臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

在過去幾年中，學術英語研究領域裡，極大部分的學者都將注意力放在學術英文寫作的研究上。但是在近十年來，部份學者們也試圖將觸角延伸到學術英語口語層面的研究。然而，截至目前，在學術英語口語的既有研究當中，僅有極少數的學者曾嘗試分析學位口試的言談。學位論文口試對於碩、博士生而言，代表著其學術生涯中的一個重要里程碑，然而在學術英語的研究中，論文口試卻一直被忽略。因此，本文希望藉由四場博士論文口試的言談分析，獲取對此文體更深入的了解。
比起其他學術口語的文體，蒐集論文口試的過程更加困難許多，不過，本研究者有幸在指導教授的協助之下，得以幸運地參與並攝影下兩場台灣國立大學建築研究所博士生論文口試過程。為了能與這兩場中文口試相比，在MICASE(the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English)線上資料庫中，本研究也採用並分析了的其中的兩場博士論文口試，分別來自音樂系以及社會心理學系。
本研究沒有將焦點放在整場口試，僅集中目標單獨檢視這四場口試當中的問答部分(The Q-A section)，並深入探討其中的語言行為。更精確的說，本研究的重點在於比較身處台灣與美國的兩組口試委員如何在問答時段中提問，以及比較有著不同語言背景的博士候選人如何回應口試委員提出的意見問題。除此之外，本研究也比較身為口試委員之一的兩地不同的指導教授，在問答時段時採取什麼樣的立場與策略參與互動。
本研究發現，這三方的參與者（即口試委員，指導教授及博士候選人）似乎因為文化和語言背景的差異，而採取了一些不同的言談策略。首先，當提問或提出意見時，美國的口試委員傾向以與候選人討論的口吻進行；台灣的口試委員則偏向直接給予批評或提供看法，而少與候選人有一來一往的討論。再者，當回應口試委員時，美國和台灣的候選人相比，前者回應及答辯較積極；至於指導教授的部分，美國的指導教授表現較類似其他口試委員，以針對論文提問為主；台灣的老師則傾向針對論文回應其他口試委員。
雖然本研究只針對博士生的論文口試分析，提供了一些不曾在過去被提出的觀察結果，但畢竟本研究只分析了四場人文社會領域的博士生論文口試，為了更深入了解學位論文口試的各面向與特性，後續研究還是迫切需要的。

In the field of English for Academic Purposes (EAP), a substantial number of researchers have been studying academic writing. On the other hand, in the past decades, more and more scholars have shifted their attention from the written discourse to the spoken one. However, among the spoken genres which have been studied, little attention has been focused on the dissertation defense. It had only been sporadically investigated by very few scholars. Given that the dissertation defense which represents a milestone for master’s and doctoral studies it seems surprising that this genre has not attracted a lot of attention.
To fill in this significant gap, the present study investigates the discoursal strategies used in the four PhD dissertation defense. Two Mandarin PhD defenses held in the Architecture Department at a national university in Taiwan were video-taped. Together with the other two English defenses (one in the Department of Music and the other in Social Psychology) adopted from the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English, a discourse analysis of these four PhD defenses was conducted. Instead of examining the entire defense, only the linguistic behaviors during the question and answer section (i.e., the Q-A section) were analyzed.
The results show that there seems to be cultural differences in the use of various strategies during the defense between the two groups of defense participants. Firstly, while the English-speaking committee members show a tendency to negotiate their opinions with the candidates, those in the Mandarin data tend to be more judgmental. In addition, whereas the advisors in the States tend to pose more questions to the candidates, the advisor in Taiwan tends to help defend the candidates to a greater degree. Thirdly, the English-speaking candidates tend to be more active in response to the committee members than the Mandarin-speaking ones.
In addition, a scrutiny of the interrelationship between the strategies used by the committee members and those employed by the candidates during the Q-A section shows some interesting and unexpected results. It was found that when the committee members were only giving general comments, the candidates tend to be somewhat argumentative in response. In addition, it was noted that the candidates have a tendency to remain silent towards the suggestions made by the committee members.
To conclude, even though some interesting findings have been provided in the current study, it has to be noted that the current study only represents a preliminary attempt to analyzing the dissertation defense. Admittedly, the number of the defenses examined in the study is not large enough. In addition, the fields of the chosen defenses can not be representative of all fields. Therefore, the results of the current study may not be generalized to apply to all PhD dissertation defenses. Therefore, further research with larger language sample size is still needed.

Chinese Abstract i
English Abstract iii
Acknowledgement vi
Table of Content ix
List of Tables xi
Introduction 1
Research Background and Motivation 1
Review of Previous Literature 3
EAP Studies in General 3
EAP Studies on EAP Written Genres 4
EAP Studies on EAP Spoken Genres 15
Studies on the Dissertation Defense 22
Purposes of the Present Study 34
Organization of the Study 35
Methodology 36
The Collection and the Transcription of the Four PhD Defenses 36
Background Information of the Four Defenses 37
The Participants 38
The Analysis 39
Results and Discussion 49
Overview 49
The Turns 49
The Questioning Turns 49
The Answering Turns 57
The Moderating Turns 60
The Committee Members and Their Questioning Strategies 65
Overview 65
Predominant Questioning Strategies across the Four Doctoral Defenses 65
The Preferred Strategies in the English and Mandarin Doctoral Defenses 67
Strategy Configurations in the English and Mandarin Defenses 74
The Candidates and Their Answering Strategies 81
Advisors and Their Questioning and Answering Strategies 88
The Interplay between Questioning Strategies and Answering Strategies 93
Conclusions and Implications 100
General Conclusions 100
Suggestions to Future Research 102
Suggestions to EAP Course Design 104
References 106

Aguilar, M. (2004). The peer seminar, a spoken research process genre. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3, 55-72.
Anthony, L. (1999). Writing research article introductions in software engineering: How accurate is a standard model? IEEE transactions on professional communication, 42(1), 38-46.
Babaii, E. (2003). Towards an analysis of book reviews as an academic written genre. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Shiraz, Iran.
Bamford, J. (2004). Gestural and symbolic uses of the deictic "here" in academic lectures. In K. Aijmer & A-B. Stenström (Eds.), Discourse patterns in spoken and written corpora (pp. 113-138). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Hartford, B. S. (1990). Congruence in native and nonnative conversations: Status balance in the academic advising session. Language Learning, 40(4), 467-501.
Basturkmen, H. (2002). Negotiating meaning in seminar-type discussion and EAP. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 233-242.
Bitchener, J. & Basturkmen, H. (2006). Perceptions of the difficulties of postgraduate L2 thesis students writing the discussion section. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 4-18.
Brett, P. (1994). A genre analysis of the results section of sociology articles. English for Specific Purposes, 13(1), 47-59.
Bunton, D. (1999). The use of higher level metatext in Ph.D theses. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 41-56.
Bunton, D. (2001). Generic moves in Ph.D. thesis introductions. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 57-75). UK: Longman.
Bunton, D. (2005). The structure of PhD conclusion chapters. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 207-224.
Burke, P. J. (1994). Segmentation and control of a dissertation defense. In A. D. Grimshaw (Ed.), What’s going on here?: Complementary studies of professional talk (pp. 95-124). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Camiciottoli, B. C. (2004). Interactive discourse structuring in L2 guest lectures: Some insights from a comparative corpus-based study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3, 39-54.
Charles, M. (2003). ‘This mystery. . .’: a corpus-based study of the use of nouns to construct stance in theses from two contrasting disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 313-326.
Charles, M. (2006). Phraseological patterns in reporting clauses used in citation: A corpus-based study of theses in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 25, 310-331.
Cicourel, A. V. (1994). Theoretical and methodological suggestions for using discourse to recreate aspects of social structure. In A. D. Grimshaw & P. J. Burke (Eds.), What’s going on here?: Complementary studies of professional talk (pp. 61-89). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Connor, U. & Mauranen, A. (1999). Linguistic analysis of grant proposals: European Union research grants. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 47-62.
Cook-Gumperz, J. & Gumperz, J. J. (1994). The politics of a conversation: Conversational inference in discussion. In A. D. Grimshaw & P. J. Burke (Eds.), What’s going on here?: Complementary studies of professional talk (pp.373-394). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Csomay, E. (2006). Academic talk in American university classrooms: Crossing the boundaries of oral-literate discourse? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 117-135.
Dong, Y. R. (1998). Non-native graduate students’ thesis/dissertation writing in sciences self-reports by students and their advisors from two U.S. institutions. English for Specific Purposes, 17(4), 369-390.
Dubois, B.-L. (1982). And the last slide please: Regulatory function at biomedical meetings. World Language English, 1, 263-271.
Fiksdal, S. (1988). Verbal and non-verbal strategies of rapport in cross-cultural interviews. Linguistics and Education, 1, 3-18.
Fillmore, C. J. (1994). Humor in academic discourse. In A. D. Grimshaw & P. J. Burke (Eds.), What’s going on here?: Complementary studies of professional talk (pp. 271-310). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Fillmore, L. W. (1994). The role and function of formulaic speech in conversation. In A. D. Grimshaw & P. J. Burke (Eds.), What’s going on here?: Complementary studies of professional talk (pp.230-269). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Flowerdew, J. & Dudley-Evans, T. (2002). Genre analysis of editorial letters to international journal contributors. Applied Linguistics, 23(4), 463-489.
Flowerdew, J. & Miller, L. (1996). Lectures in a second language: Notes towards a cultural grammar. English for Specific Purposes, 15(2), 121-140.
Flowerdew, J. & Miller, L. (1996). Student perceptions, problems and strategies in second language lecture comprehension. RELC Journal, 23(2), 60-80.
Fortanet, I. (2004). The use of ‘we’ in university lectures: Reference and function. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 45-66.
Gledhill, C. (2000). The discourse function of collocation in research article introductions. English for Specific Purposes, 19, 115-135.
Grimshaw, A. D. (1989). Collegial discourse: Professional conversation among peers. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Grimshaw, A. D. & Burke, P. J. (Eds.). (1994). What’s going on here?: Complementary studies of professional talk (Volume two of the Multiple Analysis Project). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Halleck, G. B. & Connor, U. M. (2006). Rhetorical moves in TESOL conference proposals. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 70-86.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). “So you say ‘pass’…thank you three muchly”. In A. D. Grimshaw & P. J. Burke (Eds.), What’s going on here?: Complementary studies of professional talk (pp.175-229). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Harwood, N. (2005). ‘Nowhere has anyone attempted …In this article I aim to do just that’ : A corpus-based study of self-promotional I and we in academic writing across four disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1207-1231.
Hasan, R. (1994). Situation and the definition of genres. In A. D. Grimshaw & P. J. Burke (Eds.), What’s going on here?: Complementary studies of professional talk (pp.127-167). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Hiraga, M. K. & Turner, J. M. (1996). Differing perceptions of face in British and Japanese academic settings. Language Sciences, 18(3-4), 605-627.
Hopkins, A. & Dudley-Evans, T. (1988). A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and discussions. English for Specific Purposes, 7(2), 113-121.
Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455.
Jacoby, S. & Gonzales, P. (1991). The constitution of expert-novice in scientific discourse. Issues in Applied Linguistics 2, 150-181.
Kuo, C. H. (1999). The use of personal pronouns: Role relationships in scientific journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 121-138.
Kwan, B. S. C. (2006). The schematic structure of literature reviews in doctoral theses of applied linguistics. English for Specific Purposes, 25(1), 30-55.
Lim, J. M. H. (2006). Method Sections of Management Research Articles: A Pedagogically Motivated Qualitative Study. English for Specific Purposes, 25(3), 282-309.
Lindemann, S. & Mauranen, A. (2001). “It’s just real messy”: The occurrence and function of just in a corpus of academic speech. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 459-475.
Lorés, R. (2006).The referential function of metadiscourse: thing(s) and idea(s) in academic lectures. In A, Hornero, M. Luzón & S. Murillo (Eds.), Corpus linguistics: Applications for the study of English (pp. 315-334). Switzerland: Peter Lang.
Mauranen, A. (2001). Reflexive academic talk: Observations from MICASE. In R. C. Simpson & J. M. Swales (Eds.), Corpus linguistics in North America: Selections from the 1999 symposium (pp. 165-177). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
McKinlay, A. & Potter, J. (1987). Model discourse: Interpretative repertoires in scientists’ conference talk. Social Studies of Science, 17, 443-506.
Mendis, D. (2002, November). How do you give instructions when instructing? Evidence from a corpus of academic speech. Poster session presented at the 4th North American Symposium on Corpus Linguistics and Language Teaching, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Morell, T. (2004). Interactive lecture discourse for university EFL students. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 325-338.
Motta-Roth, D. (1996). Same genre, different discipline: A genre-based study of book reviews in academe. The ESPecialist, 17(2), 99-131.
Nicolaissen, J. (2002). Structure-based interpretation of scholarly book reviews: a new research technique. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science, 123-135.
Nwogu, K. N. (1997). The medical research papers: Structure and functions. English for Specific Purposes, 16(2), 119-138.
Olsen, L. & Huckin, T. (1991). Point-driven understanding in engineering lecture comprehension. English for Specific Purposes, 9, 33- 47.
Petric’, B. (2007). Rhetorical functions of citations in high- and low-rated master’s theses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 238-253.
Precht, K. (1998). A cross-cultural comparison of letters of recommendation. English for Specific Purposes, 17(3), 241-265.
Recski, L. (2005). Interpersonal engagement in academic spoken discourse: A functional account of dissertation defenses. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 5-23.
Rowley-Jolivet, E. & Carter-Thomas, S. (2005). Genre awareness and rhetorical appropriacy: Manipulation of information structure by NS and NNS scientists in the international conference settting. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 41-64.
Samraj, B. (2002). Introductions in research articles: Variations across disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 1-17.
Shalom, C. (1993). Established and evolving spoken research process genres: plenary lecture and poster session discussions at academic conferences. English for Specific Purposes, 12(1), 37-50.
Shaw, K., & Busch, A. (2002, November). Student presentations at the University of Michigan: Argument or show and tell? Poster session presented at the 4th North American Symposium on Corpus Linguistics and Language Teaching, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Simpson, R., Briggs, S., Ovens, J., & Swales, J. M. (1999). The Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English. Ann Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan (http://www.hti.umich.edu/m/micase.)
Simpson, R. C. (2002, November). A corpus-based study comparing students'' and professors'' use of formulaic expressions. Poster session presented at the 4th North American Symposium on Corpus Linguistics and Language Teaching, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Simpson, R. & Mendis, D. (2003). A corpus-based study of idioms in academic speech. TESOL Quarterly, 37(3), 419-440.
Stokoe, E. H. (2000). Constructing topicality in univerisy students’ small-group discussion: A conversation analytic approach. Language and Education, 14(3), 184-203.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge Press.
Swales, J. M. (2001). Metatalk in American academic talk. Journal of English Linguistics, 29(1), 34-54.
Swales, J. M. (2002, November). “Any last minute thoughts on this particular search?” The occurrence of sentence-initial ellipsis (SIE) in research speech. Poster session presented at the 4th North American Symposium on Corpus Linguistics and Language Teaching, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge Press.
Swales, J. M. (2005). Attended and unattended “this” in academic writing: A long and unfinished story. ESP Malaysia, 11, 1-15.
Swales, J. M. & Feak, C. B. (2000). English in today’s research world: A writing guide. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Swales, J. M. & Malczewski, B. (2001). Discourse management and new-episode flags in MICASE. In R. C. Simpson & J. M. Swales (Eds.), Corpus linguistics in North America: Selections from the 1999 symposium (pp. 145-164). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Swales, J. M. & Najjar, H. (1987). The writing of research article introductions. Written Communication, 4(2), 175-191.
Swales, J. M., Ahmad, U. K., Chang, Y. Y., Chavez, D., Dressen, D. F., & Seymour, R. (1998). Consider this: The role of imperatives in scholarly writing. Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 97-121.
Tarone, E., Dwyer, S., Gillette, S., & Icke, V. (1998). On the use of the passive and active voice in astrophysics journal papers: With extensions to other languages and other fields. English for Specific Purposes, 17(1), 113-132.
Thompson, D. K. (1993). Arguing for experimental “facts” in science: A study of research articles in biochemistry. Written Communication, 10(1), 106-128.
Thompson, P. (2005). Points of focus and position: Intertextual reference in PhD theses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 307-323.
Tracy, K. (1997). The colloquium: Dilemmas of academic discourse. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Webber, P. (2005). Interactive features in medical conference monologue. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 157-181.