7.2.1 Identity construction adapting to the social...
As summarized in Section 4.2.4, in identity construction in academic advising interaction, the major correlates in the social world to be adapted to are the institutional community of practice, modesty, power relation and social distance. The following subsections will carefully examine how different identities are constructed to adapt to each of these correlates.
Identities constructed to adapt to institutional community of practice
Advice-givers in Chinese PhD dissertation proposal presentation meetings are expected to construct the identity of an expert. Therefore, the expert identity is constructed to adapt to this institutional community of practice,especially the identity of a knowledgeable expert and the identity of an authoritative expert.
It is found in Section 6.2.1 that advice-givers make identity shift mainly around their default expert identity. This demonstrates that in most cases, the advice-givers’ identity construction adapts to the academic community of practice.
The teacher identity is also constructed to adapt to the institutional community of practice, i.e., the institutional context of classroom teaching,in which the relationship of teacher-student are made salient. Although the construction of the teacher identity adapts to the institutional community of practice in general, it is different from the institutional community of practice in question.
Identities constructed to adapt to power relation
The power relation between advice-givers and advice-receivers is one of the most important correlates constraining the advice-givers’ identity construction. For example, the advice-givers’ construction of the identity of a knowledgeable expert and the identity of an authoritative expert mainly adapts to power relation in this institutional context. Ex.(7-4) and Ex.(7-5) can be used to illustrate this.
(7-4) PhD DPPM-2:
→ 1 T1：所以说你这个，我还是建议呢，你这个就是说，你光用语料库还不行。
‘So as for this, I still suggest, if you just use corpus, it may be not enough.’
2 T5：嗯。
‘Mm.’
3 S： 嗯：：
‘Mm.’
4 T1：你光语料库还真不行。
‘If you only use corpus, it is not enough indeed.’
5 T5：嗯。
‘Mm.’
6 T4：我觉得可以加interview
‘I think you may add interview.’
7 T1：啊？
‘eh?’
8 T4：interview
→ 9 T1：他，我给你说，最近那个Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory那那个杂志，09年第一期，一个专刊，就讲，corpus, and experiment，就是结合的。
‘I tell you that there is one special issue of Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory in 2009. (The articles in the issue are about) the combination of the methods of corpus and experiment.’
10 T4：嗯。
‘Mm.’
11 T1：叫实验研究，为什么呢，因为这两者为什么能结合呢，因为corpus只能给你提供结果，
‘called experimental study. Why can these two methods be combined? Because the corpus can provide results.’
12 T3：对。
‘Right.’
13 S： 嗯嗯。
‘Mm Mm.’
14 T1：不能提供过程，因为它只能提供frequency嘛，对不对？
‘(it) can’t provide the process because it can only provide the frequency, right?’
15 S： 嗯。
‘Yes’
16 T1：而这个实验研究能提供过程，但它对结果呢它又不确定，
‘The experiment can provide the process, but it can’t be sure of the results.’
17 S： 嗯。
‘Mm.’
→ 18 T1：所以它两者是互补的。
‘So they both are complementary.’
19 T4：互补，对。
‘Yes. (They are) complementary.’
20 S： 嗯。
‘Mm.’
21 T1：哎，两者互补的，对吧？
‘Hm, (they) both are complementary, right?’
Here, T1 gives his advice directly by using a performative for advising in line 1, to construct his default expert identity, which is expected in this institutional context. From lines 9 to 16, T1 refers to one special issue in Corpus Linguistics and Linguistics Theory, which shows his rich knowledge in particular research fields, thus adjusting his default expert identity to be an identity of a knowledgeable expert. The utterances in lines 18 and 21 are the summary of the methods adopted by the studies in the special issue and at the same time convey a specific suggestion that S should think about the combination of corpus and experiment in his study. In this excerpt, T1 first gives his advice to S and then supports his advice by constructing a knowledgeable expert in the post-sequence. The advice-giver’s knowledgeability is made salient, which indicates his higher power in this interaction. In this sense, the identity of a knowledgeable expert is constructed to adapt to the power relation through making linguistic choices.
The identity of an authoritative expert is also constructed to adapt to power relation in this institutional context. Advice-givers in this institutional context are assumed to use direct ways to give advice, which demonstrate the advice-givers’ higher power in interaction. For example,
(7-5) PhD DPPM-3:
1 T3：我插一句，
‘I interrupt for a few seconds.’
2 T2：哎。
‘Ok.’
3 T3：你这个时候，就是在有限语料的基础上，
‘Now just based on the limited data’
4 T2：对。
‘Yes.’
5 T3：你要采取归纳法，
‘You need adopt the inductive method.’
6 T2：对。
‘Yes.’
7 T3：不能采取演绎法，
‘You can’t adopt the deductive method.’
8 T2：嗯。
‘Mm.’
9 T3：演绎不行，
‘You can’t use the inductive method.’
10 T2：对对对。
‘Right right right.’
11 T3：演绎就漏洞百出了，要归纳。
‘If you use the deductive method, there will be full of loopholes. You need to use the inductive method.’
In this example, T3 gives his advice directly and in the whole process, T3 strengthens his authority as an expert by direct suggestions realized by “你要”(‘you need…’) in line 5, “不能” (‘can’t’) in line 7, “不行” (‘can’t’) in line 9 and“要归纳” (‘need to use the inductive method’) in line 11.
The power relation between advice-givers and advice-receivers is generally asymmetrical in academic advising interaction and the construction of the identities of an authoritative expert and a knowledgeable expert is interadaptable to the asymmetry of power relation. Advice-givers show their higher power by dynamically constructing the identities of an authoritative expert and a knowledgeable expert, thus positively adapting to the power relation between two parties in the interaction[3].
Identities constructed to adapt to modesty
Barker and Galasiński (2001, p. 157) argue that identities are “the unique articulations of specific discursive traces that circulate under definite cultural and historical conditions.” Modesty is one of the important traits in Chinese culture. As Gu (1990) points out, modesty is one of the four basic notions underlying the Chinese conception of politeness. The experts in academic advising interaction sometimes make salient the aspect of being modest. For example,
(7-6) PhD DPPM-4:
……
1 S： 对对(2.0)对，这个地方我再细化一下。我最初的想法就说是，首先，从理论上一个，框架，然后我再把这个框架用于解释学术互动，或者学术口语话语，是这样想的。那这样的话，我就是相当于刚才X老师((T1))说的，没有把这个具体化，没有联系起来。
‘Yes. I will make it more specific. My initial idea is that I construct a theoretical framework and then I use this framework to interpret academic interaction or spoken academic discourse. This is my initial idea. If I do like this,then it is just as Teacher X ((T1)) has said, I haven’t made it more specific and I haven’t made a connection between (the hypotheses and research questions).’
2 T1：对哦哦。
‘Right.’
→ 3 T3：你这构架是对的，思路是对的。‘Your framework is right. Your idea is right.’
4 S： 嗯。
‘Mm.’
→ 5 T3：但是你建构架的这个，这个角度和基于文献，
‘But the perspective you’ll take to establish the framework must be on the basis of the literature.’
6 S： 嗯。
‘Mm.’
7 T3：那你怎么构建，你构建的这东西呢，有可能是理论层面上帮你做分析的，
‘Then how do you construct this framework? Maybe it will help you do the theoretical analysis.’
8 S： 嗯。
‘Mm.’
9 T3：也有可能就是说你基于前边对身份。
‘It is also possible that based on the previous discussion of identity you…’
10 S： 嗯。
‘Mm.’
11 T3：基于前面研究和以前的理论你有一个假设。
‘Based on the previous studies and theories, you will have a hypothesis.’
12 S： 嗯。
‘Mm.’
13 T3：它应该是[这样]。
‘It should be like this.’
14 S： [嗯]。
‘Mm.’
15 T3：那拿来以后，你去看现实是不是这样。
‘Then based on the hypothesis you can see whether the reality is like this.’
16 S： 对。
‘Right.’
→ 17 T3：那那是这样一个思路。
‘Then it is such a way of thinking.’
18 S： 嗯。
‘Mm.’
→ 19 T3：但是我看完以后，你这个我觉得有些核心的东西哦，
‘But after I finish reading it, I think some core part are …’
20 S： 嗯。
‘Mm.’
→ 21 T3：哦：：：，供你参考。
‘Um, (what I’m going to say is) just for your reference.’
22 S： 嗯。
‘Mm.’
→ 23 T3：有些可能说的对，有些可能说的不对。就说，我现在关心的你这个是，你是身份的语用研究，
‘Some of what I suggest may be right, while some may not be right. What I’m now concerned about is that your study is about the pragmatic approach to identity (or…).’
24 S： 嗯。
‘Mm.’
……
As discussed in Section 5.1.3, T3 constructs an identity of a modest expert by employing some typical formulaic expressions in Chinese to show modesty by a superior, that is, “供你参考” (‘(what I’m going to say is) just for your reference’) in line 21 and “有些可能说的对，有些可能说的不对” (‘Some of what I suggest may be right, while some may not be right’) in line 23.
Constructing the identity of a modest expert reveals the advice-givers’actively adapting to the modest correlate in Chinese socio-cultural context. In other words, this identity is constructed to adapt to Chinese “cultural communicative norms” (He, 2004, p. 17).
Identities constructed to adapt to social distance
Social distance is another very important parameter constraining the advice-givers’ identity construction in their advising sequences. There are in general two tendencies related to social distance: one is to enlarge the social distance between two parties in an interaction and the other is to close the social distance between two parties.
The identity of a collegial researcher is mainly constructed to close the social distance between advice-givers and advice-receivers by making salient their membership in the same group. For example,
(7-7) PhD DPPM-5:
1 T3：呵呵追根溯源，对。嗯：：：然后，(3.0)刚才你在做presentation，你讲到五个方面，是吧？五个方面的就你这个研究的差别，哦：：就是说，从虚构到真实，是吧？
‘(laughs softly) find out the source. Hmm then just now when you presented (your proposal), you have mentioned five aspects, right? The five aspects make your research different from others, that is, from being fictive to being real, right?’
2 S： 嗯。
‘Yes.’
3 T3：从英语到汉语。那你不是从英语到汉语，实际上从英语到英汉语，是吧？
‘From English to Chinese, then your (study) are not from English to Chinese. In fact, (your study) is from English to English-Chinese, right?’
4 S： 嗯。
‘Yes.’
5 T3：因为你比较嘛。从虚构到真实，这个我觉得可能你要考虑一下，就是说，以前人家CDA的这个，哦：包括新闻标题的这个，新闻转述，人家也不一定是虚构的哦。
‘because you (are going to make a) comparison. From being fictive to being real, I think you need to consider this point.That is to say, the previous (studies) on CDA, including (the studies) on news headlines and news reporting, they are not necessarily fictive.’
6 S： 我：：你是说那个评价，是吧？
‘Are you talking about the evaluation?’
7 T3：哎，就你五个嘛。因为这个是涉及到我们研究的这个=
‘Yes, just about these five, because this relates to (the direction of) our research.’
8 T4：=方向=
‘Direction’
9 T3：=哎对对对，哎上述研究的评价，是吧？
‘Yes, about the comments on the previous research, right?’
10 S： 嗯。我，我这里就是，虚构语料这个意思，是吧？就是，最初都是研究文学文学语篇中=
‘Hmm as for the fictive data, what I mean here is that the texts in the research of literature are initially fictive.’
11 T3：=嗯嗯嗯=
‘Mm Mm Mm’
12 S： =我它不是现实生活中的语篇
‘I mean that they are not the texts in real life.’
13 T3：哦，你是讲这个意思哦=
‘Oh (I see), this is what you mean.’
14 S： =这个意思，[然后]
‘(This is what) I mean. Then’
15 T3： [那你]最后就是总结两点，是吧？一个大语料研究少，一个汉语研究少=
‘Then finally you may summarize two points, right? One is that the research using large corpus is scarce and the other is that the research on Chinese is scarce.’
16 S： =对。
‘Right.’
17 T3：哦，那实际实际上呢就是汉语研究，这个汉语少不是最关键的，可能是英汉对比少，是吧？就是没有英汉对比的。就是说，文献：综述之后，我们总要去去概括，总结出就是为你这个研究所提供的一些研究空白，是吧？
‘Hm, then in fact the Chinese research, the small amount of the Chinese research is not the crucial point here. The crucial point maybe the scarcity of the research of English-Chinese comparison, right? There are no studies on English-Chinese comparison. That is to say, after literature review, we always need to summarize some gaps left by the previous studies for your research, right?’
18 S： 嗯。
‘Yes.’
19 T3：一些research gaps，是吧？那么你的research gaps只是这两个可能还不够。
‘(To provide) some research gaps, right? Then only these two research gaps are not enough.’
20 S： 哦就是大体写了两个。
‘Hm I just list two here.’
21 T3：对。
‘Right.’
In this example, T3 constructs an identity of a collegial researcher by explicitly using the inclusive we in line 7, namely “因为这个是涉及到我们研究的这个” (‘because this relates to (the direction of) our research.’). This identity of a collegial researcher is constructed to close the social distance between T3 and the advice-receiver S, thus supporting T3’s advice in line 5. T3 constructs an identity of a collegial researcher again by explicitly using the inclusive we in line 17, namely “我们总要去去概括” (‘we always need to summarize...’). Here, the identity of a collegial researcher is constructed in the sequence of advising performance to mitigate the imposition of the advising act by closing the social distance between the two parties involved in the interaction.