GENDER ASPECT OF EXPRESSING DISAGREEMENT IN ORAL ACADEMIC DISCOURSE (BY THE MATERIAL OF THE MICASE CORPUS)
Khromenko Yana Vladimirovna
Saint Petersburg University
Submitted: 16.05.2018
Abstract. The article analyzes the specificity of expressing disagreement from the viewpoint of the gender aspect by the example of Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English (MICASE). The author examines a communicative situation, in which the teacher corrects the student’s mistake or disagrees with his opinion. The paper describes the basic means to explicate disagreement and pragmatic linguistic means to soften the categoricity of a statement in English scientific discourse. The analysis identified insignificant gender differences that testify for the necessity of the further verification of the stereotypes of male and female speech behaviour.
Key words and phrases: академический дискурс, выражение несогласия, гендер, корпусная лингвистика, лингвистический корпус, Мичиганский корпус академического разговорного английского языка, academic discourse, expressing disagreement, gender, corpus linguistics, linguistic corpus, Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English
Open the whole article in PDF format. Free PDF-files viewer can be downloaded .
References:
Achkasov A. V. Kategoriya "zhanrovoi oshibki" v perevode // Perevod i sopostavitel'naya lingvistika. 2015. № 11. S. 21-25.
Viktorova E. Yu. Diskursivy, spetsificheskie dlya ustnoi nauchnoi rechi (na materiale lektsii) // Izvestiya vysshikh uchebnykh zavedenii. Povolzhskii region. Gumanitarnye nauki. 2015. № 4 (36). S. 55-65.
Kirilina A. V., Tomskaya M. V. Lingvisticheskie gendernye issledovaniya // Otechestvennye zapiski. 2005. № 2 (23). S. 112-132.
Kolokol'tseva T. N. Spetsificheskie kommunikativnye edinitsy dialogicheskoi rechi. Volgograd: Izd-vo Volgogradskogo un-ta, 2001. 260 s.
Argamon S., Koppel M., Fine J., Shimoni A. R. Gender, Genre, and Writing Style in Formal Written Texts // Text. 2003. Vol. 23. № 3. P. 321-346.
Brown P., Levinson S. C. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. 358 p.
Chavez M. Gender in the Language Classroom. Boston: McGraw-Hill Education, 2000. 264 p.
Holmes J., Stubbe M. Power and Politeness in the Workplace: a Sociolinguistic Analysis of Talk at Work. L.: Routledge, 2015. 216 p.
Jones M. G., Wheatley J. Gender differences in teacher-student interactions in science classroom // Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 1990. Vol. 27. P. 861-874.
Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English (MICASE) [Elektronnyi resurs]. URL: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/ cgi/c/corpus/corpus?page=home;c=micase;cc=micase (data obrashcheniya: 01.02.2018).
Nelson Laird T. F., Garver A. K., Niskod?-Dossett A. S. Gender gaps in collegiate teaching style: Variations by course characteristics // Research in Higher Education. 2011. Vol. 52. Iss. 3. P. 261-277.
R?mer U. Academic discourse, gender, and politeness [Elektronnyi resurs]. URL: http://www.nord.helsinki.fi/ clpg/CLPG/Ute%20Romer.pdf (data obrashcheniya: 26.02.2018).
Savicki V., Kelley M., Lingenfelter D. Gender, group composition and task type in small task groups using computer mediated communication // Computers in Human Behavior. Quebec, 1996. Vol. 2. P. 549-565.
Thimm C., Koch S. C., Schey S. Communicating gendered professional identity: Competence, cooperation, and conflict in the workplace // The Handbook of Language and Gender. Boston: Blackwell, 2003. P. 528-549.
Русский
