Below find the speculations of a former post-graduate student on his future dissertation.
Since I’m just in my first year of a post-graduate course my idea of the dissertation to be submitted in three years is rather hypothetical. Theoreti-cally, I realize it’s to be composed of an introduction, two or three chapters, conclusion, bibliography, supplement, if necessary. Still, I can explain the ba-sic points of my research right now.
To start with, the topic of the thesis sounds like that: “Application of Crimi-nal Retrospection Method to Crime Investigation.” Evidently, the topic of the crime investigation methods is not new in criminalistics. Our research is sup-posed to contribute to this branch of law since it deals with such a topical prob-lem as developing more reliable methods of crime investigation. Thus, the no-tion of “retrospection” in criminalistics and the ways of its application to crime detection will be dealt with in the research. On the surface the issue seems to be not innovative at all, but it’s not quite right. Ordinary understanding of the ret-rospection is enough to find “a lost pen” while we are targeting at the investiga-tion of complicated crimes which needs profound theoretical study. Thus, our research is aimed at providing a practical worker with concrete up-to-date rec-ommendations on retrospective analysis of crime detection.
The law is dynamic and ever-changing; as our society and community changes, the law must also change to fit the new needs and problems that arise. Our research is supposed to begin with a survey of the literature on the prob-lem under discussion, analysis of the latest achievements in this field, scrutiny of investigation methods to provide a theoretical basis for the research. His-tory and the present state of the retrospection method application will be given particular emphasis to, case studies will be presented, basic rules, principles and the place of retrospection in modern criminalistics are to be defined. Case
studies may become the subject of supplement attached to the main body of the research paper.
I realize the significance of the final part of any dissertation since it sum-marizes the results obtained, stresses the topicality of the research made, sug-gests the possibility for further research and practical application of theoreti-cal assumptions.
I hope to solve all the tasks facing me as a researcher, and step by step proceed to the ultimate goal of any post-graduate – defence of the dissertation and the award of PhD degree.
Summarizing translation can be helpful for you while compos-ing the topic “My work on the dissertation”
1. К концу срока обучения в аспирантуре аспирант должен представить текст диссертационного исследования для обсуждения на одном из заседаний кафедры.
2. После обсуждения на кафедре, внесения необходимых изменений и исправлений работа получает рекомендацию к защите.
3. Диссертация предоставляется для рассмотрения членами соответст-вующего Ученого Совета и заслушивается на одном из его заседаний.
4. На защите претендент кратко излагает основные положения диссерта-ции, цели исследования, обосновывает его актуальность и новизну, по-лученные результаты и возможности практичного применения.
5. Все выносимые на защиту положения должны быть отражены в ав-тореферате диссертации, который в сжатой форме представляет проделанное диссертационное исследование и рассылается за месяц до защиты.
6. После доклада соискателя выступают официальные оппоненты с критическим анализом проделанной работы.
7. Если у присутствующих есть желание выступить, они вправе это сделать.
8. Соискатель обязан ответить на все поступившие в устной или пись-менной форме вопросы.
9. Ход заседания записывается, с тем чтобы позднее была возможность приобщить стенограмму заседания к документам по его защите.
10. Наконец, после соблюдения всей процедуры защиты, проходит тай-ное голосование членов Ученого совета относительно присуждения претенденту ученого звания кандидата наук.
Below there follows a summary of the research conducted in the field of linguistics which is to serve as a model for describ-ing your research paper. Study it carefully and pick out useful cliches.
Summary
The current paper is devoted to a problem of colloquial or informal speech which has recently moved into the foreground of both theoretical interest of the world's linguists and scholars and practical attempts of language teachers and students. Its significance and practical value in the age of mass communi-cations are axiomatic. Yet, paradoxically many aspects of contemporary in-formal English (Standard Educated Colloquial/Informal English, SECE in this case) including its status and role in the system of national language (British English), its specific properties as distinct from the so-called “standard Eng-lish”, according to G. Brown and other prominent colloquialists, “at an infant stage of research and investigation”. Practically underinvestigated are also the basic types of SECE; major settings and motives determining the choice of SECE in a particular communicative situation.
Finally, it's worthy to note an absolutely rudimentary stage of research in Britain and in our country into the status of SECE in modern media, including the British “quality and “popular” press and BBC radio and television broad-casting. Moreover, some pioneer attempts in this direction are sometimes as-sessed with a considerable share of scepticism.
It would hardly be surprising then that these and other problems relevant to the essentials of contemporary colloquial English and its functioning and ana-lyzed in the current paper may facilitate a serious approach to SECE as a so-ciolinguistic phenomenon worth of theoretical investigating and practical studying and the course itself be used by scholars and students of English as a kind of theoretic introduction into the topic.
Most research papers dealing with informal English published recently in Great Britain and elsewhere concentrate on specifics of SECE in a chosen field. And that is only too natural and rewarding considering an extremely complex nature of informal English and absolutely insufficient level of its in-vestigation. Understandable as it may be at the present stage of accumulation of knowledge of colloquial speech, the level-oriented approach invariably adds to the mosaic picture of SECE, barring its understanding as a real self-contained sociolinguistic system as a whole. Guided by these considerations the author attempts to follow a systematic approach to the problem in question (undertaken in a number of fundamental works by E. Zemskaya, Y. Skrebnev, B. Gavranek, T. van Dijk, M. Stubbs and other Russian Western scholars) and
tries to present a comprehensive outline of SECE as an entity, relying on an interdisciplinary approach. It is for the reader to judge, however, to what ex-tent such an approach is justifiable and beneficial.
One of the sociocultural consequences of contemporary scientific-technological revolution is that in many, if not most, «prestigious» communi-cative situations of today, a speaker may use SECE alongside MESE and the problem of the choice between the two cannot but stimulate a researcher to get to the bottom of it. On the basis of analysis of some modern relevant concepts the author dares to offer his understanding of the problem.
These considerations have basically predetermined the structure and make-up of the paper, offering the following parts: introductory part, three chapters, conclusions, bibliography, supplement.
The prevailing method of problem examination in the book is that of dis-course analysis. The absolute majority of SECE illustrations are the chunks of real conversations (rather, their transcripts' presented in the manner adopted in the works of prominent colloquialists). Also included are the examples of talks recorded by the author during the latter's stay in Great Britain and other Eng-lish-language countries.
The paper is tailored along the programmes of foreign language institutes and departments and may be used by students, postgraduates, teachers and scholars, by all those whose line of activity is linked to English.
The author is fully aware of the futility “to embrace unembraceable” as re-gards such a complex (and underinvestigated) phenomenon as contemporary colloquial or informal language, therefore the given paper on SECE may only serve as an attempt in the right direction, at best. The author would be very much undebted to any critical remark facilitating further studies of SECE.