@inproceedings{87eb62db69c94282b1af561e0dd1dcc6,

title = "THE CONTRASTIVE RHETORIC OF ENGAGEMENT MARKERS IN L1 AND L2 APPLIED LINGUISTICS RESEARCH PAPERS",

abstract = "Академическое сообщество в России, как и любое другое научное сообщество, в силу характера своей деятельности, сталкивается с необходимостью постоянно публиковать результаты своих исследований. Изучение кросс-культурных и кросс-дисциплинарных вариаций в академических текстах разных жанров необходимо для преодоления потенциальных проблем с академическим языком, возникающих при публикации на английском языке. В статье рассматривается вопрос о том, насколько использование учеными риторических средств, имеющих различное лингвокультурное происхождение, может препятствовать принятию исследования к публикации. Кроме того, в статье рассматриваются культурно-ориентированные модели, которые могут препятствовать процессу адаптации национальных стилей академического письма к международным стандартам. Рассмотрение указанных проблем происходит на примере использования метадискурсивных маркеров вовлеченности (engagement markers) в англоязычных и научных текстах, написанных носителями и не носителями английского языка.",

author = "Рубцова, {Светлана Юрьевна} and Григорьев, {Иван Вадимович}",

note = "1. Abdollahzadeh, E. (2011). Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of pragmatics, 43 (1): 288-297. ▼ Контекст 2. Assassi, T., Merghmi, K. (2023). Formulaic Sequences and Meta-Discourse Markers in Applied Linguistics Research Papers: A cross-linguistic corpus-based analysis of native and non-native authors' published articles. Academicus, 14 (27): 154-175. 3. Chen, L., Li, C. (2023). Interactional metadiscourse in news commentaries: A corpus-based study of China Daily and The New York Times. Journal of Pragmatics, 212: 29-40. EDN: ZGWZQQ 4. Deroey, K. L. B. (2015). Marking importance in lectures: Interactive and textual orientation. Applied Linguistics, 36 (1): 51-72. 5. Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2021). Engaging with the reader in research articles in English: Variation across disciplines and linguacultural backgrounds. English for Specific Purposes, 63: 18-32. EDN: AYEKNK ▼ Контекст 6. Farghal, M., Kalakh, B. (2019). Engagement in translation: Interactional metadiscourse markers in American presidential debates. Jordan Journal of Modern Languages and Literatures, 12 (1): 103-122. ▼ Контекст 7. Fu, X. (2012) The use of interactional metadiscourse in job postings. Discourse Studies, 14 (4): 399-417. DOI: 10.1177/1461445612450373 ▼ Контекст 8. Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse studies, 7 (2): 173-192. ▼ Контекст 9. Hyland, K., Jiang, F. (Kevin). (2016). {"}We must conclude that…{"}: A diachronic study of academic engagement. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 24: 29-42. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2016.09.003 ▼ Контекст 10. Hyland, K. (2002). Directives: argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23.2: 215-239. EDN: ILAWPX 11. Jiang, F. K., Ma, X. (2018). {\textquoteleft}As we can see': Reader engagement in PhD candidature confirmation reports. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 35: 1-15. 12. Khatibi, Z., Esfandiari, R. (2021). Comparative analysis of engagement markers in research article introductions and conclusions. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 8 (3): 1-24. 13. Lafuente-Mill{\'a}n, E. (2014). Reader engagement across cultures, languages and contexts of publication in business research articles. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24 (2): 201-223. ▼ Контекст 14. Martin, J. R., White, P. R. (2003). The language of evaluation (Vol. 2). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 15. Mur-Due{\~n}as, P. (2011). An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish. Journal of pragmatics, 43 (12): 3068-3079. 16. Shahriari, H., Shadloo, F. (2019). Interaction in argumentative essays: the case of engagement. Discourse & Interaction, 12 (1). 17. Shen, Qian, Tao, Yating (2021). Stance markers in English medical research articles and newspaper opinion columns: a comparative corpus-based study. PLoS One, 16 (3). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247981 EDN: RZIUCE 18. Sirijanchuen, M. N. (2017). A comparative analysis of macro-textual organization and metadiscourse features in ELT research article introductions written by Thai and international. Dr. Sci. thesis abstract. Thammasat University. 19. Xu, X. (2022). Differences between novice and experienced academics in their engagement with audience members in conference Q&A sessions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 60: 101188. 10.1016/j. jeap.2022.101188. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2022.101188 EDN: APVBBP 20. Xu, X., Nesi, H. (2019). Differences in engagement: A comparison of the strategies used by British and Chinese research article writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 38: 121-134. 21. Yin, Z., Parkinson, J. (2021). Critical review of literature: The case of the news and views genre. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 51: 100972. https://doi. org/. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2021.100972 EDN: MRYZPF 22. Yang, N. (2021). Engaging readers across participants: A cross-interactant analysis of metadiscourse in letters of advice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Pragmatics, 186: 181-193. EDN: QDWKPS; null ; Conference date: 05-10-2023 Through 07-10-2023",

year = "2024",

language = "English",

pages = "120--134",

editor = "Светлана Рубцова and Оксана Акай and Елена Рохлина and Иван Григорьев",

booktitle = "SYNERGY OF LANGUAGES & CULTURES 2023: INTERDISCIPILINARY STUDIES",

publisher = "Издательство Санкт-Петербургского университета",

address = "Russian Federation",

url = "https://synergy.spbu.ru/, http://synergy.spbu.ru/, https://synergy.spbu.ru",