title: THE CONTRASTIVE RHETORIC OF ENGAGEMENT MARKERS IN L1 AND L2 APPLIED LINGUISTICS RESEARCH PAPERS
metadata.name: dc.contributor.author
metadata.value: Grigoriev, Ivan V.
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.contributor.author
metadata.value: Rubtsova, Svetlana Yu.
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.accessioned
metadata.value: 2024-10-24T12:50:13Z
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.available
metadata.value: 2024-10-24T12:50:13Z
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.issued
metadata.value: 2024
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.identifier.other
metadata.value: https://doi.org/10.21638/2782-1943.2023.10
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.identifier.uri
metadata.value: http://hdl.handle.net/11701/47814
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.description.abstract
metadata.value: The academic community in Russia, like any academic community, is under constant
  pressure to publish the results of their research. Exploring cross-cultural
  and cross-disciplinary variations in academic texts of different genres is essential
  to overcome potential academic language challenges. The study examines the extent
  to which academics’ use of rhetorical devices from different lingua-cultural
  origins can hinder the publication process. We also looked for particular cultural
  models that might hinder the process of adapting national writing styles to globally
  recognised standards. Specifically, the paper looks at scholarly norms as demonstrated
  through the use of metadiscursive markers of engagement. Following
  Hyland’s taxonomy, we identify the interactive and interactional domain, the latter
  consisting of attitude markers, hedges, boosters, self-mentions, and engagement
  markers. First, engagement markers deal with the need to satisfy the reader’s
  expectations of inclusivity. Second, engagement markers engage the reader in a
  debate through reader asides and references. The second function seems to be
  more concerned with rhetorical positioning of the audience and acknowledging
  the reader’s role as a critic and potential negator of claims. The first step for our research
  was to construct a corpus of 38 research papers. The results of the comparative
  analysis indicated that Russian applied linguistics papers written in English
  use fewer engagement signals than English L1 publications and the higher levels
  of interpretivism are not to be expected in Russian academic writing traditions.
  Further research is needed to examine the academic writing styles of texts from
  different cultural and disciplinary backgrounds.
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.language.iso
metadata.value: en
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.publisher
metadata.value: St Petersburg State University
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.relation.ispartofseries
metadata.value: Synergy of Languages & Cultures 2023: Interdiscipilinary Studies;
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: engagement markers
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: metadiscourse
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: cross-discipline research
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: cross-cultural research
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: appeals to shared knowledge
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.title
metadata.value: THE CONTRASTIVE RHETORIC OF ENGAGEMENT MARKERS IN L1 AND L2 APPLIED LINGUISTICS RESEARCH PAPERS
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.type
metadata.value: Article
metadata.lang: en_GB
resources.filename: 120-134.pdf
resources.url: https://dspace.spbu.ru/bitstream/11701/47814/1/120-134.pdf
resources.format: Adobe PDF
resources.size: 671,81 kB