Search

Asking questions and making comments in conference Q&A sessions can be challenging for novice academics. Discussants not only try to seek answers or exchange ideas with the presenter but also endeavour to project a positive image of themselves by asking the 'right' questions in the 'right' way. However, many novice academics fear looking foolish because of unfocused and convoluted questions. Surprisingly, little guidance is available for how to formulate Q&A questions. This study attempts to address the gap by investigating the forms, functions and generic moves of 268 turns taken by discussants in 80 computer science conference Q&A sessions. Certain forms (i.e., question and comment) were found to be associated with certain pragmatic functions. This study reveals that different types of question/comment have major moves in common. The study also shows that the more evaluative and face-threatening the question is, the more important it is for the discussant to make the moves of building rapport with the presenter, and contextualising and justifying the main question/statement. The importance of justifying the main question/statement also resonates with the persuasive nature of scientific argumentative discourse. The findings can offer novice academics detailed explanations of the communicative purposes and strategies for this important conference interaction. • The two forms (question & comment) are associated with different functions. • All types of questions/comments were found to share the major generic moves. • Evaluative/critical questions entail building rapport as a move. • Evaluative/critical questions entail justifying the question as a move. • The importance of justification resonates with scientific argumentative discourse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper I explore cross-linguistic rhetorical variation in the Literature Review chapters of 30 computer science doctoral theses written by English L1 (EngL1), Spanish L1 (SpaL1) and English L2 (EngL2) writers. Using Kwan's (2006) genre-analytical framework (Move 1: Establishing one part of the territory of one's own research; Move 2: Creating a niche; Move 3: Occupying the research niche), I particularly examine how writers present their research in Move 3 (M3). The results show the functional importance of M3 strategies in the computer science PhD thesis Literature Reviews. The texts in English present a higher number of occurrences and a wider range of M3 strategies than the SpaL1 texts. However, the SpaL1 texts are more homogeneous in terms of rhetorical distribution. Variation is also found in the linguistic mechanisms that the writers of the three groups use to make themselves visible and promote their work. National writing styles, discipline conventions and language barriers to effective interpersonal communication seem to have an influence on these writers. EAP courses and specific genre-based writing instruction could help junior scholars to successfully manage M3 strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]