Abstract
Although most universities and research institutes employ staff who assist their academics in the preparation of high stakes research funding proposals, one research institute invited the authors to provide them with a different type of assistance: linguistic analysis and guidance. Informed by Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory (2014) and work on the register of scientific English (Halliday & Martin 1993, Halliday 1998, 2004) we were mindful of the fact that we could not contribute much to what is being said (ideational meaning), so we focused on how it is being said (textual meaning). In particular, our analysis explored how the applicants use Theme + Rheme and Given + New to create textual patterns of emphasis that help persuade reviewers the proposed ideas are worth funding. The results of our SFL analyses of 18 applications revealed three different types of thematic patterning, which vary according to the stage of career of the main writer. Our results also shed light on how choices of textual meanings play a crucial role in addressing assessment criteria throughout a grant proposal. The insights gained may also have important implications for research into scientific discourse within the English for Academic Purposes (EAP) community.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
