Директивные речевые акты и коммуникативный стиль при взаимодействии студента и преподавателя: на примере академического дискурса в США, арабских странах и России тема диссертации и автореферата по ВАК РФ 00.00.00, кандидат наук Алхадед Хашем Хани Шехадех

• Алхадед Хашем Хани Шехадех
• кандидат наук
• 2022

Оглавление диссертации кандидат наук Алхадед Хашем Хани Шехадех

Table of Context

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER I. DIRECTIVE SPEECH ACTS

1.1. Contemporary theoretical research on speech acts

1.2. Cognitive, contrastive and constructional approaches to the theory of speech acts

1.3. Cognitive-pragmatic approach to directive speech acts: expressions of modality

1.4. Directive speech acts motivation forms: semantics and force dynamics

1.5. Cross-cultural and cross-linguistic issues of directives

Chapter I concluding remarks

CHAPTER II. COMMUNICATIVE STYLE IN ACADEMIC SETTINGS

2.1. Academic student-teacher communicative style: its functions, genres, social and cultural aspects of development

2.2. Evaluation approaches to academic discourse analysis

2.3. Approaches of audience awareness in the settings of international academic discourse

2.4. Research overview of English, Arabic and Russian academic discourse ... 79 Chapter II concluding remarks

CHAPTER III. STUDENT-TEACHER INTERACTION: ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

3.1. Research methodology: data collection, population, research design

3.2. Student-teacher interaction: case study of English academic discourse Introduction to data collection

3.3. Student-teacher interaction: case study of Arabic academic discourse Introduction to data collection

3.4. Student-teacher interaction: case study of Russian academic discourse

3.5. Comparative analysis of English, Arabic and Russian academic discourses

Chapter III concluding remarks

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

Appendix 1. Collected data of questionnaires: English academic discourse

Appendix 2. Collected data of questionnaires: Arabic academic discourse

Appendix 3. Collected data of questionnaires: Russian academic discourse

Введение диссертации (часть автореферата) на тему «Директивные речевые акты и коммуникативный стиль при взаимодействии студента и преподавателя: на примере академического дискурса в США, арабских странах и России»

INTRODUCTION

The present thesis is devoted to a comparative analysis of directive speech acts and student-teacher interaction style within Arabic, English and Russian academic discourse.

At the end of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century, linguistics showed an interest in the study of various types of institutional discourse, to which we, following V.I. Karasik (2004), attribute academic discourse. We adhere to the point of view of N.G. Burmakina (2014), Ya.V. Zubkova (2010), L.V. Kulikova (2006), K.M. Shilikhina (2013), K. Benett (2008), M. Clyne (1987), B.B. Fortuno (2004), K. Hyland (2009), D. Meer (2000), and others that academic discourse aims at professional pedagogical communication in a higher educational institution, which is aimed at training highly qualified specialists and is characterized by such features, as unequal status communication, which has a bidirectional character. Thus, academic discourse determines social roles of communicants, is characterized by the ritual of communication and its focus on obtaining and transmitting scientific knowledge within the given framework. An important role within academic discourse is allocated to directive speech acts, which are a part of speech acts theory. Directive speech acts in all languages have the same goal - to make someone do something - but the way they are expressed varies from culture to culture and also depends on the social and cultural background of the society.

The relevance of the study is confirmed by general linguistic interest towards the problem of academic discourse in comparative aspect and the need for a comparative analysis of directive speech acts in the interaction between a student and a teacher as part of an academic discourse in various linguistic cultures (English, Arabic and Russian), carried out within the framework of the modern anthropocentric paradigm.

The object of the proposed dissertation research is directive speech acts in the interaction of a student and a teacher in English, Arabic and Russian academic discourse.

The subject of the present dissertation research is lexico-grammatical, structural and cultural-specific characteristics of directive speech acts in the interaction of a student and a teacher in English, Arabic and Russian languages.

The degree of scientific development of the research problem. This study was carried out as a comparative analysis of Arabic, English and Russian academic discourse, where we considered the functioning of directive speech acts and student-teacher communication style in the languages mentioned above.

The purpose of this study is to describe the features of directive speech acts in the interaction between a student and a teacher in English, Arabic and Russian languages. To achieve the goal, we undertook the following objectives:

1) to analyze the theoretical description of directive speech acts in different linguistic cultures;

2) to consider the notion of communicative style and its types;

3) to identify lexico-grammatical, structural and cultural-specific features of directive speech acts implemented in academic discourse in the studied linguistic societies;

4) to characterize interaction between a student and a teacher in English, Arabic and Russian academic discourse;

5) given the data obtained as a result of the sociolinguistic experiment, to identify universal and nationally specific features of directive speech acts in interaction of a student and a teacher in academic discourse in English, Arabic and Russian languages;

6) to propose a methodology for a comprehensive comparative analysis of the functioning of English, Arabic and Russian academic discourse.

The research material was the data collected through a written questionnaire held in Arabic, English and Russian. The survey of English-

speaking students was conducted in person at Georgetown University (DC), one of the oldest universities in the United States. To conduct a survey in Arabic, we interviewed students from such countries as Lebanon, Jordan, Mauritania, Palestine, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar studying at Jordan University (Amman). Questioning of Russian-speaking students took place at Peoples' Friendship University of Russia.

The volume of the studied material amounted to 1350 statements from questionnaires, including 4 main parts: 1) addressing forms; 2) teachers' directive speech acts; 3) student speech acts; 4) socio-cultural features of the speech interaction between the student and the teacher. The results of the survey in three languages are presented in the Appendix section of this work.

The scientific base is determined by the theoretical and methodological principles set forth in the works of Russian and international researchers devoted to discourse analysis (N. Fairclough (1992), N.M. Dugalich (2020), S. Hunston & G. Thompson (2000); V.I. Karasik (2004, 2022); E.A. Krassina (2016); E.N. Maluyga (2008); J.M. Swales (1990, 2000), etc.); genre and language characteristics of academic discourse (V.K. Bhatia (1997); A. Duszak (1997); K. Hyland (2009); L. Karttunen (1973); E.A. Kazantseva & F.G. Fatkullina (2020); M.N. Kozhina (1972); K.L. O'Halloran, S. Tan & B.A. Smith (2016); G. Thompson (2001), etc.); theory of speech acts and directive speech acts (L. Abbeduto, L. Furman & B. Davies (1989); J.L. Austin (1962); K. Bach & R.M. Harnish (1979); R. Bartolet (1994); H.H. Clark (1979); S. Coulson & C. Lovett (2010); M.N. Del Campro (2013); Z.R. Eslami (2010); M.L. Geis (1995); J.R. Searle (1969), etc.); intercultural communication (A.H. Alhamdan (2018); E. Babad & P.J. Taylor (1992); J.J. Blake, D.M. Smith, M.P. Marchbanks, A.L. Sibert, S.M. Wood & E.S. Kim (2016); M. Ghazanfari, A. Bonyadi & Sh. Malekzadeh (2003); C. Geertz (1973); E.T. Hall (1976); N. Houck (1999); E.A. Kazantseva (2019); R.D. Lewis (2006), etc.); teacher-student interaction (M. Al-Qudah (2017); M.M. Al-Ramadan (2016); J.E. Brophy & T.R. Good (1974); D.R.

Drozdova (2016); M.C. Engles, H. Colpin, K. van Leeuwen, P. Bijttebier, W. van Den Noortgate, W. Claes & K. Verschueren (2016); P. Hiver, (2018); A.A. Khalil (2021), A.A. Khalil & T.V. Larina (2018), etc.).

To fulfil the objectives set in the dissertation work, we used the following theoretical and practical research methods and techniques: descriptive-analytical, interpretative comparative, linguoculturological. The main approach to research is inductive-deductive (from the analysis obtained in the course of the respondents' frontal choice of material to generalizations).

The main hypothesis for the PhD defense is the statement that there are universal structural, semantic cultural-specific features of directive speech acts in the interaction of a student and a teacher in English, Arabic and Russian academic discourse.

The scientific novelty of the proposed dissertation research lies in the fact that for the first time was carried out a comparative analysis of directive speech acts during the interaction of a student and a teacher in academic discourse in Arabic. The dissertation is the first experience of research work with directive speech acts in the interaction of a student and a teacher in academic discourse in a comparative aspect on the material of languages belonging to three language groups, which resulted in a description of the universal and cultural-specific features of academic discourse. The study proposes a complex methodology for the analysis of directive speech acts in the interaction between a student and a teacher in academic discourse. For the first time in linguistics, the concept of a white dialect of Arabic as a language of communication in academic discourse is introduced and described.

Theoretical implications. This research work introduces into scientific circulation a new language material, obtained as a result of a poll conducted among native speakers of Russian, English and Arabic linguistic cultures. The dissertation research contributes to the theory of discourse analysis and

comparative analysis of speech acts, pragmatics, sociolinguistics, intercultural communication.

Practical implications. The results of this study can be used in the preparation of lectures, textbooks and special courses on pragmatics, sociolinguistics, comparative linguistics, as well as in practical classes in the above languages.

Main provisions for the PhD defense:

1. Academic discourse has common characteristics that do not depend on the language used. However, academic discourse is socially and linguoculturally marked: student-teacher interaction reveals specific features of directive speech acts.

2. The communication style in the interaction between a teacher and a student in the English-language academic discourse has an egalitarian character with features of authoritarianism, in Russian it is strictly egalitarian, in Arabic it is totalitarian.

3. The style of communication between a student and a teacher in English-language, Arabic and Russian academic discourse is determined by the following factors: the age, sex and academic degree of the communicant.

4. Directive speech acts in English-language academic discourse are expressed directly; in Arabic academic discourse - in the form of an order; in Russian, they are shaped as a request.

The validity and reliability of the dissertation research is determined by the amount of compared material, the use of the inductive-deductive method allowing us to analyze the questionnaires and draw reasonable conclusions about the presence of universal and culturally specific features in the implementation of academic discourse in the linguistic cultures under consideration. The reliability of the study is confirmed by summarizing the works of Russian and international linguists, as well as the successful approbation of the study results.

The main results of the present research were published in the subsequent articles:

1. Alhaded, H.H., Glushchenko, T.N. & Alhadid, H. (2022). Evaluative Language in Arabic Academic Discourse. RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics, 13(1), 68-79. https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2299-2022-13-1-68-79 (Scopus, Higher Attestation Commission);

2. Alhaded, H.H., Shavtikova, A.T. & Savalha, O.N. (2022). Methodology of Analysis of Directive Speech Acts in English and Arabic Academic Discourse. Litera, 8, 24-32. https://doi.org/10.25136/2409-8698.2022.8.38567 (Higher Attestation Commission);

3. Alhaded, H.H., Shavtikova, A.T. & Merai, M.I. (2022). Social and Cultural Peculiarities of Arabic Academic Discourse. Litera, 4, 19-26. https://doi.org/10.25136/2409-8698.2022A37759 (Higher Attestation Commission);

4. Alhaded, H.H. (2022). Pragmatics of Emotions in Jordanian Academic Discourse: Case Study of Comparison of Russian, Jordanian and American Discourses. Modern Science: Actual Problems of Theory and Practice. Series of Humanities, 9, 91-96. https://doi.org/10.37882/2223-2982.2021.09.01 (Higher Attestation Commission);

5. Alhaded, H.H., Shavtikova, A.T. & Merai, M.I. (2022). Cognitive Approach in Learning Directive Speech Acts (based on English and Arabic Academic Discourse). Litera, 5, 43-54. https://doi.org/10.25136/2409-8698.2022.5.37801 (Higher Attestation Commission);

6. Kameh Khosh, N., Khalil, A.A.A. & Shehadeh Alhaded, H. (2020). Cultural values and norms of communication: A view from the Middle East. In: Proceedings of 6th Internaltional Conference on Adavances in Education. pp. 396-404. https://doi.org/10.47696/adved.202096;

7. Shehadeh Alhaded, H. & Shavtikova, A. (2021). Strategies for Negative Politeness in Jordan Academic Discourse. In: Proceedings of IIdAll-

Russian Student Scientific and Practical Conference "Eastern Kaleidoscope". Moscow: RUDN Publ. pp. 8-12. (RSCI);

8. Al-Qteishat, A., Hawamdeh, M.H., Yagodka, N.N., Alhaded, H.H. & Shavtikova, A. (2021). Exploring the critical challenges and factors influencing the E-learning system in Jordan during a covid-19 pandemic. In: Proceedings of INTED2021 Conference 8th-9th March, 2021. Valencia. pp. 8985-8990.

Some thesis of the work were presented at the following conferences:

1. 15th International Technology, Education and Development Conference, Istanbul, Turkey, October 2020;

2. II All-Russian Student Scientific and Practical Conference «Eastern Kaleidoscope». Moscow, RUDN, December 2021;

3. All-Russian Student Scientific and Practical Conference «Actual problems of intercultural communication». Moscow, RUDN, April 2022.

Thesis structure. To provide a systematic dissertation, this paper is divided into an Introduction, three Chapters with concluding remarks, Conclusion, References (282 references) and three Appendices which include the forms of questionnaire in Arabic, English and Russian languages

Introduction substantiates the relevance of the present research, defines the object and subject, formulates the purpose, objectives, hypothesis of the work and the main provisions for the PhD defense, research methods and methodology, demonstrates the scientific novelty, theoretical and practical implications of the dissertation. The Introduction also presents approbation through published scientific articles and presentations at international conferences.

Chapter I starts by presenting contemporary theoretical research on speech acts. It provides a study of directive speech acts motivation forms, their semantics and force dynamics. In addition, cross-cultural and cross-linguistic issues of directives are thoroughly considered in this part of the thesis.

Chapter II examines interaction between a student and a teacher, and pays special attention to the functions, genre, social and cultural aspects of the development of a communicative style in academic settings. It provides an overview of works on English-language, Arabic and Russian academic discourse.

Chapter III presents the results of empirical data collected in the course of surveys conducted in English, Arabic and Russian languages. In addition, this chapter describes a complex methodology for analyzing directive speech acts within academic discourse in a comparative perspective of Arabic, English and Russian languages. The chapter presents a comparative analysis of directive speech acts and student-teacher communication style of the three studied academic discourses.

Заключение диссертации по теме «Другие cпециальности», Алхадед Хашем Хани Шехадех

CONCLUSION

Having analyzed the theory of directive speech acts we can state that contemporary theoretical research on speech acts can be divided into three groups according to the theoretical understanding of language nature. The first group uses risk-free linguistics, unambitious cooperating among people, and signifies a language as a fully codified phenomenon. The second group takes into account conditions and environment of speech acts, common values of co-operative conversation, and human inferential skills. The third group considers speech acts as the ability to willing the creativeness and flexibility of indirect forms of language, paying attention to the cognitive aspect of speech act.

In order to determine and distinguish features of Arabic, English and Russian academic discourses we conducted a poll in Arabic, English and Russian based on our own questionnaires with a view to collecting data for a comparative analysis.

Based on the data collection of conducted written survey, in which 30 Arabic students from different countries of the Middle East took part. We conclude that Arabic academic discourse has a strict system of address forms in relation to the teacher, which are also markers of student politeness attitude to a teacher. After analyzing common communicative situations within Arabic academic discourse, we came to the conclusion that the teacher expresses directive speech acts by plural or singular (depending on the communicative situation) imperative verbs in the second person. Also, the directive speech act of a teacher within Arabic academic discourse can be expressed by a question or a statement, while the student does not have an alternative decision or the possibility of declining teacher's act. We also analyzed the ways in which an Arabic-speaking student communicates with a teacher based on several common communicative situations. Having obtained the data, we came to the conclusion

that the strategy of reinforcing and proving by explaining the reason for committing or not committing an act is very essential for Arabic-speaking student. Another distinguishing feature for Arabic academic discourse is enthusiastically apologizing and other markers of politeness such as addressing forms.

As for English academic discourse and its structural, grammatical, lexical, pragmatic, and culturally specific features of directive speech acts we conclude that the most common form of address in English academic discourse is title and last name (TLN) regardless of communicative situation, age and gender of a teacher. English-speaking teacher uses imperative verbs with implementing politeness markers so that the directive speech acts are not categorical. An English-speaking teacher can express his/her directive speech act in a conditional sentence, the illocutionary force of which will be understandable to a student as a call to do something. Directive speech acts of English academic discourse are expressed by interrogative sentences with a modal verb. In addition, students use polite forms of expressing requests or questions and they try to substantiate their speech acts with facts or reasons if the communicative situation requires.

We can also state that Russian-speaking students treat a teacher with respect, and as signs of respect they call refuse from writing and eating food in class, refusing to use the phone for non-studying purposes in class, not interrupting a teacher and not speaking rudely to him/her. Regarding the teacher's disrespectful attitude, Russian students named the following factors of impolite behavior: ridiculous mistakes of a student in front of groupmates and calling students by offensive nicknames. As for structural, grammatical, lexical, pragmatic, and culturally specific features of directive speech acts produced within Russian academic discourse, we can conclude, that students in Russian academic discourse address teachers by name and patronymic. Other addresses (AdN and AdNP), as we have seen in the English and Arabic academic discourse, are not implemented. Moreover, Russian-speaking students when talking about a

teacher referring to a groupmate use slang terms, regardless of age group and gender of a teacher. Secondly, teachers' directive speech acts in Russian are mostly expressed in the following strategies: plural or singular imperative verb on the 2nd; usage of oppositions, interrogative sentences, conditions and axioms/rules. Thirdly, we found that a Russian-speaking teacher can express a directive speech act indirectly by sarcasm, censorship and cause-and-effect strategy of evidence. In addition, a directive speech act in Russian academic discourse can be expressed by verbs in the present tense of the 1st person, which indicates the involvement of the teacher in the process. According to students' speech at when referring to a teacher we conclude that students mostly implement plural indicative verbs in future tense on 2nd person, where this form of the verbs in Russian academic discourse means a polite form beginning of a sentence. In addition, students use modal impersonal predicative verbs, which express interrogative structures, and implement speech acts by providing backups and reasons for students' words.

On the basis of our survey, in which took 90 people, we arrived at a conclusion about the style of communication in the three presented discourses in the work. So, English academic discourse is authoritarian, but at the same time students can openly express their point of view and disagreement, they can have informal relations with а teacher if s/he allows it. However, at the same time, English-speaking students believe that student-teacher communicative style within English academic discourse should be egalitarian.

As for teacher-student communicative style within Russian academic discourse, students replied that a teacher has power over students, however students can openly express their point of view and disagree with a teacher in a respectful manner. Russian-speaking students answered that teacher-student communication is characterized by an egalitarian style.

The markers of an Arabic student's respectful attitude towards a teacher are attending lectures, maintaining distance, avoiding any tactile contact, as well

as fulfilling the imperative acts of teachers. We also confirmed the hypothesis that today Arabic academic discourse is dominated by a totalitarian style of communication between a teacher and a student, where a teacher has unlimited power over students. In addition, we note that among Arabic students there is a tendency to switch from a totalitarian style of communication to an authoritarian one.

By a comparative analysis carried out within the present research work, we can also highlight common features of the three discourses, as well as the distinctive features. Thus, English-speaking teacher uses imperative verbs with adding politeness words-markers to make the expression of а directive speech act less categorical. We observe a similar trend in expression of direct speech acts in Arabic and Russian academic discourses. However, in Russian and Arabic academic discourses, such strategies of expressing a directive speech act indirectly as opposition, interrogative sentences, sarcasm are used to a greater extent than in English academic discourse. However, as the analysis of the collected data regarding directive speech acts shows, teachers of the three discourses almost equally use interrogative sentences with modal words and conditions, as well as statement sentences for expressing directive speech acts. However, a distinctive feature of Arabic academic discourse that we cannot compare with anything is a teacher's use the dialect form of Arabic langu age when formulating a directive speech act. As for the distinguishing feature of directive speech acts in Russian, which we have not found in either English nor Arabic academic discourse, this is use of 1st person present tense verbs within producing a directive speech act, which indicates the involvement of a teacher in the process.

Students in English, Arabic and Russian academic discourses use approximately the same forms of speech acts. As the study revealed, these students, when talking with a teacher, use markers of polite conversation, such as apologies and appreciations. However, we noticed that English-speaking students

tend to use more conditional constructions to formulate their speech acts. While Arabic and Russian students use interrogative constructions when formulating a speech act. However, in all three discourses, we notice the widespread use of modal constructions in the formulation of speech acts by students. It should be noted that an important part of the speech acts of Arabic students is the confirmation of their words by reasons, while such a strategy is less but still present in Russian academic discourse and almost remains in English academic discourse.

Thus, we also drew attention to the fact that most of the communication in the Arabic-speaking academic discourse within student-teacher interacting is carried out using the white dialect of Arabic language, and not using literary Arabic language (Fusha), which would be logical based on the essence of communication in academic settings. The implementation of communication in the Arabic academic discourse takes place with the help of the white dialect as mediator language between literal Arabic and dialects. This topic deserves special consideration, since there are still no research works on the use of the white dialect within Arabic academic discourse.

Список литературы диссертационного исследования кандидат наук Алхадед Хашем Хани Шехадех, 2022 год

REFERENCES

1. Abbeduto, L., Furman, L. & Davies, B. (1989). Identifying speech acts from contextual and linguistic information. Language and speech, 32(3), 189— 203.

2. AbuAmsha, D. (2020). The future markers in Palestinian Arabic. In: Historical Linguistics 2017: Selected papers from the 23rd International Conference on Historical Linguistics, San Antonio, Texas, 31 July-4 August 2017. Vol. 350. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. pp. 453-472.

3. Abugharsa, A.B. (2014). Terms of address in Libyan Arabic compared to other Arabic varieties. ERIC Clearinghouse. URL: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED546487.pdf (accessed: 15.02.2022).

4. Al-Jubouri, A.J.R. (1984). The role of repetition in Arabic argumentative discourse. In: J. Swales & H. Mustafa (Eds.) English for specific purposes in the Arab world. Birmingham: Language Studies Unit, University of Aston. pp. 99117.

5. Al-Qudah, M. (2017). The Jordanian terms of address: Asocio-pragmatic study. ERPA International Congresses on Education 2017 (ERPA 2017), 37, 01080 (1-10). https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20173701080

6. Al-Ramadan, M.M. (2016). Appraisal in English and Arabic Academic Discourse: A Contrastive Study within a Systemic Functional Perspective [Doctoral dissertation]. Riyadh: King Saud University.

7. Alenizi, M.A.K. (2019). Understanding of reading among teachers and learners: A descriptive study of pre-university English language teaching/learning in Saudi Arabia. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ), 10(2), 293-306. https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol10no2.23

8. Alhamdan, A.H. (2018). Multilingual Codeswitching Between Arabic and English: Structural Patterns, Conversation Strategies, Identity Exhibitions, and Educational Applications. Indiana: Indiana University of Pennsylvania.

9. Alharbi, H.A. (2015). Improving Students' English Speaking Proficiency in Saudi Public Schools. International journal of instruction, 8(1), 105-116.

10. Alston, William P. Illocutionary Acts and Sentence Meaning. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 2000.

11. Andreeva, S.S. (2016). Sociolinguistic Features of Academic Discourse. In: Proceeing of SPbPU Science Week. Saint Petersburg: Publishing House of Polytechnical University. pp. 333-336. (In Russian).

12. Antonova, N. V. (2007). Identity of the teacher and features of his communication. Thesis for a PhD degree. Moscow, 1996. p.21. (In Russian)

13. Applebee, A. N. Tradition and Reform in the Teaching of English: A History. Urbana: NCTE. 1974.

14. Arteev, S.P. (2019). Language, Ethnicity and Identity: in Search of the Russian Model. In: Trajectories of Russia's Political Development: Institutions, Projects, Actors. pp. 44-45. (In Russian)

15. Atkinson, R. (1998). The life story interview. Sage.

16. Austin J. L. How to Do Things With Words. Cambridge (Mass.) 1962, paperback: Harvard University Press, 2nd edition, 2005, ISBN 0-674-41152-8.

17. Babad, E., & Taylor, P.J. (1992). Transparency of teacher expectancies across language, cultural boundaries. The Journal of Educational Research, 86(2), 120-125.

18. Bach, K. & Harnish, R.M. (1979). Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge: MIT Press.

19. Badawi, E. S. Mustawayaat 'al arabiyya 'al-mucaasira fi Misr, Cairo, Dar 'alMacaarif. - 1973. (In Arabic)

20. Bakhtin, M.M. (1979). Aesthetics of verbal creativity. Moscow: Iskusstvo. (In Russian).

21. Bakhtin, M.M. (1996). Collected works. Vol. 5. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskih kul'tur. (In Russian).

22. Bamford, J., & Bondi, M. (Eds.). Dialogue within discourse communities: Metadiscursive perspectives on academic genres. Tübingen, Germany: Max Niemeyer. 2005.

23. Barber, B. (1962a). What Is History? New York: Collier Books.

24. Barber, B. (1962b). Science and the social order. New York: Collier Books.

25. Baudouin de Courtenay, I.A. (1963). Introduction to linguistics. In: Selected works on general linguistics. Moscow. (In Russian).

26. Belyaeva E.I. Cataloging directive speech acts in linguistic pragmatics. -Voronezh. Voronezh State University. 1992 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511842191.005. 2013. pp. 102 - 125 (In Russian)

27. Bennet K. English academic discourse: its hegemonic status and implications for translation: doutoramento em Estudos de Cultura. Especialidade: Estudos de Tradu?äo. Lisboa, 2008. 325 p.

28. Bennett, G., Scholer, F., & Uitdenbogerd, A. (2008). A comparative study of probabilistic and language models for information retrieval. In: Database Technologies 2008: Proceedings of the Nineteenth Australasian Database Conference (ADC 2008). Melbourne: RMIT University. pp. 65-74.

29. Bennett, K. (2007). Epistemicide! The tale of a predatory discourse. The Translator, 13(2), 151-169.

30. Bertolet, R. (1994). Are there indirect speech acts. In: S.L. Tsohatzidis (Ed.) Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectives. Abingdon: Routledge. pp. 335-349.

31. Bhatia, V.K. (1993). Genre-mixing in academic introductions. English for specific purposes, 16(3), 57.

32. Biber, D. & Finegan, E. (1988). Adverbial stance types in English. Discourse processes, 11(1), 1-34.

33. Biber, D. & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text-interdisciplinary journal for the study of discourse, 9(1), 93-124.

34.Birdwhistell, R. 1970. Kinesics and context, New York: Ballentine.

35. Blake, J.J., Smith, D.M., Marchbanks, M.P., Seibert, A.L., Wood, S.M. & Kim, E.S. (2016). Does student-teacher racial/ethnic match impact Black students' discipline risk? A test of the cultural synchrony hypothesis. In: Inequality in school discipline. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 79-98.

36. Bloch, J. (2010). A concordance-based study of the use of reporting verbs as rhetorical devices in academic papers. Journal of Writing Research, 2(2), 219244. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2010.02.02.7

37. Bouayad, N. (2011). A pragmatic study of the university educational discourse in Arabic. Algeria. pp. 127-155. (In Arabic).

38. Brandes, M.P. Text style. Theoretical course. Ed. 3rd, revised. and additional Moscow: Progress-Tradition; INFRA-M. 2004.

39. Brdar-Szabo, R. (2009). Metonymy in indirect directives. In: Metonymy and metaphor in grammar, K.-U. Panther, L.L. Thornburg, A. Barcelona (Eds.). Vol. 25. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. pp. 323-336. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25.19brd

40. Brophy, J.E., & Good, T.L. (1974). Teacher-student relationships: Causes and consequences. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

41. Brown, P., Levinson, S.C. & Levinson, S.C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Vol. 4). Cambridge: Cambridge university press.

42. Burmakina N.G. Discursive-Integrative and Culturally Conventional Characteristics of Academic Communication: Ph.D. Sciences: 10.02.19. Krasnoyarsk, 2014. 217 p.

43. Carter, R. & McCarthy, M. (1997). Exploring spoken English. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

44. Clark, H.H. (1979). Responding to indirect speech acts. Cognitive psychology, 11(4), 12-43.

45. Clark, H.H. & Lucy, P. (1975). Understanding what is meant from what is said: A study in conversationally conveyed requests. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 14(1), 56-72.

46. Clyne M. Cultural differences in the organization of academic texts: English and German // Journal of Pragmatics. 1987. No. 11. P. 211-247.

47. Clyne, M. Intercultural Communication at Work. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge. 1994.

48. Cottrell, S.P. (2003). Influence of sociodemographics and environmental attitudes on general responsible environmental behavior among recreational boaters. Environment and behavior, 35(3), 347-375.

49. Coulson, S. & Lovett, C. (2010). Comprehension of non-conventional indirect requests: An event-related brain potential study. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 22(1), 107-124.

50. Dascal, M. (1989). On the roles of context and literal meaning in understanding. Cognitive Science, 13, 253-257. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1302 6

51. Deal, D., & Sterling, D. (1997). Kids Ask the Best Questions. Educational Leadership, 54(6), 61-63.

52. Del Campo Martínez, N. (2013). Illocutionary Constructions in English: Cognitive Motivation and Linguistic Realization: a Study of the Syntactic Realizations of the Directive, Commissive and Expressive Speech Acts in English. Bern: Peter Lang.

53. den Brok, P., Fisher, D., Rickards, T., & Bull, E. (2006). Californian science students' perceptions of their classroom learning environments. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(1), 3-25.

54. Deveci, T. & Midraj, J. (2021). "Can we take a picture with you?" The realization of the refusal speech act with tourists by Emirati Speakers. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 25(1), 68-88. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2021-25-1-68-88

55. Dik, S.C. (1989a). Towards a unified cognitive language. In: F.J. Heyvaert, F. Steurs (Eds.) Worlds behind words; essays in honour of Prof. Dr. F.G. Droste on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday. Leuven: University of Leuven. pp. 97110.

56. Dik, S.C. (1989b). The theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1: the structure of the clause. (Functional Grammar Series 9.). Dordrecht: Foris.

57. Dik, S.C. (1997). The theory of functional grammar: the structure of the clause. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. pp. 243-260.

58. Ding, D. (1998). 'Rationality Reborn: Historical Roots of the Passive Voice in Scientific Discourse'. In: J.T. Battalio (Ed.) Essays in the Study of Scientific Discourse: Methods, Practice and Pedagogy, Stamford-London: Ablex. pp. 117-135.

59. Dobrovie-Sorin, C. (1985). Redoublement clitique, relatives et interrogatives en roumain et espagnol. Lingvisticae Investigationes, 9(2), 269306.

60. Downing, L., Downing A. & Locke P (1992). A University Course in English Grammar. London-New York: Routldge.

61. Drew, P., Couper-Kuhlen, E. (Eds.) (2014). Requesting in Social Interaction. (Studies in Language and Social Interaction; Vol. 26). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.26

62. Drozdova, D.R. (2016). MANIPULATIVE STRATEGY "ATTACKING THE TARGETS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INFLUENCE" IN ACADEMIC DISCOURSE. Foreign languages: linguistic and methodological aspects, (34), 38-43. (In Russian).

63. Dugalich, N.M. (2018). Political cartoon as a genre of political discourse.

RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics, 9(1), 158-172. https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2299-2018-9-1-158-172

64. Duszak, A. (1997). A discourse-community view. Culture and styles of academic discourse, 104, 11.

65. Ebrir, B. (2007). Scientific discourse and some of its peculiarities: an educational vision. Algeria, Algeria. p. 234 (In Arabic).

66. Edres, N. (2022). Religion, Ideology, and Nation-building in Jordanian Textbooks and Curricula for the Teaching of Arabic Language. Lingue Culture Mediazioni-Languages Cultures Mediation (LCM Journal), 8(2), 81-100.

67. Eggins, S. & Slade, D. (2004). Analysing casual conversation. Sheffield: Equinox Publishing Ltd.

68. Elkhafaifi, H. (2005). Listening comprehension and anxiety in the Arabic language classroom. The modern language journal, 89(2), 206-220.

69. Engels, M.C., Colpin, H., Van Leeuwen, K., Bijttebier, P., Van Den Noortgate, W., Claes, S. & Verschueren, K. (2016). Behavioral engagement, peer status, and teacher-student relationships in adolescence: A longitudinal study on reciprocal influences. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(6), 1192-1207.

70. Ervin-Tripp, S.M., Strage, A. Lampert, M. & Bell, N. (1987). Understanding requests. Linguistics, 25, 107-143.

71. Eslami, Z.R. (2010). Refusals: How to develop appropriate refusal strategies. In: A. Martínez-Flor & E. Usó-Juan (Eds.) Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 217-236

72. Fairbairn, G. & Winch, C. (1996). Reading, writing and reasoning: a guide for students. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

73. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and text: Linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis. Discourse & society, 3(2), 193-217.

74. Fisher, D., Fraser, B. & Cresswell, J. (1995). Using the questionnaire on teacher interaction in the professional development of teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 20(1), 8-18.

75. Flowerdew, J. (1999). Problems in writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 243-264.

76. Flowerdew, J. (2002). Genre in the classroom: A linguistic approach. Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives, 91-102.

77. Fortuno B.B. The influence of lecturing styles in the use of Discourse Markers within the spoken academic discourse of Social Sciences // Approaches to Critical Discourse Analysis / Valencia: Publicaciones Universidad de Valencia, 2004. 21 p.

78. Furmaniak, G. A frame-based approach to modality: The case of obligation. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 24 (1). 2010. pp. 17-35.

79. Gaiser, L., & Matras, Y. (2020). Re-visiting 'community language': Arabic in a Western global city. In: Researching Language in Superdiverse Urban Contexts: Exploring Methodological and Theoretical Concepts, C. Mar-Molinero (Ed.). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. pp. 52-78.

80. Gallacher, S. et al. (2016). Smalltalk: using tangible interactions to gather feedback from children. In: Proceedings of the TEI'16: Tenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction. pp. 253-261.

81. Gebhard, M., Chen, I.A. & Britton, L. (2014). "Miss, nominalization is a nominalization:" English language learners' use of SFL metalanguage and their literacy practices. Linguistics and Education, 26, 106-125.

82. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. Basic books.

83. Geis, M.L. (1995). Speech Acts and Conversational Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

84. Getkham, K. (2014). Politeness Strategies in Thai Graduate Research Paper Discussions: Implications for Second/Foreign Language Academic Writing. English Language Teaching, 7(11), 159-167.

85. Ghazanfari, M., Bonyadi, A. & Malekzadeh, Sh. (2013). Investigating cross-linguistic differences in refusal speech act among native Persian and English speakers. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 2(4), 49-63.

86. Gibbs, R. W. (2002). A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and implicated. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(4), 457-486.

87. Gibbs, R.W. (1979). Contextual effects in understanding indirect requests.

Discourse Processes, 2, 1 -10.

88. Gibbs, R.W. (1984). Literal meaning and psychological theory. Cognitive Science, 8, 265-304.

89. Gibbs, R.W. (1994). The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

90. Gibbs, R.W. & Gerrig, R. (1989). How context makes metaphor comprehension seem 'special'. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 4, 154-158.

91. Gil-Salom, L. & Soler-Monreal, C. (2009). Interacting with the reader: Politeness in engineering research article discussions. International Journal of English Studies, 9(3), 175-190.

92. Giri, V. N. Culture and Communication Style, Review of Communication, 6:1-2. 2006. 124-130. DOI: 10.1080/15358590600763391

93. Glazkova, E.A. (2016). SOME FEATURES OF CONTEMPORARY ACADEMIC DISCOURSE. In: Practical Higher Education Discourse. Bryansk. pp. 15-20. (In Russian).

94. Glazova, O.G., Davydova, E.V. & Romanenko, A.V. (2020). Expressive forms of address in the aspect of linguopragmatics, the theory of speech acts and language nomination. Contemporary Teacher Education, 2, 180-183. (In Russian).

95. Goldberg, A.E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

96. Goldberg, A.E. (2006). Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalisations in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

97. Goldberg, A.E. & Suttle, L. (2010). Construction grammar. WIREs Cognitive Science, 1(4), 468-477.

98. Golden, J.M. (1980). The writer's side: Writing for a purpose and an audience. Language Arts, 57(7), 756-762.

99. Golsteijn, C., Gallacher, S., Capra, L., & Rogers, Y. (2016). Sens-Us: Designing innovative civic technology for the public good. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. pp. 39-49.

100. Graff, G. Our Undemocratic Curriculum. Profession. 2007. Pp. 128-135

101. Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1989.

102. Gudykunst, W. B. Cross-cultural and intercultural communication. - Sage, 2003.

103. Gudykunst, W. B., Ting-Toomey S. Ethnic identity, language and communication breakdowns. - 1990.

104. Guzikova, M. & Fofanova, P. (2022). Fundamentals of the theory of intercultural communication. Textbook for academic baccalaureate. Moscow. (In Russian).

105. Hafez, K. (2008). The role of media in the Arab world's transformation process. In: Ch.-P.Hanelt, A. Moller (eds.) Bound to Cooperate: Europe and the Middle East II. Gütersloh: Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung. p. 321.

106. Hall, E. T. The silent language, Garden City, NY: Doubleday. 1959.

107. Hall, E.T. (1976). Beyond Culture. Garden City; New York: Anchor Press.

108. Hall, E.T. & Hall, T. (1959). The silent language. New York: Anchor books.

109. Hall, R.A. et al. (1966). Pidgin and creole languages. Vol. 7. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

110. Halliday, M.A.K. (1964). The linguistic sciences and language teaching. London: Longmans.

111. Halliday, M.A.K. (1973). Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edward Arnold.

112. Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as Social Semiotics: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.

113. Halliday, M.A.K. (1993a). Language in a Changing World. Occasional Paper Number 13. Queensland: Centre for Language Learning and Teaching, University of Southern Queensland.

114. Halliday, M.A.K. (1993b). Towards a language-based theory of learning.

Linguistics and education, 5(2), 93-116.

115. Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.

116. Halliday, M.A.K. & Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (2004). Introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.

117. Handley, R.L. (2008). What media critics reveal about journalism: Palestine media watch and US news media. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 36(2), 131-148.

118. Heary, C.M., & Hennessy, E. (2002). The use of focus group interviews in pediatric health care research. Journal of pediatric psychology, 27(1), 47-57.

119. Hiver, P., Kim, T.Y. & Kim, Y. (2018). Language teacher motivation. In: Language teacher psychology. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. pp. 18-33.

120. Hoey, M. (2000). Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. London: Psychology Press.

121. Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leadership, and organization: do American theories apply abroad? Organizational dynamics, 9(1), 42-63.

122. Holtgraves, T. (1994). Communication in context: Effects of speaker status on the comprehension of indirect requests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(5), 1205.

123. Hood, S. (2004). 'Appraising research: taking a stance in academic writing' [Unpublished PhD thesis]. Sydney: University of Technology.

124. Houck, N. & Gass, S.M. (1996). Non-native refusal: A methodological perspective. In: Gass, S.M. & Neu, J. (eds.) Speech acts across cultures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 45-64.

125. Houck, N. & Gass, S.M. (1999). Interlanguage refusals. A cross-cultural study of Japanese English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

126. Hudson, R. (1995). Does English really have case? Journal of linguistics, 31(2), 375-392.

127. Hunston, S. (1989). Evaluation in experimental research articles [Doctoral dissertation]. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.

128. Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (Eds.). (2000). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

129. Hussien, I.O. (2018). Comparison of sentiment analysis approaches using modern Arabic and Sudanese Dialect. In: International Conference on Brain Inspired Cognitive Systems. Cham: Springer. pp. 615-624.

130. Hyland K. Academic Discourse: English in a Global Context. London: Continuum, 2009. 215 p.

131. Hyland, F. (2001). Providing effective support: Investigating feedback to distance language learners. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning. 16(3), 233-247.

132. Hyland, K. (2001). Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written communication, 18(4), 549-574.

133. Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

134. Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse: English in a global context. London: Continuum.

135. Iliadi, P.L. & Larina, T.A. (2017) Refusal Strategies in English and Russian. RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics, 8(3), 531-542. https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2299-2017-8-3-531- 542

136. Johns, A.M. (1997). Text, role and context: Developing academic literacies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

137. Kabasakal, H., & Bodur, M. (2002). Arabic cluster: a bridge between East and West. Journal of World Business, 37(1), 40-54.

138. Kamil, M.K. & Hasan, H.K. (2021). An Analytical Study of Speech Acts Classification at the University Level. PalArch's Journal of Archaeology of Egypt/Egyptology, 18(08), 3376-3389.

139. Karasik V.I. Language circle: personality, concepts, discourse. M.: Gnosis, 2004. Pp. 390. (In Russian)

140. Karasik, V.I. (2022). Jazykovaja lestnica poznanija [Language Ladder of Knowledge]: monograph. Moscow: Pushkin State Russian Language Institute Publ. (In Russian).

141. Karasik, V.I. & Leshutina, I.A (2022). Professional Educational Discourse in Russia: a Socio-Pragmatic Approach. In: Topical Issues of Linguistics and Teaching Methods in Business and Professional Communication, European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences EPSBS. Future Academy. pp. 634-642.

142. Karaulov, Yu.N. Russian language and linguistic personality. M., 2007. P.11-27

143. Karttunen, L. (1973). Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic inquiry, 4(2), 169-193.

144. Kasher, A. (1991). Pragmatics and Chomsky's research program. In: The Chomskyan Turn. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. pp. 122-149.

145. Kasper, G. (2006). Speech acts in interaction: towards discursive pragmatics. In: K. Bardovi-Harlig, C. Felix-Brasdefer, A.S. Omar (Eds.) Pragmatics and Language Learning. Honolulu: National Foreign Language Resource Center, University of Hawai'i at Manoa. Vol. 11. pp. 281-314.

146. Kassim, H. & Ali, F. (2010). English communicative events and skills needed at the workplace: Feedback from the industry. English for Specific Purposes, 29(3), 168-182. https://doi.org/10.10167j.esp.2009.10.002

147. Kazantseva, E.A. (2019). Norms of Environmentally Friendly Communication in Academic Discourse. In: Intercultural Communication in Educational Space, proceedings. Ufa. pp. 62-66. (In Russian).

148. Kazantseva, E.A. & Fatkullina, F.G. (2020). Linguoecological Problems of Academic Discourse: A Comparative Aspect. The Liberal Arts in Russia, 9(1), 61-69. https://doi.org/10.15643/libartrus-2020.1.6 (in Russian).

149. Kelly, G. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

150. Khalil, A., & Larina, T. (2019). Arabic Forms of Address: Sociolinguistic Overview. In: I.V. Denisova (Ed.) Word, Utterance, Text: Cognitive, Pragmatic and Cultural Aspects. Vol. 39. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences. Future Academy. pp. 299-309. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2018.04.02.44

151. Khalil, A.A. (2021). American English and Syrian Arabic Forms of Address: a Contrastive Analysis. Philology. Theory & Practice, 14 (12), 40324035.

152. Kissine M. From Utterances to Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press

153. Koch, P.J. (1983). Expressing emotion. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 64(2), 176-191.

154. Kotyurova, M.P. (1974). Linguistic expression of the coherence of speech in the scientific style compared with the artistic one: [Abstract of PhD thesis]. Saratov. (In Russian).

155. Kotyurova, M.P. (2006). Scientific school of functional stylistics prof. MN Kozhina. Bulgarian Russian Studies, 2, 16. (In Russian).

156. Kotyurova, M.P. & Bazhenova, E.A. (2008). Culture of scientific speech: text and its editing. Moscow: Flinta: Nauka. (In Russian).

157. Kozhina, M.N. (1972). On the speech system of the scientific style in comparison with some others. Perm. (in Russian).

158. Kozhina, M.N. (2002). Speech science and functional stylistics: questions of theory. Selected works. Perm: Perm University publ. (In Russian).

159. Kozhina, M.N. (2006). Functional style (functional variety of language, functional type of speech). In: Stylistic Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Russian Language. Moscow: Flinta: Nauka. pp. 581-583. (In Russian).

160. Krasnykh, V.V. (2001). Fundamentals of psycholinguistics and communication theory. Moscow. (in Russian).

161. Krassina, E.A. (2016). Discourse, Statement and Speech Act. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 20(4), 91 -102.

162. Kreidler, C.W. (1998). Noah Webster's Linguistic Influences. Language & Communication, 18(2), 101-110.

163. Kubryakova, E.S. (2017). In Search of the Essence of Language. Cognitive research. Moscow: Znak. (in Russian).

164. Kuhn, T.S. (1962). Second Thoughts on Paradigms. In: The Structure of Scientific Theories, F. Suppe (Ed.). Urbana: Illinois University Press.

165. Kulikova L.V. Communication style in the intercultural paradigm. Krasnoyarsk: KSPU im. V.P. Astafieva, 2006. Pp. 392 (In Russian)

166. Kunitsyna, O.M. (2021). Multimodality and the foundations of visual linguistics in the works of H. Steckl. Philological Sciences. Questions of Theory and Practice, 14(9), 2838-2842. (In Russian).

167. Lakoff, R. (1972). Language in context. Language, 48(4), 907-927.

168. Lamassa, M., Di Carlo, A., Pracucci, G., Basile, A. M., Trefoloni, G., Vanni, P. & Inzitari, D. (2001). Characteristics, outcome, and care of stroke

associated with atrial fibrillation in Europe: data from a multicenter multinational hospital-based registry (The European Community Stroke Project). Stroke, 32(2), 392-398.

169. Langacker, R. W. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. 2008. Pp. 29

170. Lapina, A.N. The nature and meaning of the Arabic language of interdialect communication // Uchenye zapiski Taurida National University named after V. I. Vernadsky. - 2013. - 26 (65), No. 2. - S. 175-182. (In Russian)

171. Larina, T. V. English style of phatic communication // Genres of speech. -2005. - no. 4. pp. 251-262.

172. Lazere, D. Political Literacy in composition and rhetoric: Defending academic discourse against postmodern pluralism. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. 2015.

173. Lee, C. (2006). Language for learning mathematics: assessment for learning in practice: Assessment for learning in practice. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.

174. Lee, J.S., Saberi, D., Lam, M. & Webster, J.J. (2018). Assisted nominalization for academic English writing. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Intelligent Interactive Systems and Language Generation (2IS&NLG). pp. 2630.

175. Leech, G. (1974). Politeness: is there an East-West divide. Journal of foreign languages, 6(3), C. 1-30.

176. Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman.

177. Leech, G. (2014). The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

178. Levinson, S.C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

179. Levitsky, Yu. A. Linguistics of the text. High School, 2006.

180. Levy, J. & Wubbels, T. (2005). Do you know what you look like? In: Interpersonal relationships in education. Abingdon: Routledge.

181. Lewis, R.D. (2006). When Cultures Collide. Boston; London: Nicholas Brealey International.

182. Liu, X. & McCabe, A. (2018). Linguistic Study of Evaluation in Writing.

In: Attitudinal Evaluation in Chinese University Students' English Writing. Corpora and Intercultural Studies. Vol 4. Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6415-9 3

183. Lobacheva, N.A. (2016). Communicative strategies and tactics of academic discourse: teacher-student. In: Modern Problems of the Social and Humanitarian, proceeding, Kazan April 29, 2016. Kazan. pp. 137-143 (In Russian).

184. Lyons, J. (1997). Semantics. Philosophy, 53, 205.

185. Mainhard, M.T., Brekelmans, M., den Brok, P. & Wubbels, T. (2011). The development of the classroom social climate during the first months of the school year. Contemporary educational psychology, 36(3), 190-200.

186. Maltseva, O.N. (2000). Description of the linguistic personality (constructive approach) [dissertation]. Krasnodar. (In Russian).

187. Malyuga, E.N. (Ed.) (2020). Functional Approach to Professional Discourse Exploration in Linguistics. Serie: Discourse Analysis. Singapore: Springer Singapore.

188. Malyuga, E.N. & McCarthy, M. (2021). "No" and "Net" as Response Tokens in English and Russian Business Discourse: in Search of a Functional Equivalence. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 25(2), 391-416.

189. Malyuga, E.N. & Yermishina, V.E. (2021). The Expressive Function of Colloquialisms in Professional Discourse: the Linguopragmatic Aspect. In: E3S Web of Conferences. Topical Problems of Green Architecture, Civil and Environmental Engineering (TPACEE-2021). Moscow. pp. 08012.

190. Martin, J.R. (1992). Genre and literacy-modeling context in educational linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 141-172.

191. Martin, J.R., & White, P.R. (2003). The language of evaluation (Vol. 2). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

192. Martin, J.R.& White, P.R.R. (2005). The Language of Evaluation. Appraisal in English. Houndmills and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

193. Martínez-Flor, A. & Usó-Juan, E. (2011). Research methodologies in pragmatics: Eliciting refusals to requests. Estudios de lingüística inglesa aplicada, 11, 47-87.

194. Meer D. Möglichkeiten angewandter Gesprächsforschung: Mündliche Prüfungen an der Hochschule // Gesprächsforschung: neue Entwicklungen / Lunguistik online. [Electronic resource]. 2000. No. 5. URL: http://goo.gl/aivMmZ (accessed 09/14/2019).

195. Metz, M. (2018). Exploring the complexity of high school students' beliefs about language variation. Linguistics and Education, 45, 10-19.

196. Mey, J.L. (1993). Pragmatics as deconstruction. Social Semiotics, 3(2), 219-230.

197. Miles, W.F. (2018). Minority Arab voting: village dynamics and electoral observations in Israel. Democratization, 25(1), 98-114.

198. Mishatkina, T.V. (2004). Pedagogicheskaya etika [Pedagogical Ethics]. Rostov-na-Donu: Feniks.

199. Morgan, J.L. (1978). Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. In P. Cole, ed., Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 9. Pragmatics. London: Academic Press, pp. 261-280.

200. Morkus, N. (2014). Refusals in Egyptian Arabic and American English.

Journal of Pragmatics, 70, 86-107.

201. Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied linguistics, 10(1), 1-35.

202. Northedge, A. (2005). The good study guide. Kents Hill: The Open University.

203. Norton, R. Communicator style: Theory, application, and measures. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1983. p. 320.

204. Nostrand, H. (1989.) Authentic texts and cultural authenticity: An editorial.

Modern Language Journal, 73 (1), 49-52

205. Nuyts, J. (1993). Cognitive linguistics. Journal of Pragmatics, 20(3), 269290.

206. O'Halloran, K.L., Tan, S. & Smith, B.A. (2016). Multimodal approaches to English for academic purposes. In: The Routledge handbook of English for academic purposes. Abingdon: Routledge. pp. 280-293.

207. Okamura, A. (2008). Citation forms in scientific texts: Similarities and differences in L1 and L2 professional writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 7(3), 61-81.

208. Otal Campo, J.L. & De Mendoza, F.R. (2007). Modelling thought in language use: at the crossroads between discourse, pragmatics, and cognition. Jezikoslovlje, 8(2), 115-167.

209. Oueslati, O., Cambria, E., HajHmida, M. B. & Ounelli, H. (2020). A review of sentiment analysis research in Arabic language. Future Generation Computer Systems, 112, 408-430.

210. Panther, K.U. & Thornburg, L. (1998). A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of pragmatics, 30(6), 755-769.

211. Panther, K.U. & Thornburg, L.L. (Eds.) (2003). Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. Vol. 113. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.113

212. Patterson, R., Weideman, A. The typicality of academic discourse and its relevance for constructs of academic literacy. Journal for Language Teaching. V. 47(1). 2013. 107-123.

213. Pérez-Hernández, M.L. (2001). The directive-commissive continuum. Miscelánea: a journal of English and American studies, 23, 77-98.

214. Pérez-Hernández, M.L. (2012). Saying something for a particular purpose: Constructional compatibility and constructional families. Revista española de lingüística aplicada, 25, 189-210.

215. Pérez-Hernández, M.L. (2013). A pragmatic-cognitive approach to brand names: A case study of Rioja wine brands. Names, 61(1), 33-46.

216. Pérez-Hernández, M.L. et al. (2021). La influencia de la lectura en la interpretación de las emociones del alumnado con Necesidades Específicas de Apoyo Educativo. Santa Cruz de Tenerife: Universidad de la Laguna.

217. Petrova E.B. Cataloging incentive speech acts in linguistic pragmatics. Vestnik VGU. - 2008. - No. 3. - P.124-133 (In Russian)

218. Pettinari, C. (1982). The function of a grammatical alternation in 14 surgical reports. In: Linguistics and Literacy. Boston: Springer. pp. 145-185.

219. Polivanov, E.D. (1933). Russian grammar in comparison with the Uzbek language. Tashkent: State Publishing House of the Uzbek SSR. (In Russian).

220. Potebnya, A.A. (1914). About some symbols in Slavic folk poetry, M.V. Potebnya (Ed.). (in Russian).

221. Raevskaya M.M. (2019). Revisiting the academic identity in a globalized scientific discourse. The Humanities and Social Studies in the Far East, 16 (1). 18-25. (in Russian).

222. Recanati, F. (1987). Meaning and force: The pragmatics of performative utterances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

223. Recanati, F. (1994). Contextualism and anti-contextualism in the philosophy of language. In: S. Tsohatzidis Foundations of speech act theory: philosophical and linguistic perspectives. Abingdon: Routledge. pp. 156-166.

224. Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. & Baicchi, A. (2007). Illocutionary constructions: cognitive motivation and linguistic realisation. In: I. Kecskes, L. Horn (Eds.)

Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Intercultural Aspects. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 95-128.

225. Ruytenbeek, N. (2017). The comprehension of indirect requests: Previous work and future directions. In: Semantics and pragmatics: Drawing a line. Cham: Springer. pp. 293-322.

226. Ruytenbeek, N. (2019). Topical issues of ontology and forms of directive speech acts. International Review of Pragmatics, 11(2), 200-221.

227. Ryabtseva N.K. Language and natural intelligence. - Academy, 2005.

228. Salimovsky, V.A. (2003). Love in speech expression. In: Direct and indirect communication. Saratov: College. pp. 302-309. (In Russian)

229. Samigova, K.B. (2018). Linguocultural Peculiarities of Addressing Forms in the English and Uzbek Languages. Foreign Languages in Uzbekistan, 4, 147153.

230. Sattar, H.Q.A., Che Lah, S. & Suleiman, R.R.R. (2011). Refusal strategies in English by Malay University Students. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 11(3), 69-81.

231. Schegloff, E.A. (1979). The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. In: T. Givon (Ed.) Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 12: Discourse and syntax. New York: Academic Press. pp. 261-286.

232. Schegloff, E.A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis I. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.

233. Schnelzer, N. (2015). Libya in the Arab spring: The constitutional discourse since the fall of Gaddafi. Springer VS.

234. Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

235. Searle, J.R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In: P. Cole & J.L. Morgan (Eds.) Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 3. New York: Academic Press. pp. 59-82.

236. Searle, J.R. (1979). Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 2-30. URL:

https://academiaanalitica.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/john-r-searle-expression-and-meaning.pdf (accessed: 15.02.2022).

237. Searle, R., Vanderveken. 1985. Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

238. Selinker, L., Lackstrom, J. & Trimble, L. (1973). Technical rhetorical principles and grammatical choice. TESOL Quarterly, 7(2), 127-136.

239. Shcherba, L.V. (1929). How to study foreign languages. Moscow-Leningrad. (In Russian)

240. Shilikhina K.M. Irony in academic discourse // Bulletin of VSU. Philology. 2013. No. 1. pp. 115-118.(In Russian)

241. Shishavan, H.B. & Sharifian, F. (2013). Refusal strategies in L1 and L2: A study of Persian-speaking learners of English. Multilingua: Journal of Cross-Cultural andInterlanguage Communication, 32(6), 801-836.

242. Sinclair, J. & Carter, R. (2004). Trust the text: Language, corpus and discourse. Abingdon: Routledge.

243. Sinclair, J. & Carter, R. (2004). Trust the text: Language, corpus and discourse. Abingdon: Routledge.

244. Soames, S. (1982). How presuppositions are inherited: A solution to the projection problem. Linguistic inquiry, 13(3), 483-545.

245. Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance, Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

246. Stefanowitsch, A. (2003). A construction-based approach to indirect speech acts. In: K.U. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.) Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 105-126.

247. Swales, J. (1974). Notes on the Function of Attributive-en Participles in Scientific Discourse. Khartoum: University of Khartoum Press.

248. Swales, J.M. (1990). Discourse analysis in professional contexts. Annual review of applied linguistics, 11, 103-114.

249. Swales, J.M. (2000). Languages for specific purposes. Annual review of applied linguistics, 20, 59-76.

250. Tanck, S. (2003). Speech acts sets of refusals and complaint: A comparison of native and nonnative English speaker's production. TESOL Second Language Acquisition. Washington DC, USA. pp. 1-22.

251. Tarone, E. (1981). Some thoughts on the notion of communication strategy. TESOL quarterly, 15(3), 285-295.

252. Tawalbeh, A. & Al-Oqaily, E. (2012). In-directness and politeness in American English and Saudi Arabic requests: A cross-cultural comparison. Asian Social Science, 8(10), 85.

253. Thibault, P. J. & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Grammar, society, and the speech act: Renewing the connections. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(4), 561-585.

254. Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied linguistics, 22(1), 58-78.

255. Thompson, P. (1995). Work organisations: a critical introduction. London: Macmillan International Higher Education.

256. Tromp, J., Hagoort, P. & Meyer, A.S. (2016). Pupillometry reveals increased pupil size during indirect request comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(6), 1093-1108.

257. Trosheva, T.B. (1994). The development of scientific style in the aspect of the functioning of language units of various levels. Part 2: Syntax. Perm. (In Russian).

258. van Ackeren, M.J., Casasanto, D., Bekkering, H., Hagoort, P. & Rueschemeyer, S.-A. (2012). Pragmatics in action: indirect requests engage theory of mind areas and the cortical motor network. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24(11), 2237-2247.

259. van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Typographic meaning. Visual communication, 4(2), 137-143.

260. Vasilyeva, A.N. (1976). A course of lectures on the stylistics of the Russian language: General concepts of stylistics, colloquial and everyday style of speech. Moscow: Russkij jazyk. (In Russian).

261. Verschueren, J. (1995). The pragmatic return to meaning: Notes on the dynamics of communication, degrees of salience, and communicative transparency. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 5(2), 127-156.

262. Vinogradov, V.V. (1955). Principal Issues of Sentence Syntax (on the material of the Russian Language.In: Issues of Grammatical Structure: Collection of Articles. Moscow: Publishing-house of the USSR AS. pp. 389-435.

263. Vodyanitskaya, A.A. (2016). Evaluative component of scientific discussion in academic discourse. Kemerovo. pp. 446-452. (In Russian).

264. Walberg, H.J. (1984). Improving the productivity of America's schools. Educational leadership, 41(8), 19-27.

265. Watzlawick P., Beavin J., Jackson D. Some tentative axioms of communication //Communication theory. - Routledge, 2017. pp. 74-80.

266. Weideman A. Academic literacy: Five new tests // Geronimo Distribution. - 2018.

267. White, H.D. (2004). Citation analysis and discourse analysis revisited. Applied linguistics, 25(1), 89-116.

268. Widdowson, H.G. (1979). The partiality and relevance of linguistic descriptions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1(2), 9-24.

269. Wierzbicka, A. (2009). Cross-cultural pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

270. Wignell, P. (1998). 'Technicality and Abstraction in Social Science'. In: J.R. Martin, R. Veel (Eds.) Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses of Science. London-New York: Routledge. pp. 297326.

271. Wignell, P., Martin, J.R., Eggins, S., Halliday, M.A.K. & Martin, J.R. (1993). Writing Science. Literacy and Discursive Power. Bristol-London: The Falmer Press.

272. Williams, M. (2002). The 'Speech Act Method': Studying Power and Influence in Conversation Interaction and a Critique of Conversation Analysis. Sheffield Online Papers. pp.1-12.

273. Wilson, M. & Emmorey, K.A (1998). "Word length effect" for sign language: Further evidence for the role of language in structuring working memory. Memory & Cognition, 26(3), 584-590.

274. Wong, J. (2002). 'Applying' conversation analysis in applied linguistics: evaluating dialogue in English as a second language textbooks. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 40, 37-60.

275. Wuthnow, R. Communities of discourse: Ideology and social structure in the reformation, the enlightenment, and european socialism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1989.

276. Xinghua, L. & Thompson, P. (2009). Attitude in students' argumentative writing: A contrastive perspective. Language studies working papers, 1(1), 3-15.

277. Yin, Ch.P. & Kuo, F.Y. (2013). A study of how information system professionals comprehend indirect and direct speech acts in project communication. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 56(3), 226-241.

278. Zubkova Ya.V. A sign of institutionality in academic discourse // Vestn. Volgograd state university Ser. 2. Linguistics. 2010. No. 2. pp. 84-89. (In Russian)

DICTIONARIES

279. Akhmanova, O.S. (2004). Dictionary of linguistic terms. Moscow: Editorial URSS. 571 p. (in Russian).

280. Baranov, Kh.K. (2001). Arabic-Russian dictionary. Moscow: Valery Kostin publ. 945 p. (In Russian)

281. The «Student Code of Honor» for RUDN University students (RUDN [website]. 2022. URL: https://handbook.rudn.ru/en/about/codecs.html) (accessed: 15.06.2022).

282. Yartseva, V.N., Arutyunova, N.D., Vinogradov, V.A., Gak, V.G., Gamkrelidze, T.V., Dyakonov, I.M., ... & Stepanov, Yu.S. (1990). Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary. Moscow: Soviet Encyclopedia. (In Russian).