چکیده:
Academic writing is no longer considered an objective and impersonal form of discourse. It is now seen as an attempt involving interaction between writers and readers; hence, academics are not only required to produce texts representing external realities but also to use language to recognize, build, and exchange social relations. The present study aimed to analyze how native English speakers, Ph.D. candidates in TEFL, position their texts intertextually when writing their doctoral dissertation Discussion sections. To this end, 5 Discussion sections were selected and analyzed in detail based on the Engagement subsystem of the appraisal model. Hence, the type and frequency of every Engagement resource were identified and its functionalities were explicated. Results indicated that the examined writers could easily engage themselves in dialogue with their potential interlocutors. Also, they preferred to limit the possibility of being rejected or challenged by using dialogically contractive Engagement resources almost twice as many as dialogically expansive ones. Moreover, it was found that, although these authors developed their Discussion sections in a dialogistically contractive way, they provided enough space for the consideration of alternative viewpoints.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Textual Engagement of Native English Speakers in Doctoral Dissertation Discussion Sections1 Zahra Loghmani2, Behzad Ghonsooly3, & Mohammad Ghazanfari4 Received: 07/01/2017 Accepted: 14/09/2018 Abstract Academic writing is no longer considered an objective and impersonal form of discourse.
Using the appraisal framework (Martin & White, 2005), the present study aimed to analyze the intersubjective positioning in the context of doctoral dissertation Discussion writing in English and to reveal the ways in which native English speaker Ph. D.
From the SFL viewpoint, a writer plays an important role to establish and maintain an interpersonal relationship (or dialogue) with the readers (Butt, Fahey, Feez, Spinks, & Yallop, 2000; Lemke, 1992; Martin, 1995) and every instance of writing is “an interactive event, a social exchange of meanings” (Halliday & Hasan, 1989, p.
In this text, the instances of Likelihood are mostly conveyed through the use of typical linguistic resources in this category of Engagement, including the modal verbs of possibility may can might and could, modal attributes of possible and likely, and modal adjuncts perhaps and possibly.
). Accordingly, the author explicitly indicates his subjective, but evidence-based, response to why participants did not choose the don’t know or pass options by using expansive Engagement resources of Entertain, but he simultaneously closes space for alternative viewpoints by applying contractive Engagement resources of Denial, Pronouncement, and Counter-expectation to further emphasize the validity of his statement: S49: Given that the “don’t know” or “pass” options are definitely not correct, it seems plausible that participants would not provide those responses, but would rather choose from the other potentially correct options.