Pratiche di stesura della tesi di laurea in italiano LS

Main Article Content

Maria Załęska

Abstrakt

In the Italian academic discourse research, Master’s degree theses used to be studied mainly from the perspective of linguistic competencies of their authors. However, strictly linguistic skills are not the only challenge for undergraduate, who must also convey intellectual content in appropriate discursive and rhetorical forms. The paper explores the patterns of a peculiar form of “collaborative writing”, i.e. the cooperation between the thesis supervisor and the student. Using the example of Master’s theses in lin- guistics, written in Italian as a foreign language, three basic didactic approaches are discussed in the paper. In the didactics of content the supervisors emphasize knowledge, i.e. linguistic concepts expected to be applied in a Master’s thesis. In the didactics of forms, the supervisors focus on the linguistic code, that  is, on grammatical and lexical correctness of the Master’s thesis. In the didactics of forms of content the supervisors use regularities observed in academic discourse, such as genre and rhetorical structures, as valuable teaching resources likely to help students develop metacommunicative awareness.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Jak cytować
Załęska , M. (2022). Pratiche di stesura della tesi di laurea in italiano LS. Studia Romanica Posnaniensia, 49(2), 21-33. https://doi.org/10.14746/strop.2022.492.002
Dział
ARTICLES

Referencje

  1. Aristotele (2004). Retorica. Poetica. Trad. M. Zanatta. Torino: UTET.
  2. Bagna, C., Chiapedi, N., Salvati, L., Scibetta, A., Visigalli, M. (dir.) (2017). La lingua italiana per studenti internazionali: aspetti linguistici e didattici. Perugia: OL3.
  3. Battaggion, B., Salvi, C. (2003). Un curriculum di scrittura per gli studenti Erasmus/Socrates in Italia. Didattica & Classe Plurilingue, 7, 1-8. www.associazione-ilsa.it/bollettiniprece-denti/dcp_settdic03/art_battsal1.htm [accesso: 10.04.2021].
  4. Beaugrande, R. de, Dressler, W. (1981). Introduction to Text Linguistics. London, New York: Longman.
  5. Bitzer, L. (1968). The Rhetorical Situation. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 (1), pp. 1-14. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40236733 [accesso: 02.03.2021].
  6. Caffi, C. (1991). Aspetti pragmatici e testuali delle introduzioni a tesi di laurea e specializzazione in ma- terie scientifiche. In C. Lavinio, A. Sobrero (dir.) La lingua degli studenti universitari (pp. 71-98). Firenze: La Nuova Italia.
  7. Cheng, X., Steffensen, M.S. (1996). Metadiscourse: a technique for improving student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 30 (2), pp. 149-181. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40171358 [accesso: 06.01.2021].
  8. Cignetti, L., Demartini, S., Puccinelli, D. (2018). Il progetto Scrivere Come Risorsa Professionale nella Svizzera Italiana: aspetti linguistici quantitativi e qualitativi delle tesi di laurea nella Scuola Univer- sitaria Professionale della Svizzera Italiana. Italica Wratislaviensia, 9 (1), 35-50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15804/IW.2018.09.02.
  9. Coe, R.M. (1994). “An arousing and fulfilment of desires”: the rhetoric of genre in the process era – and beyond. In A. Freedman, P. Medway (dir.), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 181-190). London: Taylor and Francis.
  10. Colombo, A. (1992). Per una definizione e analisi pragmatica dei testi argomentativi. In G. Gobber (dir.), La linguistica pragmatica. Atti del XXIV Congresso della società di linguistica italiana (Milano, 4-6 settembre 1990) (pp. 475-500). Roma: Bulzoni.
  11. Cunliffe, A.L. (2004). On Becoming a Critically Reflexive Practitioner. Journal of Management Educa- tion, 28 (4), pp. 407-426. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562904264440.
  12. Desideri, P., Tessuto, G. (2011). Il discorso accademico. Lingue e pratiche disciplinari. Urbino: Quattro- venti.
  13. Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2012). Cross-cultural differences in the construal of authorial voice in the genre of diploma theses. In C. Berkenkotter, V. Bhatia, M. Gotti (dir.), Insights into Academic Genres (pp. 301-328). Bern: Peter Lang.
  14. Eco, U. (1971). Le forme del contenuto. Milano: Bompiani.
  15. Eco, U. (1977). Come si fa una tesi di laurea. Materie umanistiche. Milano: Bompiani.
  16. Fiorentino, G. (2015). Aspetti problematici del discorso accademico: un’analisi dei riassunti delle tesi di laurea. Cuadernos de Filología Italiana 22, 263-284. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_CFIT.2015. v22.50961.
  17. Gruber, H., Muntigl, P. (2005). Generic and Rhetorical Structures of Text: Two Sides of the Same Coin? Folia linguistica. Acta Societatis Linguisticae Europaeae, 39 (1-2), 75-114. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2005.39.1-2.75.
  18. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
  19. Hyland, K. (2009). Metadiscourse: mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English
  20. Studies, 9 (2), 125-143. DOI: http://doi.org/10.35360/njes.220.
  21. Hyland, K., Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25 (2), 156-177. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156.
  22. Knorr-Cetina, K.D. (1999). Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge Work. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.
  23. Korolko, M. (1998). Sztuka retoryki: przewodnik encyklopedyczny. Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna. Lavinio, C., Sobrero, A. (dir.) (1991). La lingua degli studenti universitari. Firenze: La Nuova Italia.
  24. Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric. A Textlinguistic Study. Frankfurt am Main etc.: Peter Lang.
  25. Mazzotta, P. (2012). Implicazioni didattiche delle differenze interculturali nella scrittura accademica. In E. Bonvino, E. Luzi, A.R. Tamponi (dir.), (Far) apprendere, usare e certificare una lingua straniera. Studi in onore di Serena Ambroso (pp. 153-161). Roma: Bonacci.
  26. Miller, C.R. (1994). Genre as social action. In A. Freedman, P. Medway (dir.), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 23-42). London: Taylor and Francis.
  27. Montgomery, S.L. (2003). The Chicago guide to communicating science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  28. Paltridge, B. (2002) Thesis and dissertation writing: an examination of published advice and actual practice.
  29. English for Special Purposes (21), 125-143. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00025-9. Paltridge, B., Starfield, S. (2007) Thesis and Dissertation Writing in a Second Language. Oxon – New York: Routledge.
  30. Perelman, Ch., Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (2001) Trattato dell’argomentazione. La nuova retorica. Trad. di C. Schick, M. Mayer con la collaborazione di E. Barassi. Torino: Einaudi.
  31. Schmidt, R. (2012). Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning. In W.M. Chan, K.N. Chin, S.K. Bhatt, I. Walker (dir.), Perspectives on individual characteristics and foreign lan- guage education. Studies in second and foreign language education. Vol. 6. (27-50). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9781614510932.27.
  32. Swales, J.M. (1993). Genre Analysis. English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  33. Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in Academic Writing: Learning to Argue with the Reader. Applied Lin- guistics, 22 (1), 58-78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.58.
  34. Troncarelli, D. (2017). Lo sviluppo dell’abilità di scrittura in italiano L2: strategie di insegnamento e ri- sorse per l’apprendimento. Aggiornamenti, 12, 28-35.
  35. Załęska, M. (2008). Esiste la tradizione italiana di comunicare la scienza?. In P. Salwa, in collaborazione con D. Facca (dir.), La tradizione italiana nella vita intellettuale ed artistica in Europa centrale e orientale (pp. 193-206). Warszawa: Semper.
  36. Załęska, M. (2014). Retorica della linguistica. Scienza, struttura, scrittura. Frankfurt am Main etc.: Peter Lang.
  37. Załęska, M. (2016). I generi del discorso accademico dalla prospettiva retorica: fra il saggio e l’articolo. In M. Załęska (dir.), Il discorso accademico italiano. Temi, domande e prospettive (pp. 43-63). Frank- furt am Main etc.: Peter Lang.
  38. Załęska, M. (2019). Rhetorical styles in knowledge communication. Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Litteraria Polonica, 55 (3), 67-80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18778/1505-9057.54.04.
  39. Załęska, M. (2021). Rhetoric and linguistics: forms of connection in the interdisciplinary research. Res Rhetorica, 8 (3), 125-139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29107/rr2021.3.7; https://resrhetorica.com/index.php/RR/article/view/602/311.