‫باسمه تعالی‬

‫تحصیالت تکمیلی مرکز زبان‬

‫درخواست تصویب موضوع پایان‌نامه کارشناسی‌ارشد‬

‫مشخصات دانشجو‬ ‫‪-1‬‬

‫شماره دانشجویی‪9909464:‬‬ ‫نام و نام‌خانوادگی دانشجو‪ :‬مائده داوری‬

‫مركززبان‬ ‫رشته تحصیلی‪:‬آموزش زبان انگلیسی‬

‫مشخصات اساتید راهنما و مشاور‬ ‫‪-2‬‬

‫الف‪ -‬مشخصات اساتید راهنما‬
‫پایان‌نامه‌های تحت‬
‫مالحظات‬ ‫راهنمایی‬ ‫تخصص‬ ‫رتبه‬ ‫دانشکده‬ ‫گروه آموزشی‬ ‫نام و نام‌خانوادگی‬ ‫ردیف‬
‫مقطع‬ ‫تعداد‬

‫دکتری‬ ‫هیئت‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫آموزش زبان‬ ‫علمی‪،‬استادیا‬ ‫زبان‬ ‫زبان‬ ‫میثم رحیمی‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫انگلیسی‬ ‫ر‬

‫ب‪ -‬مشخصات اساتید مشاور‬

‫مالحظات‬ ‫تخصص‬ ‫رتبه‬ ‫دانشکده‬ ‫گروه آموزشی‬ ‫نام و نام‌خانوادگی‬ ‫ردیف‬

‫دکتری‬ ‫هیئت‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫آموزش زبان‬ ‫علمی‪،‬استادیا‬ ‫زبان‬ ‫زبان‬ ‫حسن جاللی‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫انگلیسی‬ ‫ر‬

‫تذکر‪ :‬در صورتی که اساتید فوق عضو هیأت علمی دانشگاه صنعتی نمی‌باشند آدرس و شماره تلفن آن‌ها ذیًال قید گردد‪.‬‬

‫این فرم باید توسط دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد در سه نسخه با هماهنگی استاد راهنما به صورت تایپ شده تکمیل گردد‪.‬‬

‫مشخصات پایان‌ نامه‬ ‫‪-3‬‬

‫الف – عنوان تحقیق‬

‫فارسی‪ :‬مطالعه کورپس پاسخ به عذرخواهی در گفتار گویش امریکایی در مقایسه با گویش بریتانیایی‬ ‫‪-1‬‬

‫خارجی‪A corpus-based study of apology responses in spoken American English :‬‬ ‫‪-2‬‬
‫‪compared to British English‬‬
 ))Statement of the Problem ‫د – شرح و بیان مسأله پژوهشی‬

An apology is a social act that interactants use to remedy an offense to a person offended (Hamilton &
Hagiwara, 1992; Kort, 1975). It is needed when social rules and norms are disregarded and aimed to rectify
rapport (Al-Rawafi et al., 2021; Degenhardt & Bernaisch, 2022; Hamilton & Hagiwara, 1992; Limberg, 2015;
Shevchenko & Gutorov, 2019; Mir, 1992). Apologizing is an influential sociocultural competence (Aydin,
2013; Cohen & Olshtain, 1981; Limberg, 2015; Mir, 1992) that helps to maintain communication (Ngo & Luu,
2022; Shevchenko & Gutorov, 2019).
Apology has been studied widely (Cohen & Olshtain, 1981; Creese, 1991, Deutschmann, Mats. 2003;
Kort, 1975; Jucker, 2018; Owen, M. 1983; Robinson, 2004; Trosborg, 1987,1995). A considerable amount of
literature has been published on cross-cultural comparison of apology (Al-Rawafi et al., 2021; Bataineh &
Bataineh, 2006, 2008; Chamani & Zareipur, 2010; Degenhardt & Bernaisch, 2022; Demir & Takkaç, 2016;
Hussein & Hammouri, 1998; Intachakra, 2004; Kotani, 2016; Saleem, Unjum, Ahmed & Qadeer, 2021;
Shevchenko & Gutorov, 2019; Tahir & Pandian, 2016). Different studies have been done on the difference
between Americans and Japanese in terms of apology (Hamilton & Hagiwara, 1992; Sugimoto, 1997).
According to Hamilton and Hagiwara (1992), generally, Americans tend to deny, justify or use aggressive
strategies as remedial acts. Sugimoto (1997) stated that Americans use forgetfulness or lack of control over the
situation as an excuse for the offense.
It has been perceived that Americans attempt to remedy an offense more than Turkish (Aydin, 2013).
Several researchers demonstrated that ‘sorry’ was used most frequently among remedial acts. (Aydin, 2013;
Cohen & Olshtain, 1981; Holmes, 1990; Mir, 1992). Mir (1992) observed dissimilarities in employment and
intensification of apologies by Spanish and American speakers.
Creese (1991) pointed out that differences were perceived between Americans and Brits in apologizing.
British people apologize more for minor matters than Americans, especially in close relationships. It seems that
apologizing is practiced differently in England. Al-Zumor (2011) found that there are slight differences in
utilizing apology strategies between American and British speakers of English.
Different scholars have investigated apology taxonomies (Cohen & Olshtain, 1981; Deutschmann,
2003; Sugimoto, 1997); Sugimoto's taxonomy has been challenged by Bataineh & Bataineh (2005), and
reported some differences in apologizing strategies used by Americans. An, Su and Xiang (2022) gathered all
these taxonomies and introduced a list which is the starting point of this thesis.
Alongside apology is an apology response (AR). The remedial responses introduced by Owen (1983) is
the primary work on apology response. Holmes (1989) addressed New Zealander's apology sequence and
introduced six categories of response strategies. Robinson (2004) provided apology organizations using
videotapes from American and British speakers. Adrefiza and Jones (2013) focused on Indonesian and
Australian apology responses. Murphy (2016) analyzed apologies and apology responses made by UK
politicians. An, Su and Xiang's (2022) research is specifically on spoken British English.
So far, there has been no study to focus on apology responses in spoken American English on a large
scale. Most studies of AR have only been carried out in a small number of areas, and the number of samples is
limited. The present study is corpus-based. Since the corpus entails a considerable amount of data, quantity of
data collection in this research will not be questioned. Data will be naturally occurring spoken English. By
using discourse analysis, the extracted data related to AR will be examined. The result of the study will
complement An, Su and Xiang's (2022) work.
 )‫ پیشینه و تاریخچه موضوع تحقیق(مطالعات و تحقیقاتی که در رابطه با این موضوع صورت گرفته و نتایج حاصل از آن‬- 4
)Literature Review(

An apology is a social act that interactants use to remedy an offense to a person offended (Hamilton &
Hagiwara, 1992; Kort, 1975). A considerable amount of literature has been published on an apology (Cohen &
Olshtain, 1981; Creese, 1991, Deutschmann, 2003; Kort, 1975; Jucker, 2018; Owen, 1983; Robinson, 2004;
Trosborg, 1987, 1995). Few of these studies, identified apology taxonomies (Cohen & Olshtain, 1981;
Deutschmann, 2003). Deutschmann (2003) focused on lexical forms of apology in British English, such as
sorry, pardon, excuse, afraid, apologize, forgive, and regret.
Cohen and Olshtain (1981) demonstrated a list of apologies made by Americans consisting of four
semantic formulas and four sub-formulas for the first formula, “an expression of apology (an expression of
regret, an offer of apology, a request for forgiveness, an expression of an excuse), an acknowledgment of
responsibility, an offer of repair, and a promise of forbearance” (p.119).
Creese (1991) pointed out that differences were perceived between Americans and Brits in apologizing.
British people apologize more for minor matters than Americans, especially in close relationships. It seems that
apologizing is practiced differently in England. Al-Zumor (2011) found that, there are slight differences in
utilizing apology strategies between American and British speakers of English.
In her case study of apology in American English and Japanese, Sugimoto (1997) stated apology
strategies as “statement of remorse, accounts, description of damage, compensation, explicit statement of
forgiveness, gratitude, self-castigation, promise not to repeat the same offense, contextualization” (p.356). She
demonstrated several differences between Americans and Japanese. Sugimoto's taxonomy has been challenged
by Bataineh and Bataineh (2005), who reported differences in apologizing strategies used by Americans. An,
Su and Xiang (2022) gathered all these taxonomies and introduced a list which is the starting point of this
thesis.
Alongside apology is an apology response (AR). The remedial responses introduced by Owen (1983) is
the primary work on apology response. “Formulaic responses” (acknowledgments, acceptances), “extended
responses” (remedial responses like thanks, denials, shifts of blame, and affiliations), and “withholding of
response” are apology responses established by Owen (as cited in An, Su & Xiang, 2022, p.29).
Holmes (1989) addressed New Zealander's apology sequence and introduced six categories of response
strategies. “Accept, acknowledge, reject, evade, no response expected, and other (e.g., another apology)”
(p.207). Robinson (2004) provided apology organizations using videotapes from American and British
speakers. He examined the sequential organization of apologies. As he concluded, apologies could happen as
the first parts of adjacency pair sequences. Preferred and dispreferred responses to such apologies are,
respectively, “absolution, disagreeing with the need to have apologized”, and “response delay, mere
acknowledgment” (p.319).
Adrefiza and Jones (2013) focused on Indonesian and Australian apology responses. They have
proposed four response types that have extended sub-types: “acceptance, acknowledgment, evasion, and
rejection” (p.78). Murphy (2016) analyzed apologies and apology responses made by UK politicians. He
identified “rejection of the need to apologize, minimize the offence, apology in kind, and absence of response”
as apology responses (p.614). An, Su and Xiang's (2022) research on AR is specifically on spoken British
English.
Results from earlier studies mentioned in advance provided substantial data that can be used as a
starting point in this study. So far, there has been no study to focus on apology responses in spoken American
English on a large scale. Most studies of AR have only been carried out in a controlled context, and the number
of samples is limited. Few studies have evaluated naturally occurring data. The present study is corpus-based
research, so quantity of data will not be questioned. Data will be naturally occurring spoken English. By using
discourse analysis, the validity of data will be examined. The result of the study will complement An, Su and
Xiang's (2022) work.

))Purpose of the Study ‫ اهداف تحقیق‬-5

This corpus study follows three key aims. Firstly, a taxonomy of apology responses in American English will
be introduced using the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). The corpus provides a large-scale
collection of authentic instances that allow researchers to scrutinize and obtain data (Kitao, 2012; Su & Wei,
2018). Secondly, the study aims to assess the extent to which two dialects of English, American and British,
differ in apology responses, and highlight the similarities and dissimilarities between American English and
British English apology responses.

)Significance of the Study( ‫ اهمیت و ارزش تحقیق‬-6

What we know about apology responses is derived from small-scale data (Owen, 1983; Robinson, 2004). To
date, apology response in American English has not yet been extensively studied. While some cross-cultural
research has been carried out on AR (Holmes, 1989; Adrefiza & Jones, 2013), and An, Su and Xiang's (2022)
work on AR is exclusively on British English. No single study exists that focuses on American English at odds
with British English. Since there is a relative paucity of high-quality research focusing, especially on naturally
occurring American English on a large scale, this paper pursues the investigation of apology responses in
American English.

))Implications of the Study ‫ – کاربرد نتایج تحقیق‬7

Apology responses can play an essential role in the maintenance of interaction. If language learners wish to
avoid cross-cultural misunderstandings and maintain rapport, they require to know the variability in language
use. American and British English dialects are the most used dialects in the world. Some learners choose to
master either of the dialects. As teachers, we should educate them to notice the differences. Consequently,
learners will be able to have better interchange, especially with natives. If the purpose of EFL/ESL programs is
to increase learners’ communicative competence, the results obtained in this study can be advantageous. They
will provide learners with strategies needed for AR despite their language of origin.

)Research Questions/Hypotheses( ‫ فرضیه‌ها (در صورت لزوم) یا سوالهای تحقیق‬- 8

a) What are the apology responses in American English?
b) What are the similarities and differences between American English and British English apology
responses?

)Methodology( ‫ روش تحقیق‬- 9

Design of the Study .9.1
In this qualitative corpus study, the data will be taken from the Corpus of Contemporary American English
(COCA). The corpus can be accessed via their formal website (https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/).

Instruments .9.2
For using a corpus, usually a search program is needed. There are general concordancers such as AntConc or
Wordsmith tools. The process of using these programs is called concordance analysis. It provides a list of all
the samples, consisting of the searched item by the researcher, in context. For limited data, Excel or Word files
can be adequate. For large data, a database program such as FileMaker Pro is beneficial to store, retrieve, and
analyze data.

Data Collection and Analysis Procedure .9.3

Data will be collected from COCA which contains “one billion words of text (25+ million words each year
1990-2019) from eight genres: spoken, fiction, popular magazines, newspapers, academic texts, TV and Movies
subtitles, blogs, and other web pages.” (https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/). Since this study tries to
investigate all apology responses, data collection will be limited to the recent year spoken genre, as in 2018 and
2019.

Effectively, the first step in this qualitative study is to define a list of apology keywords (An, Su &
Xiang, 2022, p33) to search in the corpus. This process is called concordance search. “Concordancing is a
valuable analytical technique because it allows a large number of examples of an item to be brought together in
one place, in their original context” (Evison, 2010, p.129). The outcome will have all the instances of apology.
The retrieved data, should manually be examined for apology response sequences. Discourse analysis will be
employed to check all the extracted instances for their illocutionary force since the search in corpus is based on
key words, and there might be data that are not related to AR sequence.

Apology response sequence is consisted of the offense, the apology to that offense, and the related
apology response. Therefore, a list of offenses will be defined based on previous studies (Deutschmann, 2003,
p.64). Afterward, the apology frequencies regarding the offense type can be categorized. The next step is to
investigate the AP sequences. Now that the instances are categorized based on the offence type and their related
apology, apology responses can be identified. Based on the AR instances, a taxonomy of responses, and their
frequency in American English can be introduced. This is achieved by manual examination and discourse
analysis of apology sequences in the context. The reached taxonomy will grant a comparison between
American English AP and British English AP.

‫ منابع و مآخذ‬- 10

Adrefiza, & Jones, J. F. (2013). Investigating apology response strategies in Australian English and Bahasa
Indonesia: gender and cultural perspectives. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 36(1), 71-101.
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.36.1.04jon
Al-Rawafi, A., Sudana, D., Lukmana, I., & Syihabuddin, S. (2021). Students’ apologizing in Arabic and
English: An interlanguage pragmatic case study at an Islamic boarding school in Indonesia. Indonesian
journal of applied linguistics, 10(3). 589-602. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v10i3.31740
Alsulayyi, M. N. (2017). A contrastive study of the use of apology strategies by Saudi EFL teachers and British
native speakers of English: A pragmatic approach. International Journal of English Linguistics, 7(1),
45-57. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v7n1p45
Al-Zumor, A. W. Q. G. (2011). Apologies in Arabic and English: An inter-language and cross-cultural
study. Journal of King Saud University-Languages and Translation, 23(1), 19-28.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksult.2010.02.001
An, Y., Su, H., & Xiang, M. (2022). Apology responses and gender differences in spoken British English: A
corpus study. Pragmatics, 32(1), 28-53. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.19029.an
Aydin, M. (2013). Cross cultural pragmatics: A study of apology speech acts by Turkish speakers, American
English speakers and advance nonnative speakers of English in Turkey. [Master’s thesis, Minnesota
State University, Mankato]. Cornerstone. https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/etds/269/
Bataineh, R. F., & Bataineh, R. F. (2005). American University Students' Apology Strategies: An Intercultural
Analysis of the Effect of Gender. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 9, 1-19.
Bataineh, R. F., & Bataineh, R. F. (2006). Apology strategies of Jordanian EFL university students. Journal of
pragmatics, 38(11), 1901-1927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.11.004
Bataineh, R. F., & Bataineh, R. F. (2008). A cross-cultural comparison of apologies by native speakers of
American English and Jordanian Arabic. Journal of pragmatics, 40(4), 792-821.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.01.003
Chamani, F., & Zareipur, P. (2010). A cross-cultural study of apologies in British English and
Persian. Concentric: Studies in linguistics, 36(1), 133-153.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228513021
Cohen, A. D., & Olshtain, E. (1981). Developing A Measure of Sociocultural Competence: The Case of
Apology 1. Language learning, 31(1), 113-134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1981.tb01375.x
Cook, G. (1989). Discourse. Oxford University Press.
Creese, A. (1991). Speech Act Variation in British and American English. PENN Working Papers, 7(2); 37-58.
Degenhardt, J., & Bernaisch, T. (2022). Apologies in South Asian Varieties of English: A Corpus-Based Study
on Indian and Sri Lankan English. Corpus Pragmatics, 6(3), 201-223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-
022-00117-8
Demir, C., & Takkaç, M. (2016). Contrastive pragmatics: Apologies & thanks in English and
Italian. International Journal of English Linguistics, 6(1), 73. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v6n1p73
Deutschmann, Mats. 2003. Apologising in British English [Unpublished Ph.D. thesis]. Ume University,
Sweden.
Evison, J. (2010). What are the basics of analysing a corpus?. In A. O’Keeffe, & M. McCarthy (Eds.), The
Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (pp. 122-135). Routledge.
Hamilton, V. L., & Hagiwara, S. (1992). Roles, responsibility, and accounts across cultures. International
Journal of Psychology, 27(2), 157-179.
Holmes, J. (1989). Sex differences and apologies: One aspect of communicative competence1. Applied
linguistics, 10(2), 194-213. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/10.2.194
Holmes, J. (1990). Apologies in New Zealand English. Language in Society, 19(2), 155-199.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500014366
Hussein, R. F., & Hammouri, M. T. (1998). Strategies of Apology in Jordanian Arabic and American
English. Grazer Linguistische Studien, 49, 37-50.
Intachakra, S. (2004). Contrastive pragmatics and language teaching: Apologies and thanks in English and
Thai* T. RELC journal, 35(1), 37-62. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368820403500105
Jucker, A.H. (2018). Apologies in the History of English: Evidence from the Corpus of Historical American
English (COHA). Corpus Pragmatics, 2, 375–398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-018-0038-y
Kitao, S. K. (2012). Using a spoken corpus compiled from subtitles to study apologies. Asphodel, 47, 50-77
Kort, L. F. (1975). What is an Apology?. Philosophy Research Archives, 1, 78-87.
https://doi.org/10.5840/pra197515
Kotani, M. (2016). Two codes for remedying problematic situations: Japanese and English speakers’ views of
explanations and apologies in the United States. Journal of Intercultural Communication
Research, 45(2), 126-144. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2015.1126756
Limberg, H. (2015). Principles for pragmatics teaching: Apologies in the EFL classroom. Elt Journal, 69(3),
275-285. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccv012
Mir, M. (1992). Do We All Apologize the Same? An Empirical Study on the Act of Apologizing by Spanish
Speakers Learning English. Pragmatics and language learning, 3, 1-19.
Murphy, J. (2016). Apologies made at the Leveson Inquiry: Triggers and responses. Pragmatics and
Society, 7(4), 595-617. https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.7.4.04mur
Ngo, T. H. T., & Luu, Q. K. (2022). Direct apology strategies and their lexicogrammatical realizations in
English conversations: implications for EFL students. International Journal of TESOL & Education,
2(2), 82- 94. https://doi.org/10.54855/ijte.22225
Owen, M. (1983). Apologies and Remedial Interchanges: A Study of Language Use in Social Interaction.
Mouton, New York.
Robinson, J. D. (2004). The sequential organization of" explicit" apologies in naturally occurring
English. Research on language and social Interaction, 37(3), 291-330.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3703_2
Saleem, T., Unjum, U., Ahmed, M. I., & Qadeer, A. (2021). Social distance and speech behavior: A case of
Pakistani English speakers’ apology responses. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 8(1).
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2021.1890410
Shevchenko, I., & Gutorov, V. (2019). A cognitive-pragmatic perspective on apologies in English and
Ukrainian discourse. LEGE ARTIS Language yesterday, today, tomorrow, 4(2).
Sugimoto, N. (1997). A Japan-US comparison of apology styles. Communication Research, 24(4), 349-369.
https://doi.org/10.1177/009365097024004002
Su, H., & Wei, N. (2018). “I’m really sorry about what I said” A local grammar of apology. Pragmatics, 28(3),
439-462. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17005.su
Tahir, R. I., & Pandian, A. (2016). A comparative Analysis of apology Speech acts between American English
and Iraqi Kurdish. Malaysia. IJELLH (International Journal of English Language, Literature in
Humanities), 4(7), 249-267.
Trosborg, A. (1987). Apology strategies in natives/non-natives. Journal of pragmatics, 11(2), 147-167.
Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints, and Apologies. Berlin, New York: De
Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110885286
Van Dijk, T. A. (1997). The study of discourse. Discourse as structure and process, 1(34), 703-52.
Wolfram, W., & Schilling, N. (2015). American English: dialects and variation. John Wiley & Sons
 ‫بسمه تعالي‬

‫تعهدنامه‌ي دانشجو‬
‫اطالعات دانشجو‪:‬‬
‫ت‪ŽŽ‬اريخ تول‪ŽŽ‬د‪:‬‬ ‫فرزن‪ŽŽ‬د‪ :‬حی‪ŽŽ‬درعلی‬ ‫ن‪ŽŽ‬ام خ‪ŽŽ‬انوادگي‪ :‬داوری‬ ‫نام‪ :‬مائ‪ŽŽ‬ده‬
‫‪02/10/66‬‬
‫رش‪Ž‬ته‪-‬گ‪Ž‬رایش‪ :‬آم‪Ž‬وزش زب‪Ž‬ان‬ ‫مقطع تحصیلی‪ :‬کارشناس‪Ž‬ی ارش‪Ž‬د‬ ‫شماره دانشجویی‪9909464 :‬‬
‫انگلیسی‬

‫تعاريف‪:‬‬
‫دانشجو‪:‬‬
‫عبارت است از فرد ثبت نام شده‌ي مشغول به تحصيل در دانشگاه صنعتی اصفهان‬
‫دانشگاه‪:‬‬
‫در اینجا منظور دانشگاه صنعتی اصفهان است‪.‬‬
‫پروژه‪:‬‬
‫عبارت است از هرگونه پروژه درسی‪ ،‬پروژه کارشناسی‪ ،‬پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد و رساله دکترا‬
‫اطالعات‪:‬‬
‫هرگونه اطالعات علمي‪ ،‬فني و تج‪Ž‬اري در ه‪Ž‬ر ق‪ŽŽ‬الب ک‪Ž‬ه در جريان پ‪Ž‬روژه ب‪Ž‬ه دانش‪Ž‬جو داده مي‌ش‪Ž‬ود يا اطالع‪Ž‬اتي ک‪Ž‬ه از‬
‫پژوهش‌ها و آزمايش‌ها در زمان اجرا و یا پس از انجام پروژه به دست مي‌آيد‪.‬‬
‫دارایی فکري‪:‬‬
‫عبارت است از نوآوري‪ ،‬اختراع‪ ،‬مقاله‪ ،‬کتاب‪ ،‬نرم افزار‪ ،‬پايگ‪Ž‬اه داده‌ه‪Ž‬ا‪ ،‬نت‪Ž‬ايج آزم‪Ž‬ايش‪ ،‬نقش‪Ž‬ه ه‪Ž‬اي ف‪Ž‬ني‪ ،‬نش‪Ž‬ان و آرم و‬
‫ديگر قالب هاي مرتبط با تعاريف مالکیت فکري‬
‫تجاري سازي دانش فني‪:‬‬
‫عبارتست ازساخت‪ ،‬استفاده‪ ،‬فروش‪ ،‬واگذاري‪ ،‬مشارکت‪ ،‬اجاره‪ ،‬انتشار و ديگر صور تجاري‌سازي دانش فني‬
‫مدت تعهدنامه‪:‬‬
‫اين تعهدنامه از زمان امضاي آن تا بيست سال پس از تاريخ امضا يا تا زمان اعتبار حقوق مالکيت فکري پروژه‪ ،‬هر ک‪ŽŽ‬دام‬
‫که بيشتر بود‪ ،‬معتبر است‪.‬‬
‫تعهدات دانشجو‪:‬‬
‫دانشجو بدينوسيله متعهد مي‌شود که در انجام پروژه و پژوهش‌های خود‪:‬‬
‫‪-1‬تمام اطالعات و مدارک اوليه و دانش فني و نتايج به دست آمده از پژوهش و آزمايش‌ها را محفوظ بدارد‪.‬‬
‫‪-2‬اطالعات و دانش موجود را به شخص سوم بدون مجوز کتبي دانشگاه واگذار ننمايد‪.‬‬
‫‪-3‬هرگونه نوآوري و دانش فني به دست آمده از پژوهش را ابتدا به استاد راهنما و سپس به دف‪ŽŽ‬تر انتق‪Ž‬ال فن‪Ž‬اوري دانش‪Ž‬گاه (‬
‫‪ )TTO‬اطالع دهد‪.‬‬
‫‪ -4‬بدون آگاهی و اجازه کتبی دانشگاه‪ ،‬هيچ گونه حقي نس‪Ž‬بت ب‪Ž‬ه حق‪Ž‬وق م‪Ž‬ادي‪ ،‬م‪Ž‬الکيت فک‪Ž‬ري و تجاري‌س‪Ž‬ازي دانش ف‪ŽŽ‬ني‬
‫ندارد‪.‬‬
‫‪-5‬حق تجاري‌سازي دانش فني را به هر صورت‪ ،‬چه در داخل و چه در خارج از کشور‪ ،‬بدون مجوز کتبی دانشگاه ندارد‪.‬‬

‫تبصره الف‪:‬‬
‫کلیه حقوق مالکیت مادی و معنوی مربوط به پروژه متعلق به دانش‪ŽŽ‬گاه ص‪ŽŽ‬نعتی اص‪ŽŽ‬فهان و پدیدآورن‪ŽŽ‬دگان اس‪ŽŽ‬ت‪ .‬این حق‪ŽŽ‬وق‬
‫توسط دانشگاه صنعتي اصفهان و بر اساس خط مشی مالکیت فکری دانشگاه‪ ،‬ارزش‌گذاری و سهم‌بندي خواهد شد‪.‬‬
‫تبصره ب‪:‬‬
‫در صورت وجود قرارداد ها و توافق هاي داخلي در مورد حقوق مادي و معنوي پروژه‪ ،‬در صورت عدم تناقض ب‪ŽŽ‬ا ش‪ŽŽ‬یوه‬
‫نامه اجرایی خط مشي مالکیت فکری دانشگاه‪ ،‬آنها نيز لحاظ خواهند شد‪.‬‬
‫تبصره پ‪:‬‬
‫در صورت عدم تمايل دانشگاه و ی‪Ž‬ا اس‪Ž‬تاد راهنم‪Ž‬ا‪ ،‬ب‪Ž‬راي حف‪Ž‬اظت از م‪Ž‬الکيت فک‪Ž‬ري منتج از پ‪Ž‬روژه ی‪Ž‬ا تجاری‌س‪Ž‬ازی آن‪،‬‬
‫دانشجو با مجوز کتبي از دانشگاه مي تواند در م‪Ž‬ورد حف‪Ž‬اظت از م‪Ž‬الکيت فک‪Ž‬ري و تجاری‌س‪Ž‬ازی دس‪Ž‬تاوردهای خ‪Ž‬ود اق‪ŽŽ‬دام‬
‫نمايد‪.‬‬

‫امضا‬ ‫تاریخ ‪62/04/402‬‬ ‫نام و نام خانوادگی دانشجو‪ :‬مائده داوری‬

‫مهر و امضای دفتر تحصیالت تکمیلی دانشکده‪:‬‬