Cross-cultural differences in the use of rhetorical strategies in academic texts. An English and Czech contrastive study

Q4 Arts and Humanities Linguistica Silesiana Pub Date : 2023-07-26 DOI:10.24425/linsi.2020.133271
Jana Kozubíková Šandová
{"title":"Cross-cultural differences in the use of rhetorical strategies in academic texts. An English and Czech contrastive study","authors":"Jana Kozubíková Šandová","doi":"10.24425/linsi.2020.133271","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Academic authors employ various language means in order to construct and disseminate knowledge, to sound persuasive, to undergird their arguments, but also to seek agreement within the academic community. The aim of this paper is to analyse a selected group of rhetorical strategies used by Anglophone and Czech authors of Linguistics research articles (RAs) and research theses (RTs). These strategies are assumed to vary in both academic genres since the position of their writers within the academic community differs. Even though authors of RAs have to meet reviewers’ requirements in order for their article to be published, so their relative position may be lower than that of the reviewers’, authors of RAs may have the same “absolute status” as the reviewers may be just as expert in that particular field. By contrast, the status of research students is lower than that of their evaluators both in relative and absolute terms. Even though students may gain some learned authority in presenting an original contribution, their assessors command both learned and institutional authority, hence are endowed with a higher status. Apart from comparing rhetorical strategies used in RAs and RTs, the paper focuses on cross-cultural differences between Anglophone and Czechacademic writing traditions. between themselves and examiners, of their status in the community and of their status in the particular situation, which motivates their choice of rhetorical strategies. This in itself constitutes indication of their advanced academic literacy and awareness of the social forces that define genre conventions in academic discourse communities (Koutsantoni 2006: 33).","PeriodicalId":52527,"journal":{"name":"Linguistica Silesiana","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Linguistica Silesiana","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24425/linsi.2020.133271","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Academic authors employ various language means in order to construct and disseminate knowledge, to sound persuasive, to undergird their arguments, but also to seek agreement within the academic community. The aim of this paper is to analyse a selected group of rhetorical strategies used by Anglophone and Czech authors of Linguistics research articles (RAs) and research theses (RTs). These strategies are assumed to vary in both academic genres since the position of their writers within the academic community differs. Even though authors of RAs have to meet reviewers’ requirements in order for their article to be published, so their relative position may be lower than that of the reviewers’, authors of RAs may have the same “absolute status” as the reviewers may be just as expert in that particular field. By contrast, the status of research students is lower than that of their evaluators both in relative and absolute terms. Even though students may gain some learned authority in presenting an original contribution, their assessors command both learned and institutional authority, hence are endowed with a higher status. Apart from comparing rhetorical strategies used in RAs and RTs, the paper focuses on cross-cultural differences between Anglophone and Czechacademic writing traditions. between themselves and examiners, of their status in the community and of their status in the particular situation, which motivates their choice of rhetorical strategies. This in itself constitutes indication of their advanced academic literacy and awareness of the social forces that define genre conventions in academic discourse communities (Koutsantoni 2006: 33).
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
学术文本中修辞策略使用的跨文化差异。英语与捷克语对比研究
学术作者采用各种语言手段来构建和传播知识,听起来有说服力,支持他们的论点,同时也寻求学术界的一致意见。本文的目的是分析英语和捷克语语言学研究文章和研究论文作者所使用的一组修辞策略。这些策略在两种学术流派中都有所不同,因为它们的作者在学术界的地位不同。尽管RA的作者必须满足审稿人的要求才能发表他们的文章,因此他们的相对地位可能低于审稿人的相对地位,但RA的作者可能具有与审稿人相同的“绝对地位”,因为审稿人可能只是该特定领域的专家。相比之下,研究生的地位在相对和绝对方面都低于评估者。尽管学生在提交原始贡献时可能会获得一些学术权威,但他们的评估员掌握着学术权威和机构权威,因此被赋予了更高的地位。除了比较RA和RT中使用的修辞策略外,本文还重点研究了英语和捷克学术写作传统之间的跨文化差异。他们与考官之间的关系,他们在社区中的地位以及他们在特定情况下的地位,这促使他们选择修辞策略。这本身就表明了他们先进的学术素养和对学术话语社区中定义流派惯例的社会力量的认识(Koutsantoni 2006:33)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Linguistica Silesiana
Linguistica Silesiana Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Exploring Speech Act Patterns In Anthropological Pragmatics The Maintenance Of Landawe Language And Its Correlation To People's Attitudes In North Konawe, Southeast Sulawesi Analyzing Linguistic Variations In The Discussion Sections Of Pakistani English Research Articles: A Multidimensional Study Силезский Демонический Топос В Номинативной Специфике. Топография . = The Silesian Demonic Topos In The Nomination Perspective. The Topography Metáfora Conceptual En El Discurso Del Movimiento Bodypositive En Instagram. Análisis Contrastivo Español-Polaco. = Conceptual Metaphor In The Discourse Of The Bodypositive Movement On Instagram. Spanish-Polish Contrastive Analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1