Syntactic markers of the genre structure of French‑language scientific texts on onomastics

Aim. The article is devoted to the study of syntactic features of the genre structure of scientific texts. The paper examines syntactic constructions that serve as markers of various components of scientific texts, such as introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion.

Methodology. The analysis is based on scientific articles of three subgenres: editorials, author's articles and reviews, taken from the French periodical “Nouvelle revue d'onomastique”. A functional‑pragmatic approach is employed to identify syntactic constructions that mark the structural components of scientific texts in these subgenres.

Results. The results of the study show that editorials, author's articles and reviews, have a rigid syntactically marked genre structure, but differ in their pragmatic orientation, which is also expressed in the authors' use of appropriate syntactic tools. The editorial article aims to popularize scientific information, the author's article presents original research results, and the review includes critical and analytical elements and journalistic rhetoric. The identified syntactic markers highlight the specificity of each genre and their role in organizing scientific discourse.

Research implications. The study revealed general and specific patterns in the use of syntactic resources of the French language by the authors of the studied scientific articles to achieve the pragmatic goals set in the preparation of scientific texts. The obtained results are novel and contribute to the development of syntax pragmatics using linguistically focused academic texts. Theoretical and empirical material can be used in courses of theoretical grammar of the French language and methodology of research activities.

1. Sorokina, S. G. (2013). Argumentative structure of academic text. In: Privolzhsky Scientific Bulletin, 3 (19), 82–88 (in Russ.).

2. Terekhova, Ye. V. (2015). Recurrent constructions and their role in scientific texts composition. In: Scientific Dialogue, 12 (48), 140–149 (in Russ.).

3. Nefedov, S. T. (2015). On functional potential of interrogative structures in academic linguistic discourse. In: Science Journal of Volgograd State University. Linguistics, 4, 65–74 (in Russ.).

4. Steksova, T. I. (2020). Object Clauses in Academic Discourse: Genre Preferences. In: Speech Genres, 4 (28), 278–286. DOI: 10.18500/2311-0740-2020-4-28-278-286 (in Russ.).

5. Steksova, T. I. (2021). Language personality of the author of scientific text through the prism of explanatory structure. In: Communication Studies (Russia), 8 (1), 7–21. DOI: 10.24147/2413-6182.2021.8(1).7-21 (in Russ.).

6. Nikolaeva, A. V. (2023). Syntactical expressive means in a scientific text. In: The Humanities and Social Sciences, 96 (1), 113–118. DOI: 10.18522/2070-1403-2023-96-1-113-118 (in Russ.).

7. Dudina, M. V. (2024). Description of explicatives structure in a scientific text. In: Bulletin of Udmurt University. History and Philology Series, 34 (6), 1423–1430. DOI: 10.35634/2412-9534-2024-34-6-1423-1430 (in Russ.).

8. Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

9. Bazerman, Ch. (1988). Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genreand Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

10. Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as Social Action. In: Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70 (2), 151–167. DOI: 10.1080/00335638409383686.

11. Bhatia, V. (2004). Worlds of Written Discourse. London; New York: Continuum.

12. Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. In: Journal of Second Language Writing, 13 (2), 133–151. DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001.

13. Neveu, F. (2007). Singularités langagières du discours scientifique: l’exemple du discours linguistique. In: Pratiques: linguistique, littérature, didactique, 135/136, 101–118.

14. Adam, J.-M. (2011). La linguistique textuelle: Introduction à l’analyse textuelle des discours. Paris: Armand Colin.