8.2.1 Theoretical implications
The theoretical implications of the present study can be summarized as follows:
Firstly, the present study, having carefully described and provided an interpretation for the advice-givers’ identity construction in their academic advising interaction within the theoretical framework of the Linguistic Adaptation Theory, can promote the understanding of identity and its construction, particularly the characteristics and motivations of deviational identity construction and identity modification and shift. Based on the findings, the definition of identity can be revised as: who we must be / can be/ might be, which is linguistically constructed in a social and communicative network and which is made salient through the optimally making of choices and for satisfying communicative needs in the current context of a dynamic interaction.
Secondly, with various other theories, for example, the Politeness Principle and the Face Theory, the notion of Community of Practice, being integrated into the Linguistic Adaptation Theory, which embraces a view of“cognitive, social and cultural perspective” on language use (Verschueren,1999, p. 7), this study has evidenced that the Linguistic Adaptation Theory can be more powerful in providing a systematic description and interpretation of identity construction. The present study has fleshed out “the theoretical construct with applicable working modules” (Chen, 2009, p. 180). In this sense,the present study makes some contribution to the development of the Linguistic Adaptation Theory.
Thirdly, the present study proposes a new way to define advising acts, as it combines the speech act theoretic approach to advising acts, which focuses on the head act(s) of an advising act, and the approach to advising in institutional interactions, which treats advising as a problem-solving activity and focuses on the sequences of an advising act. To do this, the CCSARP model is first employed to identify head act(s) of advising and then the head act(s)is/are put into a much wider context. This newly-combined approach can make it possible to examine advising acts from both a micro-perspective and a macro-perspective. The appropriate use of advising head acts should not be the only criterion to judge the language learners’ pragmatic competence. How to introduce an advising act appropriately should also be examined as a part of the language learners’ pragmatic competence. This study therefore has some theoretical significance for advising study in institutional interactions and interlanguage and cross-cultural pragmatics. It is also significant for the study of other pragmatic acts in institutional interactions and interlanguage and cross-cultural pragmatics (Ren, 2013). In addition, compared with an abundant literature on advising in the English context, advising in a Chinese context has received little attention (e.g., Ding, 2001; Yu, 2009a). In this regard, the present study can also contribute to the study of advising in a Chinese context.
Fourthly, it may contribute to the discussion on spoken academic interaction. Although spoken academic interaction has received increasing attention during the last two decades covering various genres and topics[1],only a few studies have focused on identity construction in spoken academic interaction (e.g., Tracy & Carjuzáa, 1993; Tracy & Naughton, 1994; Xia, 2009;Dong, 2012). By making such a thorough examination, this study can not only enhance the understanding of identity construction in academic interaction,but also deepen the understanding of spoken academic interaction from a perspective of identity construction. In addition, the present study can enrich the discussion on spoken academic interaction in the Chinese context. The previous studies have widely explored spoken academic interaction in English contexts. Spoken academic interaction in the Chinese context has received little attention. Moreover, compared with the studies on other institutional interactions in a Chinese context, for example, courtroom interaction (e.g.,Hu, 2009; Li, 2007; Liao, 2002, 2004), doctor-patient interaction (e.g., Gu,1996; Liu, 2008; Yang, 2011; Yu, 2009a, 2009b; Yuan, 2011a), TV talks or interviews (e.g., Dai, 2009; Li, 2008), spoken academic interaction has received little attention and we still know little about the characteristics of this particular institutional interaction. According to Tracy and Carjuzáa (1993,p. 172), the common reluctance to be studied and the tendency of previous scholars to regard the “study of intellectual discussion as self-indulgent” are the two possible reasons for the rare literature of spoken academic interaction. This seems also to be true of the Chinese situation[2]. The present study can hopefully enrich the studies of spoken academic interaction in the Chinese context, thus offering “an opportunity to understand better the institution of higher education” (Tracy & Carjuzáa, 1993, p. 172).
Finally, the present study offers an identity construction approach to advising by exploring the dynamic interaction of identity construction and advising. Using language can perform several activities at the same time. In the process of giving advice, advice-givers can do identity-work and face-work at the same time. Doing identity-work and doing face-work are strategies for giving advice and they are carried out through the dynamic making of linguistic choices.
Figure 8.1 The interrelationship of using language, advising,constructing identity and doing face-work
Tracy (2002, p. 7) points out that “although people do talk with each other to give and receive information, other activities are always getting done.” In giving advice, doing identity-work is one of such activities. From the perspective of identity construction, the linguistic choices made to mitigate the imposition of advising acts or to strengthen the illocutionary force of advising also constructs certain identities for advice-givers at the same time.These identities are in turn as strategies used to perform advising acts effectively. The interrelationship between advising and identity construction through the language use can be illustrated by Figure 8.1.
Using language can do several activities at the same time, for instance,to perform an advising act, to do identity-work and to do face-work. However,the making of linguistic choices is constrained by doing these activities, which have different degrees of salience at any given moment. In academic advising interaction, performing advising acts becomes the most salient work.Advice-givers can perform an advising act effectively by constructing identities and doing face-work and these pragmatic strategies are co-constrained and realized by making linguistic choices in verbal interaction.
In this way, advising, doing face-work and constructing identities are interrelated in academic advising interaction through the use of language. The present study therefore has some theoretical significance for the study on other pragmatic acts in institutional interactions.