3。2 Corpus Collection 6

4 Corpus Analysis 6

4。1 Identity Types 6

4。1。1 Expert Identity and the Related Constructive Strategies 7

4。1。1。1 Knowledgeable Expert 7

4。1。1。2 Authoritative Expert 7

4。1。1。3 Modest and Mild Expert 8

4。1。2 Teacher Identity and the Related Constructive Strategies 9

4。1。3 Peer Researcher Identity and the Related Constructive Strategies 10

4。1。4 Layperson Identity and the Related Constructive Strategies 10

4。2 Identity Distribution 11

5 Motivations for Expert Identity Construction 13

Conclusion 14

Acknowledgements 15

References 16

Appendix A 18

Appendix B 19

1 Introduction

1。1 Research Background

Recent years have witnessed the rising attention to identity research, ranging from theoretical research to applied research (Antaki, & Widdieombe, 1998; Tracy, 2002; Tina, 2007)。 Identity also falls into the domain of Pragmatics research (Chen, 2013a, 2013b, 2014, 2016; Ren, 2016; Guo, 2016; Li, 2016)。 Pragmatic Identity studies how these dynamically constructed identities in context are employed to convey meaning and realize communicators’ illocutionary or/and relational purpose。 

In this new millennium, with the advancement of higher education, college students and researchers encounter more opportunities for academic communication。 Therefore, it is of necessity to study their linguistic and strategic repertoires in academic interactions and more importantly to reveal what identities they construct in this process。 This thesis aims at studying advice-givers’ identity construction in an academic verbal interaction and exploring identity types, construction strategies and pragmatic motivations。 Hopefully it can make some contributions to pragmatic identity research。

1。2 Research Object

In academic verbal interaction, interlocutors choose different utterances to construct different personal identities (Tina, 2007), including expected identity and unexpected identity。 The following is an example:

     1 T1: 但是就是思辨本身它是有载体。什么叫载体，就是说你思辨是有基础的，就是在，我记得我在哪一个国外学者介绍一个思辨，它是有一个金字塔式的

     2 S:  嗯。

     3 T1: 在最下面是思辨=

     4 S:  =那个是，那个是

     5 T1: 也就是说你待在思辨位置的时候发生思辨，所以我认为它就质的，含有质变的一个，知识的等等的积累。=

     6 S:  =嗯，对。老师您说的，

During the institutional conversation (Thornborrow, 2002, P。4), T1 is expected to be an expert with deep wisdom and extensive knowledge。 In the first line, T1 clarifies the relationships between critical thinking and carrier。 Meanwhile, T1 is also regarded as a teacher as S confirms T1’s teacher identity in the sixth line by directly calling T1 as teacher。