“The main drawback of the book originates from its main advantage”: the evaluation strategy of polarity compensation in the reviews of German and Russian linguists
https://doi.org/10.20310/2587-6953-2022-8-3-530-539
Abstract
The purpose of the study is to analyze clusters of statements embedded in the evaluative strategy of polarity compensation in German and Russian academic reviews in Linguistics. Moreover, the article is aimed at identifying linguistic and cultural differences determining the usage of this evaluative strategy. The most typical feature established for the strategy under consideration roots in the balancing positive and negative assessments. For the first time, the analysis takes into account the variability of the polarity compensation strategy depending on specific patterns of the interaction between positively and negatively polarized assessments in clusters. The study carried out shows that the polarity compensation in evaluative acts accomplished in academic linguistic reviews can function as a macro-strategy of expert evaluation. Single assessments embedded in polarity compensation strategy can be implied as a recommendation, (dis)agreement with the author, proof by contradiction. The article describes the results of a comprehensive socio-communicative and discursive study of expert evaluation acts. Qualitative and quantitative analysis leads to description of the polarity compensation mechanism as well as to elicitation of lexical and grammatical means typical of this strategy. Interpretation of the statistical data processing allows us to draw conclusions about culturally specific trends in the use of the polar compensation strategy by German and Russian reviewers.
Keywords
expert evaluation,
evaluative polarity,
evaluation strategy,
academic review,
German academic expert discourse,
Russian academic expert discourse
Supporting agencies: The study was prepared with the support of the Russian Science Foundation (project 22-28-01024 “Evaluation language in scholarly humanities practices and discourses of Germany and Russia”) at the St. Petersburg State University.
About the Author
P. I. Kondratenko
Saint Petersburg State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Polina I. Kondratenko, Assistant Lecturer of the German Philology Department
7–9 Universitetskaya Emb., St. Petersburg 199034
References
1. Hunston S. Corpus Approaches to Evaluation. Phraseology and Evaluative Language. New York, London, Routledge Publishing House, 2011, 212 p.
2. Hood S. Appraising Research. Evaluation in Academic Writing. London, Palgrave Macmillan Publ., 2010, 227 p.
3. Bazhenova E.A. Kategoriya otsenki [Evaluation category]. Stilisticheskiy entsiklopedicheskiy slovar' [Stylistic Encyclopedic Dictionary]. Moscow, Flinta, Nauka Publ., 2016, pp. 139-146. (In Russian).
4. Danilevskaya N.V. Ob osobom statuse otsenki v nauchnom tekste [On specific status of evaluation in scientific text]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Rossiyskaya i zarubezhnaya filologiya – Perm University Herald. Russian and Foreign Philology, 2013, no. 2 (22), pp. 37-43. (In Russian).
5. Troyanskaya E.S. Obucheniye chteniyu nauchnoy literatury. V pomoshch' prepodavatelyu inostrannykh yazykov [Teaching of Reading Scientific Literature. A Helping Hand for Foreign Language Teachers]. Mos-cow, Nauka Publ., 1989, 271 p. (In Russian).
6. Arutyunova N.D. Tipy yazykovykh znacheniy. Otsenka, sobytiye, fakt [Types of Meanings in Language. Assessment, Event, Fact]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1988, 338 p. (In Russian).
7. Krasilnikova L.V. Zhanr nauchnoy retsenzii: semantika i pragmatika [The Genre of Scientific Review: Semantics and Pragmatics]. Moscow, Dialog-MSU Publ., 1999, 138 p. (In Russian).
8. Zou H., Hyland K. Managing Evaluation: Criticism in Two Academic Review Genres. English for Specific Purposes, 2020, vol. 60, pp. 98-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2020.03.004
9. Bulygina T.V., Shmelev A.D. Yazykovaya kontseptualizatsiya mira (na materiale russkoy grammatiki) [Language Conceptualization of the World (based on the Material of Russian Grammar)]. Moscow, Shkola “Yazyki russkoy kul’tury” Publ., 1997, 576 p. (In Russian).
10. Nefedov S.T. Restriktivnaya argumentatsiya: modal’nye slova somneniya i obshcheznachimosti v nemetskoyazychnykh lingvisticheskikh stat’yakh [Restrictive argumentation: modal words of doubt and shared knowledge in academic linguistic writings]. Vestnik SPbGU. Yazyk i literature – Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Language and Literature, 2017, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 599-610. https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu09.2017.408. (In Russian).
11. Kulikova L.V. Kommunikativnyy stil' v mezhkul'turnoy paradigme [Communicative Style in an Intercultural Paradigm]. Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk State Pedagogical University named after V.P. Astafyev Publ., 2006, 392 p. (In Russian).
12. Bressler M., von Bergen C., Campbell K. The Sandwich Feedback Method: not very tasty. Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business, 2014, vol. 7. Available at: https://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/141831.pdf (accessed 14.05.2022).
13. Kamshilova O.N., Chernyavskaya V.E. «Akademicheskaya reputatsiya»: korpusnyy analiz ponyatiya v rossiyskom obshchestvennom diskurse 2000–2011 gg. [Academic reputation: A corpus-based analysis of the concept in Russian social practice in 2000–2011]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filologiya – Tomsk State University Journal of Philology, 2021, no. 70, pp. 50-68. https://doi.org/10.17223/19986645/70/4. (In Russian).
14. Hyland K., Jiang F. “In this paper we suggest”: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse. English for Specific Purposes, 2018, vol. 51, pp. 18-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.02.001.
15. Goffman E. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York, Doubleday Publ., 1967, 270 p.
16. Chernyavskaya V.E. Intertekstual’nost’ kak tekstoobrazuyushchaya kategoriya v nauchnoy kommunikatsii: (Na materiale nemetskogo yazika): avtoref. dis. ... d-ra filol. nauk [Intertextual Interaction as a Basis of Scientific Communication: (based on German). Dr. phil. sci. diss. abstr.]. St. Petersburg, 2000. (In Russian).
17. Musatova G.A. Strukturno-semanticheskiye osobennosti prostykh predlozheniy, oslozhnennykh ustupitel'nym oborotom s predlogami nesmotrya na, vopreki, pri [Structural and semantic features of simple sentences used with concessive words such as “in spite of”, “despite”, “while”]. Izvestiya VGPU. Filologicheskie nauki – News of the Volgograd State Pedagogical University, 2016, no. 3 (107), pp. 158-165. (In Russian).
18. Nefedov S.T. Towards Evaluation in Scientific Reviews (Based on German Linguistics). Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities and Social Sciences, 2019, issue 12 (10), pp. 1868-1886. https://doi.org/10.17516/1997-1370-0494.
Review
For citations:
Kondratenko P.I. “The main drawback of the book originates from its main advantage”: the evaluation strategy of polarity compensation in the reviews of German and Russian linguists. Neophilology. 2022;8(3):530-539. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20310/2587-6953-2022-8-3-530-539
Views:
49
Email this article 