Models of the Person's Speech Behavior in a Situation of Objection (by the Example of English Scientific Discourse)

Introduction. The article presents the results of a study of the speech behavior of the person in a situation of objection. Objection is considered to be a leading communicative strategy in case of inconsistency of positions. The author of the article believes that situational models are stored in the addressee's mind, and he plans his speech behavior according to them.

Methodology and sources. A comprehensive methodology was used, including general scientific (analysis, systematization, modeling) and specific linguistic methods (contextual analysis, interpretative analysis). The research material includes English-language scientific articles dated 1931-2006 and posted on the Semantic Scholar scientific literature platform. The articles relate to various fields of science (economics, ecology, linguistics, biology, medicine, etc.), so it is possible to show the universality of the tactics and techniques used. The fragments containing an opposite and/or alternative point of view about the present knowledge were selected using a continuous sampling method.

Results and discussion. It has been determined that when implementing the communicative strategy of objection, a person tends to use a set of tactics and techniques. The linguistic means of their objectification are defined. It has been established that the speech actions of the objector are usually organized in a certain order. Typical models of speech behavior in the situation of objection are proposed.

Conclusion. When expressing an opposite and/or alternative opinion, participants resort to similar communicative actions. The choice and linguistic means of their objectification are determined by the need to comply with the norms of institutional communication.

1. Danilevskaya, N.V. (2006), “Alternation of old and new knowledge as a mechanism for the deployment of a scientific text (axiological aspect)”, Dr. Sci. (Philology) Thesis, Ural State Ped. Univ., Ekaterinburg, RUS.

2. Karasik, V.I. (2015), Yazykovaya spiral': tsennosti, znaki, motivy [The language spiral: values, signs, motives], Paradigma, Volgograd, RUS.

3. Bazhenova, E.A. (2019), “The axiological space of a scientific text”, Axiological aspects of modern philological research, Int. Sci. Conf., Ekaterinburg, RUS, 15–17 Oct. 2019, pp. 13–14.

4. Chernyavskaya, V.E. (2017), Nauchnyi diskurs: Vydvizhenie rezul'tata kak kommunikativnaya i yazykovaya problema [Scientific discourse: The promotion of results as a communicative and linguistic problem], LENAND, Moscow, RUS.

5. Kuz'menko, P.B. (2020), “Structural and content organization of a humanitarian scientific text in English (based on publications on linguistics)”, Can. Sci. (Philology) Thesis, Voronezh State Univ., Voronezh, RUS.

6. Naumenko, Yu.N. (2021), “Markers of scientific research categories: comparative analysis of verbalization methods”, Can. Sci. (Philology) Thesis, Tver State Univ., Tver, RUS.

7. Karasik, V.I. (2000), “About the types of discourse”, Yazykovaya lichnost': institucional'nyj i personal'nyj diskurs [Linguistic personality: institutional and personal discourse], Peremena, Volgograd, RUS, pp. 5–20.

8. Solov'eva, N.V. (2008), “Tolerance of scientific discussion: linguistic and stylistic aspect: (by the texts of scientific discussions of the 1950s - 2000s)”, Abstract of Can. Sci. (Philology) dissertation, Ural Fed. Univ., Ekaterinburg, RUS.

9. Solov'eva, N.V. (2015), “About the culture of scientific discussion or about the measure of "permissible" in critiques“, Language tolerance as a factor of the effectiveness of language policy, Int. Sci. and Practical Conf., Perm, RUS, 13 Nov. 2015, pp. 116–125.

10. Kopyl, D.A. (2013), “Modern English-language scientific discourse: the communicative and pragmatic potential of persuasion”, Abstract of Can. Sci. (Philology) dissertation, South Federal Univ., Rostov-on-Don, RUS.

11. Burmakina, N.G. (2014), “Discursive-integrative and cultural-conventional characteristics of academic communication”, Abstract of Can. Sci. (Philology) dissertation, Moscow State Ling. Univ., Moscow, RUS.

12. Maryukhin, A.P. (2010), “Indirect communication in scientific discourse (by the material of Russian, English, German)”, Abstract of Can. Sci. (Philology) dissertation, Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, RUS.

13. Maslova, L.N. (2007), “Expression of consent/disagreement in oral scientific communication: gender aspect”, Abstract of Can. Sci. (Philology) dissertation, Moscow State Ling. Univ., Moscow, RUS.

14. Zanina, E.L. (2015), “Strategic markers of hedging in Russian-language and English-language written academic discourse: a contrastive analysis of the ‘conclusion’ section (the case of articles on management)”, Bulletin of the Center for International Education of Moscow State University. Ser. Philology. Cultural studies. Pedagogy. Methodology, no. 3, pp. 14–21.

15. Khomutova, T.N. (2015), “Strategies of research discourse: an integral approach”, Bulletin of the South Ural State Univ. Ser. Linguistics, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 15–22.

16. Sukhomlinova, M.A. (2023), “Discursive genres of academic communication: linguistic and stylistic aspect”, Dr. Sci. (Philology) Thesis, Adyghe State Univ., Rostov-on-Don, RUS.

17. Nokhrin, A.V. (2019), “Verbalization of moral values in scientific ecological discourse”, Can. Sci. (Philology) Thesis, South Ural State Univ., Chelyabinsk, RUS.

18. Issers, O.S. and Gerasimova, A.S. (2022), “Specific features of assessment communicative strategy in an American and Russian entertaining TV-shows”, J. of Siberian Federal Univ. Humanities & Social Sciences, no. 15 (11), pp. 1598–1608.

19. Kunaeva, N.V. (2009), “Discursive analysis of statements in a situation of objection: by the material of the English language”, Abstract of Can. Sci. (Philology) dissertation, Voronezh State Univ., Voronezh, RUS.

20. Duskaeva, L.R. (2022), “Speech practice objections in the text formation of popular science media communication”, Dialog-spor v nauchno-populyarnoi kommunikatsii [Dialogue-dispute in popular science communication]. In Duskaeva, L.R. (ed.), Mediapapir, SPb., RUS, pp.94–108.

21. Tsurikova, L.V. (2002), “The problem of discourse naturalness in intercultural communication”, Dr. Sci. (Philology) Thesis, Voronezh State Univ., Voronezh, RUS.

22. Mironova, M.Yu. (2024), “Implementation of the politeness strategy in polemical scientific communication”, Modern philological science: achievements and innovations, Int. Symposium, Ivanovo, RUS, 23–25 May 2024, pp. 323–327.

23. Oleshkov, M.Yu. (2007), “Systemic modeling of institutional discourse: based on the material of oral didactic texts”, Abstract of Dr. Sci. (Philology) dissertation, Perm’ State Univ., Nizhnii Tagil, RUS.