协商博士论文讨论部分的学术冲突

IF 0.7 3区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
F. Esmaili, E. Abdollahzadeh
{"title":"协商博士论文讨论部分的学术冲突","authors":"F. Esmaili, E. Abdollahzadeh","doi":"10.1075/ps.22060.esm","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThis study explores how doctoral students negotiated academic conflict (AC) in discussion section of their dissertations and what engagement resources they utilized to convey academic conflict. To this end, discussion chapters of 30 doctoral dissertations in Applied Linguistics (15 samples by each writer group) were analyzed using Huston’s (1991) academic conflict framework and Martin and White’s (2005) engagement system of Appraisal Theory. The functional analysis constituted discovering components of academic conflict and engagement resources in the discussions. We found that components of academic conflict determined engagement values used to convey them. The linguistic background of the authors was less of an issue in resolving conflicts. The two writer groups managed academic conflict and related engagement resources more or less similarly in different components of academic conflict. They mainly expressed their novel contribution readily and identified the flaws of previous research; however, both writer groups showed little tendency to explain controversial points. The findings have pedagogical implications for academic writing courses highlighting the importance of developing awareness of AC and resolving the conflicts.","PeriodicalId":44036,"journal":{"name":"Pragmatics and Society","volume":"113 16","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Negotiating academic conflict in discussion sections of doctoral dissertations\",\"authors\":\"F. Esmaili, E. Abdollahzadeh\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/ps.22060.esm\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nThis study explores how doctoral students negotiated academic conflict (AC) in discussion section of their dissertations and what engagement resources they utilized to convey academic conflict. To this end, discussion chapters of 30 doctoral dissertations in Applied Linguistics (15 samples by each writer group) were analyzed using Huston’s (1991) academic conflict framework and Martin and White’s (2005) engagement system of Appraisal Theory. The functional analysis constituted discovering components of academic conflict and engagement resources in the discussions. We found that components of academic conflict determined engagement values used to convey them. The linguistic background of the authors was less of an issue in resolving conflicts. The two writer groups managed academic conflict and related engagement resources more or less similarly in different components of academic conflict. They mainly expressed their novel contribution readily and identified the flaws of previous research; however, both writer groups showed little tendency to explain controversial points. The findings have pedagogical implications for academic writing courses highlighting the importance of developing awareness of AC and resolving the conflicts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44036,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pragmatics and Society\",\"volume\":\"113 16\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pragmatics and Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.22060.esm\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pragmatics and Society","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.22060.esm","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

摘要

本研究探讨博士生在论文讨论部分如何处理学术冲突,以及他们利用哪些参与资源来传达学术冲突。为此,我们使用Huston(1991)的学术冲突框架和Martin and White(2005)的评价理论参与系统,对30篇应用语言学博士论文的讨论章节(每个作文组15个样本)进行分析。功能分析包括发现讨论中的学术冲突成分和参与资源。我们发现,学术冲突的组成部分决定了用来传达它们的参与价值。在解决冲突时,作者的语言背景不是问题。在学术冲突的不同组成部分中,两个作家组对学术冲突和相关参与资源的管理或多或少相似。他们主要乐于表达自己的新颖贡献,并指出前人研究的缺陷;然而,这两个作家群体几乎没有表现出解释争议点的倾向。研究结果对学术写作课程具有教学意义,强调了培养交流意识和解决冲突的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Negotiating academic conflict in discussion sections of doctoral dissertations
This study explores how doctoral students negotiated academic conflict (AC) in discussion section of their dissertations and what engagement resources they utilized to convey academic conflict. To this end, discussion chapters of 30 doctoral dissertations in Applied Linguistics (15 samples by each writer group) were analyzed using Huston’s (1991) academic conflict framework and Martin and White’s (2005) engagement system of Appraisal Theory. The functional analysis constituted discovering components of academic conflict and engagement resources in the discussions. We found that components of academic conflict determined engagement values used to convey them. The linguistic background of the authors was less of an issue in resolving conflicts. The two writer groups managed academic conflict and related engagement resources more or less similarly in different components of academic conflict. They mainly expressed their novel contribution readily and identified the flaws of previous research; however, both writer groups showed little tendency to explain controversial points. The findings have pedagogical implications for academic writing courses highlighting the importance of developing awareness of AC and resolving the conflicts.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
42
×
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