Ilya G. Nikitichev

Postgraduate Student

Kursk State University

(Kursk, Russia)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22405/2712-8407-2023-4-160-169

Abstract. The article considers discourse markers in the context of academic communication in English. The concept of academic discourse in the study correlates with the use of the scientific and educational environment language, which includes both linguistic norms of academic exchange and variant discourse devices. The author notes the insufficient theoretical development of derivative lexemes as a means of speech influence in academic communication. The aim of the research is to study derivative units represented in lexemes formed by means of such morphological ways of word formation as affixation, conversion, addition of bases and abbreviation. The article gives examples of the use of derivations in academic practice, and on the basis of conceptual and semantic analysis describes the functions of derivations formed by each of the mentioned ways of word formation. The results of the study suggest that the functions of derivative units operate in the tactics of informing, evidentiary argumentation, evaluative judgments, avoiding absolutization of statements where the lexeme, acquiring a new semantic meaning, strengthens the speech intention of the speaker, thus contributing to an effective speech comprehension. The author males a prediction about the productive role of derivations in academic discourse, revealed by means of word formation in semantic change. It is worth noting that the speech impact initiated by derivative discourse markers aims at achieving the epistemological goals of academic discourse through the initiation, organization, and regulation of discourse, which opens the prospect of research into the functional capabilities of natural language.
Keywords: academic discourse, linguistic manipulation, discourse markers, conversion, affixation, reversion, compounding.

Full text of the article (PDF)

For citation: Nikitichev, IG 2023, ‘Word Formation Potential of Discourse Markers in Bilingual Academic Discourse: The Case of English’, Tula Scientific Bulletin. History. Linguistics, issue 4 (16), pp. 160–169, http://doi.org/10.22405/2712-8407-2023-4-160-169 (in Russ.)

References

1. Zubkova, OS 2008, ‘Medicinskaya metafora kak rezul'tat kul'turnoy fiksatsii v meditsinskoy terminologii’ (Medical Metaphor as a Result of Cultural Fixing in Medical Terminology), Pushkin Leningrad State University Journal, vol.1, no.5 (19), pp. 127–135. (In Russ.)
2. Zubkova, OS 2012, ‘Dialektika ambivalentnogo yazykovogo znaka s pozitsii lingvosemioticheskoy derivatsii’ (Dialectics of an ambivalent linguistic sign from the position of linguosemiotic derivation), Theory of Language and Intercultural Communication, no. 2 (12), рp. 22–26, viewed 12 July 2023, http://tl-ic.kursksu.ru/pdf/012-004.pdf (In Russ.)
3. Zubkova, OS 2016, ‘Metaforicheskoye modelirovaniye sovremennogo kommunikativnogo prostranstva professional'nykh yazykov s ispol'zovaniyem tropeicheskoy leksiki’ (Metaphorical modelling of modern communicative space of professional languages using tropeic lexicon), Theory of Language and Intercultural Communication, no.1 (20), pp. 16–21, viewed 12 July 2023, http://tl-ic.kursksu.ru/pdf/020-003.pdf (In Russ.)
4. Chernyavskaya, VE 2017, ‘Operatsionalizatsiya konteksta v diskursivnom analize’ (Operationalization of Context in Discourse Analysis), Perm University Herald. Russian and Foreign Philology, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 83–93, doi: 10.17072/2037-6681-2017-4-83-93 (In Russ.)
5. Shelestyuk, EV 2014, Rechevoye vozdeystviye: ontologiya i metodologiya issledovaniya (Speech influence: an ontology and research methodology), FLINTA publ, Nauka publ, Moscow. (In Russ.)
6. Tikhonov, AN & Hashimov, RI (eds.) 2014, Entsiklopedicheskiy slovar'-spravochnik lingvisticheskikh terminov i ponyatiy: russkiy yazyk (Encyclopedic Dictionary of Linguistic Terms and Concepts: Russian Language), vol.1, FLINTA publ, Nauka publ, Moscow, (In Russ.)
7. Ali, AI & Salih, SM 2020, ‘A Taxonomy of Mitigation Devices in English Language’, Koya University Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 31–40.
8. Anderson, SR 2016, ‘Synchronic versus diachronic explanation and the nature of the language faculty’, Annual Review of Linguistics, vol. 2, pp. 11–31.
9. Biber, D 2006, University Language: A Corpus-Based Study of Spoken and Written Registers, Benjamins publ, Amsterdam.
10. Coxhead, A 2000, ‘A New Academic Word List’, TESOL Quarterly, no. 34 (2), pp. 213–238.
11. Fiske, J 2001, Television Culture: Popular Pleasures and Policies, Routledge, Taylor & Francis e-Library publ, London, New York.
12. Flowerdew, J 2013, Discourse in English Language Education, Routledge publ, London, New York.
13. Flowerdew, L 2012, ‘Language for Specific Purposes: English for Academic Purposes’, The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, Wiley-Blackwell publ, Oxford, pp. 1–7.
14. Fraser, B 1999, ‘What are discourse markers?’, Journal of pragmatics, vol. 31, no.7, pp. 931–952.
15. Herrmann, JB 2013, Metaphor in Academic Discourse: Linguistic Forms, Conceptual Structures, Communicative Functions and Cognitive Representations, PhD thesis, VU, University of Amsterdam publ, Amsterdam.
16. Hyland, K 2009, Academic discourse: English in a global context, A&C Black publ, London.
17. Laws, J, Ryder, C & Jaworska, S 2017, ‘A diachronic corpus-based study into the effects of age and gender on the usage patterns of verb-forming suffixation in spoken British English’, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 375–402.
18. Matei, M 2010, ‘Discourse markers as functional elements’, Bulletin of the Transylvanian University of Brasov, vol. 3, no. 52, pp. 119–126.
19. Oxford Learner’s Dictionary, viewed 4 July 2023, https://www.oxfordlearners dictionaries.com/
20. Pinker, S 2015, The sense of style: The thinking person's guide to writing in the 21st century, Penguin Books publ, London.
21. Van Dijk, TA 2006, ‘Discourse, context and cognition’, Discourse studies, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 159–177.