Search

[ES] Este artículo analiza los patrones de movimientos que predominan en los capítulos finales de conclusión de 48 tesis doctorales de informática en una universidad británica. Se centra en la naturaleza y frecuencia de las conexiones entre pasos del Movimiento 1 sobre la revisión del trabajo de investigación y los pasos del Movimiento 2, de consolidación del espacio investigador. Las combinaciones más comunes relacionan (1) el resumen del trabajo de la tesis con el producto y su evaluación, (2) el propósito y la hipótesis inicial con los resultados, (3) las preguntas de investigación con la metodología, el producto y la reivindicación, (4) un problema o necesidad con una metodología específica, un nuevo producto y/o una reivindicación, y (5) un resumen del trabajo realizado en cada capítulo con los resultados y reivindicaciones. Algunos de los resultados obtenidos son específicos del área de la informática. Del estudio se desprenden implicaciones pedagógicas para cursos de inglés para fines específicos (IFA)., [EN] This study investigates the predominant moves and move patterns used in the separate final conclusion chapters of 48 PhD theses of computer science at a UK university. The focus is on the most salient connections of steps in the review of the study (Move 1) with steps for the consolidation of research space (Move 2). The most common combinations relate (1) a summary of the thesis work to the product and the evaluation of the product, (2) the purpose, thesis statement or hypothesis to the findings or results, (3) the research questions to the methodology, product or claim, (4) a problem or need to a specific methodology, a new product and/or a claim, and (5) a summary of the work done in each thesis chapter to the findings and claims. Some findings are specific of the field of computer science. The study has pedagogical implications for courses of English for Academic Purposes (EAP).

[EN] This paper describes how computer science doctoral writers construct the closing chapters of their PhD theses. The data are drawn from the chapters playing a concluding role of 48 PhD theses defended at the University of Glasgow from 2008 to 2014. The analysis applied a qualitative-quantitative approach. The titles of the concluding chapters of the theses were first examined and also their divisions into sections and sub-sections. Then the chapters were subjected to a move-step analysis: Move 1 (M1) “Revisiting the study”; Move 2 (M2) “Consolidating research space”; Move 3 (M3) “Proposing practical applications and implications”, Move 4 (M4) “Recommending future work” and Move 5 (M5) “Recapitulating the study”. The results revealed that most of the computer science PhD theses have one final concluding chapter with three main moves: M1, M2 and M4. The most frequent steps are “reviewing the work carried out” and “summarizing the specific work reported in every thesis chapter” in M1, “presenting results and contributions”, “answering the initial research questions or hypotheses”, and “making claims” in M2, and “acknowledging limitations” and “suggesting further research” in M4. Movestep patterns appear in recurrent cycles throughout the concluding chapters. Several suggestions for pedagogical purposes are provided., [ES] Este artículo describe cómo los autores de tesis doctorales en el área de la informática elaboran los capítulos de conclusión. Los datos proceden de los capítulos finales de 48 tesis doctorales defendidas en la Universidad de Glasgow entre 2008 y 2014. Para el análisis se siguió un enfoque cualitativo y cuantitativo. En una primera etapa, se examinaron los títulos de los capítulos de conclusión de las tesis así como sus divisiones en secciones y subsecciones. Posteriormente, se analizaron los capítulos atendiendo a unidades informativas organizadas en movimientos y pasos: Movimiento 1 (M1) “Revisión del estudio”; Movimiento 2 (M2) “Consolidación del espacio de investigación”; Movimiento 3 (M3) “Propuesta de aplicaciones prácticas e implicaciones”, Movimiento 4 (M4) “Recomendaciones para futuras investigaciones” y Movimiento 5 (M5) “Recapitulación del estudio”. Los resultados indican que la mayoría de las tesis de este corpus de informática tiene un único capítulo final de conclusiones con tres movimientos principales: M1, M2 y M4. Los pasos más frecuentes consisten en “revisar el trabajo llevado a cabo” y “resumir el trabajo específico desarrollado en cada capítulo de la tesis” en M1, “enunciar los resultados y las contribuciones en respuesta a las hipótesis y preguntas iniciales” y “reivindicar su aportación” en M2, y “reconocer limitaciones de la investigación” y “sugerir investigaciones futuras” en M4. La práctica habitual consiste en utilizar patrones de movimientos y pasos en ciclos recurrentes a lo largo de la conclusión. Se aportan sugerencias con fines pedagógicos.

[EN] The main objective of the activity presented in this paper is to practise the competence called effective communication. The learning results were analysed considering written and oral skills. This experimental approach made us consider the way in which students collaborate in teamworks and this is why in this paper we focus on the competences of teamwork and leadership. The activity that we describe has been carried out during the academic year 2015-16 in two faculties at Universitat Politècnica de València: Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería Informática and Facultad de Administración y Dirección de Empresas, with the subjects: “Inglés intermedio-alto para la informática”, an optional subject that lasts 90 hours and is scheduled in the fourth year of the degree, and “Inglés para finanzas”, taught at Máster en Dirección Financiera y Fiscal. The activity presented has focused on preparing an oral presentation in English about a specific topic using the tools PoliformaT and Google Docs., [ES] El objetivo principal con el que esta actividad fue diseñada fue trabajar la competencia transversal que se denomina comunicación efectiva. Los resultados de aprendizaje se analizaron tanto a nivel escrito como oral. Esta experiencia nos ha llevado a reflexionar sobre la manera en que los alumnos trabajan en equipo, por lo que en este artículo nos centraremos en las competencias de trabajo en equipo y liderazgo. La actividad que presentamos se ha desarrollado durante el curso 2015-16 en dos centros de la Universitat Politècnica de València: la Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería Informática y la Facultad de Administración y Dirección de Empresas, en las asignaturas “Inglés intermedio-alto para la informática”, una asignatura optativa de grado con una duración de 90 horas para alumnos de 4º curso, e “Inglés para finanzas”, impartida en el Máster en Dirección Financiera y Fiscal. La actividad ha consistido en preparar una presentación/exposición formal en inglés sobre un tema de especialidad utilizando Tareas y Chat de PoliformaT y Google Docs.

In this paper I explore cross-linguistic rhetorical variation in the Literature Review chapters of 30 doctoral theses of computer science 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 LRs. 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 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 interact with these writers. EAP courses and specific genre-based writing instruction could help emerging writers to successfully manage M3 strategies.

Making appropriate reference to other texts is an essential feature of successful academic writing (Hyland, 2000; 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. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

This paper 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.

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.

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.

In this study we analyse section headings and subheadings of 40 research articles (RAs) in the fields of computing, robotics and telecommunications to identify their macro-structure. Our findings reveal that the standard Introduction-Method-Results-Discussion (IMRD) model described by Swales (1990) as the prototypical structure of the RA cannot account for all the specific choices regarding organization and headings of individual RAs. Scientific writers split the information into a variable number of sections and subsections and combine generic headings with unconventional ones. Generic and partially generic section headings and subheadings help the reader understand the way the writer presents and organizes contents. But when the terminology is topic-specific and does not indicate the rhetorical function of the sections, it is necessary to consult the abstract or the introduction and study the overall purpose of the RA to recognize its organizational pattern. However, a certain cyclical or symmetrical structure at the lexical and syntactic levels is usually kept in different sections., Este trabajo analiza el desarrollo de la macroestructura a partir de los títulos y subtítulos de las secciones de un corpus de 40 artículos de investigación de revistas científicas de informática, robótica y telecomunicaciones. Aunque algunos artículos reproducen el esquema Introducción-Método-Resultados-Discusión (IMRD) descrito por Swales (1990) como la estructura prototípica del artículo de investigación, destaca el número de artículos que presentan variantes. La información aparece segmentada en secciones y subsecciones combinando títulos genéricos y títulos no-convencionales. Los genéricos (y parcialmente genéricos) orientan al lector sobre la manera en que se presenta el esquema organizativo escogido por el autor. Pero cuando la terminología refleja el contenido específico de la sección o subsección y no su función retórica, resulta necesario recurrir al resumen o a la introducción y buscar el propósito general del artículo para averiguar cómo está estructurada la información. Con todo, se suele mantener una cierta coherencia mediante la simetría o ciclicidad léxica y sintáctica de los títulos y subtítulos de las secciones.