تعداد نشریات | 161 |
تعداد شمارهها | 6,532 |
تعداد مقالات | 70,501 |
تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 124,099,306 |
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 97,206,842 |
جنسیت و زبان: چگونگی بیان اهمیت در سخنرانی های علمی کلاسی انگلیسی | ||
پژوهشهای زبانشناختی در زبانهای خارجی | ||
مقاله 2، دوره 5، شماره 2، مهر 1394، صفحه 215-242 اصل مقاله (301.23 K) | ||
نوع مقاله: علمی پژوهشی(عادی) | ||
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jflr.2015.62548 | ||
نویسندگان | ||
جواد زارع* 1؛ زهرا کیوانلوشهرستانکی2 | ||
1دانشگاه کوثر بجنورد | ||
2مجتمع آموزش عالی اسفراین | ||
چکیده | ||
هدف از انجام این پژوهش بررسی ویژگیهای زبانی سخنرانیهای علمی کلاسی انگلیسی است که استادان دانشگاه در هر جلسه بکار میبرند. بهطور خاص، این پژوهش کوشیده چگونگی پررنگ کردن مطالب مهم سخنرانیهای کلاسی انگلیسی توسط استادان مرد و زن را بررسی کند. انجام این پژوهش مبتنی بر یک روش پژوهش پیکرهمحور، ترکیبی از طرح اکتشافی و تجزیهوبررسی کلامی است. برای این هدف، پیکرهء بیس با 160 سخنرانی علمی بررسی شد. نتیجهء بررسی ویژگیهای کلامی این سخنرانیها نشان داد، صرفنظر از جنسیت سخنران، اهمیت مطلب را می-توان با استفاده از پنج روش (1) سازماندهی کلام، (2) وضعیت مطلب، (3) پوشش موضوع، (4) ارتباط با امتحان و (5) همکنش با مخاطب بیان کرد. افزون بر این، نتایج نشان داد، بیان اهمیت به بایستگی آشکارا و با استفاده از صفات و قیود ارزیابی انجام نمیشوند. همچنین، مشخص شد جهتگیری نشانگر به متن، ارائهکننده و همکنشی تا حد زیادی بهنوع نشانگر بستگی دارد. افزون بر این، یافتهها حاکی از این است که استادان زن بیشتر از استادان مرد به همکنش با مخاطب گرایش دارند. | ||
کلیدواژهها | ||
سخنرانی علمی؛ سازماندهی کلام؛ همکنش با مخاطب؛ زبان ارزیابی؛ پیکرهمحور | ||
عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
Gender and Language: Signalling Importance in English Academic Lectures | ||
نویسندگان [English] | ||
Javad Zare1؛ | ||
1Kosar University of Bojnord | ||
چکیده [English] | ||
This paper reports on a study which explored importance marking in English academic lectures by male and female faculty members. The purpose of study was to investigate importance marking across gender. The method of study was corpus-driven, mixed-methods, and discourse analytic. Importance marking was investigated in the 160 English academic lectures of the BASE corpus. The results of the study showed that, regardless of the gender of the lecturer, importance marking takes place through (1) organizing the lecture into points and non-points, (2) using evaluative adjectives and adverbs such as important and more importantly, (3) indicating the extended coverage of topics, (4) relating the content of the lecture to exam and assessment, and (5) interaction with the audience. Additionally, it was found that importance marking does not necessarily involve using evaluative adjectives and adverbs. It can be done both explicitly and implicitly. Moreover, it was observed that orientation of the importance marker depends on its function. Finally, female lecturers were found to involve the audience more frequently than male lecturers. | ||
کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
English academic lecture, discourse organization, audience engagement, evaluative language, corpus-driven | ||
مراجع | ||
منابع زارع، جواد، اسلامیراسخ، عباس و عزیزا... دباغی (پذیرفتهشده). «»این نکتهای که من میخوام اینجا دقت کنید«: برجسته کردن نکات مهم در ارائههای علمی فارسی». زبان پژوهی. Ädel, A. (2010). Just to give you kind of a map of where we are going: a taxonomy of metadiscourse in spoken and written academic English. Nordic Journal of English Studies 9(2), 69–97. Ädel, A. (2012). What I want you to remember is: Audience orientation in monologic academic discourse. English Text Construction 5(1), 101–127. doi:10.1075/etc.5.1.06ade Baron, N., & Campbell, E. (2012). Talking takes too long: Gender and cultural patterns in mobile telephony. Language Sciences 34, 13– 27. Basow, S. A. (1995). Student evaluations of college professors: When gender matters. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(4), 656–665. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.87.4.656 Biber, D. (2006a). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(2), 97–116. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001 Biber, D. (2006b). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman. Biggs, J. (1997). Teaching across and within cultures: The issues of international students. In R. Murray-Harvey & H. C. Silins (Eds.), Learning and teaching in higher education:Advancing international perspectives (pp. 1–22). Proceedings of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA) Conference, Adelaide, South Australia. Bilbow, G. (1989). Towards an understanding of overseas students’ difficulties in lectures: A phenomenographic approach. Journal of Further and Higher Education 13(3), 85–99. doi:10.1080/0309877890130308 Björkman, B. (2011). The pragmatics of English as a lingua franca in the international university: Introduction. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(4), 923–925. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.015 Bligh, D. A. (1998). What’s the use of lectures? Exeter: Intellect Books. Bondi, M. (2008). Emphatics in academic discourse: Integrating corpus and discourse tools in the study of cross-disciplinary variation. In A. Ädel & R. Reppen (Eds.), Corpora and discourse: The challenges of different settings (pp. 31–55). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Carrier, C. A., Williams, M. D., & Dalagard, B. R. (1988). College students’ perceptions of notetaking and their relationship to selected learner characteristics and course achievement. Research in higher education 28(3), 223–239. doi:10.1007/BF00992232 Chaudron, C., & Richards, J. C. (1986). The effect of discourse markers on the comprehension of lectures. Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 113–127. doi:10.1093/applin/7.2.113 Cheng, S. W. (2012). “That’s it for today”: Academic lecture closings and the impact of class size. English for Specific Purposes 31(4), 234–248. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2012.05.004 Choi, M. (1997). Korean students in Australian universities: Intercultural issues. Higher Education Research and Development 16(3), 263–282. doi:10.1080/ 0729436970160302 Crawford Camiciottoli, B. (2004). Audience-oriented relevance markers in business studies lectures. In G. Del Lungo Camiciotti & E. Tognini Bonelli (Eds.), Academic discourse: Linguistic insights into evaluation (pp. 81–97). Bern: Peter Lang. Crawford Camiciottoli, B. (2005). Adjusting a business lecture for an international audience: a case study. English for Specific Purposes 24(2), 183–199. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2004.05.002 Crawford Camiciottoli, B. (2007). The language of business studies lectures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Csomay, E. (2012). A corpus-based look at short turns in university classroom interaction. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 8(1), 103–128. doi:10.1515/cllt-2012-0005 DeCarrico, J., & Nattinger, J. R. (1988). Lexical phrases for the comprehension of academic lectures. English for Specific Purposes, 7(2), 91–102. doi: 10.1016/0889-4906(88)90027- 0 Deroey, K. L. B. (2014). 'Anyway, the point I'm making is’: Lexicogrammatical relevance marking in lectures. In V. Lieven, K. Davidse, C. Gentens & D. Kimps (Eds.), Recent advances in corpus linguistics: Developing and exploiting corpora (pp. 265–291). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Deroey, K. L. B. (2015). Marking importance in lectures: Interactive and textual orientation. Applied Linguistics, 36(1), 51–72. doi:10.1093/applin/amt029 Deroey, K. L. B., & Taverniers, M. (2011). A corpus-based study of lecture functions. Moderna Språk, 105(2), 1–22. Deroey, K. L. B., & Taverniers, M. (2012). Just remember this: Lexicogrammatical relevance markers in lectures. English for Specific Purposes, 31(4), 221–233. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2012.05.001 Duguid, A. (2010). Newspaper discourse informalization. Corpora 5(2), 109–138. Duszak, A. (1997). Cross-cultural academic communication. A discourse-community view. In A. Duszak (Ed.), Culture and styles of academic discourse (pp. 11–39). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Flowerdew, J. (1994). Research of relevance to second language lecture comprehension: An overview. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 7–29). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Flowerdew, J. (2003). Signalling nouns in discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 22(4), 329– 346. doi:10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00017-0 Fortanet, I. (2004). The use of ‘we’ in university lectures: reference and function. English for Specific Purposes 23(1), 45–66. doi:10.1016/S0889-4906(03)00018-8 Giannoni, D. S. (2010). Mapping academic values in the disciplines: A corpus-based approach. Bern: Peter Lang. Giannoni, D. S. (2011). Academic values in context. In R. M. Millar & M. Durham (Eds.), Applied linguistics, global and local (pp. 105–114). London: BAAL & Scitsiugnil Press. Hanson, J. M., & Sinclair, K. E. (2008). Social constructivist teaching methods in Australian universities–reported uptake and perceived learning effects: A survey of lecturers. Higher Education Research & Development 27(3), 169–186. doi:10.1080/07294360802183754 Heino, A., Tervonen, E., & Tommola, J. (2002). Metadiscourse in academic conference presentations. In E. Ventola, C. Shalom, & S. Thompson (Eds.), The language of conferencing (pp. 127–146). Bern: Peter Lang. Hunston, S. (1994). Evaluation and organization in a sample of written academic discourse. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 191–218). London: Routledge. Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation and the planes of discourse: Status and value in persuasive texts. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 176–207). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse: English in a global context. London: Continuum. Isaacs, G. (1994). Lecturing practices and note-taking purposes. Studies in Higher Education 19(2), 203–216. doi:10.1080/03075079412331382047 Jung, E. H. (2003). The role of discourse signalling cues in second language listening comprehension. The Modern Language Journal 87(4), 562–577. doi: 10.1111/1540- 4781.00208 Kiewra, K. A. (2002). How classroom teachers can help students learn and teach them how to learn. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 71–80. doi:10.1207/ s15430421tip4102_3 Kilgarriff, A., Baisa, V., Bušta, J., Jakubíček, M., Kovář, V., Michelfeit, J., Rychlý, P., & Suchomel, V. (2014). The Sketch Engine: ten years on. Lexicography, 1(1), 7–36. Kuh, G. D., Nelson Laird, T. F., & Umbach, P. D. (2004). Aligning faculty and student behavior: Realizing the promise of greater expectations. Liberal Education, 90(4), 24–31. Labov, W. (1991). The intersection of sex and social class in the course of linguistic change. Language Variation and Change 2, 205–254. Lacey, C. H., Saleh, A., & Gorman, R. (1998). Teaching nine to five: A study of the teaching styles of male and female professors. Paper presented at the Annual Women in Education Conference, Lincoln, Nebraska, October 11-12. Lebauer, R. S. (1984). Using lecture transcripts in EAP lecture comprehension courses. TESOL Quarterly 18(l), 41–53. doi:10.2307/3586334 Lin, C. Y. (2010). '... that's actually sort of you know trying to get consultants in...': Functions and multifunctionality of modifiers in academic lectures. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(5), 1173–1183. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2009.10.001 Lodico, M. G., Spaulding, D. T. & Voegtle, K. H. (2006). Methods in educational research from theory to practice. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. Lynch, T. (1994). Training lecturers for international audiences. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 269–289). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lynch, T. (2004). Study listening: a course in listening to lectures and note taking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lynch, T. (2011). Academic listening in the 21st century: Reviewing a decade of research. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(2), 79–88. doi:10.1016/ j.jeap.2011.03.001 Marchi, A. (2010). ‘The moral in the story’: A diachronic investigation of lexicalized morality in the UK press. Corpora 5(2), 161–189. McKeachie, W. J. (1994). Teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers. Lexington: Heath and Co. McKeachie, W. J. (2002). Teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university professors. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Morell, T. (2004). Interactive lecture discourse for university EFL students. English for SpecificPurposes 23(3), 325–338. doi:10.1016/S0889-4906(03)00029-2 Nelson Laird, T. F., Garver, A. K., & Niskode´-Dossett, A. S. (2011). Gender gaps in collegiate teaching style: Variations by course characteristics. Research in Higher Education, 52, 261–277. doi: 10.1007/s11162-010-9193-0 Nesi, H. (2001). A corpus-based analysis of academic lectures across disciplines. In J. Cotterill, & A. Ife (Eds.), Language across boundaries. BAAL, Vol. 16 (pp. 201–218). London: Continuum. Olsen, L. A., & Huckin, T. H. (1990). Point-driven understanding in engineering lecture comprehension. English for Specific Purposes, 9(1), 33–47. doi:10.1016/0889-4906(90)90027-A Partington, A., Duguid, A., & Taylor, C. (2013). Patterns and meanings in discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Romaine, S. (2003). Variation in language and gender. In J. Holmes & M. Meyerhoff (Eds.), Handbook of language and gender (pp. 98–118). Blackwell: Malden, MA. Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (2001). Revisiting academics' beliefs about teaching and learning. Higher Education 41(3), 299–325. doi:10.1023/A:1004130031247 Siepmann, D. (2005). Discourse markers across languages: A contrastive study of second-level discourse markers in native and non-native text with implications for general and pedagogic lexicography. New York: Routledge. Simpson, R. (2004). Stylistic features of academic speech: The role of formulaic expressions. In U. Connor & T. A. Upton (Eds.), Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics (pp. 37–64). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Singer, E. (1996). Espoused teaching paradigms of college faculty. Research in Higher Education, 37(6), 659–679. doi: 10.1007/BF01792951 Statham, A., Richardson, L., & Cook, J. A. (1991). Gender and university teaching: A negotiated difference. Albany: State University of New York Press. Sutherland, P., & Badger, R. (2004). Lecturers’ perceptions of lectures. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 28(3), 277–289. doi:10.1080/0309877042000241751 Suviniitty, J. (2010). Lecturers‖ questions and student perception of lecture comprehension. Helsinki English Studies 6, 44–57. Swales, J. M. (2001). Metatalk in American academic talk the cases of point and thing. Journal of English Linguistics 29(1), 34–54. doi:10.1177/00754240122005189 Swales, J. M., & Burke, A. (2003). “It’s really fascinating work”: Differences in evaluative adjectives across academic registers. In P. Leistyna & C. F. Meyer (Eds.), Corpus analysis:Language structure and language use (pp. 1–18). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Swales, J. & Feak, C. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Thompson, G., & Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation: an introduction. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 1–27). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Thompson, S. E. (2003). Text-structuring metadiscourse, intonation and the signaling of organization in academic lectures. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2(1), 5–20. doi:10.1016/S1475-1585(02)00036-X Titsworth, B. S., & Kiewra, K. A. (2004). Spoken organizational lecture cues and student note taking as facilitators of student learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(4), 447–461. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2003.12.001 Tognini-Bonelli, E. (2001). Corpus linguistics at work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. | ||
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 681 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 696 |