Mixed messages in criticisms in Iranian PhD dissertation defenses

Authors

  • Ahmad Izadi Islamic Azad University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.35211

Keywords:

criticisms, dissertation defenses, interpersonal relationship, discourse strategies

Abstract

Taking up the role of examiner in PhD dissertation defense sessions involves dealing with two contradictory desires; namely, effective delivery of criticisms and maintaining a positive interpersonal relationship with the recipients of those criticisms. This study explores the discourse strategies examiners use to express the speech act of criticism in the context of Iranian dissertation defense sessions in English for Academic Purposes. The data come from simplified transcriptions of twelve video-recorded sessions of PhD dissertation defense sessions (DDs) from 63 to 123 minutes long. The examiners’ criticisms, which are delivered in the Question-Answer (Q-A) part of defense sessions, are selected for analysis. Consulting taxonomies of criticisms provided by previous studies as the point of departure, the study also provides a taxonomy of criticisms which best fits its purpose. The identified 120 acts are classified into 10 strategy types. The analyses reveal a ‘mixed message’ in criticism acts in that they ambivalently include elements of negativity and positivity. Most criticisms include a number of mitigating strategies as well as aggravating strategies. In addition, they include strategies which ambivalently mitigate and aggravate. It is therefore argued that examiners ambivalently establish relational connection with and separation from the candidates (and their supervisors) through criticisms.

Author Biography

  • Ahmad Izadi, Islamic Azad University

    Ahmad Izadi (PhD) is Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics at the department of English, Abadan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Abadan, Iran. His areas of interest are face and politeness theory, conversation analysis and intercultural communication. He has published a number of papers in international journals including Journal of Pragmatics, Language and Communication, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, and Pragmatics and Society. He is currently working on his book on interpersonal pragmatics of academic talk-in-interaction, contracted with Springer.

References

Aijmer, K. (1986) Why is actually so popular in spoken English? In G. Tottie and I. Bäcklund (eds) English in Speech and Writing: A Symposium, 119–129. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.

Arundale, R. B. (2010) Constituting face in conversation: Face, facework, and interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics 42 (8): 2078–2105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.021

Bach, K. and Harnish, R. (1979) Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Blum-Kulka, S. (1987) Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different? Journal of Pragmatics 11 (2): 131–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(87)90192-5

Brown, P., and Levinson, S. C. (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085

Don, Z. and Izadi, A. (2011) Relational connection and separation in Iranian dissertation defenses. Journal of Pragmatics 43 (15): 3782–3792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.010

Don, Z. and Izadi, A. (2013) Interactionally achieving face in criticism–criticism response exchanges. Language and Communication 33 (3): 221–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2013.05.003

Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (1992) Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, 3–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Eelen, G. (2001) Critique of Politeness Theories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goffman, E. (1967) Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Anchor Books.

Grimshaw, A. D. (1989) Collegial Discourse: Professional Conversation among Peers. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Haverkate, H. (1984) Speech Acts, Speakers and Hearers. Pragmatics and Beyond 4. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pb.v.4

Heritage, J. (2002) The limits of questioning: Negative interrogatives and hostile question content. Journal of Pragmatics 34 (10–11): 1427–1446. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00072-3

Heritage, J. (2012) Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45 (1): 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684

Hunston, S. and Thompson, G. (2000) Evaluation: An introduction. In S. Hunston and G. Thompson (eds) Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, 1–13. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hyland, K. (1998) Boosting, hedging and negotiation of academic knowledge. Text 18 (3): 349–382. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1998.18.3.349

Hyland, K. (2004) Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Itakura, H. and Tsui, A. B. M. (2011) Evaluation in academic discourse: Managing criticism in Japanese and English book reviews. Journal of Pragmatics 43 (5): 1366–1379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.023

Izadi, A. (2013) Disagreements in Iranian dissertation defenses. Lodz Papers in Papers 9 (2): 199–226. https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2013-0012

Izadi, A. (2016) Over-politeness in Persian professional interactions. Journal of Pragmatics 102: 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.004

Izadi, A. (2017a) Culture-generality and culture-specificity of face: Insights from argu­mentative talk in Iranian dissertation defenses. Pragmatics and Society 8 (2): 208–230.

Izadi, A. (2017b) Turn taking, preference and face in dissertation defenses. Research in Applied Linguistics 8 (1): 72–88.

Kärkkäinen, E. (2006) Stance taking in conversation: From subjectivity to intersubjectivity. Text & Talk 26 (6): 699–731. https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.029

Koshik, I. (2002) A conversation analytic study of yes/no questions which convey reversed polarity assertions. Journal of Pragmatics 34 (12): 1851–1877. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00057-7

Lin, C. Y. (2015) Seminars and interactive lectures as a community of knowledge co-construction: The use of modifiers. English for Specific Purposes 38: 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2015.02.002

Locher, M. (2004) Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreements in Oral Communication. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110926552

Locher, M. and Watts, R. (2005) Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research 1 (1): 9–33. https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.9

Martinez-Flor, A. (2005) A theoretical review of the speech act of suggesting: Towards a taxonomy for its use in FLT. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 18: 167–187. https://doi.org/10.14198/raei.2005.18.08

Nguyen, M. T. T. (2005) Criticizing and Responding to Criticism in a Foreign Language: A Study of Vietnamese Learners of English. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of Auckland, New Zealand.

Nguyen, M. T. T. (2008) Criticizing in an L2: Pragmatic strategies used by Vietnamese EFL learners. Intercultural pragmatics 5 (1): 41–66. https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2008.003

Ochs, E. (1993) Constructing social identity: A language socialization perspective. Research on Language and Social Interaction 26 (3): 287–306. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2603_3

Sifianou, M. (2012) Disagreement, face and politeness. Journal of pragmatics 44 (12): 1554–1564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.009

Simpson, R., Briggs, S., Ovens, J. and Swales, J. (2002) The Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English. Ann Arbor: The Regents of the University of Michigan.

Spencer-Oatey, H. (2005) (Im)Politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: Unpackaging their bases and interrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research 1 (1): 95–119. https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.95

Steensig, J. and Larsen, T., (2008) Affiliative and disaffiliative uses of you say x questions. Discourse Studies 10 (1): 113–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607085593

Swales, J. M. (2001) Metatalk in American academic English: The cases of point and thing. Journal of English Linguistics 29 (1): 34–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/00754240122005189

Swales, J. M. (2004) Research Genres: Explorations and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524827

Toplak, M. and Katz, A. (2000) On the uses of sarcastic irony. Journal of Pragmatics 32 (10): 1467–1488. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00101-0

Tracy, K. (1997) Colloquium: Dilemmas of Academic Discourse. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Tracy, K. and Eisenberg, E. (1990) Giving criticisms: A multiple goals case study. Research on Language and Social Interaction 24: 37–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351819009389332

Wajnryb, R. (1993) Strategies for the management and delivery of criticisms. EA Journal 11 (2): 74–84.

Published

2018-10-31

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Izadi, A. (2018). Mixed messages in criticisms in Iranian PhD dissertation defenses. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 11(3), 270-291. https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.35211

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >>