论文、文献综述和讨论环节中作者人格的谈判

IF 1.5 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Emna Fendri, Mounir Triki
{"title":"论文、文献综述和讨论环节中作者人格的谈判","authors":"Emna Fendri, Mounir Triki","doi":"10.22363/2687-0088-27620","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Writing at a postgraduate level is not only meant to obtain a degree in a specific field but also, and more importantly, to secure that ones research is published nationally as well as internationally. In other words, conducting research is first and foremost about making ones distinctive voice heard. Using Martin and Whites (2005) appraisal framework, the present study examines the way Tunisian MA and PhD EFL researchers in applied linguistics establish a dialogue with the reader as a persuasive tool in their texts. The comparison is meant to unveil cross-generic differences in authorial voice manifestation that distinguish postgraduate writers at different degrees. A corpus of 20 Literature Review and 20 Discussion sections taken from 10 MA and 10 PhD dissertations written in English by Tunisian EFL writers is qualitatively and quantitatively explored. Linguistic markers denoting the writers stance are identified in the corpus and are qualitatively studied using the engagement subsystem to qualify the utterance as dialogically contractive or expansive. A quantitative analysis then compares how dialogicality is manifested across the degrees and sections using SPSS. The results show that the negotiation of voice seems to be more problematic for MA researchers in both sections in comparison to PhD writers. Dialogic contraction in the MA subcorpus conveys a limited authorial positioning in the Literature Review section and a failure to stress personal contribution in the Discussion section. PhD researchers frequent reliance on expansion in both sections displays their academic maturity. The critical evaluation of previous works in the Literature Review and the claim for authorial ownership in the Discussion section distinguish them from MA writers. The comparison not only stresses the strengths that distinguish PhD writers but also points out problematic instances in establishing a dialogue with the audience in postgraduate writings. The study findings can be used to consider EFL researchers production in pedagogical contexts in terms of identity manifestation and stance-taking strategies across the different sections of the dissertation.","PeriodicalId":53426,"journal":{"name":"Russian Journal of Linguistics","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The negotiation of authorial persona in dissertations literature review and discussion sections\",\"authors\":\"Emna Fendri, Mounir Triki\",\"doi\":\"10.22363/2687-0088-27620\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Writing at a postgraduate level is not only meant to obtain a degree in a specific field but also, and more importantly, to secure that ones research is published nationally as well as internationally. In other words, conducting research is first and foremost about making ones distinctive voice heard. Using Martin and Whites (2005) appraisal framework, the present study examines the way Tunisian MA and PhD EFL researchers in applied linguistics establish a dialogue with the reader as a persuasive tool in their texts. The comparison is meant to unveil cross-generic differences in authorial voice manifestation that distinguish postgraduate writers at different degrees. A corpus of 20 Literature Review and 20 Discussion sections taken from 10 MA and 10 PhD dissertations written in English by Tunisian EFL writers is qualitatively and quantitatively explored. Linguistic markers denoting the writers stance are identified in the corpus and are qualitatively studied using the engagement subsystem to qualify the utterance as dialogically contractive or expansive. A quantitative analysis then compares how dialogicality is manifested across the degrees and sections using SPSS. The results show that the negotiation of voice seems to be more problematic for MA researchers in both sections in comparison to PhD writers. Dialogic contraction in the MA subcorpus conveys a limited authorial positioning in the Literature Review section and a failure to stress personal contribution in the Discussion section. PhD researchers frequent reliance on expansion in both sections displays their academic maturity. The critical evaluation of previous works in the Literature Review and the claim for authorial ownership in the Discussion section distinguish them from MA writers. The comparison not only stresses the strengths that distinguish PhD writers but also points out problematic instances in establishing a dialogue with the audience in postgraduate writings. The study findings can be used to consider EFL researchers production in pedagogical contexts in terms of identity manifestation and stance-taking strategies across the different sections of the dissertation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53426,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Russian Journal of Linguistics\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Russian Journal of Linguistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-27620\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Russian Journal of Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-27620","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"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

研究生水平的写作不仅意味着获得特定领域的学位,更重要的是,确保自己的研究成果在国内和国际上发表。换句话说,进行研究首先是要发出自己独特的声音。利用马丁和怀特(2005)的评估框架,本研究考察了突尼斯应用语言学硕士和博士英语研究人员在其文本中与读者建立对话作为说服工具的方式。这种比较是为了揭示不同程度研究生作家在写作声音表现上的跨类差异。从突尼斯英语作家用英语撰写的10篇硕士论文和10篇博士论文中提取的20篇文献综述和20篇讨论部分的语料库进行了定性和定量探索。表示作者立场的语言标记在语料库中被识别出来,并使用接合子系统进行定性研究,以将话语限定为对话收缩或扩展。定量分析,然后比较如何对话是跨度和部分表现使用SPSS。结果表明,与博士作者相比,这两个部分的硕士研究人员的声音协商似乎更成问题。MA子语料库中的对话收缩表达了作者在文献综述部分的有限定位,以及在讨论部分强调个人贡献的失败。博士研究人员频繁地依赖于这两个部分的扩展,显示了他们在学术上的成熟。在文献评论中对先前作品的批判性评价和在讨论部分对作者所有权的主张将他们与MA作家区分开来。这一比较不仅强调了博士作者的优势,而且指出了在研究生写作中与读者建立对话的问题。研究结果可以用来考虑EFL研究者在教学背景下的身份表现和立场采取策略,贯穿论文的不同部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The negotiation of authorial persona in dissertations literature review and discussion sections
Writing at a postgraduate level is not only meant to obtain a degree in a specific field but also, and more importantly, to secure that ones research is published nationally as well as internationally. In other words, conducting research is first and foremost about making ones distinctive voice heard. Using Martin and Whites (2005) appraisal framework, the present study examines the way Tunisian MA and PhD EFL researchers in applied linguistics establish a dialogue with the reader as a persuasive tool in their texts. The comparison is meant to unveil cross-generic differences in authorial voice manifestation that distinguish postgraduate writers at different degrees. A corpus of 20 Literature Review and 20 Discussion sections taken from 10 MA and 10 PhD dissertations written in English by Tunisian EFL writers is qualitatively and quantitatively explored. Linguistic markers denoting the writers stance are identified in the corpus and are qualitatively studied using the engagement subsystem to qualify the utterance as dialogically contractive or expansive. A quantitative analysis then compares how dialogicality is manifested across the degrees and sections using SPSS. The results show that the negotiation of voice seems to be more problematic for MA researchers in both sections in comparison to PhD writers. Dialogic contraction in the MA subcorpus conveys a limited authorial positioning in the Literature Review section and a failure to stress personal contribution in the Discussion section. PhD researchers frequent reliance on expansion in both sections displays their academic maturity. The critical evaluation of previous works in the Literature Review and the claim for authorial ownership in the Discussion section distinguish them from MA writers. The comparison not only stresses the strengths that distinguish PhD writers but also points out problematic instances in establishing a dialogue with the audience in postgraduate writings. The study findings can be used to consider EFL researchers production in pedagogical contexts in terms of identity manifestation and stance-taking strategies across the different sections of the dissertation.
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
Russian Journal of Linguistics
Russian Journal of Linguistics Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
33.30%
发文量
43
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
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