Accounting for fieldwork in three areas of modern geology [electronic resource] : a situated analysis of textual silence and salience.

Dressen, Dacia Frerika
Bib ID
vtls000649786
稽核項
439 p.
電子版
附註項
數位化論文典藏聯盟
預約人數:0
全部評等: 0
沒有紀錄。
 
 
 
03441nam a2200289   4500
001
 
 
vtls000649786
003
 
 
VRT
005
 
 
20060207135800.0
008
 
 
051215s2002                        eng d
020
$a 0493556427
035
$a (UnM)AAI3042064
039
9
$y 200602071358 $z sujenlee
040
$a UnM $b eng $c UnM
100
1
$a Dressen, Dacia Frerika, $e author
245
1
0
$a Accounting for fieldwork in three areas of modern geology $h [electronic resource] : $b a situated analysis of textual silence and salience.
300
$a 439 p.
500
$a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 63-02, Section: A, page: 0577.
500
$a Chair: John Malcolm Swales.
502
$a Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Michigan, 2002.
520
$a While researchers have long pointed to "incomplete information" accompanying various parts of the research article (Latour & Woolgar 1979, Gilbert & Mulkay 1984, Lynch 1985, Berkenkotter & Huckin 1995), silences surrounding the research account have been gaining the explicit attention of discourse analysts only recently (Huckin 1997 and 1999, Swales 1998 and 1999, Dressen 1998). Recent work has shown that textual silence abounds in academic disciplines such as geology, where most details from the fieldwork mission seem to disappear from the published account (Dressen & Swales 2000). Indeed, a number of diachronic studies have demonstrated an increase in authorial discretion in the research account over the past 150--200 years (Bazerman 1988, Salager-Meyer 2000), and in this, geology is no exception.
520
$a In order to identify and explain textual silence in modern geological field reporting, this study undertakes a situated genre analysis of a corpus of 103 recent articles (1995--1999) from three subdisciplines in geology. As a socio-historical analysis, it establishes the place the practice of fieldwork has come to occupy in the geological research community over time. A linguistic analysis of the corpus then identifies a specific Field Account part-genre in the geology research article, and further reveals the linguistic and discoursal strategies by which authors may discreetly give details of their fieldwork and work to establish their credibility and field competence. Which field details are considered communally relevant is next determined through the analysis of the various "recontextualizations" (Linell 1998) of one field study, through the convention-driven distillation of the study's field results. The appropriateness and relevancy of only certain field details is further established through a series of text-based interviews with three expert geologists. Here, using Bourdieu (1984) and Engestrom (1991), we see how the researcher-writer maneuvers between "the said" and "the unsaid" in each text instantiation, taken as a site of need-based and innovational interaction between individual actors, the collectivity, and the institution. Finally, a discussion of the implications for training junior geologists in research writing closes the study.
591
$a 數位化論文典藏聯盟 $b PQDT $c 淡江大學(2005)
710
2
0
$a University of Michigan.
773
0
$t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 63-02A
856
4
0
$u http://info.lib.tku.edu.tw/ebook/redirect.asp?bibid=649786
999
$a VIRTUA               
999
$a VTLSSORT0080*0200*0350*0400*1000*2450*3000*5000*5001*5020*5200*5201*5900*6900*6901*7100*7900*7901*7910*7920*8560*9991
沒有評論
摘要
While researchers have long pointed to "incomplete information" accompanying various parts of the research article (Latour & Woolgar 1979, Gilbert & Mulkay 1984, Lynch 1985, Berkenkotter & Huckin 1995), silences surrounding the research account have been gaining the explicit attention of discourse analysts only recently (Huckin 1997 and 1999, Swales 1998 and 1999, Dressen 1998). Recent work has shown that textual silence abounds in academic disciplines such as geology, where most details from the fieldwork mission seem to disappear from the published account (Dressen & Swales 2000). Indeed, a number of diachronic studies have demonstrated an increase in authorial discretion in the research account over the past 150--200 years (Bazerman 1988, Salager-Meyer 2000), and in this, geology is no exception.
In order to identify and explain textual silence in modern geological field reporting, this study undertakes a situated genre analysis of a corpus of 103 recent articles (1995--1999) from three subdisciplines in geology. As a socio-historical analysis, it establishes the place the practice of fieldwork has come to occupy in the geological research community over time. A linguistic analysis of the corpus then identifies a specific Field Account part-genre in the geology research article, and further reveals the linguistic and discoursal strategies by which authors may discreetly give details of their fieldwork and work to establish their credibility and field competence. Which field details are considered communally relevant is next determined through the analysis of the various "recontextualizations" (Linell 1998) of one field study, through the convention-driven distillation of the study's field results. The appropriateness and relevancy of only certain field details is further established through a series of text-based interviews with three expert geologists. Here, using Bourdieu (1984) and Engestrom (1991), we see how the researcher-writer maneuvers between "the said" and "the unsaid" in each text instantiation, taken as a site of need-based and innovational interaction between individual actors, the collectivity, and the institution. Finally, a discussion of the implications for training junior geologists in research writing closes the study.
附註
Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 63-02, Section: A, page: 0577.
Chair: John Malcolm Swales.
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Michigan, 2002.
數位化論文典藏聯盟
合著者
ISBN/ISSN
0493556427