EVALUATIVE CHARACTERISTICS IN RESEARCH ADVISORS’ REVIEWS IN THE FRAMEWORK OF ACADEMIC DISCOURSE

Abstract

Problem Statement. The paper focuses on evaluative characteristics of research advisors’ reviews functioning in the framework of academic discourse. Evaluative strategies and tactics have been revealed for the first time as a part of a research advisor’s review. Results. The research has shown that research advisors characterize positively various aspects of graduate students’ research papers and the way they organized their research work. Negative evaluations are not verbalized, but teachers implicitly mention that their students should organize their work more thoroughly in the future. The fact that academic discourse has been acquired by the student to the full extent serves as a positive characteristic of their work, and, therefore, includes all the evaluations relevant for doing a research and for research results. In all the structural elements of the reviews research advisors use a variety of evaluative means. The latter are represented to a lesser extent in the structural element concerning the Ability of a student to retrieve information and to use a variety of information resources. Conclusion. Research advisor’s review as a genre of academic discourse is an amalgam of evaluative means which enable the research advisor to explicitly verbalize his attitude towards a student research work. Evaluative means characterize those aspects of research work which are specified in the body of the review as structural elements. Moreover, teachers specifies work ethic, ethical behavior, personal characteristics that are crucial for the research work. The research has revealed evaluative strategies of intensification, recommendation, stating and implication.