5.1.2 The identity of an authoritative expert and ...
Authority is a very important aspect that an expert tends to exhibit in his/her advising sequences. In the institutional interaction in question,advice-givers construct the identity of an authoritative expert mainly through the use of intensifiers or “makers of strong deontic modality” (Svennevig,2011, p. 29), such as “一定” (‘must’), “必须” (‘must/have to’) and “应该”(‘should/ought to’), and through the employment of certain discourse styles and discourse contents, for instance, to make evaluations/comments and give advice directly, to avoid using any mitigation devices and to speak with a high degree of certainty. All of these are used to make salient the high level of certitude of advice-giving and the advice-givers’ higher power in this institutional interaction as well. For example,
(5-4) PhD DPPM-4:
1 T3：在感觉上，最后这个，
‘I think, the last one’
2 S： 哦。
‘Mm.’
3 T3：最后两章(两章里面的..)，等于是你这个论文的构架。实际上你已经回答了这个第一个问题。
‘In the last two chapters, that is the framework of your dissertation. In fact you have answered the first research question.’
4 S： 哦，是在？=
‘Hmm, where is it?’
5 T3：=本身你这个像X老师((T2))说的，前面四个，后面三个它本身就说，
‘Just as Teacher X ((T2)) has said, (there are four questions in the previous part and now three questions. They don’t correspond to each other.)’
6 S： 不对应，好像。
‘It seems that (they don’t correspond to each other.)’
→ 7 T3：一定要把自己的思路理清楚，你到底要回答几个问题，
‘You must organize your thought clearly. (How many questions)are you going to answer on earth?’
8 S： [前边的好像更清楚一些]
‘The previous ones are much clearer.’
9 T3：[不需要给那么多]，你不需要给那么多问题。
‘You don’t need to present so many questions. You don’t need to present so many questions.’
10 S： 噢。
‘Oh (I see).’
11 T3：你只需要给你研究的问题就OK了。
‘What you need to do is just to present your research questions.’
12 S： 噢。
‘Oh (I see).’
13 T3：这是，这是，这是一个。
‘This is one (of my suggestions.) ’
14 S： 嗯。
‘Mm.’
In this example, T3 first points out the problems in S’s proposal in lines 1,3 and 5, thus constructing an identity of an expert. In the followed sequences,he gives his advice in lines 7, 9 and 11, in which the identity of an expert is strengthened through the use of the intensifier “一定” (‘must’) and “你到底要” (‘(How many questions) are you going to answer on earth?’) in line 7 and the discourse style with a high imposition on the advice-receiver such as “你不需要” (you don’t need) in line 9 and “你只需要” (‘you only need’) in line 11.Conveying an assertive tone, these expressions demonstrate the advice-givers’high commitment to the discourse contents communicated and thus straightforwardly makes salient his authoritative aspect as an expert. (5-5) is another example of this kind.
(5-5) PhD DPPM-1:
→ 1 T2：……(2.0)这个，然后就是几个constraints，关于这一点，我觉得和你《外国语》的文章的毛病：：差不多，就是constraint哪里来的，刚才好像X，X老师((T4))也提到。比如说，constraint，然后你的文章中提到，你的这个研究的思路好像是constraint-based model。这个，我的感觉，你的理解有一点问题，什么叫constraint-based model？constraint-based model不是说我要提很多constraints。
‘As for this and then these several constraints, as for this problem, I think it’s similar to the problems in your article published in Journal of Foreign Languages, that is, where do the constraints come from? Teacher X ((T4)) also mentioned this just now. For example, you’ve mentioned in your article that the basic model you’ll take seems to be the constraint-based model. As for this, I think your understanding(of the constraint-based model) is a little problematic. What is the constraint-based model? The constraint-based model doesn’t mean that I will put forward a lot of constraints.’
2 S： 嗯。
‘Mm.’
3 T2：constraint-based model是constraint来自于model自身。比如说，构式语法本身也是constraint-based model，包括认知语法也是constraint-based model。‘The constraint-based model means that constraints are from the model itself. For example, Construction Grammar itself is also the constraint-based model. Cognitive Grammar is also the constraint-based model.’
4 S： 嗯。
‘Mm.’
→ 5 T2：它你就把文献，你看兰盖克的文章他并不提很多constraints。(1.0)就是，这一点，我觉得就是有一个理解上的问题，这个，然后constraint哪里来，如果你要用parallel structure，constraints直接来自于这个architecture 自身提供的工具，比如说句法的这个category，句法的这个trees什么的，这些自身就是constraints。然后兰盖克的constraint semantics它有什么样的工具，然后又是提供constraints。
‘From the literature, you’ll see that Langacker doesn’t put forward many constraints in his articles. As for this point, I think it is how to understand the theory correctly. And then where do the constraints come from? If you want to use parallel structure, then constraints are directly from the tools provided by this architecture itself, for example, the category of syntax and the syntactic trees etc. These themselves are the constraints. And then what tools do Langacker’s constraint semantics have and what constraints are provided (by these tools)?’
6 S： 嗯。
‘Mm.’
→ 7 T2：也就是说，当然如果你最后作为这个：哦：：：表述呢，你可以说，根据兰盖克，根据这个parallel architecture的什么什么样的一个思想，你可以把它细化出来，句法上有什么，甚至也可以提constraints。但是，你在作为一个理解上，就是说，哦，constraints自身不是一个理论，不是这个constraint model所需要的东西。‘That is to say, of course, if you finally use it as a formulation,you may say that according to Langacker, according to the basic idea of this parallel architecture, what will be at the syntactic level. You may make specific (the basic idea of this parallel architecture) and you may also raise some constraints.However, as for the understanding, that is to say, constraints are not a theory and they are not what this constraint model needs.’
8 S： 嗯。
‘Mm.’
→ 9 T2：constraint model自身就是constraints，不是说需要你再提很多constraints，
‘The constraint model itself is constraint. That doesn’t means that you need to raise many constraints.’
10 S： 嗯。
‘Mm.’
→ 11 T2：这一点是个理论上理解的一个东西。
‘This point is related to the understanding of the theories.’
12 S： 嗯。
‘Mm.’
13 T2：我觉得这一点很重要。
‘I think this point is very important.’
In this example, T2 first points out the problems in S’s proposal straightforwardly in line 1, that is, “关于这一点，我觉得和你《外国语》的文章的毛病：：差不多，就是constraint哪里来的” (‘As for this problem, I think it’s similar to the problems in your article published in Journal of Foreign Languages, that is, where do the constraints come from?’). It is followed by T2’s explicitly pointing out S’s misunderstanding of the term,“constraint-based model” in line 1, that is, “你的理解有一点问题” (‘Your understanding (of the constraint-based model) is a little problematic.’). T2 then illustrates what is not the constraint-based model and what is the constraint-based model in lines 1, 3 and 5 and finally gives advice in lines 7 and 9. In this dynamic process, T2 makes salient the authoritative aspect of his expert identity by straightforwardly pointing out the problems in S’s proposal and S’s misunderstanding of the model and also by his detailed illustration of the model. Moreover, T2 makes salient the authoritative aspect of his expert identity by repeatedly pointing out S’s misunderstanding of some terms and the importance of understanding the related theories correctly, for instance,“你的理解有一点问题” (‘Your understanding (of constraint-based model) is a little problematic.’) in line 1, “我觉得就是有一个理解上的问题” (‘I think there exists some problems in the understanding (of the terms or theories).’) in line 5, “你在作为一个理解上” (‘as for the understanding’) in line 7, “这一点是个理论上理解的一个东西” (‘this point is related to the understanding of the theories.’) in line 11, and “我觉得这一点很重要” (‘I think this point is very important.’) in line 13. Despite the use of some mitigation devices (e.g., “有一点,” ‘a little’ ) and hedges (e.g., “我觉得,” ‘I think’), which are often the indicators of being amiable or modest, these utterances convey the similar discourse contents by an unusual repetition, which is more salient.
It is clear that T2 here chooses to make salient his image of an authoritative expert mainly through discourse contents communicated in his utterances and discourse style (i.e., repetition) as well.
Advice-giving typically entails asymmetry with respect to authority and expertise (DeCapua & Dunham, 1993; Pudlinski, 2005; Vehviläinen, 2001). As Hutchby (1995, p. 221) points out, advice-giving has a distinctive and fundamental feature: “in that it involves a speaker assuming some deficit in the knowledge state of a recipient, advice-giving is an activity which assumes or establishes an asymmetry between the participants.” Constructing the identity of an authoritative expert and the identity of a knowledgeable expert clearly show the asymmetry in advice-giving, which aims at certain communicative goal. In the current context, the main purpose of the advice-givers’ construction of these two identities is to draw the advice-receivers’ attention to what they have suggested, are suggesting or will suggest and strengthen the illocutionary force of advising.