lingnguВестник НГУ. Серия: Лингвистика и межкультурная коммуникацияNSU Vestnik. Series: Linguistics and Intercultural Communication1818-7935Новосибирский государственный университет10.25205/1818-7935-2023-21-3-5-16lingngu-586Research ArticleТЕОРЕТИЧЕСКАЯ И ПРИКЛАДНАЯ ЛИНГВИСТИКАTHEORETICAL AND APPLIED LINGUISTICSОсторожность vs категоричность: метадискурсивный выбор авторов научно-технических статейTentativeness vs Assertiveness: Metadiscourse Choices of Russian Engineering Writershttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-9738-8122БогинскаяО. А.BoginskayaO. A.

Богинская Ольга Александровна, доктор филологических наук, профессор кафедры иностранных языков 

Olga A. Boginskaya, Doctor of Philology, Professor at the Department of Foreign Languages

Irkutsk

olgaa_boginskaya@mail.ruИркутский национальный исследовательский технический университетРоссияIrkutsk National Research Technical UniversityRussian Federation202323102023213516Copyright © Богинская О.А., 20232023Богинская О.А.Boginskaya O.A.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://lingngu.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/586

Коммуникативные особенности академического дискурса получили освещение в работах огромного количества исследователей. Однако большинство данных исследований были проведены на материале английского языка. Метадискурсивные маркеры русскоязычного академического дискурса являются малоизученной областью в лингвистике. В основе настоящего исследования лежит гипотеза о том, что эффективное взаимодействие в академической среде предполагает использование авторами различных стратегий представления информации и выражения отношения к пропозициональному содержанию. Теоретической основой исследования является модель интеракциональных маркеров, разработанная К. Хайлендом и регулярно используемая при анализе академического дискурса. Объектом исследования выступают две интеракциональные категории – хеджирование (ослабление иллокутивной силы высказывания) и бустинг (увеличение иллокутивной силы высказывания). В качестве материала были выбраны научные статьи ученых-инженеров, опубликованные в шести российских журналах. Анализ выявил преобладание бустеров, способствующих увеличению силы утверждения, подчеркивающих уверенность автора в истинности выдвигаемых положений и демонстрирующих приверженность собственной точке зрения. Выявленные различия в процентном соотношении бустеров и хеджей отражают присущие точным дисциплинам особенности академического письма, а дискурсивный выбор авторов ограничен дисциплинарными академическими конвенциями и предопределен уровнем владения ими письменной академической речью.

The communicative features of academic discourse have been explored from different perspectives. However, these studies have been predominantly carried out on English-language material. Little is known of how rhetorical elements, including stancetaking markers, are used in Russian academic prose. The сurrent study assumed that in order to ensure effective communication academic writers use a repertoire of stancetaking features. The theoretical basis of the study is Hyland’s model of stance markers which is frequently used in studying interactional strategies found in academic discourse. As research material the articles by Russian engineering scholars derived from six academic journals were used. The analysis revealed a large number of stance items with a predominance of boosters in the article introductions selected to build the corpus. It is suggested that the differences in the employment of stance markers identified in the study reflect discipline-specific writing peculiarities of the engineering academic community, while the discursive choices made by engineering writers are constrained by discursive conventions and depend on the level of the writers’ language proficiency. Despite some data limitations, the research results can be seen as a starting point for the future research of stancetaking in Russian research articles from different perspectives.

позиционированиенаучная статьяакадемический дискурсинженерные наукивзаимодействиевведениехеджированиебустингstancetakingresearch articleacademic discourseengineeringinteractionintroductionhedgingboostingReferencesАлександрова З. Е. Словарь синонимов русского языка. Практическое руководство, 2011. http://dic.academic.ru/contents.nsf/dic_synonims/ (дата доступа: 11 сентября 2022).Abdi, R. Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies, 2002, no. 4(2), p. 39–45.Андреева Е. Г. Язык и культура: категоричность высказывания как отражение социокультурных норм в языковых моделях // Вестник Русской христианской гуманитарной академии. 2008. № 9(1). С. 242–251.Aleksandrova, Z. E. The dictionary of Russian language synonyms. A practical guide. 2011. URL: http://dic.academic.ru/contents.nsf/dic_synonims/ (accessed on 10 September 2019). (in Russ.)Горина О. Г., Храброва В. Е. Лингвистический хеджинг как коммуникативная структура (в русле корпусных исследований) // Вестник Новосибирского государственного университета. Серия: Лингвистика и межкультурная коммуникация. 2017. Т. 15, № 3. С. 44–53.Al-Khasawneh F. M. A genre analysis of research article abstracts written by native and non-native speakers of English. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2017, no. 4(1), pp. 1–13.Гущина Г. И. Категория категоричности/некатегоричности высказывания в системе норм речевой коммуникации (на материале русских и английских диалогов) // Вестник Башкирского университета. 2008. №. 13(4). С. 982–985.Alonso-Almeida, F. Evidential and epistemic devices in English and Spanish medical, computing and legal scientific abstracts: A contrastive study. In: Bondi, M., Lorés Sanz, R. Abstracts in Academic Discourse: Variation and Change. Bern, Peter Lang, 2014, pp. 21–42.Малышкин К. Ю., Никитина Л. В. Лексико-грамматические маркеры категоричности высказывания // Омский научный вестник. 2014. № 5(132). С. 108–110.Andreeva, E. G. Language and culture: categorical statements as a reflection of socio-cultural norms in language models. Bulletin of the Russian Christian Academy for the Humanities, 2008, no. 9 (1), pp. 242–251. (in Russ.)Abdi R. Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies, 2002, no. 4(2), p. 39–45.Aull, L. L., Lancaster, Z. Linguistic Markers of Stance in Early and Advanced Academic Writing: A Corpus-Based Comparison. Written Communication, 2014, no. 31, pp. 151–183.Aleksandrova Z. E. The dictionary of Russian language synonyms. A practical guide. 2011. Available at: http://dic.academic.ru/contents.nsf/dic_synonims/ (accessed 10 September 2019). (in Russ.)Barton, E. L. Evidentials, argumentation, and epistemological stance. College English, 1993, vol. 5, pp. 745–769.Al-Khasawneh F. M. A genre analysis of research article abstracts written by native and non-native speakers of English. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2017, no. 4(1), p. 1-13.Belyakova, M. English-Russian cross-linguistic comparison of research article abstracts in geoscience. Estudios de Lingüística Universidad de Alicante, 2017, no. 31, pp. 27–45.Alonso-Almeida, F. Evidential and epistemic devices in English and Spanish medical, computing and legal scientific abstracts: A contrastive study. In: Bondi, M., Lorés Sanz, R. Abstracts in Academic Discourse: Variation and Change. Bern, Peter Lang, 2014, p. 21-42.Berkenkotter, C., Huckin, T. Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication: Cognition/Culture/ Power. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum, 1995, 190 p.Andreeva, E. G. Language and culture: categorical statements as a reflection of socio-cultural norms in language models. Bulletin of the Russian Christian Academy for the Humanities, 2008, no. 9 (1), p. 242-251. (in Russ.)Biber, D., Finegan, E. Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text & Talk, 1989, no. 9, pp. 124-193.Aull, L. L., Lancaster, Z. Linguistic Markers of Stance in Early and Advanced Academic Writing: A Corpus-Based Comparison. Written Communication, 2014, no. 31, p. 151–183.Biber, D., Conrad, S., Cortes, V. If you look at …: Lexical Bundles in University Teaching and Textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 2004, no. 25(3), pp. 371–405.Barton, E. L. Evidentials, argumentation, and epistemological stance. College English, 1993, vol. 5, p. 745–769.Boginskaya, O. Creating an authorial presence in English-medium research articles abstracts by academic writers from different cultural backgrounds. International Journal of Language Studies, 2022, no. 16(2), pp. 49–70.Belyakova, M. English-Russian cross-linguistic comparison of research article abstracts in geoscience. Estudios de Lingüística Universidad de Alicante, 2017, no. 31, p. 27–45.Conrad, S., Biber, D. Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In: Hunston, C., Thompson, G. Evaluation in text: authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 56–73.Berkenkotter, C., Huckin, T. Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication: Cognition/Culture/ Power. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum, 1995, 190 p.Crismore, A. Talking with Readers: Metadiscourse as Rhetorical Act. New York, Peter Lang, 1989, 282 p.Biber, D., Finegan, E. Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text & Talk, 1989, no. 9, p. 124–193.Crismore, A., Farnthworth, R. Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse. In: Nash, W. The writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse. Newbury Park, C.A., Sage, 1990, pp. 118–136.Biber, D., Conrad, S., Cortes, V. If you look at …: Lexical Bundles in University Teaching and Textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 2004, no. 25(3), p. 371–405.Crismore, A., Vande Kopple, W. Reader’s learning from prose. The effect of hedges. Written communication, 1998, no. 5(2), pp. 184–202.Boginskaya, O. Creating an authorial presence in English-medium research articles abstracts by academic writers from different cultural backgrounds. International Journal of Language Studies, 2022, no. 16(2). P. 49–70.Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. Some functions of self–reference in diplomatic addresses. Discourse and Interaction, 2008, no. 1(1), pp. 7–24.Conrad, S., Biber, D. Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In: Hunston, C., Thompson, G. Evaluation in text: authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000, p. 56–73.Englebretson, R. Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. Amsterdam, John Benjamins, 2007, 323 p.Crismore, A. Talking with Readers: Metadiscourse as Rhetorical Act. New York, Peter Lang, 1989, 282 p.Gorina, O., Khrabrova, V. Linguistic hedging as a communicative strategy (within the scope of corpus studies). NSU Vestnik. Series: Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, 2017, no. 15(3), pp. 44–53.Crismore, A., Farnthworth, R. Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse. In: Nash, W. The writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse. Newbury Park, C.A., Sage, 1990, p. 118–136.Gushhina, G. I. Category of categorical / non-categorical in the system of communication (on the material of Russian and English dialogues). Bulletin of the Bashkir University, 2008, no. 13(4), pp. 982–985. (in Russ.)Crismore, A., Vande Kopple, W. Reader’s learning from prose. The effect of hedges. Written communication, 1998, no. 5(2), p. 184–202.Hu, G., Cao, F. Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English-and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 2011, no. 43(11), pp. 2795– 2809. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. Some functions of self–reference in diplomatic addresses. Discourse and Interaction, 2008, no. 1(1), p. 7–24.Hunston, S., Thompson, G. Evaluation in Text. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000, 225 p.Englebretson, R. Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. Amsterdam, John Benjamins, 2007, 323 p.Hyland, K. Disciplinary discourses: writer stance in research articles. In: Candlin, C.N., Hyland, K. Writing: texts, processes and practices. London, Longman, 1999, pp. 99–121.Gushhina, G. I. Category of categorical / non-categorical in the system of communication (on the material of Russian and English dialogues). Bulletin of the Bashkir University, 2008, no. 13(4), p. 982–985. (in Russ.)Hyland, K. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London, Continuum, 2005a, 230 p.Hu, G., Cao, F. Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 2011, no. 43(11), p. 2795–2809. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007Hyland, K. Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 2005b, pp. 173–192.Hunston, S., Thompson, G. Evaluation in Text. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000, 225 p.Hyland, K. Persuasion, interaction and the construction of knowledge: Representing self and others in research writing. International Journal of English Studies, 2008, no. 8(2), pp. 1–23.Hyland, K. Disciplinary discourses: writer stance in research articles. In: Candlin, C.N., Hyland, K. Writing: texts, processes and practices. London, Longman, 1999, p. 99–121.Hyland, K., Zou, H. “I believe the findings are fascinating”: Stance in three-minute these. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2001, no. 50, p. 100973.Hyland, K. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London, Continuum, 2005a, 230 p.Kozubíková Šandová, J. Interpersonality in research article abstracts: a diachronic case study.Discourse and Interaction, 2021, no. 14(1), pp. 77–99.Hyland, K. Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 2005b, p. 173–192.Larina, T. V., Ponton, D. M. I wanted to honour your journal, and you spat in my face: Emotive (im) politeness and face in the English and Russian blind peer review. Journal of Politeness Research, 2022, 18(1), pp. 201–226.Hyland, K. Persuasion, interaction and the construction of knowledge: Representing self and others in research writing. International Journal of English Studies, 2008, no. 8(2), p. 1–23.Malyshkin, K. Yu., Nikitina, L. B. Lexico-grammatical markers of the categoricalness of the statement. Omsk scientific bulletin, 2014, no. 5(132), pp. 108–110. (in Russ.)Hyland, K., Zou, H. “I believe the findings are fascinating”: Stance in three-minute these. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2001, no. 50, p. 100973.Martin, pp. Epistemic Modality in English and Spanish Psychological tests. Revista de lenguas para fines específicos, 2001, no. 8, pp. 195–208.Kozubíková Šandová, J. Interpersonality in research article abstracts: a diachronic case study. Discourse and Interaction, 2021, no. 14(1), p. 77–99.Panchenko, N. N., Volkova, Ya. A. Categoricalness in scientific discourse. Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities and Social Sciences, 2021, no. 14(4), pp. 535–543.Larina, T. V., Ponton, D. M. I wanted to honour your journal, and you spat in my face: Emotive (im) politeness and face in the English and Russian blind peer review. Journal of Politeness Research, 2022, 18(1), pp. 201–226.Salager-Meyer, F. Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purpose, 1994, no. 13(2), pp. 149–170.Malyshkin, K. Yu., Nikitina, L. B. Lexico-grammatical markers of the categoricalness of the statement. Omsk scientific bulletin, 2014, no. 5(132), p. 108–110 (in Russ.).Takimoto, M. A Corpus-Based Analysis of Hedges and Boosters in English Academic Articles. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2015, no. 5(1), pp. 95–105.Martin, P. Epistemic Modality in English and Spanish Psychological tests. Revista de lenguas para fines específicos, 2001, no. 8, p. 195–208.Thompson, G., Ye, Y. Evaluation in the reporting verbs used in academic papers. Applied Linguistics, 1991, no. 12(4), pp. 365–382.Panchenko, N. N., Volkova, Ya. A. Categoricalness in scientific discourse. Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities and Social Sciences, 2021, no. 14(4), p. 535–543.Varttala, T. Hedging in Scientifically Oriented Discourse: Exploring Variatio. Tampere, University of Tampere, 2001, 321 p.Salager-Meyer, F. Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purpose, 1994, no. 13(2), p. 149–170.Salager-Meyer, F. Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purpose, 1994, no. 13(2), p. 149–170.Takimoto, M. A Corpus-Based Analysis of Hedges and Boosters in English Academic Articles. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2015, no. 5(1), p. 95–105.Takimoto, M. A Corpus-Based Analysis of Hedges and Boosters in English Academic Articles. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2015, no. 5(1), p. 95–105.Thompson, G., Ye, Y. Evaluation in the reporting verbs used in academic papers. Applied Linguistics, 1991, no. 12(4), p. 365–382.Thompson, G., Ye, Y. Evaluation in the reporting verbs used in academic papers. Applied Linguistics, 1991, no. 12(4), p. 365–382.Varttala, T. Hedging in Scientifically Oriented Discourse: Exploring Variatio. Tampere, University of Tampere, 2001, 321 p.Varttala, T. Hedging in Scientifically Oriented Discourse: Exploring Variatio. Tampere, University of Tampere, 2001, 321 p.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.