Russian lexical and syntactic hedges in dissertation reviews
- 作者: Boginskaya O.A.1
-
隶属关系:
- Irkutsk National Research Technical University
- 期: 卷 21, 编号 1 (2023): Functional description of the modern Russian language
- 页面: 18-32
- 栏目: Key Issues of Russian Language Research
- URL: https://journals.rcsi.science/2618-8163/article/view/324685
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.22363/2618-8163-2023-21-1-18-32
- EDN: https://elibrary.ru/YZIACM
- ID: 324685
如何引用文章
详细
The author analyzes Russian lexical and syntactic hedges as a rhetorical strategy for mitigating the negative evaluation of the reviewed research. The relevance of the study is due to the ongoing attempts to reconceptualize the nature of academic discourse, which is increasingly viewed both as an interactive space and an information environment. This approach determines the need to study metadiscourse as an effective strategy for constructing a harmonious dialogue between the reviewer and the author of the dissertation under review. The purpose of the study is to identify lexical and grammatical categories of hedges and their rhetorical functions in the thesis reviews. A corpus of 90 dissertation reviews published on the websites of Russian dissertation councils in 2019-2022 was used as research materials. The object of the study was the genre of a dissertation review, where for the first time the linguistic means of mitigating negative evaluation on two linguistic levels were identified. This determines the scientific novelty of this study. To analyze the lexical and syntactic realizations of the hedging strategy, the methods of quantitative and interpretive analysis were used. The quantitative analysis revealed that the hedging strategy is mainly verbalized with the help of verbs, adverbs and introductory constructions. The interpretive analysis showed that hedges perform a wide range of communicative functions: shifting the communicative focus; modal mitigation of criticism; deintensification. The research contributes to linguistics disciplines such as pragmalinguistics, text theory and discourse analysis. The prospects of the research are an analysis of lexical and grammatical categories of other metadiscursive strategies.
作者简介
Olga Boginskaya
Irkutsk National Research Technical University
编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: olgaa_boginskaya@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9738-8122
Doctor of Philology, Full Professor at the Department of Foreign Languages, Institute of Linguistics and Intercultural Communication
83 Lermontova St, Irkutsk, 664074, Russian Federation参考
- Alcaraz-Ariza, M.Á. (2011). Evaluation in English medium medical book reviews. International Journal of English Studies, 11(1), 137-153. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes.11.1.137141
- Bakanova, O.S. (2019). Peculiarities of expression of a positive evaluation in scientific text: On the basis of reviews of official opponents of the thesis. The World of Russian Word, (2), 37-41. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24411/1811-1629-2019-12037
- Boginskaya, O. (2022). Creating an authorial presence in English-medium research articles abstracts by academic writers from different cultural backgrounds. International Journal of Language Studies, 16(2), 49-70.
- Brecht, R.D. (1985). On the relationship between mood and tense: The syntax of the particle by in the Russian language. New in Foreign Linguistics. XV. Modern Foreign Russian Language Studies (pp. 101-117). Moscow: Izd-vo Innostrannoi Literatury Publ. (In Russ.)
- Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
- Caffi, C. (2007). Mitigation. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
- Channel, J. (1994). Vague language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2016). Cross-cultural variation in the use of hedges and boosters in academic discourse. Prague Journal of English Studies, 5(1), 163-184. https://doi.org/10.1515/pjes-2016-0009
- Fraser, B. (2010). Pragmatic competence: The case of hedging. New Approaches to Hedging (pp. 15-34). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
- Giannoni, D.S. (2007). Metatextual evaluation in journal editorials. Textus, 20(1), 57-82.
- Haufiku, N., & Kangira, J. (2018). An exploration of hedging and boosting devices used in academic discourse focusing on English theses at the University of Namibia. Studies in English Language Teaching, 6(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.22158/selt.v6n1p1
- Hübler, A. (1983). Understatements and hedges in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
- Hyland, K., & Diani, G. (2009). Introduction: Academic evaluation and review genres. Academic Evaluation. Review Genres in University Settings (pp. 1-14). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Lakoff, J. (1973). The logic of politeness: Or, minding your p’s and q’s. In C. Corum (Ed.), Papers from the 9th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 292-305). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
- Larina, T.V. (2009). Category of politeness and communication style. Мoscow: Litress Publ. (In Russ.)
- Larina, T.V. (2019). Emotion and politeness in the style of blind peer-review. Aktual'nye Problemy Stilistiki, (5), 40-46. (In Russ.)
- Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10, 1-35.
- Nagornyy, I.A. (2019). Grammatical-communicative functions of the Russian particles in the speech sphere. Belgorod State University Scientific Bulletin. Humanities Series, 38(3), 369-378. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18413/2075-4574-2019-38-3-369-378
- Nefedov, S.T. (2017). Restrictive argumentation: Modal words of doubt and shared knowledge in academic linguistic writings. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Language and Literature, 14(4), 599-610. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu09.2017.408
- Nikitina, L.B., & Malyshkin, K.U. (2015). The speech genre of a scientific review: A view at the assessment assertiveness. Speech Genres, (2), 72-79. (In Russ.)
- Panchenko, N.N., & Volkova, Ya.A. (2021). Categoricalness in scientific discourse. Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities and Social Sciences, 14(4), 535-543. https://doi.org/10.17516/1997-1370-0740
- Petrenko, Yu.A. (2020). Basic characteristics of review as academic discourse genre (by the material of reviews on theses and author’s abstracts). Philology. Theory & Practice, 13(11), 262-267. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30853/filnauki.2020.11.55
- Rezanejad, A. (2015). A cross-cultural analysis of the use of hedging devices in scientific research articles. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6(6), 1384-1392. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0606.29
- Thuy, N. (2018). A corpus-based study on cross-cultural divergence in the use of hedges in academic research articles written by Vietnamese and native English-speaking authors. Social Sciences, 7(4), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7040070
- Viktorova, E.Yu. (2022). Self-mentions in evaluating academic discourse. Izvestiya of Saratov University. New Series. Series: Philology. Journalism, 22(2), 145-150. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18500/1817-7115-2022-22-2-145-150
- Vinogradov, V.V. (1972). The Russian language: Grammar study on the word. Moscow: Vysshaya Shkola Publ. (In Russ.)
- Vlasyan, G.R. (2019). Hedging as a way of garmonization of communication in social interactions. Journalist Text in a New Technological Environment: Achievements and Problems: Collection of Materials of the Third Conference PMMIS (Post Massmedia in the Modern Informational Society) (pp. 74-77). Chelyabinsk: ChelSU Publ. (In Russ.)
- Volf, E.M. (2014). Functional semantics of assessment. Moscow: LIBROKOM Publ. (In Russ.)
- Zou, H., & Hyland, K. (2020). Managing evaluation: Criticism in two academic review genres. English for Specific Purposes, 60(1), 98-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2020.03.004
补充文件
