"结果可能不完全代表......":中美学生博士论文限制性部分中的否定句式

IF 0.8 3区 文学 Q3 COMMUNICATION Text & Talk Pub Date : 2024-04-10 DOI:10.1515/text-2023-0076
Shuyi Amelia Sun, Feng (Kevin) Jiang
{"title":"\"结果可能不完全代表......\":中美学生博士论文限制性部分中的否定句式","authors":"Shuyi Amelia Sun, Feng (Kevin) Jiang","doi":"10.1515/text-2023-0076","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The ability to achieve social interaction is both a key feature of research writing and an important aspect of advanced academic literacy. It can be seen in how doctoral students employ rhetorical resources to acknowledge limitations in thesis writing while securing a positive view of the research. <jats:italic>Negation</jats:italic> is one of the crucial interactional options, but less explored in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) literature. In this study, we drew on the <jats:italic>appraisal</jats:italic> theory to see <jats:italic>negation</jats:italic> as a <jats:italic>disclaim</jats:italic> marker that engaged with alternative positions and employed corpus analysis to examine the forms and functions of <jats:italic>negation</jats:italic> in the ‘limitations’ section of doctoral theses. To better understand how student writers exploit <jats:italic>negation</jats:italic> to achieve the rhetorical end, we further explored co-articulations of <jats:italic>negation</jats:italic> with other <jats:italic>appraisal</jats:italic> resources. A corpus-based analysis of 100 doctoral theses by Chinese and American doctoral students in applied linguistics showed that American students made significantly more use of <jats:italic>negation</jats:italic>, especially pairing <jats:italic>negation</jats:italic> with <jats:italic>engagement</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>graduation</jats:italic> resources. We attribute the difference to genre and culture norms and also raise pedagogical implications on the cultivation of students’ rhetorical awareness and the classroom teaching of research writing.","PeriodicalId":46455,"journal":{"name":"Text & Talk","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“The results might not fully represent…”: Negation in the limitations sections of doctoral theses by Chinese and American students\",\"authors\":\"Shuyi Amelia Sun, Feng (Kevin) Jiang\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/text-2023-0076\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The ability to achieve social interaction is both a key feature of research writing and an important aspect of advanced academic literacy. It can be seen in how doctoral students employ rhetorical resources to acknowledge limitations in thesis writing while securing a positive view of the research. <jats:italic>Negation</jats:italic> is one of the crucial interactional options, but less explored in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) literature. In this study, we drew on the <jats:italic>appraisal</jats:italic> theory to see <jats:italic>negation</jats:italic> as a <jats:italic>disclaim</jats:italic> marker that engaged with alternative positions and employed corpus analysis to examine the forms and functions of <jats:italic>negation</jats:italic> in the ‘limitations’ section of doctoral theses. To better understand how student writers exploit <jats:italic>negation</jats:italic> to achieve the rhetorical end, we further explored co-articulations of <jats:italic>negation</jats:italic> with other <jats:italic>appraisal</jats:italic> resources. A corpus-based analysis of 100 doctoral theses by Chinese and American doctoral students in applied linguistics showed that American students made significantly more use of <jats:italic>negation</jats:italic>, especially pairing <jats:italic>negation</jats:italic> with <jats:italic>engagement</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>graduation</jats:italic> resources. We attribute the difference to genre and culture norms and also raise pedagogical implications on the cultivation of students’ rhetorical awareness and the classroom teaching of research writing.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46455,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Text & Talk\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Text & Talk\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2023-0076\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Text & Talk","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2023-0076","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

实现社会互动的能力既是研究写作的一个关键特征,也是高级学术素养的一个重要方面。从博士生如何利用修辞资源来承认论文写作中的局限性,同时确保对研究的正面评价,就可以看出这一点。否定是重要的交互选项之一,但在学术英语(EAP)文献中探讨较少。在本研究中,我们借鉴了评价理论,将否定视为一种免责标记,与其他立场打交道,并采用语料库分析来研究博士论文 "限制 "部分中否定的形式和功能。为了更好地理解学生作者如何利用否定来达到修辞目的,我们进一步探讨了否定与其他评价资源的共同表述。我们基于语料库分析了 100 篇中美应用语言学博士生的博士论文,结果显示美国学生使用否定的次数明显更多,尤其是将否定与参与和毕业资源搭配使用。我们将这一差异归因于体裁和文化规范,并提出了对培养学生修辞意识和研究性写作课堂教学的启示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“The results might not fully represent…”: Negation in the limitations sections of doctoral theses by Chinese and American students
The ability to achieve social interaction is both a key feature of research writing and an important aspect of advanced academic literacy. It can be seen in how doctoral students employ rhetorical resources to acknowledge limitations in thesis writing while securing a positive view of the research. Negation is one of the crucial interactional options, but less explored in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) literature. In this study, we drew on the appraisal theory to see negation as a disclaim marker that engaged with alternative positions and employed corpus analysis to examine the forms and functions of negation in the ‘limitations’ section of doctoral theses. To better understand how student writers exploit negation to achieve the rhetorical end, we further explored co-articulations of negation with other appraisal resources. A corpus-based analysis of 100 doctoral theses by Chinese and American doctoral students in applied linguistics showed that American students made significantly more use of negation, especially pairing negation with engagement and graduation resources. We attribute the difference to genre and culture norms and also raise pedagogical implications on the cultivation of students’ rhetorical awareness and the classroom teaching of research writing.
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
Text & Talk
Text & Talk Multiple-
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
16.70%
发文量
70
期刊介绍: Text & Talk (founded as TEXT in 1981) is an internationally recognized forum for interdisciplinary research in language, discourse, and communication studies, focusing, among other things, on the situational and historical nature of text/talk production; the cognitive and sociocultural processes of language practice/action; and participant-based structures of meaning negotiation and multimodal alignment. Text & Talk encourages critical debates on these and other relevant issues, spanning not only the theoretical and methodological dimensions of discourse but also their practical and socially relevant outcomes.
期刊最新文献
The effects of modal value and imperative mood on self-predicted compliance to health guidance: the case of COVID-19 “The results might not fully represent…”: Negation in the limitations sections of doctoral theses by Chinese and American students Recurrent gestures and embodied stance-taking in courtroom opening statements Turning talk into text: the representation of contemporary urban vernaculars in Swedish fiction Critical comments in the disciplines: a comparative look at peer review reports in applied linguistics and engineering
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1