Tentativeness vs Assertiveness: Metadiscourse Choices of Russian Engineering Writers

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.

1. Abdi, R. Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies, 2002, no. 4(2), p. 39–45.

2. 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.)

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.)

6. 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.

7. Barton, E. L. Evidentials, argumentation, and epistemological stance. College English, 1993, vol. 5, pp. 745–769.

8. 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.

9. Berkenkotter, C., Huckin, T. Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication: Cognition/Culture/ Power. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum, 1995, 190 p.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. Crismore, A. Talking with Readers: Metadiscourse as Rhetorical Act. New York, Peter Lang, 1989, 282 p.

15. 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.

16. Crismore, A., Vande Kopple, W. Reader’s learning from prose. The effect of hedges. Written communication, 1998, no. 5(2), pp. 184–202.

17. Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. Some functions of self–reference in diplomatic addresses. Discourse and Interaction, 2008, no. 1(1), pp. 7–24.

18. Englebretson, R. Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. Amsterdam, John Benjamins, 2007, 323 p.

19. 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.

20. 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.)

21. 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.2011.04.007

22. Hunston, S., Thompson, G. Evaluation in Text. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000, 225 p.

23. 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.

24. Hyland, K. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London, Continuum, 2005a, 230 p.

25. Hyland, K. Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 2005b, pp. 173–192.

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. Kozubíková Šandová, J. Interpersonality in research article abstracts: a diachronic case study.Discourse and Interaction, 2021, no. 14(1), pp. 77–99.

29. 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.

30. 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.)

31. Martin, pp. Epistemic Modality in English and Spanish Psychological tests. Revista de lenguas para fines específicos, 2001, no. 8, pp. 195–208.

32. 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.

33. Salager-Meyer, F. Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purpose, 1994, no. 13(2), pp. 149–170.

34. 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.

35. Thompson, G., Ye, Y. Evaluation in the reporting verbs used in academic papers. Applied Linguistics, 1991, no. 12(4), pp. 365–382.

36. Varttala, T. Hedging in Scientifically Oriented Discourse: Exploring Variatio. Tampere, University of Tampere, 2001, 321 p.