Abstract
All communicative situations of using language for scientific purposes form a scientific discourse. The scientific discourse genre is built on the basis of the oral or written text form: scientific written texts form the corpus of scientific written discourse, while audiovisual texts form the corpus of audiovisual scientific discourse. Smaller forms can be part of a larger text, or mega-genre. Oral mega-genres are: conference, forum, and congress, which can be subdivided into various smaller forms. The written scientific discourse has a distributed chronotope, whereas the oral one is tied to a specific time and place. Online forms are characterized by a distributed topos and a specific time. Communicators perform certain discursive roles: undergraduate – consultant; graduate student – reviewer; the author of the article – editorial board, readers. A scientist is a nuclear participant of scientific discourse. The key discourse-forming features of scientific discourse are: regulation, consistency, and structuredness; objectivity, accuracy, and abstractness; polemic; theatricality; intertextuality. The language of scientific discourse is impersonal, with multiple passive constructions. The functioning of scientific discourse is determined by external social factors, general patterns of communication, internal trends, and developmental contradictions. Each text is polyphonic because it is the result of the interaction of many discursive paradigms that can be systematized in two directions: "vertical" and "horizontal" (from core to the periphery). Three tendencies dominate in the development of scientific discourse: the growth of phatic; displacement of communication activity to the periphery; authorization of scientific discourse.
Highlights
The scientific discourse genre is built on the basis of the oral or written text form: scientific written texts form the corpus of scientific written discourse, while audiovisual texts form the corpus of audiovisual scientific discourse
Oral mega-genres are: conference, forum, and congress, which can be subdivided into various smaller forms
The written scientific discourse has a distributed chronotope, whereas the oral one is tied to a specific time and place
Summary
Ю. Научный дискурс как основа формирования профессиональной языковой личности магистранта-филолога // Лингвориторическая парадигма: теоретические и прикладные аспекты. Н. Научный медицинский дискурс как совокупность понятий «медицинский дискурс» и «научный дискурс» // Культурология, филология, искусствоведение: актуальные проблемы современной науки: сб. Ф. Научный медицинский дискурс: о некоторых особенностях раздела «обсуждение» в научной медицинской статье на английском языке // Теория языка и межкультурная коммуникация. В. Трансформация научного стиля в условиях меняющейся коммуникационной среды. А. Специфика обращения к фатической речи в корпоративных изданиях // Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
