Linguocultural Characteristics of Scientific Activity Object Domain in Critical Remarks in English Research Articles

  • Abstract
  • Keywords
  • References
  • PDF
  • Abstract

    The article examines linguocultural characteristics of SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITY object domain in critical remarks in English research articles considered to be the leading genre of scientific discourse.  The methods used in the research include cognitive-discursive interpretation method, text-interpretation analysis,  and quantitative analysis.  The problem has been studied in a corpus of 1027 critical remarks including 2268 critical utterances registered in 350 English-language research articles from ten scientific disciplines. The article presents classification of critical remarks developed on the basis of components of scientific activities which include PROBLEM / TOPIC, THEORY, METHODOLOGY, DATA, RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, TEXT, HYPOTHESIS, and RESEARCH. Percentage of using every object of criticism has been calculated. It has been found out that verbalization of every type of criticism varies and is influenced by the group factor.



  • Keywords

    classification of critical remarks; critical remark; criticism; genre; linguocultural characteristics; research article; “Scientific activity” object domain; scientific discourse.

  • References

      Balatska OL, “Obiekty krytyky v anhlomovnii naukovii statti”, Visnyk Kharkivskoho natsionalnoho universytetu imeni V. N. Karazina, Vol. 930, Kharkiv, V. N. Karazin KhNU, (2010), pp. 91–96.

      [2] Balatska OL, “Parametry predmetnoi sfery «Naukovets» u krytychnykh zauvazhenniakh anhlomovnoi naukovoi statti”, Visnyk Zhytomyrskoho derzhavnoho universytetu imeni Ivana Franka, Volume 2 (74), Zhytomyr, Vyd-vo ZhDU im. I. Franka, (2014), pp. 195–198.

      [3] Brovchenko IV, Kontseptualna metafora u klishe anhlomovnoho naukovoho tekstu : avtoref. dys. na zdobuttia nauk. stupenia kand. filol. nauk : spets. 10.02.04 «Hermanski movy», Kharkiv, (2011), 20 p.

      [4] Crossed Words : Criticism in Scholarly Writing, [Ed. Françoise Salager-Meyer, Beverly A Lewin], Peter Lang Publishing, Incorporated, (2011), 371 p.

      [5] Fagan A, Martin Martin P, “The use of critical speech acts in psychology and chemistry research papers”, Iberica, No. 8, (2004), pp. 125–137.

      [6] Fedosyuk MYu, “Sposoby vyrazheniya kriticheskih zamechaniy v nauchnoi rechi”, Lingvokulturologicheskie problemy tolerantnosti : mezhdunar. nauch. konf., 24 - 26 oktyabrya2001 g. : tezisy dokl., Yekaterinburg : Ural. un-t, (2001), pp. 309–311.

      [7] Halliday MAK, Martin JR, Writing science : Literacy and discursive power, Bristol, PA : Falmer Press, (1993), 283 р.

      [8] Hyland K, Jiang FK, “Is academic writing becoming more informal?”, English for Specific Purposes, Vol. 45, (2017), pp. 40-51.

      [9] Salager-Meyer F, “Rhetorical evolution of oppositional discourse in French аcademic writing”, Journal of Linguistics, No. 25, (2000), pp. 23–48.

      [10] Salager-Meyer F, Alcaraz Ariza MA, Zambrano N, “The scimitar, the dagger, and the glove : Intercultural differences in the rhetoric of criticism in Spanish, French, and English medical discourse”, English for Specific Purposes, No. 22, (2003), pp. 223–247.

      [11] Swales JM, Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, (1990), 260 p.

      [12] Yakhontova ТV, “Cultural and disciplinary variation in academic discourse: The issue of influencing factors”, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, Vol. 5, Issue 2, (2006), pp. 153-167.




Article ID: 27453
DOI: 10.14419/ijet.v7i4.8.27453

Copyright © 2012-2015 Science Publishing Corporation Inc. All rights reserved.