5.1 Default Identity and Linguistic Choices for It...
The default identity in the academic community of practice under study is that of the expert. Hence, in Chinese PhD dissertation proposal presentation meetings, the members of the committee are expected to construct the expert identity. Since these meetings are goal-oriented institutional interactions, the members of the committee are expected to perform certain speech acts. In the questioning and advising phase, they are expected to make comments on PhD students’ proposals, ask questions and offer suggestions.When giving their advice, they are expected to construct an expert identity,which is the “default identity” (Richards, 2006) in this institutional context.This identity ranks high in the data, which is in line with the participants’expectation. For example,
(5-1) PhD DPPM-5:
→ 1 T3：……刚才X老师((T1))讲了，你的汇报呢没有给我们一个示范，是吧？
‘As Teacher X ((T1)) said just now, your presentation hasn’t demonstrated (how you analyze your data).’
2 T1：对。
‘Right.’
3 S： 嗯。
‘Mm.’
4 T3：比如说你搞两个语篇，或者，一个汉语语篇，一个英语语篇=
‘For example, you can use two texts to (show us how you analyze the data). One is Chinese text and the other is English text.’
5 S： =嗯嗯=
‘Mm Mm’
→ 6 T3：=然后就是把它转述的情况。比如说，你分析这三个维度。那你把这三个维度你标出来，然后呢再两个英汉比较一下，然后让我们看到=
‘Then demonstrate the different situations of reporting. For example, you can analyze your data from these three dimensions. Then you can tag your data from these three dimensions and then make a comparison between English data and Chinese data, thus to show us (your analysis).’
7 T4：=有没有(相同类型的东西)=
‘to find out if there are the same types of’
8 T3：=哎哎。有没有就是(get your hands on your data)，是吧？你如果还没有去，直接去看语料然后就在：：更多的就像brainstorm，那还是，不是太有把握。
‘(To show us) if you have (got your hands on your data), right?If you haven’t, and if you directly analyze the data, it will be just like brainstorming. If you do like this, it will not be so definite.’
9 S： 我去标了，但是，还没进行，就是，就是还没标完。
‘I have done some tagging, but I haven’t finished it.’
10 T3：对。
‘Right.’
11 S： 就是看了一部分，[观察了(一下)]
‘I’ve just finished one part of it and observed it a little.’
12 T3： [那你给我们看看]，比如说，英语的报纸它在转述的时候，它：有些什么样子，怎么做的=
‘Then you should show it to us. For instance, what is English newspaper like when it uses reporting?’
13 S： =嗯=
‘Mm’
→ 14 T3：=就是英语的有些什么特征，可能你作为个案吧，不能看整体的一个差异，那是后面做的。但你至少先给我们看一看，是吧？
‘That is, what are the characteristics of reporting in an English newspaper. You may conduct a case study, but you cannot treat it as a general difference. You may deal with the general difference later, but you should let us have a brief look at it,ok?’
In this example, T3 chooses to construct his expert identity mainly through discourse contents and linguistic forms. For example, in line 1, T3 makes a comment on S’s presentation and he supports this comment through the use of the intertextuality (e.g., Ho, 2011; Matoesian, 2000; Nevins, 2010;Wu & Qin, 2006; Xin, 2000, 2001, 2002 ; Xin & Lai, 2010), i.e., “刚才X老师((T1))讲了” (‘Teacher X said just now…’). Focused on the limitations of S’s presentation he has commented on, T3 offers his advice, in lines 4 and 6,through illustrations. In line 8, T3 gives reasons for the necessity of analyzing data and in line 14, T3 again gives his advice, which is similar to that in lines 4 and 6. Furthermore, T3 uses “我们” (‘us’) and “你” (‘you’) to put the members of the committee and the advice-receiver into two different social categories,as “我们” (‘us’) is the exclusive we in the current context. All of these indicate that T3 speaks in the voice of the institution and constructs his default identity of an expert.
The expert identity is the most frequently constructed one by advice-givers in their advising sequences. Four subtypes of expert identity,which are actually different aspects of an expert, are made salient in this type of institutional interaction. These are the identity of a knowledgeable expert,the identity of an authoritative expert, the identity of a modest expert and the identity of an amiable expert. These multiple identities are actually different images shaped by an expert through the making of linguistic choices at different moments in dynamic interactions. In this sense, these identities are different from the other identities in the present study, namely the identity of a teacher, a virtual advice-receiver, a researcher and a layperson,which are at the same level with the expert identity.