Conceptual Approaches to Scientific Discourse and its Functions
https://doi.org/10.21603/2078-8975-2021-23-2-521-531
Abstract
All communicative situations of using language for scientific purposes form a scientific discourse. The scientific discourse genre is built on the basis of the oral or written text form: scientific written texts form the corpus of scientific written discourse, while audiovisual texts form the corpus of audiovisual scientific discourse. Smaller forms can be part of a larger text, or mega-genre. Oral mega-genres are: conference, forum, and congress, which can be subdivided into various smaller forms. The written scientific discourse has a distributed chronotope, whereas the oral one is tied to a specific time and place. Online forms are characterized by a distributed topos and a specific time. Communicators perform certain discursive roles: undergraduate – consultant; graduate student – reviewer; the author of the article – editorial board, readers. A scientist is a nuclear participant of scientific discourse. The key discourse-forming features of scientific discourse are: regulation, consistency, and structuredness; objectivity, accuracy, and abstractness; polemic; theatricality; intertextuality. The language of scientific discourse is impersonal, with multiple passive constructions. The functioning of scientific discourse is determined
by external social factors, general patterns of communication, internal trends, and developmental contradictions. Each text is polyphonic because it is the result of the interaction of many discursive paradigms that can be systematized in two directions: "vertical" and "horizontal" (from core to the periphery). Three tendencies dominate in the development of scientific discourse: the growth of phatic; displacement of communication activity to the periphery; authorization of scientific discourse.
About the Authors
O. G. Orlova
Novosibirsk Technical State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Novosibirsk
V. L. Karakchieva
Novosibirsk Technical State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Novosibirsk
References
1. Karasik V. I. Lingual circle: personality, concepts, discourse. Volgograd: Peremena, 2002, 477. (In Russ.)
2. Bax S. Discourse and genre. Analysing language in context. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011, 224.
3. Paltridge B. Discourse Analysis. London, N. Y., 2006, 256.
4. Orlova O. G. 'Russia' stereotypes in the American journalistic discourse of the 19th–21st centuries. Materials for a dictionary. Vestnik Kemerovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2013, (3-1): 185–192. (In Russ.)
5. Kravtsova E. V. Research discourse as type of institutional discourse. Bulletin of the South Ural State University. Ser. Linguistics, 2012, (25): 130–131. (In Russ.)
6. Mordovina T. V., Voyakina E. Yu., Koroleva L. Yu. Scientific discourse through the prism of the sociolinguistic approach and cognitive linguistics. Mir nauki, kultury, obrazovaniya, 2019, (2): 366–369. (In Russ.)
7. Dumon N. N. Notions "scientific text" and "scientific discourse" in linguistic researches. Almanakh sovremennoi nauki i obrazovaniia, 2008, (8-1): 65–67. (In Russ.)
8. Davydova I. S., Tupikova S. E. The notions of "discourse" and "scientific discourse" in linguistic investigations: definitions, typology, and characteristics. Foreign languages: teaching problems and communication risks, eds. Nazarova R. Z., Spiridonova T. A. Saratov: Saratovskii istochnik, 2017, iss. 10, 52–58. (In Russ.)
9. Rybka I. N. Oral scientific discourse in the psycholinguistic aspect. Genres and text types in academic and media discourse, ed. Pastukhov A. G. Orel: OGIK, 2009, 209–215. (In Russ.)
10. Bolsunovskaya L. M., Naydina D. S. The models of authors position expression in scientific and popular science discourses. Fundamental research, 2015, (2-15): 3413–3416. (In Russ.)
11. Bondarevskaia A. V. Scientific discourse as sphere of existence of the concept "interest". Inostrannye iazyki: lingvisticheskie i metodicheskie aspekty, 2017, (37): 245–248. (In Russ.)
12. Meiler M. Scholarly discourse in the digital age – some directions of development. Organizational Psycholinguistics, 2020, (1): 45–58. (In Russ.)
13. Popova T. G. Scientific discourse of intertextual relations. Evraziiskoe Nauchnoe Obedinenie, 2017, 2(11): 145–147. (In Russ.)
14. Bolotina K. A. Intertextuality of a scientific discourse in a communicative aspect (French scientific text). Actual problems of modern science in the XXI century: Proc. XIV Intern. Sci.-Prac. Conf., Makhachkala, 31 Aug 2017. Makhachkala: Approbation, 2017, 41–48. (In Russ.)
15. Fairclough N. Media Discourse. London: Edward Arnold, 1995, 214.
16. Pimenova M. V. Conceptual investigations and national mentality. Humanitarian Vector, 2011, (4): 126–132. (In Russ.)
17. Nesterskaya L. A., Nikolenko E. Y. Scientific discourse as the basis for forming professional linguistic personality of master students-philologists. Lingvoritoricheskaia paradigma: teoreticheskie i prikladnye aspekty, 2017, (22-3): 139–141. (In Russ.)
18. Makusheva Zh. N. Research medical discourse as a unity of notions "medical discourse" and "research discourse". Culturology, philology, and art history: topical problems of modern science: Proc. II–III Intern. Sci.-Prac. Conf., Novosibirsk, 4–11 Oct 2017. Novosibirsk: Sibirskaia akademicheskaia kniga, 2017, 30–45. (In Russ.)
19. Shamara I. F. Scientific medical discourse: on some peculiarities of the part "discussion" in a medical scientific article in English. Teoriia iazyka i mezhkulturnaia kommunikatsiia, 2018, (2): 142–151. (In Russ.)
20. Rudnev Yu. The concept of discourse as an element of literary metalanguage. 2001. Available at: http://zhelty-dom.narod.ru/literature/txt/discours_jr.htm (accessed 28 Mar 2021). (In Russ.)
21. Ivanitskaya E. V. The transformation of scientific style in the changing communication environment. Features of the modern scientific article. Yazyk i tekst, 2016, 3(2): 62–75. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.17759/langt.2016030207
22. Prokofeva N. A. Phatic speech using in corporate media. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Seriia 9. Filologiia. Vostokovedenie. Zhurnalistika, 2016, (2): 163–171. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.21638/11701/spbu09.2016.215
23. Brusenskaya L. A., Kulikova E. G. Imitation, informational value and phatic communication in the genres of academic discourse. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 2019, 23(1): 131–148. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.22363/2312-9182-2019-23-1-131-148
24. Khazagerov G. G. Phenomena of senseless constructions in scientific discourse. Sotsiologicheskiy Zhurnal, 2010, (2): 5–20. (In Russ.)
25. Medvedeva S. M. Science communication in modern world: problems and prospects. MGIMO Review of International Relations, 2014, (2): 253–255. (In Russ.)
Review
For citations:
Orlova O.G., Karakchieva V.L. Conceptual Approaches to Scientific Discourse and its Functions. The Bulletin of Kemerovo State University. 2021;23(2):521-531. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21603/2078-8975-2021-23-2-521-531
Views:
428
Email this article 