Научный дискурс: обзор исследований в зарубежной лингвистике

Введение. В статье представлен обобщенный обзор зарубежной научной литературы, посвященной исследованию научного дискурса. Актуальность аналитического обзора объясняется возрастающим вниманием к дискурсу не только как системе с устойчивыми характеристиками, но и как к динамическому процессу, подверженному изменениям под воздействием внешних факторов. Цель работы заключается в представлении основных направлений и концепций прикладной лингвистики, исследующей научный дискурс, установлении лакун в существующих исследованиях и обозначении перспектив дальнейшего изучения.

Методология и источники. В работе проанализировано содержание зарубежных научных публикаций, посвященных изучению научного дискурса. Источниками служат рецензируемые журналы и академические базы данных. Методология опирается на систематизацию и сравнительный анализ различных лингвистических концепций и теоретических подходов.

Результаты и обсуждение. Обзор показал, что несмотря на существующий широкий корпус исследований научного дискурса, эволюция научной коммуникации остается недостаточно изученной. Делается вывод, что среди работ, посвященных исследованию научного дискурса, преобладают труды, которые либо фокусируются на анализе дискурсивных особенностей научного общения в синхронном срезе, либо акцентируют узко ограниченный временной интервал. Однако для понимания того, как научная коммуникация адаптируется к новым требованиям и обстоятельствам, представляется важным учитывать не только статические характеристики, но и процессы эволюции. В этой связи изучение научного дискурса в его динамическом развитии приобретает особую значимость и новизну.  

Заключение. Аналитический обзор открывает новые перспективы для изучения научного дискурса через призму динамического подхода. Исследование научного дискурса в историческом ракурсе представляется ценным для выявления ключевых социокультурных факторов, влияющих на трансформации текстовых реализаций дискурсивных категорий и признаков в различные эпохи. Это позволяет определить специфические дискурсивные особенности, присущие каждому конкретному историческому периоду существования дискурса. 

1. Getkham K. Strategies used to politely present ideas in research writing // J. of Education and Practice. 2013. Vol. 4, no. 9. P. 128–133.

2. Myers G. The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles // Applied Linguistics. 1989. Vol. 10, no. 1. P. 1–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/10.1.1.

3. Myers G. Strategic vagueness in academic writing // Academic writing. Intercultural and textual issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1996. P. 3–17.

4. Gil-Salom L., Soler-Monreal C. Interacting with the reader: Politeness strategies in engineering research article discussions // Int. J. of English Studies. 2009. Vol. 9, no. 3. P. 175–189.

5. Falahati R. The use of hedging across different disciplines and rhetorical sections of research articles // Proceedings of the 22nd Northwest Linguistics Conf. (NWLC). Burnaby: Simon Fraser Univ., 2007. P. 99–112.

6. Tannen D. Agonism in Academic Discourse // J. of Pragmatics. 2002. Vol. 34, no. 10/11. P. 1651– 1669. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00079-6.

7. Badger R. G. Investigating agonism in linguistics // J. of Pragmatics. 2006. Vol. 38, no. 9. P. 1442– 1456.

8. Itakura H., Tsui A. B. M. Evaluation in academic discourse: Managing criticism in Japanese and English book reviews // J. of Pragmatics. 2011. Vol. 43, no. 5. P. 1366–1379. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.023.

9. Fagan Vasta A. F., Martín Martín P. A. Competing for a research space: the criticism of one's own scientific community // LFE: Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos. 2002–2003. No. 9–10. P. 139–150.

10. Hunston S. Professional conflict: Disagreement in academic discourse // Text and Technology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publ., 1993. P. 115–133. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/z.64.08hun.

11. Martín Martín P. A., León Pérez I. K. Promotional strategies in research article introductions: an interlinguistic and cross-disciplinary genre analysis // Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses. 2009. No 59. P. 73–87.

12. Salager-Meyer F. Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse // English for Specific Purpose. 1994. Vol. 13, no. 2. P. 149–170. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(94)90013-2.

13. Gholami J., Ilghami R. Metadiscourse markers in biological research articles and journal impact factor: Non–native writers vs. native writers // Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education. 2016. Vol. 44, no 4. P. 349–360. DOI: 10.1002/bmb.20961.

14. Hyland K., Zou H. In the frame: Signalling structure in academic articles and blogs // J. of Pragmatics. 2020. Vol. 165. P. 31–44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.05.002.

15. Blagojevic S. Metadiscourse in academic prose: A contrastive study of academic articles written in English by English and Norwegian speakers // Studies about Linguistics. 2004. No 5. P. 1–7.

16. Dahl T. Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline? // J. of Pragmatics. 2004. Vol. 36, iss. 10. P. 1807–1825. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.004.

17. Abdi R. Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity // Discourse Studies. 2002. Vol. 4, iss. 2. P. 139–145. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456020040020101.

18. Salas M. D. Reflexive metadiscourse in research articles in Spanish: Variation across three disciplines (Linguistics, Economics and Medicine) // J. of Pragmatics. 2015. Vol. 77. P. 20–40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.12.006.

19. Burneikaite N. Metadiscourse in Linguistics Master’s Theses in English L1 and L2 // Kalbotrya. 2008. Vol. 59. P. 38–47.

20. Mur-Dueñas P. An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish // J. of Pragmatics. 2011. Vol. 43, iss. 12. P. 3068–3079. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.002.

21. Li Zh., Xu J. Reflexive metadiscourse in Chinese and English sociology research article introductions and discussions // J. of Pragmatics. 2020. Vol. 159. P. 47–59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.02.003.

22. Hyland K. Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publ., 1998.

23. Gherdan M. E. Hedging in Academic Discourse // Romanian J. of English Studies. 2019. Vol. 16, iss. 1. P. 123–127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/rjes-2019-0015.

24. Atai M., Sadr L. A cross-cultural genre study on hedging devices in discussion section of applied linguistics research articles // Proceedings of the Conf. of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistic. Tokyo: PAAL, 2006. P. 42–57.

25. Budiarti D., Hardjanto T. D., Faris I. N. I. Lexical verbs of hedging in English research articles by native and non-native speakers // J. of Literature, Linguistics and Culture Studies. 2023. Vol. 12, no. 1. P. 29–39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15294/rainbow.v12i1.67067.

26. Demir C. Hedging and academic writing: an analysis of lexical hedges // J. of Language and Linguistic Studies. 2018. Vol. 14, no. 4. P. 74–92.

27. Hyland K. Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge // Interdisciplinary J. for the Study of Discourse. 1998. Vol. 18, no. 3. P. 349–382. DOI: 10.1515/text.1.1998.18.3.349.

28. Vazquez I., Giner D. Writing with conviction: The use of boosters in modelling persuasion in academic discourse // Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses. 2009. Vol. 22. P. 219–237. DOI: 10.14198/raei.2009.22.14.

29. Takimoto M. A Corpus-based analysis of hedges and boosters in English academic articles // Indonesian J. of Applied Linguistics. 2015. Vol. 5, no. 1. P. 95–105. DOI: 10.17509/ijal.v5i1.836.

30. Hu G. W., Cao F. Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals // J. of Pragmatics. 2011. No. 43. P. 2795–2809. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PRAGMA.2011.04.007.

31. Hu G., Chen L. ““To our great surprise …”: A frame-based analysis of surprise markers in research articles“ // J. of Pragmatics. 2019. Vol. 143. P. 156–168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.02.021.

32. Kuo C-H. The use of personal pronouns: Role relationships in scientific journal articles // English for Specific Purposes. 1999. Vol. 18, iss. 2. P. 121–138. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S08894906(97)00058-6.

33. Hyland K. Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles // English for Specific Purposes. 2001. Vol. 20, iss. 3. P. 207–226. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00012-0.

34. Hyland K. Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse // Discourse Studies. 2005. Vol. 7, iss. 2. P. 173–192. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365.

35. Hidalgo-Downing L. Stance and intersubjective positioning across scientific discourse genres: Negative and modal epistemic discourse strategies // Lodz Papers in Pragmatics. 2017. Vol. 13, iss. 1. P. 65–85. DOI: 10.1515/lpp-2017-0004.

36. Hyland K. Authority and Invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing // J. of Pragmatics. 2002. Vol. 34, iss. 8. P. 1091‒1112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00035-8.

37. Martín Martín P. A. Personal attribution in English and Spanish scientific texts // Barcelona English Language and Literature Studies. 2003. Vol. 12. P. 45–70.

38. Li Zh. Authorial presence in research article abstracts: A diachronic investigation of the use of first person pronouns // J. of English for Academic Purposes. 2021. Vol. 51: 100977. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.100977.

39. Hyland K. Disciplinary discourses: writer stance in research articles // Writing: Texts, Processes and Practices. 1999. P. 99–121. DOI: 10.4324/9781315840390-6.

40. Harwood N. A corpus-based study of self-promotional I and we in academic writing across four disciplines // J. of Pragmatics. 2005. Vol. 37, iss. 8. P. 1207–1231. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.012.

41. Shehzad W. Explicit author in scientific discourse: A corpus-based study // Malaysian J. of ELT Research. 2007. Vol. 2. P. 56–73.

42. Fløttum K. Academic voices in the research article // Cross-Linguistic and Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Academic Discourse. 2009. P. 109–122. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.193.07flo.

43. Munoz M. C. The ‘I’ in interaction: Authorial presence in academic writing // Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas. 2013. No 8. P. 49–58. DOI: 10.4995/rlyla.2013.1162.

44. Duszak A. Culture and styles of academic discourse // Trends in Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1997. P. 323–341.

45. Siepmann D. Academic writing and culture: An overview of differences between English, French and German // J. des traducteurs. 2006. Vol. 51, no. 1. P. 131–150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/012998ar.

46. Clyne M. Cultural differences in the organization of academic text // J. of Pragmatics. 1987. No. 11. P. 211–247. DOI: 10.1016/0378-2166(87)90196-2.

47. Nasiri S. Academic writing: The role of culture, language and identity in writing for community // Int. J. of Learning and Development. 2012. Vol. 2, no. 3. P. 1–8. DOI: 10.5296/ijld.v2i3.1530.

48. Faber P. The dynamics of specialized knowledge representation: simulational reconstruction or the perception–action interface // Terminology. 2011. No. 17. P. 9–29. DOI: 10.1075/term.17.1.02fab.

49. Herrmann J. B. Metaphor in academic discourse // Metaphor in academic discourse. Linguistic forms, conceptual structures, communicative functions and cognitive representations. The Netherlands: LOT, 2013. P. 15–50.

50. Philip G. Metaphorical space in academic talk // J. of Pragmatics. 2023. Vol. 210. P. 1–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2023.03.011.

51. Hood S. Appraising Research: Evaluation in Academic Writing. NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. DOI: 10.1057/9780230274662.

52. Giannoni D. S. Negotiating research values across review genres: A case study in applied linguistics // Academic Evaluation. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. P. 17–34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230244290_2.

53. Hunston S. Evaluation and organization in a sample of written academic discourse // Advances in Written Text Analysis. London: Routledge, 1994. P. 191–219.

54. Hunston S., Thompson G. Evaluation in text: authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2000. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198238546.001.0001.

55. Swales J. M. Evaluation in Academic Speech: First Forays // Academic Discourse: new insights into Evaluation. Amsterdam: Peter Lang, 2004. P. 31–53.

56. Ling C. Understanding the writing of thesis introductions: An exploratory study // Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2012. Vol. 46. P. 744–749. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.191.

57. Swales J. Research Genres. Explorations and Applications. NY: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139524827.

58. Anthony L. Writing research article introductions in software engineering: how accurate is a standard model? // IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication. 1999. Vol. 42, iss. 1. P. 38–46. DOI: 10.1109/47.749366.

59. Posteguillo S. The schematic structure of Computer Science research articles // English for Specific Purposes. 1999. Vol. 18, iss. 2. P. 139–160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(98)00001-5.

60. Flowerdew J. Academic discourse. London: Longman, 2002. DOI: 10.4324/9781315838069.

61. Hirano E. Research article introductions in English for specific purposes: A comparison between Brazilian Portuguese and English // English for Specific Purposes. 2009. No 28. P. 240–250. DOI: 10.1016/j.esp.2009.02.001.

62. Chahal D. Research article introduction in cultural studies: a genre analysis exploration of rhetorical structure // The J. of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes. 2014. Vol. 2, no. 1. P. 1–20.

63. Samraj B. Introductions in research articles: Variations across disciplines // English for Specific Purposes. 2002. Vol. 21. iss. 1. P. 1–17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00023-5.

64. Todd R. W. Relevance of findings in results to discussion sections in applied linguistics research // Proc. of the Int. Conf.: Doing research in applied linguistics. 2011. P. 51–60.

65. Peacock M. Communicative moves in the discussion section of research articles // System. 2002. Vol. 30, iss. 4. P. 479–497. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00050-7.

66. Bloor M. Variations in the method sections of research articles across disciplines: The case of fast and slow text // Issues in EAP Writing, Research and Instruction. Reading: Univ. of Reading, 1998. P. 84–106.

67. Fryer D. L. Analysis of the generic discourse features of the English-language medical research article: A systemic functional approach // Functions in Language. 2012. Vol. 19, no. 1. P. 5–37. DOI: 10.1075/fol.19.1.01fry.

68. Hardjanto T. D. Common discourse patterns of cross-disciplinary research article abstracts in English // Humaniora. 2017. Vol. 29, iss. 1. P. 72–84. DOI: 10.22146/jh.22567.

69. Harwood N. An interview-based study of the functions of citations in academic writing across two disciplines // J. of Pragmatics. 2009. Vol. 41, no. 3. P. 497–518. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.06.001.

70. Salager-Meyer F. Referential behavior in scientific writing: a diachronic study (1810–1995) // English for Specific Purpose. 1999. Vol. 18, no. 3. P. 279–305. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S08894906(97)00042-2.

71. Jacoby S. References to other researchers in literary research articles // ELR J. 1987. Vol. 1. P. 33–78.

72. Benelhadj F. Discipline and genre in academic discourse: Prepositional phrases as a focus // J. of Pragmatics. 2019. Vol. 139. P. 190–199. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PRAGMA.2018.07.010.

73. Luzon Marco M. J. Collocational frameworks in medical research papers: A genre-based study // English for Specific Purposes. 2000. Vol. 19, iss. 1. P. 63–86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S08894906(98)00013-1.

74. Garcés-Conejos P., Sánchez-Macarro A. Scientific discourse as interaction: Scientific articles vs. popularizations // Linguistic choice across genres. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1998. P. 173–190.

75. Tabari M. A., Johnson M. D. Exploring new insights into the role of cohesive devices in written academic genres // Assessing Writing. 2023. Vol. 57: 100749. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100749.

76. Pérez-Llantada C. Genres and languages in science communication: The multiple dimensions of the science-policy interface // Language & Communication. 2021. Vol. 78. P. 65–76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2021.02.004.

77. Atkinson D. Scientific discourse in sociohistorical context: The philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675–1975. NY: Routledge, 1998. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410601704.

78. Paltridge B., Starfield S. Change and Stability in Thesis and Dissertation Writing: The Evolution of an Academic Genre. NY: Bloomsbury Academic, 2023. DOI: 10.5040/9781350146600.

79. Taavitsainen I., Pahta P. Medical and Scientific Writing in Late Medieval English. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004.

80. Bazerman C. Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1988.

81. Gotti M. Insights into medical discourse: diachronic and synchronic perspectives // ESP today. 2015. Vol. 3, no. 1. P. 5–24.

82. Hyland K., Jiang F. ““Our striking results demonstrate …”: Persuasion and the growth of academic hype“ // J. of Pragmatics. 2021. Vol. 182. P. 189–202. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.06.018.

83. Burgess S., Fagan A. (Kid) gloves on or off?: Academic conflict in research articles across the disciplines // Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses. 2002. No. 44. P. 79–96.

84. Salager-Meyer F., Ariza M. Á., Berbesí M. P. Collegiality, critique and the construction of scientific argumentation in medical book reviews: A diachronic approach // J. of Pragmatics. 2007. Vol. 39, iss. 10. P. 1758–1774. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.06.003.

85. Gillaerts P. Shifting metadiscourse: Looking for diachrony in the abstract genre // Abstracts in academic discourse: Variation and change. Berlin: Peter Lang, 2014. P. 271–287.

86. Vinkers C. H., Tijdink J. K., Otte W. M. Use of Positive and Negative Words in Scientific PubMed Abstracts between 1974 and 2014: Retrospective Analysis // British Medical J. 2015. No. 351. P. 1–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h6467.