اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 22 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 475 |
| تعداد مقالات | 3,691 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 4,882,929 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 4,292,591 |
ارجاع در نشانگرهای اهمیت مطلب در سخنرانی‌های علمی دانشگاهی | ||
| زبان پژوهی | ||
| مقاله 107، دوره 10، شماره 29، پاییز و زمستان 1397، صفحه 9-9 | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22051/jlr.2018.12606.1227 | ||
| نویسنده | ||
جواد زارع 
| ||
| دانشگاه کوثر بجنورد | ||
| چکیده | ||
| درک سخنرانی‌های علمی کلاسی اساتید برای دانشجویان دشوار است. این دشواری را می‌توان به‌خاطر زودگذر بودن مطالب شفاهی ارائه شده در آن‌ها و همچنین توزیع متراکم اطلاعات در سخنرانی‌ها دانست. آن‌چه می‌تواند به دانشجویان در درک این سخنرانی‌ها کمک کند، شناخت این سبک است. به همین منظور، هدف از انجام این تحقیق بررسی ارجاع در نشانگرهای اهمیت مطلب در سخنرانی‌های علمی انگلیسی است. به طور خاص، این تحقیق کوشیده چگونگی ارجاع‌دهی در نشانگرهای اهمیت مطلب توسط اساتید دانشگاه مرد و زن را بررسی نماید. رونوشت 160 سخنرانی موجود در پیکره انگلیسی بیس بررسی شد و فهرستی از 1،350 نمونه نشانگر اهمیت مطلب استخراج شد. سپس، این نشانگرها به پنج دسته سازمان‌دهی کلام، تعامل با مخاطب، پوشش موضوع، وضعیت مطلب و ارتباط با امتحان تقسیم شده و ازلحاظ ارجاع—پیش مرجع، پس مرجع و مرجع مشترک—برای اساتید مرد و زن بررسی شد. نتایج نشان داد: (1) هم اساتید مرد و هم اساتید زن بیشتر مایلند در نشانگرهای سازمان‌دهی کلام و وضعیت مطلب به‌صورت پس مرجع به مطلب مهم اشاره کنند، (2) هر دو گروه اساتید در پوشش موضوع تقریبا به طور مساوی از نشانگرهای پیش مرجع و پس مرجع استفاده می‌کنند، (3) ارتباط با امتحان هم توسط اساتید مرد و هم اساتید زن صرفا به صورت پیش مرجع انجام می‌شود و (4) تعامل با مخاطب در نشانگرهای اهمیت مطلب بیشتر به صورت پس مرجع صورت می‌گیرد. درکل نتایج نشان داد، بیشتر نشانگرهای اهمیت مطلب در سخنرانی‌های علمی انگلیسی پس مرجع هستند. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| سخنرانی علمی؛ ارجاع؛ پیش مرجع؛ پس مرجع؛ مرجع مشترک | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Reference in importance markers in academic lectures | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Javad Zare | ||
| Kosar University of Bojnord | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Background Comprehending English academic lectures is difficult for students whose mother tongue is not English. This difficulty is mostly due to the ephemeral nature of lectures and the density of information presented in them. An understanding of how importance is signaled in lectures might benefit students in their comprehension. To this end, this paper was an attempt to investigate reference in the importance markers of English academic lectures. Expressions that help students distinguish between important and unimportant information are referred to as relevance markers (Crawford Camiciottoli, 2007; Deroey & Taverniers, 2012a; Hunston, 1994), ‘importance cues’ (Kiewra, 2002), ‘emphasizers’ (Siepmann, 2005), ‘selection cues’ (Titsworth & Kiewra, 2004), and ‘focusers’ (Simpson, 2004). According to Hunston (1994), relevance markers have four distinguishing features. First, they may be retrospective or prospective. This feature relates to the placement of the important information, whether they have been placed before or after the importance marker. Second, relevance markers “overtly mark the relevance of preceding, or subsequent, stretches of text” (p. 199). This feature is related to the use of evaluative language (e.g., important, unimportant) to mark importance. Third, relevance markers evaluate the discourse itself and are thus metadiscoursal. Finally, they have an important discourse organizational role. Deroey (2015) derived importance markers from the 160 lectures of the BASE corpus and classified them in terms of orientation to the participants and discourse. Deroey observed that importance markers with content, listener, speaker, or joint orientation respectively followed the patterns of ‘MN v-link’, ‘V n/clause’, ‘1s pers pron V n/clause’, and ‘1p pers pron V n/clause’. Additionally, importance markers with prospective, retrospective, or combined orientation to the highlighted discourse had the patterns of ‘V n/clause’ and ‘MN v-link’, ‘deic v-link ADJ’, ‘deic v-link MN’, and ‘deic v-link adj MN’, and ‘1s pers pron V n/clause’ and ‘deic v-link adj MN’, respectively. Deroey also found most markers to be directed towards either the content (e.g. the point is) or the listeners (e.g. you should remember). Few importance markers were observed to be oriented towards the speaker (e.g. I should stress) or the speaker and listeners jointly (e.g. I want you to notice). Moreover, Deroey found many content-oriented markers with secondary listener orientation (e.g., these are the things to take home). Partington (2014) examined importance marking at local and macro levels in TED talks. The corpus Partington based his study on comprised transcripts of 27 TED talks given between 2007 and 2012 and downloaded from the TED website. Generally, Partington found importance marking in TED talks to be of two types: endophoric importance or relevance marking, and exophoric relevance or importance marking. Endophoric importance marking indicates that what the speaker is about to say (cataphoric marking) – or has just said (anaphoric marking) – is a key point in the development of their talk. Exophoric importance marking or ‘real-world oriented’ importance marking (Thompson & Hunston, 2000, p. 24) stresses how the topic the speaker is expounding, the work they are describing, has importance in the real, extra-textual world (Thompson & Hunston, 2000). Partington found exophoric importance marking or ‘reference to real-world considerations’ to be the more common type of importance marking (p. 149). Methodology The analytical procedure of this study was a combination of corpus linguistics and discourse analysis. A corpus-driven approach was followed to retrieve importance markers and a discourse analytic approach was followed to investigate their reference. One corpus was used in this investigation to derive importance markers: the British Academic Spoken English (BASE) Corpus. The BASE corpus was developed at the Universities of Warwick and Reading, England under the directorship of Hilary Nesi and Paul Thompson. BASE comprises the audio and video recordings, and the transcripts of 160 English lectures and 39 seminars, totaling 1,644,942 words. The lecture section which is the basis for the analysis of this paper contains 1,186,290 words. The lectures were recorded between 1998 and 2005. Lectures are equally distributed across four broad disciplinary groups, i.e. arts and humanities (ah), life and medical sciences (ls), physical sciences (ps), and social studies (ss). The transcripts of 160 English academic lectures of the BASE corpus, delivered by male and female lecturers, were investigated. 1,350 concordances of importance markers were extracted and analyzed in terms of reference—anaphoric, cataphoric, and shared. Results and conclusion The results showed that (1) both male and female lecturers more likely give cataphoric reference to importance markers in discourse organization and subject status markers of importance than anaphoric; (2) male and female lecturers use anaphoric and cataphoric importance marking equally in topic treatment markers of importance; (3) relating to exam is necessarily done through anaphoric importance marking by both male and female lecturers; and (4) audience engagement markers are more cataphoric than anaphoric. By and large, the results showed that most importance markers are cataphoric in reference. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| academic lecture, reference, anaphoric, cataphoric, corpus | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
| ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 43 |
||
