Epistemic markers in Russian academic discourse
A comparative analysis of research articles by Russian and Chinese authors
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 22151060 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Alena Ivanovna Chepurnaya (0000-0002-3329-0070, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Issue | 12 |
| Pages | 394-403 |
| Publication date | 2025-12-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Филология научные исследования (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2454-0749 • E-ISSN: 2454-0749 |
| Publisher | Aurora Group, s.r.o (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.7256/2454-0749.2025.12.77021 |
| OpenAlex | W7118130523 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 7 |
The article explores the means of expressing epistemic modality in Russian scientific texts. The relevance of this study stems from the important role of epistemic evaluation of statements in academic discourse and the high interest of scholars in the problem of epistemic modalization of scientific texts. The aim of the study is to identify national and cultural characteristics of the use of epistemic markers in academic discourse. To achieve this goal, a comparative analysis of Russian research articles written by native Russian speakers and Chinese authors for whom Russian is a foreign language was conducted. Fifteen articles by Russian authors and 15 articles by Chinese authors, published in Russian scientific journals on linguistics, were selected for analysis. Particular attention is paid to identifying differences in the frequency and structural and semantic characteristics of epistemic indicators in the compared corpora of scientific publications. The study was conducted using quantitative and qualitative content analysis methods. The quantitative analysis of the empirical material was carried out using Voyant Tools. The scientific novelty of this study lies in the identification of the specific uses of epistemic modal devices in Russian by foreign authors compared to Russian authors. Differences in the functioning of epistemic modality indicators were identified, characterized by a lower frequency and less structural diversity of epistemic markers used by Chinese authors. These differences primarily concern the means of expressing problematic reliability, while no significant discrepancies were found in the functioning of categorical reliability indicators. In both corpora of empirical material, a quantitative predominance of means of marking problematic reliability over categorical reliability markers was established. A conclusion is drawn that these differences are related to the national and cultural specifics of scientific communication and that Chinese authors tend to use a lesser degree of subjective modality in scientific texts
Categorical variable · Empirical research · Epistemic modality · Novelty · Sociology of scientific knowledge · Discourse Analysis and Cultural Communication · Discourse Analysis in Language Studies · Language, Communication, and Linguistic Studies
| Highly cited | No |
|---|