德语和俄语社会学评论的语言文化评价特点

IF 0.1 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
E. S. Stepanov
{"title":"德语和俄语社会学评论的语言文化评价特点","authors":"E. S. Stepanov","doi":"10.21638/spbu09.2023.107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article raises the issue of linguocultural specifics of evaluation strategies in scientific expert practices of Russia and Germany. The relevance of the work is explained by its inclusion in the modern context of interdisciplinary studies and its focus on linguistic, sociolinguistic and linguoculturological aspects of examination of evaluative linguistic means. It is revealed that the communicative practice of scientific expertise is pivotal for verification and axiomatisation of scientific knowledge. The material for the study are German and Russian corpora of scientific sociology reviews, with the evaluation predication being chosen as the main analysis unit. The analysis of predications is carried out using qualitative and quantitative methods, including both statistical analysis of quantitative corpus data and their interpretation based on context, authorial intention and the type of specific evaluative meanings within the frame-work of real communicative practices. The novelty of the study consists in the identification of sociolinguistic features of rational and emotional evaluation procedures in scientific sociological discourse in Russia and Germany. It is found that German- and Russian-speaking reviewers use different specific evaluation strategies. Whereas in German-language sociological reviews, the focus is on rational evaluation by validity, clarity and completeness criteria for an objectively detached work examination, Russian reviewers widely use emotional evaluation to express their attitude and personal interest. German-language reviews are generally characterised by a significantly higher degree of evaluative saturation, with evaluations roughly equally distributed into the positive and negative groups, in contrast to Russian-language reviews, where negative evaluations are scarcely found.","PeriodicalId":41205,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta-Yazyk i Literatura","volume":"109 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Linguocultural evaluation specifics in German and Russian reviews on sociology\",\"authors\":\"E. S. Stepanov\",\"doi\":\"10.21638/spbu09.2023.107\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article raises the issue of linguocultural specifics of evaluation strategies in scientific expert practices of Russia and Germany. The relevance of the work is explained by its inclusion in the modern context of interdisciplinary studies and its focus on linguistic, sociolinguistic and linguoculturological aspects of examination of evaluative linguistic means. It is revealed that the communicative practice of scientific expertise is pivotal for verification and axiomatisation of scientific knowledge. The material for the study are German and Russian corpora of scientific sociology reviews, with the evaluation predication being chosen as the main analysis unit. The analysis of predications is carried out using qualitative and quantitative methods, including both statistical analysis of quantitative corpus data and their interpretation based on context, authorial intention and the type of specific evaluative meanings within the frame-work of real communicative practices. The novelty of the study consists in the identification of sociolinguistic features of rational and emotional evaluation procedures in scientific sociological discourse in Russia and Germany. It is found that German- and Russian-speaking reviewers use different specific evaluation strategies. Whereas in German-language sociological reviews, the focus is on rational evaluation by validity, clarity and completeness criteria for an objectively detached work examination, Russian reviewers widely use emotional evaluation to express their attitude and personal interest. German-language reviews are generally characterised by a significantly higher degree of evaluative saturation, with evaluations roughly equally distributed into the positive and negative groups, in contrast to Russian-language reviews, where negative evaluations are scarcely found.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41205,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta-Yazyk i Literatura\",\"volume\":\"109 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta-Yazyk i Literatura\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu09.2023.107\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta-Yazyk i Literatura","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu09.2023.107","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文提出了俄罗斯和德国科学专家实践中评价策略的语言特殊性问题。这项工作的相关性是通过将其纳入跨学科研究的现代背景以及关注评估语言手段的语言学,社会语言学和语言文化学方面来解释的。研究表明,科学专业知识的交际实践对于科学知识的验证和公理化至关重要。研究材料为德文和俄文《科学社会学评论》语料库,选取评价预测作为主要分析单元。对谓语的分析采用定性和定量两种方法,既包括对定量语料库数据的统计分析,也包括基于语境、作者意图和在真实交际实践框架内具体评价意义类型的解释。本研究的新颖之处在于确定了俄罗斯和德国科学社会学话语中理性和情感评价过程的社会语言学特征。研究发现,德语和俄语的评价者使用不同的具体评价策略。在德语社会学评论中,重点是通过有效性、清晰度和完整性标准对客观超然的作品进行理性评价,而俄语评论家则广泛使用情感评价来表达他们的态度和个人兴趣。德语评论的特点通常是评价饱和程度高得多,评价大致平均地分布在积极和消极的群体中,与俄语评论相反,几乎没有发现负面评价。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Linguocultural evaluation specifics in German and Russian reviews on sociology
The article raises the issue of linguocultural specifics of evaluation strategies in scientific expert practices of Russia and Germany. The relevance of the work is explained by its inclusion in the modern context of interdisciplinary studies and its focus on linguistic, sociolinguistic and linguoculturological aspects of examination of evaluative linguistic means. It is revealed that the communicative practice of scientific expertise is pivotal for verification and axiomatisation of scientific knowledge. The material for the study are German and Russian corpora of scientific sociology reviews, with the evaluation predication being chosen as the main analysis unit. The analysis of predications is carried out using qualitative and quantitative methods, including both statistical analysis of quantitative corpus data and their interpretation based on context, authorial intention and the type of specific evaluative meanings within the frame-work of real communicative practices. The novelty of the study consists in the identification of sociolinguistic features of rational and emotional evaluation procedures in scientific sociological discourse in Russia and Germany. It is found that German- and Russian-speaking reviewers use different specific evaluation strategies. Whereas in German-language sociological reviews, the focus is on rational evaluation by validity, clarity and completeness criteria for an objectively detached work examination, Russian reviewers widely use emotional evaluation to express their attitude and personal interest. German-language reviews are generally characterised by a significantly higher degree of evaluative saturation, with evaluations roughly equally distributed into the positive and negative groups, in contrast to Russian-language reviews, where negative evaluations are scarcely found.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信