RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and SemanticsRUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and SemanticsВестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Теория языка. Семиотика. Семантика2313-22992411-1236Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba (RUDN University)3070110.22363/2313-2299-2022-13-1-68-79DISCURSIVE STUDIESДИСКУРСИВНЫЕ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯResearch ArticleEvaluative Language in Arabic Academic DiscourseОценочная лексика арабского академического дискурсаAlhadedHashem H.АлхадедХашем Хани ШехадехAssistant of the Foreign Languages Departmentассистент кафедры иностранных языков филологического факультетаalkhaded_kh@rudn.ruGlushchenkoTatiana N.ГлущенкоТатьяна НиколаевнаPh.D., Associate Professor, Russian Language Departmentкандидат филологических наук, доцент кафедры русского языка факультета иностранных языковtatyana@ju.edu.joAlhadidHaithamХайсамАл-ХадидPh.D., Associate Professor, Global Leadership and Organizational behavior Departmentкандидат экономических наук, ассистент кафедры глобального управления и руководстваdr.haithamalhadid@yahoo.comPeoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University)Российский университет дружбы народовThe University of JordanУниверситет ИорданииStratford UniversityСтратфордский университет31032022131VOL 13, NO1 (2022)ТОМ 13, №1 (2022)687931032022Copyright ©; 2022, Alhaded H.H., Glushchenko T.N., Alhadid H.Copyright ©; 2022, Алхадед Х.Х., Глущенко Т.Н., Хайсам А.2022Alhaded H.H., Glushchenko T.N., Alhadid H.Алхадед Х.Х., Глущенко Т.Н., Хайсам А.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0https://journals.rudn.ru/semiotics-semantics/article/view/30701

Тhe article is devoted to the study of evaluative language in Arabic academic discourse. The analysis was carried out based on the evaluative posts published in the Arabic language in social networks related to the defense of Ph.D. dissertations and the obtaining by Arabic-speaking students of Ph.D. degrees. The focus of the research in the language of appraisal in Arabic academic settings is related to socially and traditionally determining aspects in the perception of the Ph.D. degree in Arab society. In order to identify specific features of the written language of evaluation in Arabic academic discourse, our study is built on the Appraisal theory proposed by James Martin and Peter White (2005) and focused on its sub-categories of the Appraisal theory: Affect , Appreciation , Judgment . The comparative analysis made it possible to identify both universal and specific components in the regarded ways of evaluation within the framework of academic discourse. The authors determine the lexico-grammatical methods of assessment in Arabic academic discourse, which characterize the perception and functioning of the evaluative language in the system of value coordinates of the Arab society. The novelty of the proposed research lies in the fact that at present the appeal to the Arabic academic discourse has not been sufficiently studied. In the end of the study, the authors concluded that the Appraisal theory proposed by Martin and White (2005) can be applied to the research of Arabic language of evaluation. The authors also argue that the written language of assessment in the Arabic academic discourse is directly proportional to cultural, traditional, religious factors that are reflected in the lexico-grammatical components of the assessment. Misunderstanding of these specific features of the evaluative language of the Arabic academic discourse leads to communicative failures. The authors noted the prospects for studying the evaluative language within the framework of the Arabic academic discourse could be conducted in a comparative analysis of the oral and written Arabic language of assessment, each of which has its own specific culturally determined features.

Статья посвящена изучению оценочной лексики в арабском академическом дискурсе. Анализ проведен на основе опубликованных на арабском языке оценочных постов в социальных сетях, связанных с защитой кандидатских диссертаций и получением арабоязычными студентами степени кандидата наук. Выбор данного материала для исследования обусловлен тем, что в арабоязычном обществе присвоение степени кандидата наук является важным социальным событием в жизни студента и его семьи. Чтобы выявить специфические черты письменного языка оценки в арабском академическом дискурсе, исследование было основано на теории оценки (the Appraisal theory), предложенной Джеймсом Мартином и Питером Уайтом (2005), и сосредоточено на таких подкатегориях, как аффект ( Affect ), признательность ( Appreciation) , суждение ( Judgment ). Сравнительный анализ позволил выявить как универсальные, так и специфические компоненты рассматриваемых способов оценивания в рамках академического дискурса. Авторы определяют лексико-грамматические способы оценивания в арабском академическом дискурсе, характеризующие восприятие и функционирование оценочного языкa в системе ценностных координат арабского общества. Новизна предлагаемого исследования заключается в том, что в настоящее время обращение к арабскому академическому дискурсу недостаточно изучено. В результате исследования авторы пришли к выводу о том, что теория оценки, предложенная Мартином и Уайтом (2005), может быть применена к изучению арабского оценочного языка. Авторы также утверждают, что письменный язык оценки в арабском академическом дискурсе напрямую зависит от культурных, традиционных, религиозных факторов, которые отражаются в лексикограмматических компонентах оценки, а непонимание этих особенностей оценочного языка арабского академического дискурса приводит к коммуникативным неудачам. Перспективы дальнейшего исследования оценочного языка в рамках арабского академического дискурса авторы видят в сравнительном анализе устного и письменного арабского оценочного языка, каждый из которых имеет свои специфические, культурно обусловленные особенности.

evaluative languageArabic academic discourseArabic languageAppraisal theorycommunicative failuresоценочная лексикаарабский академический дискурсарабский языктеория оценкикоммуникативная неудачаLiu, X. (2013). Evaluation in Chinese university EFL students’ English argumentative writing: An APPRAISAL study. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 10(1), 40-53.Pho, P. (2013). Authorial Stance in Research articles: Examples from Applied Linguistics and Educational Technology. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English vernacular. Vol. 3. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.Halliday, M.A.K. & Matthiessen, C.M. (2013). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar. London: Routledge.Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.Ansarin, A. (2011). Reader engagement in English and Persian Applied Linguistics articles. English Language Teaching, 4(4), 113-135.Itakura, H. & Tsui, A.B. (2011). Evaluation in academic discourse: Managing criticism in Japanese and English book reviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(5), 1366-1379.Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric: A Textlinguistic Study. Bristol: Peter Lang.Duszack, A. (1997). Introduction. In: Culture and styles of academic discourse, A. Duszack (ed.). New York: Walter de Gruyter. pp. 1-10.Fakhri, A. (2009). Rhetorical variation in Arabic academic discourse: Humanities versus law. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 306-324.Al-Ali, M.N. & Sahawneh, Y.B. (2011). Rhetorical and Textual Organization of English and Arabic PhD Dissertation Abstracts in Linguistics. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 24.Al-Huqbani, M. (2013). Genre-Based analysis of Arabic research article abstracts across four disciplines. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 3(3), 371-382.Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133-151.Lee, Y.C. (2006). An empirical investigation into factors influencing the adoption of an e-learning system. Online information review.Matsuda, P.K. & Tardy, C.M. (2007). Voice in academic writing: The rhetorical construction of author identity in blind manuscript review. English for Specific Purposes, 26(2), 235-249.Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse: English in a global context. London, New York: Continuum.Bondi, M. (2012). Voice in textbooks: Between exposition and argument. In: Stance and voice in written academic genres. London: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 101-115.Gross, A.G. & Chesley, P. (2012). Hedging, stance and voice in medical research articles. In Stance and voice in written academic genres. London: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 85-100.Zaharna, R. (1995). Understanding cultural preferences of Arab communication patterns. Public Relations Review, 21(3), 241-255.Koch, B. (1983). Presentation as proof: The language of Arabic rhetoric. Anthropological Linguistics, 25, 47-60.Hatim, B. (1997). Communication across cultures: translation theory and contrastive text linguistics. Exeter: University of Exeter Press.Martin, P. (2003). A genre analysis of English and Spanish research paper abstracts in experimental social sciences. English for Specific Purposes, 22(1), 25-43.Martin, J. & White, P. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmilan.White, P.R. & Verschueren, J. (2002). Handbook of pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 1-27.Al-Ramadan, M.M. (2016). Appraisal in English and Arabic Academic Discourse: A Contrastive Study within a Systemic Functional Perspective [dissertation]. King Saud University.Shen, K.N., & Khalifa, M. (2010). A Reasearch Framework on Social Networking Sites Usage: Critical Review and Theoretical Extension. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, 341, 173-181.Abdillah, L.A. (2021). Web-Based Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.13984. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2107.13984Najjar, H. (1990). Arabic as a research language: The case of the agricultural sciences [dissertation]. University of Michigan.Al-Qahtani, A. (2006). A contrastive rhetoric study of Arabic and English research article introductions [dissertation]. Oklahoma State University.Sultan, A.H. (2011). A contrastive study of metadiscourse in English and Arabic linguistics research articles. Acta Linguistica, 5(1), 28.Al-Ali, M.N. & Sahawneh, Y.B. (2011). Rhetorical and Textual Organization of English and Arabic PhD Dissertation Abstracts in Linguistics. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 24.Mei, W.S. & Allison, D. (2003). Exploring appraisal in claims of student writers in argumentative essays. Prospect, 18(3), 71-91.Mohamed-Sayidina, A. (2010). Transfer of L1 cohesive devices and transition words into L2 academic texts: The case of Arab students. RELC Journal, 41(3), 253-266.Dugalich, N.M. (2020). Universal and Culturally Specific Features and Linguistic Peculiarities of the Political Cartoon in the Arabic and French Languages. RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics, 11(3), 479-495. https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2299-2020-11-3-479-495Hamed, M. (2014). Conjunctions in Argumentative Writing of Libyan Tertiary Students. English Language Teaching, 7(3), 108-120.Rass, R.A. (2011). Cultural transfer as an obstacle for writing well in English: The case of Arabic speakers writing in English. English Language Teaching, 4(2), 206-212.Biber, D. & Finegan, E. (1988). Adverbial stance types in English. Discourse processes, 11(1), 1-34.Martin, J. (2000). Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. Evaluation in text.