Volume 3, Issue 1 (January 2026) JCALS 2026, 3(1): 0-0 | Back to browse issues page

Abyavi M, Matoori H, Farvardin M T, Gorjian B. Regulating Knowledge in Thesis Defense Discourse: A Critical Pragmatic Analysis of Examiner–Candidate Interaction. JCALS 2026; 3 (1) : 2
URL: http://cals.gonbad.ac.ir/article-1-78-en.html

Regulating Knowledge in Thesis Defense Discourse: A Critical Pragmatic Analysis of Examiner–Candidate Interaction

Marjan Abyavi

, Hossein Matoori

, Mohammad Taghi Farvardin

, Bahman Gorjian

Department of Linguistics, Arv.C, Islamic Azad University, Abadan, Iran

Abstract: (30 Views)

This study investigates how knowledge, authority, and epistemic legitimacy are discursively regulated in postgraduate thesis defense interaction. Drawing on Grice's (1975) Cooperative Principle and integrating insights from Critical Discourse Analysis (Fairclough, 2015) and contemporary critical pragmatics, the study analyzes 30 English-medium PhD thesis defenses conducted at an Iranian university. Rather than treating maxim violations as neutral communicative breakdowns, the study conceptualizes them as interactional sites where institutional norms of academic legitimacy are negotiated and enforced. Adopting a dialectical approach that distinguishes between researcher-imposed analytical categories and participant-oriented interpretive frameworks, the analysis identifies 340 instances of candidate contributions interpreted as cooperation gaps across the maxims of Quality, Relation, Quantity, and Manner. Violations of Quality were most frequent (39.1%), typically involving overgeneralization or insufficient evidential grounding. Examiner responses predominantly took the form of Direct Demands for Precision or Evidence (42.5%), functioning as mechanisms of epistemic verification. Violations of Relation (27.9%) were commonly addressed through Topic Redirection, reinforcing examiners' control over thematic boundaries. By situating Gricean pragmatics within an asymmetrical institutional setting, the study argues that cooperation in thesis defenses is not presupposed but actively regulated. Examiner interventions operate as forms of epistemic and discursive gatekeeping through which academic authority is enacted and reproduced. The findings contribute to critical applied linguistics by demonstrating how micro-pragmatic interactional practices sustain macro-institutional hierarchies. Pedagogically, the study calls for explicit training in pragmatic resilience and evidential accountability in graduate education

Article number: 2

Keywords: Critical Pragmatics, Institutional Discourse, Epistemic Authority, Thesis Defense, Gricean Maxims, Academic Evaluation, EMI, Gatekeeping

Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special
Received: 2026/07/15 | Accepted: 2026/10/5 | Published: 2026/01/1

Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
	This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.