Chertsey
száz meg száz lakója nyugodtan szendergett.
Ogilvy egész éjszaka a Mars állapotáról elmélkedett; gúnyolta azt
a köznapi gondolatot, hogy a Marsban élőlények laknak s ezek
küldenek hozzánk jeleket. Az ő véleménye az volt, hogy szakadó
meteor-eső hullott a bolygóra, vagy hogy valami szörnyű vulkános
kitörés volt folyamatban. Kimutatta, mennyire valószínűtlen föltevés
az, hogy a szerves fejlődés a két szomszédos bolygón ugyanabban
az irányban haladt.
Így szólt:
– Millió eshetőség szól a mellett, hogy a Marson semmi
emberféle lény nincsen.
Száz meg száz megfigyelő látta a lángot az éjszaka s a
következő éjjel, éjfél körül és a következő éjjel újra s így tíz éjszakán
keresztül, egy lángot minden éjjel. Miért szüntek meg a lövések a
tizedik éj után, azt a földön senki sem próbálta megfejteni.
Valószínű, hogy a tüzelés gázai a Marsbelieknek kellemetlenségeket
okoztak. A földről nézve, hatalmas teleszkópon keresztül, kis,
szürke, libegő foltoknak látszó, sűrű füst- vagy porfellegek zavarták a
bolygó légkörének tisztaságát, ismerős vonásait elhomályosítva.
A Marson észlelhető zavarok végre még a napilapok
érdeklődését is fölkeltettek s mindenféle népszerű közlemények
jelentek meg a Marson levő tűzhányó hegyekről. Emlékszem, hogy a
Punch, ez a félig komoly, félig víg folyóirat, ügyesen felhasználta a
dolgot a politikai rovatban is. A lövegek pedig, amelyeket a
Marsbeliek kilobbantottak, másodpercenként sok mérföldnyi
suhanással hasítva át az üres tér örvényeit, senkitől sem sejtve,
rohantak óráról-órára közelebb és közelebb a föld felé. Most szinte
hihetetlenül csodás dolognak tűnik fel előttem, hogy az emberek,
fejük fölött e közelgő gyors végzettel, mikép tudtak olyan nyugodtan
szaladgálni apró érdekeik után. Emlékszem, mennyire ujjongott
Markham, mikor képes lapja számára, amelyet akkoriban adott ki,
meg tudta szerezni a Mars legújabb fényképét. Ma már alig tudják
elképzelni az emberek, mily mennyiségben fogytak akkortájt
újságaink. Ami engem illet, én kerékpározni tanultam s nagyon
belemélyedtem egy vaskos munkámba, amely a civilizáció
haladásának keretében az erkölcsi felfogás valószínű fejlődését
fejtegette.
Egy éjszaka (az első löveg akkor már nem igen lehetett tőlünk
10.000,000 mérföldnél távolabb) sétálni mentem feleségemmel.
Csillagos éjjel volt. A Zodiacus képeit magyarázgattam s kikerestem
neki a Marsot, egy ragyogó, a zenit felé törekvő fénypontot, amely
felé oly sok teleszkóp szegeződött. Meleg éjszaka volt. Hazatérőben
kiránduló társasággal találkoztunk, amely zeneszó mellett, énekelve
haladt el mellettünk Chertseyből vagy Isleworthból. A házak felső
ablakaiból kiszűrődő fény mutatta, hogy az emberek aludni
készülődnek. A távoli vasúti állomás tologató kocsijainak zaját, a
csattogást és dörömbölést a távolság csaknem melódiává lágyította.
Feleségem figyelmeztetett a vörös, zöld és sárga jelzőlámpák
ragyogására, amelyek magasba nyúló kereten függtek. Csupa
biztosság, csupa nyugalom volt mindenütt.
II.
A hulló csillag.
Végre bekövetkezett az éjszaka, mikor az első csillag lehullott.
Reggel felé vált láthatóvá, amint Winchester fölött kelet felé suhant,
lángvonalat írva le magasan a levegő-égben. Száz meg száz ember
látta és bizonyára mindenki közönséges hullócsillagnak tartotta.
Albin leírása szerint néhány másodpercig izzó zöldes sávot hagyott
maga után. Denning, aki a meteor-kérdésben legnagyobb
tekintélyünk, azt állította, hogy kilencven vagy száz mérföldnyi
magasságban tűnt fel először s mintegy száz mérföldnyi távolságban
hullott le tőle kelet felé a földre.
Én ebben az órában otthon voltam, munkámon dolgozva; de bár
ablakaim Ottershaw felé nyíltak s redői fel voltak húzva (mert
akkoriban szerettem az éjszakai mennyboltozatra fel-feltekinteni), a
hulló csillagból nem láttam semmit. Ám bizonyos, hogy az a valami,
aminél különösebb dolog sohasem jutott a külső térből a földre,
akkor hullott le, mikor ott ültem s láthattam volna én is, ha éppen
akkor találok föltekinteni, mikor alázuhant. Azok közül, akik látták
repülni, néhányan azt mondják, hogy útjában sziszegő hangot
hallatott. Én azonban ebből sem hallottam semmit. Berkshireban,
Surreyben és Middlesexben sok ember látta lehullani; de legfölebb
annyit gondolhattak, hogy valami meteor volt. Úgy látszik, senki sem
nyugtalankodott annyira, hogy még az éj folyamán elindult volna
fölkeresni a lehullott tömeget.
De szegény Ogilvy, aki látta a lehulló csillagot, s meg volt
győződve arról, hogy egy meteorkő fekszik valahol a Horsell,
Ottershaw és Woking között elnyuló réten, jókor reggel azzal a
szándékkal kelt föl, hogy a meteorkövet megtalálja. Megtalálni meg
is találta, mindjárt virradat után, a homokbányák közelében. A
lövedék ereje óriási üreget fúrt a földbe és a kavicsos homokot
szétröpítette mindenfelé, úgy hogy a mezőséget mintegy másfél
mérföldnyi kerületben apró homokbuckák borították. A hangafű kelet
felé tüzet fogott és keskeny, kékes füstszalag szállt fölfelé a
virradatban.
A lehullott tárgy maga csaknem teljesen homokba temetve feküdt
egy fenyőfa szétszóródott szilánkjai között, amelyet zuhanása
közben darabokra hasított. Födetlen része óriási, tömör hengerhez
hasonlított. Felületét vastag, pikkelyszerű, sötétes kéreg borította,
átmérője harminc yard lehetett. Ogilvy közeledett a tömeghez,
melynek nagysága s még inkább alakja nagyon meglepte, mert a
legtöbb meteorkő többé-kevésbbé teljesen gömbölyű szokott lenni. A
tömeg azonban légi utjától még oly forró volt, hogy Ogilvy nem igen
közeledhetett hozzá. A hengerből zizegő hang hallatszott; de Ogilvy,
aki ekkor még nem is gondolt arra, hogy a tömeg talán üres, azt
hitte, hogy ez a hang a felület egyenlőtlen lehűléséből ered.
Megállt az üreg szélén, amelyet a lehullott tömeg fúrt magának s
elcsodálkozott ezen a különös jelenségen. Főleg a szokatlan szín és
alak volt az, ami meglepte; de ekkor még csak homályosan sejtette,
hogy ez a valami nem véletlenül érkezett földünkre. A kora reggel
csodálatosan csendes volt s a nap, amint fénye éppen a Weybridge
felé emelkedő fenyőkre esett, már melegen kezdett sütni. Ogilvy úgy
emlékezett, hogy egész reggel nem hallott madárcsicsergést. Szellő
sem rezdült. A salakkal borított hengerből eredő gyönge morgás volt
az egyetlen hang, amelyet hallott. Teljesen egyedül volt a
mezőségen.
Egyszerre csak megütődve látta, hogy a meteort fedő hamukéreg
szürkés salakjának egy része a henger végének köralakú széléről
lepottyant. Apró darabokban potyogott le a homokra. Hirtelen egy
széles darab vált le s oly éles zajjal ütődött a földhöz, hogy
Ogilvynak elállt a lélekzete.
Az első pillanatban alig tudta elképzelni, mit jelenthet ez s bár a
forróság iszonyú nagy volt, lemászott az üregbe, szorosan a sötét
test mellé, hogy jobban szemügyre vegye. Még akkor is azt
gondolta, hogy a test kihűlése okozta, amit látott; csak az zavarta ezt
a gondolatot, hogy a hamu csupán a henger végéről potyogott le.
De ekkor észrevette, hogy a henger köralakú teteje, bár nagyon
lassan, körben forog. Oly lassan mozgott, hogy észre sem vette
volna, ha meg nem jegyez magának egy fekete pontot, amely öt
perccel előbb szemben volt vele és most a terület tulsó felére került.
Még most sem igen tudta a dolgot megérteni; de egyszerre tompa,
csikorgó hangot hallott s látta, hogy a fekete pont körülbelül egy
hüvelykkel ugrik előre. Most hirtelen világosság gyulladt ki agyában.
A henger csinálmány volt, belül üres és a vége lecsavarható! Valami
csavarta a henger belsejében a födelet!
– Nagy Isten! – szólt Ogilvy. – Egy vagy több ember van benne!
Félholtra sülve! Menekülni próbálnak!
S egyszerre, villámgyors gondolatugrással, kapcsolatba hozta a
hengert a Marson észlelt lobbanásokkal.
Az a gondolat, hogy élőlény van a hengerbe bebörtönözve, oly
rettenetesen hatott reá, hogy a forróságról megfeledkezve, a henger
felé rohant, segíteni a forgatásban. De szerencsére, a fénytelen
hősugárzás megállította útjában, mielőtt kezét a még mindig izzó
fémen megégethette volna. Egy pillanatig határozatlanul állt, majd
megfordult, kimászott az üregből s vad futásnak eredt Woking felé.
Körülbelül hat óra lehetett. Egy fuvarossal találkozott, akivel meg
akarta magát értetni; de előadott meséje s külső megjelenése –
kalapja az üregbe esett volt – oly vad benyomást tett a fuvarosra,
hogy ez egyszerűen tovább hajtott. Nem jutott eredményre a
pincérrel sem, aki éppen a vendéglő ajtait nyitogatta, a horselli híd
mellett. A fickó azt gondolta, hogy valami szabadon járó őrülttel van
dolga s rá akarta csukni a söntést. Ez kijózanította őt egy kissé és
mikor meglátta kertjében Hendersont, a londoni újságírót, átkiáltott a
palánkon s vigyázott, hogy jól megértesse vele magát.
– Henderson, – kezdte, – úgy-e látta mult éjjel azt a hulló
csillagot?
– Nos? – felelt Henderson.
– Most ott fekszik künn a horselli réten.
– Uram Istenem! – szólt Henderson. – Lehullt egy meteor! Nem
baj!
– Csakhogy ez nem közönséges meteor ám! Ez egy henger,
mesterségesen előállított henger, jól értsen meg! És valami van
benne.
Henderson, ásóját kezében tartva, fölegyenesedett.
– Micsoda? – kérdezte újra, mivel félfülére süket volt.
Ogilvy mindent elmondott neki, amit látott. Henderson egy
pillanatig elgondolkozott. Majd eldobta ásóját, magára kapta kabátját
és kijött az országútra. A két férfi visszasietett együtt a rétre, ahol a
henger még ugyanabban a helyzetben feküdt. De belsejében a zaj
már megszűnt, s a henger teste és födele között keskeny, fénylő
fémkör látszott. A résen keresztül gyönge sziszegéssel levegő
áramlott be vagy ki.
Hallgatództak, kopogtattak egy bottal a pikkelyes kéregen s mivel
nem kaptak feleletet, abban állapodtak meg, hogy a belül lévő egy
vagy több ember eszméletlen vagy halott.
Természetesen egyikük sem tudott semmit sem csinálni.
Vigasztaló, biztató szavakat kiabáltak s visszasiettek a városba
újabb segítségért. Furcsák lehettek, amint homokosan, izgatottan,
rendetlenül rohantak a ragyogó napfényben, végig a kis uccán, ahol
éppen az üzleteket s a hálószobák ablakait nyitogatták. Henderson
azonnal a vasúti állomásra sietett, hogy megtáviratozza a nagy
eseményt Londonba. Az újságok közleményei előkészítették már az
emberek lelkét a gondolat befogadására.
Nyolc órakor már egy csapat gyerek és munkanélküli indult a
rétre, megnézni a «Marsról érkezett halottak»-at. Az esemény híre
ebben az alakban terjedt tovább. Én először az újságkihordó fiútól
értesültem róla, mikor háromnegyed kilenc tájban kimentem, hogy
átvegyem Daily Chronicle-omat.
Természetes, hogy megijedtem s egy percet sem vesztve,
siettem ki, keresztül az ottershawi hidon, a homokbányákhoz.
III.
A horselli réten.
Az óriási üreg körül, amelyben a henger feküdt, mintegy húsz

emberből álló csoportot találtam. A mélységbe ágyazott hatalmas
tömeget már leírtam. Mintha valami hirtelen robbanás perzselte
volna fel körülötte a gyepes, kavicsos homokot. Kétségkívül a
zuhanás ereje okozta a fellobbanó tüzet. Henderson és Ogilvy nem
volt ott. Azt hiszem, belátták, hogy egyelőre nincs mit tenniök s
elmentek Hendersonékhoz reggelizni.
Öt-hat gyerek ült az üreg szélén, lábaikat lógatva s míg rájuk
nem szóltam, azzal mulattak, hogy köveket dobáltak az óriási
tömegre. Alig förmedtem rájuk, fogócskát kezdtek játszani, keresztül-
kasul bujkálva a körülállók csoportozatán.
A csoport egypár kerékpárosból, egy kerti napszámosból, aki
néha nálam is dolgozott, egy csecsemőt dajkáló leányból, Greggből,
a mészárosból, aki kis fiát is elhozta és két-három renyhe
naplopóból verődött össze, akik rendesen a vasúti állomás körül
szoktak álldogálni. Nem igen beszélgettek. A köznép legnagyobb
részének Angliában akkortájt csak fölötte határozatlan csillagászati
fogalmai voltak. A legtöbben nyugodtan bámultak a henger vastag,
tábla-alakú végére, amely, mióta Ogilvy és Henderson eltávozott,
nem változott. Azt hiszem, hogy ez az élettelen tömeg nagy
csalódás volt azokra nézve, akik azt remélték, hogy egy csomó
szénné égett holttestet fognak látni. Egyik-másik távozott, míg ott
álltam; helyettük mások érkeztek. Lemásztam az üregbe s úgy
képzeltem, hogy lábaim alatt gyönge mozgás hallatszik. Bizonyos,
hogy a henger födele megszünt forogni.
Csak ott, a henger közvetlen közelében, láttam világosan,
mennyire különös egy tárgy volt minden tekintetben. Az első
szempillantásra tényleg nem igen volt érdekesebb egy felfordult
kocsinál, vagy az országúton keresztben fekvő fánál, amelyet a vihar
döntött ki. Talán még ily érdekes sem volt. Leginkább félig a földbe
ásott, rozsdás vastag gázcsőhöz hasonlított. Jóadag tudományos
készültségre volt szükség, hogy az ember észrevegye azt, hogy a
henger szürke kérge nem közönséges oxid s hogy a födél és a
henger közti résen mutatkozó sárgásfehér fém szokatlan színben
ragyog. Annak, ami a hengeren «földöntúli» volt, a legtöbb
szemlélőre nézve nem volt semmi jelentősége.
Ekkor már teljesen tisztában voltam azzal, hogy ez a valami a
Mars bolygóról érkezett; de azt nem tartottam valószínűnek, hogy
lehet benne élő teremtmény is. Azt gondoltam, hogy a fedél
automatikus módon csavarodik. Ogilvyval ellentétben mindig az volt
a véleményem, hogy a Marson vannak emberek. Agyamban a
legfantasztikusabb gondolatok kergetődztek. Nincs-e a hengerben
kézirat? Minő nehézségekkel fog járni az üzenet megértése? Hátha
érmeket vagy mintákat találunk? És így tovább. Mindazonáltal ezek
kissé nagyon is bizonytalan gondolatok voltak. Türelmetlenül vártam,
mikor fog már kinyílni. Tizenegy óra tájban, mikor láttam, hogy hiába
várakozom, efféle gondolatokba mélyedve, hazasétáltam
Mayburybe. De nagyon nehezemre esett belekezdeni elvont
vizsgálódásaim folytatásába.
Délutánra a rét egészen más látványt nyujtott. Az esti lapok kora
délutáni kiadásai óriási címbetűkkel lepték meg Londont:
«ÜZENET A MARSRÓL»,
«SZENZACIÓ WOKINGBAN»,
stb. stb. Ogilvy csillagászati távirata pedig izgalomba ejtette a
hármas királyság valamennyi obszervatóriumát.
Vagy féltucat wokingi bérkocsi, egy fonott kasú szekér
Chobhamból és egy uriasabb fogat állt a homokbányák mellett az
országúton. Oldalvást egész csomó kerékpár volt. Bár a nap forrón
sütött, Wokingból és Chertseyből gyalog is sokan kiballagtak, úgy,
hogy egész tekintélyes tömeg nyüzsgött a réten, egyebek közt volt
ott egy-két világosszínű ruhába öltözött delnő is.

Ebook Enhancing Student Support in Higher Education A Subject Focused Approach 1St Edition Nick Pilcher Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ebook Enhancing Student Support in Higher Education A Subject Focused Approach 1St Edition Nick Pilcher Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Enhancing Student Support in Higher

Designing Effective Feedback Processes in Higher

Student Plagiarism in Higher Education 5th Edition

Supporting Student Mental Health in Higher Education

Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: A

The Law of Higher Education Student Version Student

Critical Religious Pluralism in Higher Education A

Understanding Writing Transfer Implications for

Applying Student Development Theories Holistically

ISBN 978-3-030-81723-7 ISBN 978-3-030-81724-4 (eBook)

Fig. 5.1 Rhizome. (Source: David Richards) 63

3 The Roots and Branches of Linguistics 23

4 The View of Language Through the Paradigm of Linguistics 41

5 Our Projects and Data 61

6 Examples Considered from Our Past and Present

7 Implications with the Different Approaches 97

8 Focusing on the Subject111

Evaluating Impact 124

Appendix: Chapter 6 Examples and Our Suggestions145

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 1

identification). Also, there may be tasks that students need to do where

their assignments) and then outline how (previously) we would have

Here, in order to provide context for what we are suggesting in terms of

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 5

Here is what happened:

We are lecturers in our respective schools. One of us (Nick Picher) was

Does this mean we have discarded all knowledge of linguistics based

In both of these examples we draw on our knowledge of aspects of

as subject experts and do not profess to be subject experts; rather, we

probably almost speak gobbledygook and it wouldn’t matter as long as a tone

writing and on how to develop writing. It is writing that is considered the

remembers being at a bus stop with a student from a country in the

presents a number of examples of our own where we have been asked to

Gimenez, J. (2012). Disciplinary epistemologies, generic attributes and under-

Richards, K., & Pilcher, N. (2014). Contextualizing higher education assess-

The Birth of Linguistics

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 23

 he Parameters and Stipulations Underpinning

words—for the linguist, “if he takes the diachronic perspective, he no

the individual, as although the individual could make heterogeneous

 he Implications of Having the Parameters

critiqued. Jacques Derrida’s (1976, 1982) post-structuralist critiques of

This book was partly intended as a contribution to linguistic theory, and to

In other words, when Empson attempted to contribute to linguistic

 ow Student Support Is Guided by

 ystemic Functional Linguistics

and its theory underpins materials designed to support students on pre-­

understandings of the words and also highly different interpretations of

constitute a particular type of text through conforming to certain criteria

spoken English and the CANCODE corpus, as well as checking the

rapidly and wholeheartedly assume the mantel of following the parame-

 he Benefits of Using Non-text Language

that the terminology we are using is ‘produce assignments’ not ‘write

Only by identifying this paradigm is it possible to see alternatives to it

Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. (2013). Halliday’s introduction to

Title: Világok harca

Translator: Lajos Mikes

Release date: January 2, 2024 [eBook #72588]

Original publication: Budapest: Franklin, 1925

Credits: Albert László

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK VILÁGOK

FRANKLIN-TÁRSULAT KIADÁSA, BUDAPEST

FORDÍTOTTA MIKES LAJOS

Fig. 5.1 Rhizome. (Source: David Richards) 63

3 The Roots and Branches of Linguistics 23

4 The View of Language Through the Paradigm of Linguistics 41

5 Our Projects and Data 61

6 Examples Considered from Our Past and Present

7 Implications with the Different Approaches 97

8 Focusing on the Subject111

Evaluating Impact 124

Appendix: Chapter 6 Examples and Our Suggestions145

The Birth of Linguistics

he Parameters and Stipulations Underpinning

he Implications of Having the Parameters

ow Student Support Is Guided by

ystemic Functional Linguistics

and its theory underpins materials designed to support students on pre-

he Benefits of Using Non-text Language