Structural and Content Characteristics of the Admissions Interview as a Genre of English-Language Academic Discourse

Introduction. The growing interest of linguistics in academic discourse, a pivotal communication type in contemporary society where science and higher education are central, underscores the relevance of this study. The admissions interview, a genre intersecting educational, pedagogical, and scientific communication, remains underresearched, highlighting the study's scientific novelty. This research aims to identify and delineate the linguacultural script of the English-language admissions interview as an academic discourse genre, specifying its stages and corresponding speech act types.

Methodology and sources. The study employed discursive and interpretive analysis methods. The empirical data comprised 70,000 words of admissions interview transcripts from higher education institutions, enabling a detailed examination of genre characteristics.

Results and discussion. The research revealed the genre's structural and content-related features, including a six-stage linguacultural script categorized into metadiscursive (initiating, orienting, concluding) and ideational (testing, summarizing, evaluating) speech act groups. Metadiscursive acts regulate dialogue, framing communication, while ideational acts focus on content, knowledge assessment, and candidate competency evaluation. Each stage exhibits specific tactics, reflecting the genre's institutional nature and orientation towards academic values.

Conclusion. The analysis confirms the admissions interview as a multi-layered genre, integrating traditional academic functions (knowledge assessment, critical thinking) with contemporary communicative practices (dialogicity, interactivity). The findings refine the genre's position within academic discourse, emphasizing its uniqueness compared to other interview types (e.g., job interviews), which prioritize experience over educational potential. The proposed methodology for analyzing stages and speech acts enriches genre theory, offering a tool for exploring other oral interactive genres and enhancing understanding of their structural and content-related specificities within sociocultural norms. The study's conclusions have practical implications for academic interview preparation and the advancement of linguacultural research.

1. Stebletsova, A.O. (2009), Natsional'naya spetsifika delovogo obshcheniya v angloyazychnoi i russkoyazychnoi kommunikativnykh kul'turakh [National specificity of business communication in Englishspeaking and Russian-speaking communicative cultures], IPC VSU, Voronezh, RUS.

2. Stebletsova, A.O. (2022), “National and cultural specificity of a scientific text as a subject of descriptive and comparative analysis”, Language. Education. Culture, Collection of Scientific Papers based on the Materials of the XVI Int. Sci. and Practical Electronic Conf., Kursk, RUS, 23–26 May 2022, pp. 4–8.

3. Sukhomlinova, M.A. (2016), “Genre specificity of English academic discourse”, Social Sciences, no. 3, pp. 125–139.

4. Sukhomlinova, M.A. (2019), “Transformation of the English-language academic lecture genre in the conditions of digital communication”, Ivzestia of the Volgograd State Pedagogical Univ., no. 6, pp. 172–178.

5. Sukhomlinova, M.A. (2023), “Discursive genres of academic communication: Linguistic and stylistic aspect”, Dr. Sci. (Philology) Thesis, ASU, Maikop, RUS.

6. Torubarova, I.I. (2021), “Linguocultural specificity of a scientific medical text (based on Englishlanguage and Russian-language articles)”, Can. Sci. (Philology) Thesis, TSU, Tver’, RUS.

7. Khutyz, I.P. (2021), Zhanry diskursa akademicheskoi sredy: Traditsionnoe i novoe [Genres of academic discourse: Traditional and new], VKN Publishing House, Moscow, RUS.

8. Karasik, V.I. (2002), Yazykovoi krug: lichnost', kontsepty, diskurs [Language circle: Personality, concepts, discourse], Peremena, Volgograd, RUS.

9. Flowerdew, J. and Miller, L. (2005), Second Language Listening: Theory and Practice, Cambridge Univ. Press, NY, USA.

10. Thompson, G. (2014), Introducing Functional Grammar, Routledge, London, NY, USA.

11. Fortanet, I. (2008), “Evaluative language in peer review referee reports”, J. of English for Academic Purposes, vol. 7, iss. 1, pp. 27–37. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.004.

12. Askehave, I. and Swales, J. (2001), “Genre identification and communicative purpose: A problem and a possible solution”, Applied Linguistics, vol. 22, iss. 2, pp. 195–212. DOI: 10.1093/applin/22.2.195.

13. Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987), Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, USA.

14. Baranov, A.N. (2007), Lingvisticheskaya ekspertiza teksta: teoreticheskie osnovaniya i praktika [Linguistic examination of the text: theoretical foundations and practice], Flinta, Nauka, Moscow, RUS. 15. Karasik, V.I. (2009), Yazykovye klyuchi [Language keys], Gnosis, Moscow, RUS.

15. Tolstykh, O.A. (2023), “Linguocultural scripts of communicative behaviour in English academic discourse”, Cognitive research of the language, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 379–382.

16. Savitsky, V.M. (2016), “Speech generation in the sociosemiotic aspect”, Speech Genres, no. 1 (13), pp. 50–55. DOI: 10.18500/2311-0740-2016-1-13-50-55.

17. Dementyev, V.V. (2010), Teoriya rechevykh zhanrov [Theory of speech genres], Znak, Moscow, RUS.

18. Kochetova, L.A. and Al-Bayati, Ya.Sh.S. (2020), “Linguistic and Cultural Specifics of Gratitude in Arabic Business Communication in English”, Nauchnyi dialog, no. 9, pp. 82–96. DOI: 10.24224/22271295-2020-9-82-96.

19. Karasik, V.I. (2023), “The Routs of language and culture studies: concepts, scripts, personality types, subject plots”, Philological Readings, Materials VI All-Russian Sci. Conf. “Philological Readings”, in the new 75th birthday of Joseph Abramovich Sternin (1948–2022), Yaroslavl, RUS, 28–29 April 2023, pp. 67–71.

20. Swales, J. (1990), Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, USA.

21. Goffman, E. (1999), The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Anchor Books/Doubleday, NY, USA.

22. Bhatia, V.K. (2014), Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings, Routledge, London, NY, UK.

23. Hyland, K. (2009), Academic discourse: English in a global context, Continuum, London, UK.

24. Fairclough, N., Cortese, G. and Ardizzone, P. (eds.) (2007), Discourse and Contemporary Social Change, Peter Lang, Bern, SUI.

25. Van Dijk, T.A. (ed.) (1997), Discourse as Structure and Process (Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction), vol. 1, Sage Publications, London, UK.

26. Goffman, E. (1981), Forms of Talk, Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, USA.

27. Halliday, M.A. (2016), Aspects of Language and Learning, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, DEU.

28. Halliday, M.A. (1970), “Language structure and language function”, New Horizons in Linguistics. Lyons, J. (ed.), Penguin, Harmondsworth, USA, pp. 140–165.

29. Chafe, W.L. (1976), “Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view in subject and topic”, Subject and Topic: A New Typology of Language, Li, C.N. (ed.), Academic Press, NY, USA, pp. 25–55.

30. “Extracts from 5 mock interviews”, YouTube. Cambridge University, 28.07.2014, available at: https://youtu.be/dUwN6GI-0EQ?si=Zqc6VVPjdqYuYVLh (accessed 01.10.2024).

31. Biber, D. and Conrad, S. (2009), Register, Genre, and Style, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, USA.