Pub Date : 2025-11-07DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101598
Yonghua Wang (Yoka)
{"title":"","authors":"Yonghua Wang (Yoka)","doi":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101598","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101598","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","volume":"79 ","pages":"Article 101598"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145469165","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-01DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101590
{"title":"Editor's Note","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101590","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101590","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","volume":"78 ","pages":"Article 101590"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145525792","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-01DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101595
{"title":"BALEAP-BUILA English language best practice project: Testing, qualifications and English for academic purposes","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101595","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101595","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","volume":"78 ","pages":"Article 101595"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145525886","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-01DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101596
Hang Su , Jingyao Chen , Xiaofei Lu
This study proposes an approach that combines local grammar and construction grammar to accounting for the linguistic realisations of discourse acts, i.e., communicative or rhetorical functions, in academic contexts. It argues that local grammar patterns of discourse acts, representing form-meaning pairings, can be interpreted as constructions, which is illustrated through a case study of exemplification. Using a corpus of linguistics research articles, the study identifies five ‘exemplifying’ constructions via local grammar analyses, demonstrating that recurrent form-meaning pairings serve as foundational schematic patterns in academic discourse. Along with offering theoretical insights for research on English for academic writing, our findings highlight the need to move beyond discrete lexis and grammar toward a holistic, function-oriented perspective in EAP writing pedagogy. The proposed approach can also be productively extended to other discourse acts beyond exemplification, with potential to enhance both the descriptive adequacy of academic language and the pedagogical effectiveness of EAP writing instruction.
{"title":"Discourse acts, local grammars, and constructions in academic writing: The case of ‘exemplifying’ construction network","authors":"Hang Su , Jingyao Chen , Xiaofei Lu","doi":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101596","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101596","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study proposes an approach that combines local grammar and construction grammar to accounting for the linguistic realisations of discourse acts, i.e., communicative or rhetorical functions, in academic contexts. It argues that local grammar patterns of discourse acts, representing form-meaning pairings, can be interpreted as constructions, which is illustrated through a case study of exemplification. Using a corpus of linguistics research articles, the study identifies five ‘exemplifying’ constructions via local grammar analyses, demonstrating that recurrent form-meaning pairings serve as foundational schematic patterns in academic discourse. Along with offering theoretical insights for research on English for academic writing, our findings highlight the need to move beyond discrete lexis and grammar toward a holistic, function-oriented perspective in EAP writing pedagogy. The proposed approach can also be productively extended to other discourse acts beyond exemplification, with potential to enhance both the descriptive adequacy of academic language and the pedagogical effectiveness of EAP writing instruction.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","volume":"78 ","pages":"Article 101596"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145466645","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-01DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101593
Hang (Joanna) Zou, Yale Fan
The COVID-19 pandemic sparked an unprecedented surge in medical research, intensifying the need for rapid communication of critical findings. The use of journal highlights, a brief bullet pointed list summarizing the novel results of a study, is an important tool in this promotional endeavour. Advances in large language models such as ChatGPT, now facilitate the swift generation of such highlights, accelerating the dissemination of scientific insights. However, research comparing AI-generated and scholar-authored highlights, specifically regarding the expression of personal authority and assessment, remains limited. In this study we examine the stance features in 122 scholar-written Covid-19-related highlights and compare them with ChatGPT-generated counterparts from the same 9 journals. Findings reveal that scholar-authored highlights deploy more stance markers of hedges, boosters and self-mention, whereas GPT-generated highlights feature a higher frequency of attitude markers. These differences illuminate how stance functions as a rhetorical resource not only for conveying evaluation, but also for promoting the visibility and persuasive impact of medical work. This study thus provides insights into AI-generated academic discourse, the promotion of medical research and the value of genre-based approaches in analysing rhetorical practices.
{"title":"Promotion of medical research: Stance in AI-generated and scholar-written highlights","authors":"Hang (Joanna) Zou, Yale Fan","doi":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101593","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101593","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The COVID-19 pandemic sparked an unprecedented surge in medical research, intensifying the need for rapid communication of critical findings. The use of journal highlights, a brief bullet pointed list summarizing the novel results of a study, is an important tool in this promotional endeavour. Advances in large language models such as ChatGPT, now facilitate the swift generation of such highlights, accelerating the dissemination of scientific insights. However, research comparing AI-generated and scholar-authored highlights, specifically regarding the expression of personal authority and assessment, remains limited. In this study we examine the stance features in 122 scholar-written Covid-19-related highlights and compare them with ChatGPT-generated counterparts from the same 9 journals. Findings reveal that scholar-authored highlights deploy more stance markers of hedges, boosters and self-mention, whereas GPT-generated highlights feature a higher frequency of attitude markers. These differences illuminate how stance functions as a rhetorical resource not only for conveying evaluation, but also for promoting the visibility and persuasive impact of medical work. This study thus provides insights into AI-generated academic discourse, the promotion of medical research and the value of genre-based approaches in analysing rhetorical practices.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","volume":"78 ","pages":"Article 101593"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145466703","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-01DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101594
Ge Zhang, Liping Chen
This study attempts to extend evaluative prosody research beyond mere attitudinal accumulation or engagement co-selection. How engagement resources serve as modulators of attitudinal stances to form evaluative prosody in introduction sections of master's theses, doctoral dissertations, and journal articles in applied linguistics is examined to trace developmental patterns in evaluation construction across disciplinary acculturation stages. Analysis of attitude features (frequency, type, polarity and explicitness) in three corpora shows that a U-shaped trajectory characterizes the frequency of attitudes, with experts and novices exceeding doctoral candidates in evaluative density, reflecting evolving identity negotiations. Experts employed more Judgments than master's and doctoral students to acclaim prior scholars' contributions. While attitude polarity remains stable across different proficiency levels, writers increasingly prefer evoked attitudes as their academic proficiency progresses. The examination of engagement resources in attitude clauses demonstrates that more experienced writers employ more engagement resources in positive evaluations while adopting more assertive stances in critiques, in contrast to novices' over-assertiveness in research value claims and cautious but unfounded critiques. Preference for different types of engagement resources also diverges across proficiency levels. The results of this study can provide pedagogical implications for teaching evaluation, facilitating more smoothed acculturation into the academic community for learners.
{"title":"Disciplinary acculturation and attitude construction: How are attitudes modulated by engagement resources in master's theses, doctoral dissertations, and research articles?","authors":"Ge Zhang, Liping Chen","doi":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101594","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101594","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study attempts to extend evaluative prosody research beyond mere attitudinal accumulation or engagement co-selection. How engagement resources serve as modulators of attitudinal stances to form evaluative prosody in introduction sections of master's theses, doctoral dissertations, and journal articles in applied linguistics is examined to trace developmental patterns in evaluation construction across disciplinary acculturation stages. Analysis of attitude features (frequency, type, polarity and explicitness) in three corpora shows that a U-shaped trajectory characterizes the frequency of attitudes, with experts and novices exceeding doctoral candidates in evaluative density, reflecting evolving identity negotiations. Experts employed more Judgments than master's and doctoral students to acclaim prior scholars' contributions. While attitude polarity remains stable across different proficiency levels, writers increasingly prefer evoked attitudes as their academic proficiency progresses. The examination of engagement resources in attitude clauses demonstrates that more experienced writers employ more engagement resources in positive evaluations while adopting more assertive stances in critiques, in contrast to novices' over-assertiveness in research value claims and cautious but unfounded critiques. Preference for different types of engagement resources also diverges across proficiency levels. The results of this study can provide pedagogical implications for teaching evaluation, facilitating more smoothed acculturation into the academic community for learners.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","volume":"78 ","pages":"Article 101594"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145417628","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-10-19DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101592
Jiarui Jia, Jingyuan Zhang
Linguistic expressions of interest (e.g., interesting, intriguing, fascinating) are commonly used in academic writing to indicate authors epistemic stance and engage readers in knowledge construction. Despite their rhetorical importance, their use varies significantly across linguistic and cultural contexts. This study adopts a cognitive semantic framework, the Interest frame, to examine how first language (L1) backgrounds influence the semantic realization of interest in applied linguistics PhD theses. Based on a self-compiled corpus of 70 PhD theses by native English and Chinese speakers, the study analyzes how L1 background affects the incidence of key frame elements within the Interest frame. While overall frequencies of interest markers did not differ significantly between groups, notable L1-related variations emerged in Trigger and Experiencer elements. Native English writers more frequently employed Appraisal triggers and significantly favored Implied (Author/Reader) experiencers, whereas Chinese writers preferred attributing interest to the academic community. Although the Author category showed no significant difference, native English writers exhibited a greater authorial visibility both implicitly and explicitly. These differences reflect culturally rooted rhetorical preferences, divergent epistemological stances, and genre-specific demands of doctoral writing. The findings underscore the culturally hybrid nature of academic discourse and offer pedagogical implications for genre-based academic writing instruction.
{"title":"A FrameNet-based comparative analysis of interest markers in PhD theses by native and non-native English-speaking doctoral writers","authors":"Jiarui Jia, Jingyuan Zhang","doi":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101592","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101592","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Linguistic expressions of interest (e.g., <em>interesting, intriguing</em>, <em>fascinating</em>) are commonly used in academic writing to indicate authors epistemic stance and engage readers in knowledge construction. Despite their rhetorical importance, their use varies significantly across linguistic and cultural contexts. This study adopts a cognitive semantic framework, the Interest frame, to examine how first language (L1) backgrounds influence the semantic realization of interest in applied linguistics PhD theses. Based on a self-compiled corpus of 70 PhD theses by native English and Chinese speakers, the study analyzes how L1 background affects the incidence of key frame elements within the Interest frame. While overall frequencies of interest markers did not differ significantly between groups, notable L1-related variations emerged in Trigger and Experiencer elements. Native English writers more frequently employed Appraisal triggers and significantly favored Implied (Author/Reader) experiencers, whereas Chinese writers preferred attributing interest to the academic community. Although the Author category showed no significant difference, native English writers exhibited a greater authorial visibility both implicitly and explicitly. These differences reflect culturally rooted rhetorical preferences, divergent epistemological stances, and genre-specific demands of doctoral writing. The findings underscore the culturally hybrid nature of academic discourse and offer pedagogical implications for genre-based academic writing instruction.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","volume":"78 ","pages":"Article 101592"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145321052","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-10-17DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101591
Jian Xu , Yao Zheng
In higher education, while AI tools are increasingly used to support language learning, there is limited understanding of how students utilize these tools for paraphrasing, an essential aspect of academic writing. This study investigates how L2 learners interact with AI tools while completing academic paraphrasing tasks. Twelve English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) students from a Chinese university were purposefully selected and interviewed. The data were analyzed qualitatively to identify emerging codes, categories, and themes. The findings revealed varying degrees of AI use, ranging from simple reliance on AI for translation or synonym substitution to more strategic and critical engagement. Some participants relied on AI for basic tasks due to limited English proficiency, while others demonstrated authorial agency by refining AI outputs, providing prompts for improvement, and evaluating textual coherence and tone. In contrast, a few participants fully trusted AI-generated paraphrasing without modification. The study suggests that linguistic proficiency may influence students’ interactions with AI, determining whether AI serves as a scaffold, a collaborator, or a surrogate author. Based on these findings, the study offers pedagogical implications for enhancing students’ AI literacy and suggests that course instructors may consider students’ varying English proficiency levels when teaching academic paraphrasing.
{"title":"Negotiating understanding, control, and authorship: L2 learners’ experiences with AI-assisted paraphrasing in academic writing","authors":"Jian Xu , Yao Zheng","doi":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101591","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101591","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In higher education, while AI tools are increasingly used to support language learning, there is limited understanding of how students utilize these tools for paraphrasing, an essential aspect of academic writing. This study investigates how L2 learners interact with AI tools while completing academic paraphrasing tasks. Twelve English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) students from a Chinese university were purposefully selected and interviewed. The data were analyzed qualitatively to identify emerging codes, categories, and themes. The findings revealed varying degrees of AI use, ranging from simple reliance on AI for translation or synonym substitution to more strategic and critical engagement. Some participants relied on AI for basic tasks due to limited English proficiency, while others demonstrated authorial agency by refining AI outputs, providing prompts for improvement, and evaluating textual coherence and tone. In contrast, a few participants fully trusted AI-generated paraphrasing without modification. The study suggests that linguistic proficiency may influence students’ interactions with AI, determining whether AI serves as a scaffold, a collaborator, or a surrogate author. Based on these findings, the study offers pedagogical implications for enhancing students’ AI literacy and suggests that course instructors may consider students’ varying English proficiency levels when teaching academic paraphrasing.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","volume":"78 ","pages":"Article 101591"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145321053","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-10-16DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101586
Yuanyan Hu , Xiao Lan Curdt-Christiansen , Jufang Wang
Although AI is reshaping education, its role in fostering critical thinking (CT) in EAP instruction—especially related to learner behaviors and CT development—remains underexplored. This study involved 102 Chinese undergraduates completing three AI-assisted writing tasks designed within Wen et al.’s hierarchical CT framework. This mixed-methods study combined questionnaires, learner reflection, task observations, and interviews to investigate learners’ perceptions, interaction patterns, and CT development, with quantitative data analyzed statistically, and qualitative data thematically coded and triangulated.
Findings indicate that EAP learners perceived AI assistance as both pedagogically valuable and practically useful. Eight CT-oriented affordances of AI emerged from the data—providing references, supporting divergent thinking, synthesizing information, identifying logical gaps, enhancing clarity, stimulating metacognitive reflection, verifying data, and fostering intercultural awareness—which shaped how learners navigated tasks and positioned AI in learning. Post-task results revealed perceived improvement in CT-cognitive skills (e.g., Analyzing, Reasoning, Evaluating) and greater sensitivity to CT-intellectual standards (e.g., Logicality, Relevance). However, limited gains were observed in higher-order dimensions like Definiteness, Profundity, and Flexibility, probably due to linguistic constraints, low cognitive investment, or efficiency-driven usage patterns. Meta-CT was also minimal, with only limited traces in later tasks, highlighting the need for scaffolding to motivate reflective regulation.
The study underscores the complementary role of peer collaboration in advancing CT, particularly in open-ended, cognitively demanding tasks where AI functioned as a catalyst for inquiry rather than as a content provider. Accordingly, it proposed an “AI-triggered, peer-constructed” model to support sustainable CT development in EAP classrooms, offering guidance for AI integration in Chinese higher education.
{"title":"Smart tools, smarter minds? Learner-AI interaction and AI assistance on critical thinking in EAP contexts","authors":"Yuanyan Hu , Xiao Lan Curdt-Christiansen , Jufang Wang","doi":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101586","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101586","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Although AI is reshaping education, its role in fostering critical thinking (CT) in EAP instruction—especially related to learner behaviors and CT development—remains underexplored. This study involved 102 Chinese undergraduates completing three AI-assisted writing tasks designed within Wen et al.’s hierarchical CT framework. This mixed-methods study combined questionnaires, learner reflection, task observations, and interviews to investigate learners’ perceptions, interaction patterns, and CT development, with quantitative data analyzed statistically, and qualitative data thematically coded and triangulated.</div><div>Findings indicate that EAP learners perceived AI assistance as both pedagogically valuable and practically useful. Eight CT-oriented affordances of AI emerged from the data—providing references, supporting divergent thinking, synthesizing information, identifying logical gaps, enhancing clarity, stimulating metacognitive reflection, verifying data, and fostering intercultural awareness—which shaped how learners navigated tasks and positioned AI in learning. Post-task results revealed perceived improvement in CT-cognitive skills (e.g., <em>Analyzing</em>, <em>Reasoning</em>, <em>Evaluating</em>) and greater sensitivity to CT-intellectual standards (e.g., <em>Logicality</em>, <em>Relevance</em>). However, limited gains were observed in higher-order dimensions like <em>Definiteness</em>, <em>Profundity</em>, and <em>Flexibility</em>, probably due to linguistic constraints, low cognitive investment, or efficiency-driven usage patterns. Meta-CT was also minimal, with only limited traces in later tasks, highlighting the need for scaffolding to motivate reflective regulation.</div><div>The study underscores the complementary role of peer collaboration in advancing CT, particularly in open-ended, cognitively demanding tasks where AI functioned as a catalyst for inquiry rather than as a content provider. Accordingly, it proposed an “AI-triggered, peer-constructed” model to support sustainable CT development in EAP classrooms, offering guidance for AI integration in Chinese higher education.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","volume":"78 ","pages":"Article 101586"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145321051","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-10-10DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101588
Gabriel Tetteh
The PhD viva is a research genre where questions feature as a prominent discursive tool for examiners to execute their roles and achieve various intended purposes. For PhD candidates to succeed in such high-stakes examinations, they need to meet the expectations of examiners communicated through questioning practices. Despite this, with very few exceptions, none of the studies on PhD vivas have focused on questioning interactions. Moreover, while the PhD viva remains heavily under researched, the few studies on the genre have usually examined linguistic features only. Consequently, working from a multi-perspective approach involving embodied interaction analysis, the current paper focuses on critical moments during questioning interactions in a small sample of two PhD vivas to highlight how participants employ embodied resources to successfully co-construct questioning interactions during PhD vivas as well as how questioning practices are (mis)understood by participants during the interaction. Videos of PhD vivas were analysed using Goodwin's (2018) co-operative action framework, and results were triangulated with findings obtained from participant interviews thematically analysed. Findings show that examiners communicate their expectations, through questioning, in ways that can be misleading and difficult for candidates to meet. Findings further underscore the relevance of embodied material objects and environment in questioning interactions in academic settings. Additionally, findings from the limited data highlight the possibility of disciplinary differences in the employment of embodied gestures by participants during questioning interactions. The paper, therefore, makes a significant contribution to EAP, with practical implications for PhD viva interactions and research on interactive genres in general.
{"title":"“It's just a comment not really a question”: Meeting examiners' expectations during questioning interactions in PhD Vivas","authors":"Gabriel Tetteh","doi":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101588","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101588","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The PhD viva is a research genre where questions feature as a prominent discursive tool for examiners to execute their roles and achieve various intended purposes. For PhD candidates to succeed in such high-stakes examinations, they need to meet the expectations of examiners communicated through questioning practices. Despite this, with very few exceptions, none of the studies on PhD vivas have focused on questioning interactions. Moreover, while the PhD viva remains heavily under researched, the few studies on the genre have usually examined linguistic features only. Consequently, working from a multi-perspective approach involving embodied interaction analysis, the current paper focuses on critical moments during questioning interactions in a small sample of two PhD vivas to highlight how participants employ embodied resources to successfully co-construct questioning interactions during PhD vivas as well as how questioning practices are (mis)understood by participants during the interaction. Videos of PhD vivas were analysed using Goodwin's (2018) co-operative action framework, and results were triangulated with findings obtained from participant interviews thematically analysed. Findings show that examiners communicate their expectations, through questioning, in ways that can be misleading and difficult for candidates to meet. Findings further underscore the relevance of embodied material objects and environment in questioning interactions in academic settings. Additionally, findings from the limited data highlight the possibility of disciplinary differences in the employment of embodied gestures by participants during questioning interactions. The paper, therefore, makes a significant contribution to EAP, with practical implications for PhD viva interactions and research on interactive genres in general.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","volume":"78 ","pages":"Article 101588"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145268306","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号