Popular scientific text as a result of inter-discourse interaction

Introduction. The key step in outlining the founding characteristics and parameters of popular science discourse (PSD) liesintheanalysisofareasofdirectoverlapbetweendifferent types of discourse, in specifying markers of discourse interaction and their functional specifics in the process of popularization of scientific knowledge. The topicality of the research lies in the clarification of the sociolinguistic parameters of PSD aimed at determining the degree and form of involvement of other types of discourse in the processes of scientific knowledge popularization and the formation of PSD as an independent contaminated type of discourse practice.

Materials and Methods. The sociolinguistic method, which allows exploring the systematic features of institutional discourse practices, served the basis for thorough analysis of C. Sagan’s astronomy PSD. Discourseanalysis was used as a secondary method to study discourse features in various communicative situations.

Analysis. PSD as a hybrid communicative phenomenon is shaped with the focus on the addressee factor, the content and the goal of transmitting scientific knowledge among the majority of the population. As a unique model of special communication, the astronomy PSD reveals an immediate connection with the scientific discourse, with which it  shares  an  identical  communicative  paradigm of interaction between an expert and a non-specialist. The analysis of sociolinguistic parameters has revealed the areas of intersection between the astronomy PSD and the pedagogy and journalism discourses, which suggests its polydiscourse contaminated nature.

Results. Combining elements of scientific, journalistic, pedagogical and other types of discourse, PSD is defined as a result of an interaction of basic institutional discourse parameters, conditioned by the communicative situation. The analysis has revealed linguopragmatic markers of PSD interaction with the scientific, pedagogy and journalism discourse types. The combination of the way of representing cognitive information, communicative strategies of pedagogy discourse and journalistic speech patterns allow us to establish the astronomy PSD as a contaminated type discourse, which rests at the intersection between several discourse types.

1. Bagiyan AY. Essential parameters and fundamental characteristics of the popular science discourse. Vestnik Pyatigorskogo gosudarstvennogo lingvisticheskogo universiteta. 2014;(3):81-86. (In Russ.).

2. Beloglazova EV. On variativity in manifestation of discoursive heterogeneity. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. 2010;(332):15-19. (In Russ.).

3. Bredikhin SN, Serebriakova SV, Likhovid AA. Ways of cognitive information compression in a popular science text. Aktualnyye Problemy Filologii I Pedagogicheskoy Lingvistiki. 2019;(3):139-145. (In Russ.).

4. Graudina LК. Culture of Russian speech. Workbook for universities. Edited by prof. LK Graudina and prof. EN Shiryaeva. Мoscow: NORMA-INFRA Publishing Group; 1998; 550 p. (In Russ.).

5. Glukhov GV, Belyakova OV. Linguistic compression in English service industry texts. Aktual'nye problemy lingvistiki, perevodovedeniya i pedagogiki. 2016;(1(3)):31-36. (In Russ.).

6. Dubskikh АI. Realisation of the communicative strategy of personality self-representation in mass media discourse: based on “star” interviews: thesis. Chelyabinsk; 2014. 225 p. (In Russ.).

7. Issers ОS. Communicative strategies and tactics of Russian speech. Мoscow: Editorial URSS; 2002. 284 p. (In Russ.).

8. Kanashyuk SА. Instructive discourse in IT-corporations: sociolinguistical aspect: thesis. Tomsk; 2012. 227 p. (In Russ.).

9. Karasik VI. Circle of Language: personality, concepts, discourse. Moscow: Gnozis; 2004. 390 p. (In Russ.).

10. Kipiani NА. On author’s “I” in academic discourse. Language in Culture. Translation. Communication: coll. of sci. works. Issue 2. Мoscow: Universitetskaya kniga; 2018. P. 423-426. (In Russ.).

11. Kobozeva МА. Cognitive and communicative strategies of topic introduction in popular science discourse: abstract of thesis. Stavropol, 2011. 25 p. (In Russ.).

12. Kozhina МN, Duskaeva LR, Salimovskiy VA. Stylistics of Russian language. Moscow: FLINTA; Science; 2008. 464 p. (In Russ.).

13. Kuksa IY. Subjective modality in newspaper text (based on publications of M. Gorkiy in the middle of 1890s). Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. 2010;1(11):26-30. (In Russ.).

14. Lazarevich EА. On par with the century. Science popularization in Russia. Book. Newspaper. Magazine. Moscow: Kniga; 1984; 384 p. (In Russ.).

15. Maevskiy NN. Peculiarities of popular scientific style: abstract of thesis. Rostov-on-Don, 1979. 25 p. (In Russ.).

16. Rozental DE. Book of reference of the Russian language. Practical stylistics. Moscow: Onyx; World and Education; 2008. 416 p. (In Russ.).

17. Serebriakova SV, Kibkalo RI. Evaluation as a pragmatically significant marker of the author’s presence in astronomical popular scientific discourse (based on VG. Surdin’s texts). Proceedings of Southern Federal University. Philology. 2024;28(3):72-83. (In Russ.).

18. Tlenkopacheva МN. Basic elements of pedagogical discourse in Current issues of philological sciences: materials of the III Intern. Sci. conference. (Kazan, October 2015). Kazan: Buk, 2015. P. 57-60. (In Russ.).

19. Chernyavskaya VЕ. Interpretation of scientific text. Workbook. 3rd Edition, stereotyped. Мoscow: KomKniga; 2006. 128 p. (In Russ.).

20. Chernyavskaya VЕ. Text linguistics: Polycodivity, Intertextuality, Interdiscursivity. Workbook. Мoscow: LIBROCOM Publishing house; 2009. 248 p. (In Russ.).

21. Sagan C. Cosmos. New York: Random House; 1980. 366 p.