5.2.2 The identity of a researcher and linguistic ...
As expected, the identity of a researcher would be usually constructed in such communities of practice of presenting one’s or group’s research, like academic conferences. However, this identity is also found to be constructed by advice-givers in academic advising interaction. For example,
(5-12) PhD DPPM-5:
1 T4：所以她这个，实际上呢可能搞这种语料的人(就是)有的是，它有一种非常极端的(…)就是(只信)语料。就是[(……..)]
‘So in fact, one of the extreme is that the researchers who conduct studies on corpus just believe what they find from their corpus. Just [(……..)]’2 T2： [(语料….)]
‘Corpus…’
3 T5：搞语料以后，它就把那个社会环境啊，把它去掉=
‘Social factors will be removed from the corpus.’
4 T2：=对，抹平了=
‘Yes. (Social factors) have been removed.’
5 T5：=抹平了。
‘(Social factors) have been removed.’
→ 6 T4：它现在有两派，就在国外的话就是，它就是有的只做语料，它只信语料，反正我只有从语料中才是真实的，但是这，就刚才X老师((T2)) 说的，有的语料因为你用机器处理出来，也不是真实的，它也就是扭曲了。所以我就觉得还是用，因为我们是搞人文学科的，所以可能这两个方法可能还是要结合在一起。
‘Now there are two schools of corpus abroad. Some only focus on the corpus and they only believe what they find from the corpus. What I find only from the corpus is real, but as teacher X ((T2)) has said, some data are also not real and they will also be distorted if they are dealt with by a machine. So I think you should, because we are doing research in the discipline of humanities, these two methods should be combined in your study.’
7 S： 嗯。‘Mm.’
8 T4：哦：但是呢，可能就是量非常的大。
‘Hm, but the amount of data may be very large.’
9 T2：语篇分析定性和定量你肯定要结合=
‘As for text analysis, you need to combine the qualitative and quantitative analysis.’
10 T4：=要结合的。否则可能：：也是很难出现一些：：：好的这个观点，(或者)就不一定能够产生了。(1.0)还有就是你整个的这个框架，这个写作提纲，我刚才也看了一下，可能有，还是需要去：：：认真的去考虑一下。比如说，文献回顾=
‘(These two methods) need to be combined. Otherwise, it is very difficult to produce some good ideas. Besides, I have just read your framework and your outline of the dissertation. You may still need to carefully consider them, for example, the literature review.’
11 S： =嗯。
‘Mm.’
In this example, after pointing out the limitations of using technological ways to deal with the data in lines 1 and 6, T4 finally gives his advice to S in line 6 and offers explanations in line 10. However, T4’s advice-giving is based on the identity of a researcher constructed in line 6 by claiming “因为我们是搞人文学科的” (‘because we are doing research in the discipline of humanities.’). T4 constructs an identity of a researcher here not only for himself, but also for other participants in academic advising interaction,including S.
This identity can be further classified into two specific types, in terms of what aspects are made salient in interaction, namely the identity of a collegial researcher and the identity of a novice researcher. In fact, the identity of a researcher constructed by T4 in Ex.(5-12) is the identity of a collegial researcher.
The identity of a collegial researcher and linguistic choices for its construction
The identity of a collegial researcher is another deviational identity constructed by advice-givers in their advising sequences and the plural form of the first person pronoun “我们” (‘we’) is often used to indicate this identity. Many studies have demonstrated that the use of the plural form of the first person pronoun is a very important strategy in identity construction(e.g. Borthen, 2010; Fortanet, 2004; Han, 2010; Harwood, 2005; Hyland,2002a, 2002b; Ige, 2010; Kuo, 1999; Li, 1996; Proctor & Su, 2011). Fortanet(2004) finds that we, with a wide variety of referents and discourse functions,can be used in academic speech to refer to “larger group of people”including speaker and audience, to refer to speaker and audience, to refer to“I”, to refer to “you” and to refer to speaker and other people. These referents and discourse functions of we clearly demonstrate its roles in identity construction. In the following example, the plural form of the first person pronoun “我们” (‘we’) is used to construct an identity of a collegial researcher.(5-13) PhD DPPM-1:
1 S： 但是，其实，如果，如果这种别的，语法角度来讲的话，它们就是完全不同的。就是，都可以说=
‘But actually if considered from the perspective of grammar,they will be completely different. That is, all it can be(possible to) say.’
→ 2 T3：=但是就是我们呢，还是要正确的，哦：：，就什么呢，认真的去思考。
‘But for us, we still need to think about it carefully and correctly.’
3 S： 嗯。
‘Mm.’
4 T3：就是说，Chomsky是不是没有合理性，对吧？
‘That is to say, if what Chomsky claims is reasonable.’
5 T4：嗯嗯。
‘Yes yes.’
6 T3：这个：：：，反过来就是：，如果跟我们的，我觉得不管什么理论，你要符合我们对语言的基本的判断，对吧？就是，对语言事实的哦：：一个，一个认识，以及对，对于：：我：：们怎么样去表征客观现实。如果客观现实是一样的，如果我们用不同的这个，句子来表征的话，
‘In reverse, I think no matter what a theory it is, it should be in accordance with our basic judgment of language, right? That is,our basic knowledge of language fact and how we represent objective reality with language. If the objective reality is the same, and if we use different sentences to represent them…’
7 S： 嗯。
‘Mm.’
→ 8 T3：那么之间的联系，我们要(能不能..)，这是一个。
‘Then the connection between them. We need … this is one point.’
In this example, T3 puts himself and the advice-receiver into the same group by using the plural form of the first person pronoun “我们” (‘we’) in lines 2 and 8. In this way, T3 assumes that the problems that S encounters in his research become the ones that both S and he face in doing research. The use of “我们” (‘we’) make salient the interlocutors’ membership of a group, so the identity constructed in this way is defined as the identity of a collegial researcher.
In most cases, the plural form of the first person pronoun “我们” (‘we’)can be replaced by the singular form of the second person pronoun “你” (‘you’)without changing the propositional contents of utterances. In the following example, “我们” (‘we’) in lines 1, 4 and 6 is used by T1 to construct the identity of a collegial researcher and can be replaced by the singular form of the second person pronoun “你” (‘you’).
(5-14) PhD DPPM-4:
→ 1 T1：然后呢，就是刚才X老师((T4))讲的，就是说你的假设，一般我们提出假设都是为了我们提研究问题，
‘Then, it is what teacher X ((T4)) has said. That is to say, it’s about your hypothesis. Generally speaking, that we propose a hypothesis is just for us to raise research questions.’
2 T4：嗯。
‘Mm.’
3 S： 哦。
‘Mm.’
→ 4 T1：对不对？或当我们有研究问题，我们提出一些假设，这是我们研究的方向。
‘Right? Or when we have research questions, we propose some hypotheses. This is the direction of our study.’
5 S： 嗯。
‘Mm.’
→ 6 T1：比如说，从你的研究问题我们怎么去看我们提出一些假设，那么我们试图去证明这些假设。
‘For example, from your research questions, how we look at the hypotheses we’ve proposed. And then we attempt to prove these hypotheses.’
7 S： 对。
‘Right.’
8 T1：就是这两者之间的关系，当然那个X老师((T4))讲的是非常，就是，一针见血呵呵，一针见血。否则，你后面这些跟你前面这些什么关系呢，对吧？‘That is the relationship between these two. Certainly, what Teacher X ((T4)) has said is quite to the point (laughs softly), to the point. Otherwise, what’s the relationship between the later part and the previous part of your proposal. Right?’
9 S： 对对(2.0)对，这个地方我再细化一下。 ……
‘Yes. I will make it more specific…’
In the above examples, linguistic forms (i.e., personal pronouns) are used as a major way to construct the identity of a collegial researcher. This identity can be constructed to close the social distance and emotional distance between two parties, thus making it easier for the advice-receiver to accept what the advice-giver is suggesting.
The identity of a novice researcher and linguistic choices for its construction
It is also found that advice-givers may construct an identity of a novice researcher. The major way to construct this identity is to mention some personal experience of academic research, which is mainly about the problems encountered by the experts when they did some research as a novice.For example,
(5-15) PhD DPPM-1:
1 T2：就是，你可以，基本上意思，我可能知道你的意思，就是表达，不太：：特别的：让读者感觉舒服这个。这个：：，然后，哦I initiate a framework，但我的印象还不是特别清楚你的framework是什么=
‘That is, I may know what you mean to do, but your expression is not good and will make the readers feel uncomfortable.Then you said ‘I initiate a framework’, but it is still not clear to me.’
2 S：=嗯。
‘Mm.’
→ 3 T2：(2.0) simpler syntax，这个simpler syntax 需要大写。(11.0)然后，最后这个说In my research I demonstrate that there is no single ((读文字))。是不是有人这么说，有一个single ((读文字))。我感觉以前老外经常，我以前也经常被老外批评，你这是不是，你的target是不是你自己设立起来的。就是说：：：我也被批评过，我只好，嗯呵呵呵，所以来批评你。就是说，(2.0)就是当我们要要表达自己的贡献的时候一定要非常，不容易做理论就是这个意思。就是说又不能太过，但是的确要有贡献。(1.0)这个，哦：是不是有人这么说了，我感觉搞形式的人他也不会这么说。(2.0)他就是说，我只能，另外人家的目的不一样。他就是，我就是研究这个纯粹的，在什么最简方案之下，这个存在句的生成过程。你的目的不是要解决存在句的一切问题。
‘‘Simpler syntax’, this ‘simpler syntax’ needs to be capitalized.(11.0) Then the last one is ‘In my research I demonstrate that there is no single ((reading…)).’ Has anyone said that there is‘single ((reading…)).’ I feel that I was often criticized by foreigners (foreign experts) regarding whether my target was established by myself. That is, I have been criticized (because of a similar fault), so here I am criticizing you (laughs softly).That is to say, when we express our contributions, we must be very careful. So it’s not easy to do some research at the theoretical level. That is, we should not go too far but we must have our own contributions. For example, has anyone said this? But I think those doing formal linguistics will not say it like this. Besides, their purposes will be different. So he will,I will only focus on the study of the generation process of existential sentences purely within the framework of the Minimalist Program. Your purpose is not to solve all of problems (of the existential sentences).’
4 S： 对。
‘Right.’
5 T2：所以你就很难批评他那个。(5.0)
‘So it will be difficult for you to criticize his idea.’
In this example, T2 describes the problems that he encountered in his academic research in line 3 “我感觉以前老外经常，我以前也经常被老外批评，你这是不是，你的target是不是你自己设立起来的” (‘I feel that I was often criticized by foreigners (foreign experts) regarding whether my target was established by myself.’). T2 therefore indicates that he also encountered some problems in his past research due to lack of research experience, which are similar to the ones encountered by S now, thus constructing himself an identity of a novice researcher. Showing lack of research experience is a basic way to construct the identity of a novice researcher in this type of institutional interaction, whereas showing the intellectual sophistication is a way to construct the identity of an expert (Tracy & Naughton, 1994).
This identity mitigates the illocutionary force of T2’s criticizing S in line 3,“就是说：：：我也被批评过，我只好，嗯呵呵呵，所以来批评你。” (‘That is, I have been criticized (because of a similar fault), so here I am criticizing you (laughs softly).’). Here, discourse contents are more salient in constructing T2’s identity of a novice researcher.