“These findings are very astonishing”: Hyping of disciplinary research in 3MT presentations and thesis abstracts

IF 0.4 3区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
F. Jiang, Xuyan Qiu
{"title":"“These findings are very astonishing”: Hyping of disciplinary research in 3MT presentations and thesis abstracts","authors":"F. Jiang, Xuyan Qiu","doi":"10.1080/07268602.2023.2180320","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The changing landscape of scientific communication raises new academic contexts in which research postgraduate students are exposed to diversified forms of interaction and a less predictable audience. Against this backdrop Three Minute Thesis (3MT) presentations have emerged, although we have not yet developed sufficient knowledge about how students present their research work to diverse audiences. In this study, we compared 80 students’ hyping practice of using promotional language to embellish or exaggerate aspects of the same research in 3MT presentations and thesis abstracts to explore how they understand their disciplinary knowledge and its connection with different audiences, and how they adapt their discourse accordingly. Our findings show that students hyped more frequently in 3MT presentations, relying on adverbial affective markers and attending to the broad research area. In thesis abstracts, conversely, boosting hypes were mainly used, especially verb resources, to comment on certainty of knowledge claims and promote the research methods used in the doctoral research. We see the divergency as a likely consequence of different communicative purposes between the two genres, and the different academic status and power asymmetry between students and the audience of each genre. In addition, disciplinarity was noted. Students in the hard sciences made more use of hypes in their 3MT presentations than their peers in the soft sciences and were inclined to promote both broad and specific research areas and embellish the primacy attached to their research. This disciplinary hyping practice is perhaps related to the conceptual abstractness of scientific knowledge and its opaque connection with common wisdom and public interest. Therefore, this study reveals not only that hypes mark a speaker’s orientation to what and who is addressed, but also that students modulate academic persuasion to balance their promotion of results and claims against the discoursal expectations and knowledge bases of different audiences.","PeriodicalId":44988,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Linguistics","volume":"42 1","pages":"300 - 322"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2023.2180320","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT The changing landscape of scientific communication raises new academic contexts in which research postgraduate students are exposed to diversified forms of interaction and a less predictable audience. Against this backdrop Three Minute Thesis (3MT) presentations have emerged, although we have not yet developed sufficient knowledge about how students present their research work to diverse audiences. In this study, we compared 80 students’ hyping practice of using promotional language to embellish or exaggerate aspects of the same research in 3MT presentations and thesis abstracts to explore how they understand their disciplinary knowledge and its connection with different audiences, and how they adapt their discourse accordingly. Our findings show that students hyped more frequently in 3MT presentations, relying on adverbial affective markers and attending to the broad research area. In thesis abstracts, conversely, boosting hypes were mainly used, especially verb resources, to comment on certainty of knowledge claims and promote the research methods used in the doctoral research. We see the divergency as a likely consequence of different communicative purposes between the two genres, and the different academic status and power asymmetry between students and the audience of each genre. In addition, disciplinarity was noted. Students in the hard sciences made more use of hypes in their 3MT presentations than their peers in the soft sciences and were inclined to promote both broad and specific research areas and embellish the primacy attached to their research. This disciplinary hyping practice is perhaps related to the conceptual abstractness of scientific knowledge and its opaque connection with common wisdom and public interest. Therefore, this study reveals not only that hypes mark a speaker’s orientation to what and who is addressed, but also that students modulate academic persuasion to balance their promotion of results and claims against the discoursal expectations and knowledge bases of different audiences.
“这些发现非常惊人”:在300万份报告和论文摘要中大肆宣传学科研究
不断变化的科学传播格局提出了新的学术环境,在这种环境中,研究研究生面临着多样化的互动形式和更难以预测的受众。在这种背景下,三分钟论文(3MT)的演讲出现了,尽管我们还没有充分了解学生如何向不同的观众展示他们的研究工作。在这项研究中,我们比较了80名学生在3MT演讲和论文摘要中使用宣传语言修饰或夸大同一研究的某些方面的炒作实践,以探索他们如何理解自己的学科知识及其与不同受众的联系,以及他们如何相应地调整自己的话语。我们的研究结果表明,学生在3MT演讲中更频繁地炒作,依赖于状语情感标记,并关注广泛的研究领域。相反,在论文摘要中,主要使用助推式炒作,尤其是动词资源,对知识主张的确定性进行评论,对博士研究中使用的研究方法进行宣传。我们认为这种差异可能是两种类型之间不同的交际目的,以及每种类型的学生和观众之间不同的学术地位和权力不对称的结果。此外,还注意到纪律严明。与软科学的同龄人相比,硬科学的学生在他们的3MT报告中更多地使用炒作,并且倾向于推广广泛和特定的研究领域,并修饰他们的研究的首要地位。这种学科炒作的做法或许与科学知识的概念抽象性及其与常识和公共利益的不透明联系有关。因此,本研究表明,炒作不仅标志着说话者对说话对象和对象的取向,而且学生也会调整学术说服,以平衡他们对结果和主张的宣传与不同受众的话语期望和知识基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信