EVALUATIVE (DE)INTENSIFIERS IN THE SERVICE OF POLITE ACADEMIC EXPERT COMMUNICATION: LINGUISTIC AND CULTURAL SPECIFICS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu33.2023.103Abstract
The article actualises the connection between the category of politeness and the category of expert evaluation seen as a special discursive evaluation variety in the scientific and expert socio-communicative practice. (De)intensifiers of evaluation — lexical and grammatical means used for strengthening or softening of categorical character of evaluative statements in the academic reviews — are considered as elements of politeness strategies, aimed at maintaining of the reviewer’s and author’s image. The necessity of polite scientific expert communication is explained by the parameters of socio-communicative situation, in which academic journal reviews are embedded, first of all, by the fact that the new scientific knowledge presented in reviews has not yet been verified and is therefore particularly vulnerable to criticism. Due to image risks, reviewers are expected to perform cooperative communicative behavior in order to mitigate the effects of criticism. The study of evaluation (de)intensifiers as politeness markers is embedded in the modern discourse-linguistic and socio-communicative research paradigm. The research relevance is also explained by the insufficient comparative study of (de)intensification in the evaluative language. The qualitative-quantitative content analysis of 50 German- and Russian-language academic reviews in linguistics allows to highlight the means of (de)intensification of expert evaluation and to present them as center-periphery models (depending on the frequency of lexical and grammatical units in the data). In addition, the inclusion of these means into certain strategies of positive and negative politeness is considered. The hypothesis of linguistic and cultural specificity in the use of contextual (de)intensifiers of evaluation is confirmed.
Keywords:
academic review, German academic expert discourse, Russian academic expert discourse,, expert evaluation, evaluative intensifiers
Downloads
References
Литература
Адмони В. Г. Синтаксис современного немецкого языка: Система отношений и система построения. Л.: Наука, 1973. 366 с.
Арутюнова Н. Д. Типы языковых значений. Оценка, событие, факт. М.: Наука, 1988. 338 с.
Вольф Е. М. Функциональная семантика оценки. М.: УРСС, 2002. 260 с.
Нефедов С. Т. Императивы лингвистического дискурса // Научное мнение. 2014. № 5. С. 58–64.
Нефедов С. Т. Жанровый прототип научной германистической рецензии // Немецкая филология в Санкт-Петербургском государственном университете. 2018. Вып. 8. С. 105–123.
Троянская Е. С. Научное произведение в оценке автора рецензии (к вопросу о специфике жанров научной литературы) // Научная литература. Язык, стиль, жанры / под ред. М. Я. Цвиллинг. М.: Наука, 1985. С. 67–81.
Чалова О. Н. Роль категории вежливости в коммуникативной организации научного дискурса // Веснік МДПУ імя І. П. Шамякіна. Фiлалагiчныя навукi. 2012. № 3 (36). С. 113–118.
Arendt B., Schäfer P. Bewertungen im Wissenschaftsdiskurs Eine Analyse von Review-Kommentaren als Aushandlungspraxis normativer Erwartungen // Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik. 2015. Nr. 45 (177). S. 103–124.
Brown P., Levinson S. Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. 345 p.
Chernyavskaya V. E. Negative evaluation in Russian academic book review: Across critical reflection and ritual genre (based on reviews of monographs on sociology in 2015–2022) // Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities &
Social Sciences. 2022. No. 15 (11). P. 1680–1698. https://doi.org/10.17516/1997-1370-0944
Goffman E. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Doubleday, 1967. 270 p.
Graefen G., Thielmann W. Der wissenschaftliche Artikel // Reden und Schreiben in der Wissenschaft / hrsg. P. Auer, H. Baßler. Frankfurt; New York: Campus Verlag, 2007. S. 67–99.
Hood S. Appraising Research. Evaluation in Academic Writing. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. 227 p.
Hyland K. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London; New York: Continuum, 2005. 230 p.
Leech G. The Pragmatics of Politeness. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. 343 p.
Martin J. R., White P. R. R. The Language of Evaluation. Appraisal in English. Hampshire/New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. 278 p.
Nefedov S. T. Evaluation catalysts: How to recognize evaluative meanings // Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences. 2022. No. 15 (11). P. 1699–1712. https://doi.org/10.17516/1997-1370-0945
Starfield S., Paltridge B. Understanding the language of evaluation in examiners’ reports on doctoral theses // Linguistics and Education. 2015. No. 31. P. 130–144.
References
Admoni V. G. Syntax of modern German: a system of relations and a system of construction. Leningrad, Nauka Publ., 1973, 366 p. (In Russian)
Arendt B., Schäfer P. Bewertungen im Wissenschaftsdiskurs Eine Analyse von Review-Kommentaren als Aushandlungspraxis normativer Erwartungen. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 2015, Nr. 45 (177), S. 103–124.
Arutiunova N. D. Types of linguistic meanings. Evaluation. Event. Fact. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1988, 338 p. (In Russian)
Brown P., Levinson S. Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1987, 345 p.
Chalova O. N. The role of politeness in the communicative organisation of scientific discourse. Vesnіk MDPU іmia І. P. Shamiakіna. Filalagichnyia navuki, 2012, no. 3 (36), pp. 113–118. (In Russian)
Chernyavskaya V. E. Negative evaluation in Russian academic book review: across critical reflection and ritual genre (based on reviews of monographs on sociology in 2015–2022). Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities &
Social Sciences, 2022, no. 15 (11), pp. 1680–1698. https://doi.org/10.17516/1997-1370-0944 (In Russian)
Goffman E. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York, Doubleday, 1967, 270 p.
Graefen G., Thielmann W. Der wissenschaftliche Artikel. Reden und Schreiben in der Wissenschaft, eds P. Auer, H. Baßler. Frankfurt, New York, Campus Verlag, 2007, S. 67–99.
Hood S. Appraising Research. Evaluation in Academic Writing. London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2010, 227 p.
Hyland K. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London, New York Continuum, 2005, 230 p.
Leech G. The Pragmatics of Politeness. New York, Oxford University Press, 2014, 343 p.
Martin J. R., White P. R. R. The Language of Evaluation. Appraisal in English. Hampshire, New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 2005, 278 p.
Nefedov S. T. The imperatives of the linguistic discourse. Nauchnoe mnenie, 2014, no. 5, pp. 58–64. (In Russian)
Nefedov S. T. Genre Prototype of the scientific review on Germanistics. German Philology at the St. Petersburg State University, 2018, iss. 8, pp. 105–123. (In Russian)
Nefedov S. T. Evaluation catalysts: how to recognize evaluative meanings. Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences, 2022, no. 15 (11), pp. 1699–1712. https://doi.org/10.17516/1997-1370-0945
Starfield S., Paltridge B. Understanding the language of evaluation in examiners’ reports on doctoral theses. Linguistics and Education, 2015, no. 31, pp. 130–144.
Troianskaia E. S. A scientific work in the reviewer’s assessment (on the specificity of scientific literature genres). Nauchnaia literatura. Iazyk, stil’, zhanry, Ed. by M. Ya. Tsvilling, Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1985, pp. 67–81. (In Russian)
Vol’f E. M. Functional Semantics of evaluation. Moscow, URSS Publ., 2002, 260 p. (In Russian)
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Условия передачи авторских прав на статьи и рецензии, опубликованные в ежегодном периодическом издании «Немецкая филология» регулируются условиями Лицензионного Договора автора с Санкт-Петербургским государственным университетом. В соответствии с Лицензионным Договором опубликованные материалы находятся в открытом доступе, а авторам бесплатно предоставляется неограниченные возможности их распространения и самостоятельного архивирования.
