.png)
.png)
Email this article 
Figure of Other in academic discourse
https://doi.org/10.28995/2686-7249-2022-8-207-223
Abstract
The paper focuses on the semantic role of Other in academic discourse. Drawing on ideas expressed by M.M. Bakhtin and Yu.M. Lotman, the authors see Other as a key actor of written communication in the academic community and aim to describe the specifics of verbalizing Other’s presence in academic discourse as compared to fiction genres. The empirical basis of the study is constituted by a corpus of research papers written by Russian linguists and published over the period of 1991 through 2012 as part of the Logical Analysis of Language series edited by N.D. Arutyunova. In the initial stage of the research the corpus was used as a source of language data featuring contexts indicative of omnipresent Other. The second stage consisted in semantic analysis of language samples followed by cognitive interpretation and relied both on present-day linguistic theories and recent research in psychology. Results include a typology of Other in academic discourse and a description of relevant lexical and syntactic units systemically functioning as explicit and implicit markers of Other in Russian written academic communication. Addressing the figure of Other in academic discourse offers insights on the cognitive background of academic communication and brings to light key pragmatic intentions shaping interaction within the academic community.
About the Authors
O. A. SuleimanovaRussian Federation
Olga A. Suleimanova, Dr. of Sci. (Philology), professor
bld. 5B, Malyi Kazennyi per., Moscow
I. V. Tivyaeva
Russian Federation
Irina V. Tivyaeva, Dr. of Sci. (Philology), associate professor
bld. 5B, Malyi Kazennyi per., Moscow
References
1. Arutyunova, N.D. (ed.) (1991), Logicheskii analiz yazyka. Kul’turnye kontsepty [Logical analysis of language. Culture concepts], Nauka, Moscow, Russia.
2. Arutyunova, N.D. (ed.) (2002), Logicheskii analiz yazyka. Semantika nachala i kontsa [Logical analysis of language. Semantics of beginning and end], Indrik, Moscow, Russia.
3. Arutyunova, N.D. (ed.) (2003a), Logicheskii analiz yazyka. Kosmos i khaos [Logical analysis of language. Cosmos and chaos], Indrik, Moscow, Russia.
4. Arutyunova, N.D. (ed.) (2003b) Logicheskii analiz yazyka. Izbrannoe 1988–1995 [Logical analysis of language. Selected works 1988–1995], Indrik, Moscow, Russia.
5. Arutyunova, N.D. (ed.) (2012) Logicheskii analiz yazyka. Adresatsiya diskursa [Logical analysis of language. Addressing in discourse], Indrik, Moscow, Russia.
6. Autier-Revue, J. (1999), “Explicit and cognitive heterogeneity: to the problem of Other in discourse”, Kvadratura smysla: frantsuzskaya shkola analiza diskursa [Quadrature of meaning: French school of analysis of discourse], Progress, Moscow, pp. 54–94.
7. Bakhtin, M.M. (1979), Estetika slovesnogo tvorchestva [Esthetics of verbal creativity], Iskusstvo, Moscow, Russia.
8. Benvenist, E. (2002), Obshchaya lingvistika [General Linguistics], URSS, Moscow, Russia.
9. Brockmeyer, T., Zimmermann, J., Kulessa, D. et. al. “Me, myself, and I: self-referent word use as an indicator of self-focused attention in relation to depression and anxiety”, Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 6, art. 1564.
10. Chekmaeva, N.A. (2010), “Dialogue with Other in academic discourse”, in KardanovaBiryukova, K.S. (ed.), V mnogomernom prostranstve sovremennoi lingvistiki [In multidimensional space of contemporary linguistics], Yazyki narodov mira, Moscow, pp. 334–342.
11. Fitzsimons, G.M. and Kay, A.C. (2004), “Language and interpersonal cognition: casual effects of variations in pronoun usage on perceptions on closeness”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 547–557.
12. Fomina, M.A. (2017), “The addresser’s markers in academic dialogue”, Lingvokul’turnoe obrazovanie v sisteme vuzovskoi podgotovki spetsialistov [Linguacultural education in the system of university training], vol. 1, no. 2 (10), pp. 96–103.
13. Fomina, M.A. (2018), “Subject in academic discourse”, in Suleimanova, O.A. (ed.) Diskurs kak universal’naya matritsa verbal’nogo vzaimodeistviya [Discourse as a universal matrix of verbal interaction], URSS, Lenand, Moscow, pp. 256–272.
14. Lotman, Yu.M. (2000), “Autocommunication: I and Other as addressees (On two communication models in the system of culture)”, in Semiosfera, Iskusstvo-SPb, St.- Petersburg, pp. 159–165.
15. Nikitina, E.S. (2006), “Autocommunication as a rhetoric problem”, in Klassicheskoe lingvisticheskoe obrazovanie v sovremennom mul’tikul’turnom prostranstve-2. Materialy Mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii. Chast’ 1 [Classical linguistic education in modern multicultural space-2, Proceedings of International Scientific Conference. Part 1], Pyatigorskii gosudarstvennyi lingvisticheskii universitet, Moskva-Pyatigorsk, pp. 140–146.
16. Nikitina, E.S. (2012), “Addressees in autocommunication”, in Arutyunova, N.D. (ed), Logicheskii analiz yazyka. Adresatsiya diskursa [Logical analysis of language. Addressing in discourse], Indrik, Moscow, Russia, pp. 402–410.
17. Radbil’, T.B. (2012), “Metalinguistic commentary as a means of manipulating the addressee”, in Arutyunova, N.D. (ed), Logicheskii analiz yazyka. Adresatsiya diskursa [Logical analysis of language. Addressing in discourse], Indrik, Moscow, Russia, pp. 411–424.
18. Seliverstova, O.N. (1988), Mestoimeniya v yazyke i rechi [Pronouns in language and speech], Nauka, Moscow, Russia.
19. Shchepilova, A.V., Suleimanova, O.A., Fomina, M.A. and Vodyanitskaya, A.A. (2017), “[Target audience in contemporary educational discourse”, MCU Journal of Philology. Theory of Linguistics. Linguistic Education, vol. 3, no. 27, pp. 68–82.
20. Slatcher, R.B., Pennebaker, J.W. and Vazire, S. (2008), “Am “I” more important than “we”? Couples’ word use in instant messages”, Personal Relationships, vol. 15, pp. 407–424.
21. Suleimanova, O.A. (1999), Problemy russkogo sintaksisa. Semantika bezlichnykh predlozhenii [Problems of Russian syntax: impersonal sentences], Dialog-MGU, Moscow, Russia.
22. Suleimanova, O.A. (2017). “Guidelines towards academic writing”, MCU Journal of Philology. Theory of Linguistics. Linguistic Education, vol. 2, no. 26, pp. 52–61.
23. Suleimanova, O.A. (ed.) (2018), Diskurs kak universal’naya matritsa verbal’nogo vzaimodeistviya [Discourse as a universal matrix of verbal interaction], URSS, Lenand, Moscow, Russia.
24. Tackman, A., Horn, A., Carey, A. and Holtzman, N.S. (2018), “Depression, Negative Emotionality, and Self-Referential Language: A Multi-Lab, Multi-Language-Task Research Synthesis”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 116, no. 5, pp. 817–834.
25. Wierzbicka, A. (1978), “Metatext in text”, in Nikolaeva, T.M. (ed.), Novoe v zarubezhnoi lingvistike. Vyp. VIII. Lingvistika teksta [New trends in foreign linguistics, vol. 8. Text linguistics], Moscow, Progress, pp. 402–421.
26. Yanko, T.E. (2003), “World descriptions and speech acts”, in Arutyunova, N.D. (ed.), Logicheskii analiz yazyka. Izbrannoe 1988–1995 [Logical analysis of language. Selected works 1988–1995], Indrik, Moscow, Russia, pp. 571–580.
Supplementary files
For citation: Suleimanova O.A., Tivyaeva I.V. Figure of Other in academic discourse. RSUH/RGGU Bulletin: “Literary Teory. Linguistics. Cultural Studies”, Series. 2022;1(8-2):207-223. https://doi.org/10.28995/2686-7249-2022-8-207-223
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
