Luz Gil-Salom

Making appropriate reference to other texts is an essential feature of successful academic writing (Hyland, 2000 and Myers, 1990). Writers are expected to integrate others' ideas into their arguments to indicate what is already known about the area of study of the discipline, or to point out weaknesses, aligning themselves with a particular disciplinary framework (Thompson & Tribble, 2001). Literature reviews (LRs) of PhD theses provide support for the writer's position and show the novelty of her/his work. This study analysed the resources of evaluation at both rhetorical and linguistic levels used by the writers of 20 PhD LRs in computing in English and Spanish. The data reveal that the Spanish and the English PhD LRs have a similar rhetorical structure. However, the English writers use more strategies for the development of each move than the Spanish writers. Attitude markers are the most usual devices doctoral writers use to express opinion in both sets. Epistemic modality and a variety of discourse-based markers are typically found in the English LRs while the Spanish LRs seem to rely mainly on adversatives and certainty markers. Differences respond partly to individual writing styles, but also reflect rhetorical variation in the relationship with the audience.

Citation practice provides justification for arguments and allows a writer to indicate a rhetorical gap for her/his research and adopt a tone of authority. Claims must be supported with evidence, and writers must demonstrate an understanding of approaches and knowledge in their fields of specialisation, in order to persuade the examiners that the thesis is worthy of the award of a doctorate (Thompson, 2005b). Candidates need to keep the adequate interpersonal relationship with the immediate audience (the examiners). They have to evaluate the previous research in an area of study and to be respectful with previous claims from authorities in the disciplines. They also need to position themselves in relation to other disciplinary members and highlight their individual claims. This paper investigates contrastively how interactional resources of citation and, in particular reporting verbs, are deployed in the literature review chapters of PhD theses written in English and in Spanish. KEYWORDS: Citation practice, reporting verbs, academic writing, PhD theses, evaluation, stance, variation, cross-language study

This paper presents an analysis of the introductory sections of a corpus of 20 doctoral theses on computing written in
Spanish and in English. Our aim was to ascertain whether the theses, produced within the same scientific-technological
area but by authors from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds, employed the same rhetorical strategies to introduce
the work presented. The analysis follows the Swalesian approach and is based on a move/step/sub-step model proposed
for PhD introductions in Spanish (Carbonell-Olivares, Gil-Salom, & Soler-Monreal, 2009). The Spanish academic
conventions appear to be that move 1 (M1-Establishing the Territory) and move 3 (M3-Occupying the Niche) are obligatory
moves in PhD thesis introductions in Spanish, while move 2 (M2-Establishing the Niche) is optional. The structure of English
thesis introductions reveals that they conform more closely to the M1–M2–M3 arrangement. Moreover, combinations
of moves and patterns, cyclicity and embedding make their organisation more complex. The step analysis suggests that
introductions in both languages rely mainly on the presentation of background information and the work carried out.
However, the English introductions tend to stress the writer’s own work, its originality and its contribution to the field
of study. They also present more embedding and overlapping of steps and sub-steps than the Spanish texts.
 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Contrastive rhetoric; Intercultural rhetoric; Genre analysis; Doctoral thesis; Introduction; Academic writing; Computing

The decrease in costs of digital technology and the spread of the Internet has increased the number of filmmakers who can produce a short film, thus changing hegemonies in audiovisual discourse production. In this study we have examined 50 short films to analyze the social representation of gender and identify the main discoursive lines of filmmakers about men and women roles. To this end, we followed the methodological framework proposed by Van Leeuwen (2008) about the representation of social actors. We have identified the latent ideological characteristics in discourse construction that reflect the major gender representations of the current directors of short films.

Since the 1990s the analysis of written academic genres has received an increased attention among discourse and rhetorical studies. The doctoral thesis has been little studied, as compared to the amount of work carried out on the research article. Despite this, there have been several attempts to describe specific aspects of PhD theses as a genre, in particular the rhetorical moves of certain sections, such as the introduction (Bunton, 2002), the conclusion (Bunton, 2005), and the literature review (Kwan, 2006), and the organizational structure or macrostructure of PhD theses (Thompson, 1999; Paltridge, 2002). Other studies have focused on different rhetorical-linguistic aspects, like the use of metatext (Bunton, 1999), citation practices and modal verbs (Thompson, 2001). In the Spanish literature, however, the tradition of genre studies on academic writing is not as extended as it is in English, and the doctoral thesis is not an exception. On the other hand, it has been pointed out from contrastive rhetoric and English for Academic Purposes studies that cross-cultural differences related to particular academic backgrounds are reflected in the rhetorical and linguistic organization of texts (Connor, 1006; Connor and Kaplan, 1987). In this context, then, a comparative study between different languages can yield interesting results. Such study is being carried out under the research project RETEX*, on the scientific production of researchers from the Universidad Politécnica de Valencia. Our paper presents an analysis of the introductory sections of 25 doctoral theses in computing written in Spanish, based on the models proposed for research article introductions in English (CARS model, Swales, 1990; Bunton, 2002). We aim to observe any variations in the structure of the introductions written in Spanish with reference to the models described for English.

This paper describes the macro-structure of 28 RAs in computing and robotics through the analysis of section headings and subheadings. Our analysis shows that the IMRD framework is a rhetorical model typically followed by RA writers. But this does not imply that all the RAs have the same organisational characteristics and unified section headings. Authors combine generic and partially generic titles with topic-specific headings, particularly when describing methods and presenting results.
Key words: genre analysis, section headings, rhetorical models, research article macrostructure

... Search result page. Title: Enlaces oracionales y organización retórica del discurso científico en inglés y en español. Francisco Férnández y Luz Gil Salom (2000). Author: Jesús Montero Melcher. Abstract: Journal: Ibérica. Issn: 11397241. EIssn: Year: 2001. Volume: 3. Issue: ...

This paper presents an analysis of the introductory sections of a corpus of 20 doctoral theses on computing written in Spanish and in English. Our aim was to ascertain whether the theses, produced within the same scientific-technological area but by authors from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds, employed the same rhetorical strategies to introduce the work presented. The analysis follows the Swalesian approach and is based on a move/step/sub-step model proposed for PhD introductions in Spanish (Carbonell-Olivares, Gil-Salom, & Soler-Monreal, 2009). The Spanish academic conventions appear to be that move 1 (M1-Establishing the Territory) and move 3 (M3-Occupying the Niche) are obligatory moves in PhD thesis introductions in Spanish, while move 2 (M2-Establishing the Niche) is optional. The structure of English thesis introductions reveals that they conform more closely to the M1–M2–M3 arrangement. Moreover, combinations of moves and patterns, cyclicity and embedding make their organisation more complex. The step analysis suggests that introductions in both languages rely mainly on the presentation of background information and the work carried out. However, the English introductions tend to stress the writer’s own work, its originality and its contribution to the field of study. They also present more embedding and overlapping of steps and sub-steps than the Spanish texts.

This chapter investigates contrastively how politeness strategies that involve reporting verbs are deployed in the Literature Review (LR) chapters of PhD theses written in English and in Spanish. It analyses a comparable corpus of 20 theses -10 in English and 10 in Spanish- in computer science. It focuses on uses of reporting structures realised through integral and non-integral citations of other texts (Hyland 1999). The research design is based on the model proposed by Thompson and Ye (1991), who distinguished three categories of reporting verbs according to the process they perform: textual, mental and research verbs, and analysed the evaluative potential of verbal processes whose responsibility is ascribed either to the reviewed author or to the reporting writer. We also took as a reference the politeness model offered by Brown & Levinson (1987) to study the presence of specific face-redressive politeness means in the double-voiced dialogue which is established in the corpus of LRs. Data show that English writers show personal commitment and tentativeness, while Spanish writers tend to mask individual voices and avoid personal confrontation.

Dialogicity in Written Specialised Genres analyses how human beings intentionally establish a network of relations that contribute to the construction of discourse in different genres in academic, promotional and professional domains in English, Spanish and Italian. The chapters in the present volume investigate individual voices, both those assumed by the writer and those attributed to others, and how they act interpersonally and become explicit in the discourse. From a number of different research approaches, contributing authors focus on various textual components: self-mention, impersonation, attribution markers, engagement markers, attitude markers, boosters, hedges, reporting verbs, politeness strategies and citations. The collection is unusual in that it addresses these issues not only from the perspective of English, but also from that of Spanish and Italian. It thus represents a refreshing reassessment of the contrastive dimension in the study of voice and dialogic relations, taking into consideration
language, specialised fields and genre. The volume will appeal to researchers interested in language as multidimensional dialogue, particularly with regard to different written specialised texts from different linguistic backgrounds. Novice writers may also find it
of help in order to attain a greater understanding of the dialogic nature of writing.

Dialogicity in Written Specialised Genres analyses how human beings intentionally establish a network of relations that contribute to the construction of discourse in different genres in academic, promotional and professional domains in English, Spanish and Italian. The chapters in the present volume investigate individual voices, both those assumed by the writer and those attributed to others, and how they act interpersonally and become explicit in the discourse. From a number of different research approaches, contributing authors focus on various textual components: self-mention, impersonation, attribution markers, engagement markers, attitude markers, boosters, hedges, reporting verbs, politeness strategies and citations. The collection is unusual in that it addresses these issues not only from the perspective of English, but also from that of Spanish and Italian. It thus represents a refreshing reassessment of the contrastive dimension in the study of voice and dialogic relations, taking into consideration language, specialised fields and genre. We hope that the volume will appeal to researchers interested in language as multidimensional dialogue, particularly with regard to different written specialised texts from different linguistic backgrounds. Novice writers may also find it of help in order to attain a greater understanding of the dialogic nature of writing.