Interfering Discourses In Academic Dialogue Evolution

Academic Discourse Genres as a Combination of Interfering Communication Formats

LE Composition

LEs often start with the description of researcher’s academic interests or the academic affiliation – kak tyurkolog ya … kak uchenyj-lingvist ya … as a linguist / turkologist; then proceed to stating the burning research issue which calls for coordinated efforts of the scientists, it takes the form of an invitation to academic dialogue – e.g. a German scientist (see below) claims that Turkish and Soviet turkologists’s ideas were not taken into account, as she was expecting to find the account of their more impressive achievements and publications ( pri etom raboty tyurkologov iz Turcii i sovetskih kolleg v sootvetstvii s planom ne uchityvalis, poskolku ya ozhidala ot tyurkologov obeih stran soobschenij ob ih nesravnenno bolee bogatyh seriyah publikaciy. )

Then the researcher can compare research methods and offer promising vistas in their research fields: we can expect most representative results in studying prosodic phenomena ( Osobenno znachitel'nyh rezul'tatov mozhno ozhidat' v oblasti prosodicheskih fenomenov ).

In many cases the author introduces an implicit Another agent using the predicates denoting potential action can (lit . one can); the implication is that the speaker leaves open the question who will take part in the event; both the speaker and any potential counter-agent can contribute to the action (Suleimanova, 2018). The speaker actually involves some potential Another agent in her own discourse space, as if the speaker invites him to join and cooperate; she does not shut him off – on the contrary, she associates himself with Another (Suleimanova, 2018, p. 194).

The next element the LE author focuses on is a promise to develop the theory, and informs of the academic contacts with colleagues The chapters on syntax and grammatical categories are being worked on by M. Ivich, while I work on chapters on phonemes and morphematic means. (I keep an eye on the research into Mycenean inscriptions, together with my friend M. Legen. Nad glavami o sintaksise i o znachenii grammaticheskih kategoriy rabotaet M. Ivich, v to vremya kak ya obrabatyvayu glavy o zvukah i morfematicheskih sredstvah; Ya prodolzhayu vmeste so svoim drugom M. Lezhenom vnimatel'no sledit' za uspehami izucheniya mikenskih nadpisey). The author compares research potential in the field of Turkic languages – higher in the USSR as the territory inhabited by native-speakers of Turkic languages. What follows is different research procedures in Germany and the Soviet Union. She believes that their synergetic combination could yield good results.

In other words, the LE composition compiles general complimentary comment on the journal policy and its contribution to the contacts of linguists, refers to the author’s own research interest and academic contacts, then states the problem, i.e. contrary to the author’s expectations, some serious works were neglected and she suggests joining efforts and proposes a detailed research plan. The letter follows the pattern greeting-compliment-research interest-problem-research plan.

Besides, the LEs may contain evaluations – e.g., the author evaluates the journal’s contribution in emotional and rational terms Menya raduet – I am glad, that the editorial board is working towards stronger links of linguists Redakcionnaya kollegiya zhurnala «Voprosy yazykoznaniya» stremitsya ukrepit' svyazi uchenyh-lingvistov.

She words her attitude interested, grateful to the soviet scientists who share their results with her. Kak tyurkolog ya osobenno zainteresovana v kontakte s sovetskimi kollegami po special'nosti, i ya mogu s blagodarnost'yu priznat'sya, chto ryad sovetskih uchenyh prisylaet mne svoi raboty (a letter from A. von Gabech (Hamburg) to Voprosy Yazikoznaniya 1960, №6, p. 133).

A researcher from Novy Sad focuses mainly on his research interests: what has been done and the plans, describes his research method, refers to his previous works. The letter is full of contemplations on the general issues as it often happens, I keep working on several issues simultaneously, shares his experience the experience and the knowledge acquired while working on one topic help in elaborating other topics: opyt i priobretennye vo vremya raboty nad odnoj temoj znaniya pomogayut razrabotke drugih tem.

This letter mostly covers the author’s research interests, his own plans and in general is mostly informative – not accompanied by author’s ruminations or evaluations (a letter from P. Ivich (Novy Sad) to Voprosy Yazikoznaniya, 1960, №6, pp. 135-136).

One more letter is also devoted to author’s research interests, mentions his book and his plan as regards his publications: I keep working on the history of Greek lexicon, Mycenean inscriptions and the plan to complete a historical dictionary of Greek ( zavershitsya sozdaniem istoricheskogo slovarya grecheskogo yazyka). Не refers to successful decoding of Mycenean inscriptions by his colleague ( rasshifrovka M. Ventrisom mikenskih nadpisej. sledit' za uspehami izucheniya mikenskih nadpisej. V blizhajshie mesyacy ya, vidimo, budu imet' povod napisat' neskol'ko statej po `etomu voprosu) and announces his own plan to write some papers which he believes might be interesting for the editorial board (a letter from P. Shantren (Sorbonne, France), to Voprosy Yazikoznaniya, 1960, №5, p. 149).

Cf. also the letter of a researcher from the Netherlands who also defines his research interests, his publications, what topic he is currently working on and the plans, which he implicitly relates to the policy of the journal. (a letter from G. Gonda (Utrecht) to Voprosy Yazikoznaniya, 1960, №5, p. 148).

Or a twitter-format letter from French researcher who, though aged over 80, still intended to contribute to the journal and write a paper (a letter from J. Jerardemer Vogezy, France to Voprosy Yazikoznaniya, 1960, №5, p. 148).

The LE rubric – the peak fell on 1960 – lasted for some years and was replaced by a new emerging one which has something in common with it. LE gave in to the rubric featuring information letters on academic events, mostly conference announcements, i.e. call for papers. Widening academic contacts in a variety of events called for a larger-scale communication rather than for individual one-to-one contact and the scientists were afforded a better chance to communicate at linguistic conferences which made LE less efficient and, consequently, redundant. The section Science Life, from then on, contained calls for papers and the such.

The features that distinguish this genre are first of all related to the roles the participants play in the dialogue, i.e.: they address the official body (officially licensed organization such as an editorial board) or its spokesperson, who is expected to adhere to the editorial policy; the addressee is an individual who relates his interests to the editorial policy and is within the scope of editorial interests; he is directly applying seeking for chances and requesting for feedback. So, the functions here are contact-building, informational and self-presentation oriented.

It is one–time communication, in the form of direct dialogue where the addressee is waiting for an immediate answer.

Research Letters

Nowadays, as an inheritor, to some extent (see later), to the long-perished LE genre, a new genre emerged – within the academic “publish or perish” reality (Melliti, 2019) the scientists who failed to get the research paper published in WoS or Scopus journals still place their RL in the RL-journals, with the purpose to make public their achievements. Research Letters (henceforth RLs) are short scientific papers reporting new and innovative research findings allocated on the Elsevier platform: Operations Research Letters, Finance Research Letters, Mutation Research Letters.

A Research Letter is a concise report of original research; it is to meet the requirements as follows: be a maximum of 600 words with no more than 6 references and 6 authors, and no supplementary material or subsections; may include up to 2 tables or figures. An abstract is not required for this article type. The format guidelines suggested are: CONSORT reporting guidelines for randomized trials; STROBE reporting guidelines for observational studies, and PRISMA reporting guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

RLs are shorter in terms of number of pages (Maci, 2008; Rutkowsky & Ehrenfest, 2012, as cited in Melliti, 2019). The body of any publishable RL is to contain 58 sentences where 49 are obligatory and 9 are optional. Being aware of the requirements helps researchers in scientific disciplines in writing publishable RLs (Melliti, 2019).

This genre has only recently got into focus of attention abroad and is still under-researched (Melliti, 2019). The basic difference between the LE and RL is that in the former the scientists focused on their own research interests, while the functions of the latter ones are mostly informational, the author is not directly addressing the audience, i.e., the broad academic community (whom it may concern). It is self-presentation oriented, or the author is propagating his research views and promoting his research results. Long-term, he is expecting some recognition in the academic circles, it is not meant to involve the recipient in regular communication, waiting for an immediate answer, or not. The number of recipients is taken into account – it may be addressed to a person / group of persons representing the pool of professionals.

What distinguishes the RL is that it focuses on some specific topic, is oriented on some delayed answer, or action – e.g. proposal to publish some research results in universally acclaimed academic periodical. It is a fat chance that the publication can get noticed and the author finally rewarded in some way – either invited to a more influential journal, make himself outstanding on the vast academic horizon.

We do not observe here any direct dialogue.

Academic Blog