Viktorova Elena Yur'evna, Candidate of philological sciences, associate professor, sub-department of English philology, National Research Saratov State University named after N. G. Chernyshevsky (83 Astrakhanskaya street, Saratov, Russia), email@example.com
Background. The article deals with some aspects of functioning of discourse markers specific for monological spoken academic discourse of the Russian and the English languages. The goal of the research is to single out discourse markers specific for monological spoken academic discourse, quantitative data processing, comparative analysis of the results in the two languages.
Materials and methods. The research is based on the texts of lectures on different subjects – linguistics, literature, chemistry, physics, psychology, history. The overall data of the study comprise 26,000 words. The number of usages of the studied discourse markers is 330 cases. The methods of continuous sampling, contextual analysis, quantitative and comparative techniques were used.
Results. Discourse markers specific for monological spoken academic discourse are subdivided into hesitation markers, means of direct address, phatic signals and emotional markers. In Russian lectures they occur less frequently than in English ones, but show the same range of diversity in the both languages. Hesitation markers are the most frequent and the least diverse among all the studied marker types both in English and Russian. Means of direct address are less frequent, though quite diverse especially in English lectures where they are very polite and more mitigating. It is proved that in the English data these markers are not only more frequent but more diverse and individual than in Russian. Phatic markers occur rarely in the both languages, while emotional markers were marked only in English lectures.
Conclusions. All these markers refer to regulative verbal means playing very important roles in the interaction between a speaker and an addressee. Many peculiarities in these markers functioning are culturally and nationally coloured, besides they reflect the individual communication style of lecturers, including their method of lecture delivery.
1. Schiffrin D. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987, 364 p.
2. Diskursivnye slova russkogo yazyka: opyt kontekstno-semanticheskogo opisaniya [Discourse markers in Russian language: experience of context-semantic description]. Ed. by K. Kiseleva, D. Payar. Moscow: Metatekst, 1998, 446 p.
3. Diskursivnye slova russkogo yazyka: kontekstnoe var'irovanie i semanticheskoe edinstvo [Discourse markers in Russian language: context variation and semantic unity]. Comp. by K. Kiseleva, D. Payar. Moscow: Azbukovnik, 2003, 206 p.
4. Blakemore D. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004, 212 p.
5. Fraser B. Approaches to discourse particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier Press, 2005, pp. 189–204.
6. Lutzky U. Discourse Markers in Early Modern English. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2012, 303 p.
7. Halliday M. Explorations in the Functions of Language. London, 1973, 143 p.
8. Viktorova E. Yu. Kommunikatsiya. Myshlenie. Lichnost': materialy Mezhdunar. nauch. konf., posvyashch. pamyati professorov I. N. Gorelova i K. F. Sedova [Communication. Thinking. Personality: proceedings of the International scientific conference in the memory of prof. I. N. Gorelov and prof. K. F. Sedov]. Saratov: Nauka, 2012, pp. 297–315.
9. Viktorova E. Yu. Yazyki v sovremennom mire: materialy X Mezhdunar. konf. [Languages in the modern world: proceedings of X International conference]. Moscow: KDU, 2012, pp. 135–140.
10. Viktorova E. Yu. Yazykovaya i rechevaya kommunikatsiya v semioticheskom, funktsional'nom i diskursivnom aspektakh: materialy Mezhdunar. nauch. konf. (g. Volgograd, 29–31 oktyabrya 2012 g.) [Language and spoken communication in semantic, functional and discourse aspects: proceedings of the International conference (Volgograd, 29–31 October 2012)]. Volgograd: Izd-vo VolGU, 2012, pp. 95–99.
11. Viktorova E. Yu. Yazyk i kul'tura: sb. materialov VI Mezhdunar. nauch.-prakt. konf. [Language and culture: proceedings of VI International scientific and practical conference]. Novosibirsk: SIBPRINT, 2013, pp. 121–125.
12. Sovremennaya russkaya ustnaya nauchnaya rech'. Tom IV. Teksty [Modern Russian spoken academic speech]. Ed. by O. A. Lapteva. Moscow: Editorial URSS, 1999, 376 p.
13. Khlupachova K. Sovremennaya russkaya ustnaya nauchnaya rech' [Modern Russian spoken academic speech]. Moscow: Filologiya, 1995, vol. III. Tekstovye, leksikogrammaticheskie i slovoobrazovatel'nye osobennosti, pp. 46–64.
14. Rybka I. N. Psikholingvisticheskoe issledovanie osobennostey ustnogo nauchnogo monologicheskogo teksta: avtoref. dis. kand. filol. nauk [Psycholinguistic research spoken academic monologic text features: author’s abstract of dissertation to apply for the degree of the candidate of philological sciences].Ufa,2007,22 p.
15. Brchakova D. Sovremennaya russkaya ustnaya nauchnaya rech' [Modern Russian spoken academic speech]. Moscow: Filologiya, 1995, vol. III. Tekstovye, leksiko-grammaticheskie i slovoobrazovatel'nye osobennosti, pp. 20–45.
16. Larina T. V. Kategoriya vezhlivosti i stil' kommunikatsii: Sopostavlenie angliyskikh i russkikh lingvokul'turnykh traditsiy [Politeness category and communication style: Comparison of English and Russian linguistic and cultural traditions]. Moscow: Rukopisnye pamyatniki Drevney Rusi, 2009, 512 p.
17. Glazkova S. N. Eto russkoe nado: K voprosu o natsional'noy spetsifike direktiva [That Russian “need”: on the issue of national specifics of directive]. Miasc: Geotur, 2012, 252 p.