Communicative interaction in Russian public academic discourse
https://doi.org/10.18384/2310-712X-2023-3-94-101
Abstract
Aim. To reveal the specifics of communicative interaction in public academic discourse.
Methodology. The article examines the manifestation of Other in modern public academic discourse speech. The methodology of the research is based on the idea of the dialogical nature of communication and academic performance. The study relies on discourse analysis.
Results. In the course of the study, the means that introduce the figure of both the explicit and the implicit Other were identified. The conclusion was made about the ubiquitous presence of this figure in academic discourse. The presence of Other in discourse challenges the monologic nature of utterance as the speaker involves Other’s words for a specific reason, which is to confirm, refute or supplement the argument.
Research implications. The results of the study contribute to the analysis of the specifics of dialogical interaction in academic discourse, new research material is introduced into scientific circulation – previously unexplored public lectures of Russian linguists in 2015-2020: V. I. Karasik’s “Bilingualism as a linguocultural value”, A. V. Kirillina’s “Language and gender (gender linguistics)”; V. A. Plungyan’s “The Russian language in the modern world”; A. A. Kibrik’s “Language in a broad perspective”.
About the Author
N. Chekmaeva
Moscow City University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Natalia A. Chekmaeva – Postgraduate Student, Assistant Lecturer, Department of Linguistics and Translation Studies
4 build. 1 Vtoroy Selskohoziajstvenny proezd, Moscow 129226
References
1. Bazhenova Ye.A. [Scientific texts and the context]. In: Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Seriya: Rossiyskaya i zarubezhnaya filologiya [Perm University Herald. Russian and Foreign Philology], 2010, no.2 (8), pp.60–64.
2. Bakhtin M.M. Problemy poetiki Dostoyevskogo [Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics]. Moscow, Eksmo Publ., 2017. 640 p.
3. Vodyanitskaya A.A. [Evaluation as a cognitive fundamental of academic discourse]. In: Kognitivnyye issledovaniya yazyka [Cognitive studies of language], 2018, no.33, pp.181–186.
4. Karasik V.I. [Discourse precision: functional characteristics]. In: Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo oblastnogo universiteta. Seriya: Lingvistika [Bulletin of the Moscow Region State University. Series: Linguistics], 2022, no.3, vol.2, pp.61–72. DOI: 10.18384/2310-712X-2022-3-2-61-71.
5. Sériot P., ed. Kvadratura smysla: Frantsuzskaya shkola analiza diskursa [Quadrature of meaning: French school of discourse analysis]. Moscow, Progress Publ., 1999. 416 p.
6. Makarov M.L. Osnovy teorii diskursa [Fundamentals of discourse theory]. Moscow, Gnozis Publ., 2003. 276 p.
7. Mikhaleva E.I., Pushinina I.V. [Pragmatic use of hedging in academic discourse]. In: Vestnik Moskovskogo gorodskogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta. Seriya: Filologiya. Teoriya yazyka. Yazykovoye obrazovaniye [MCU Journal of Philology. Theory of Linguistics. Linguistic Education], 2022, no.45 (1), pp.113–124. DOI: 10.25688/2076-913X.2022.45.1.12.
8. Authier-Revue J. [Explicit and constitutive heterogeneity: to the problem of the other in discourse]. In: Sériot P., ed. Kvadratura smysla: Frantsuzskaya shkola analiza diskursa [Quadrature of meaning: French school of discourse analysis]. Moscow, Progress Publ., 1999, pp.54–94.
9. Semenova T.I. [The phenomenon of the Other in the conceptualization of the inner sphere of man]. In: Lingvistika i aksiologiya: etnosemiometriya tsennostnykh smyslov [Linguistics and axiology: ethnosemiometry of value meanings]. Moscow, Tezaurus Publ., 2011, pp.117–128.
10. Suleymanova O.A. [Features of a language personality in academic discourse]. In: Izvestiya Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta [Ivzestia of the Volgograd State Pedagogical University], 2019, no.2 (135), pp.106–109.
11. Foucault M. Arkheologiya znaniya [Archeology of knowledge]. St.Petersburg, Gumanitarnaya akademiya Publ., 2020. 413 p.
12. Khoutyz I.P. [Dialogicity means in academic discourse in English and Russian]. In: Mir lingvistiki i kommunikatsii: elektronnyy nauchnyy zhurnal [World of linguistics and communication: electronic scientific journal], 2020, no.59, pp.41–55.
13. Chernyavskaya V.Ye. Nauchnyy diskurs: vydvizheniye nauchnogo rezul'tata kak kommunikativnaya i yazykovaya problema [Scientific discourse: promotion of scientific results as a communicative and language problem]. Moscow, Lenand Publ., 2017. 144 p.
14. Fitzsimons G.M., Kay A.C. Language and Interpersonal Cognition: Causal Effects of Variations in Pronoun Usage on Perceptions of Closeness. In: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2004, vol.30, iss.5, pp.547–557. DOI: 10.1177/0146167203262852.
15. Hyland K., Jiang F. “We must conclude that…”: A Diachronic Study of Academic Engagement. In: Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2016, vol.24, pp.29–42. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2016.09.003.
16. Peeters J. La médiation de l’étranger: une sociolinguistique de la traduction. Arras, Artois Presses Université, 1999. 368 p.
17. Sword H. Stylish academic writing. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 2016. 240 p.
Supplementary files
Review
Views:
152
Email this article 
