For citation:
Volkova Y. А., Panchenko N. N. The boundaries of (anti-)politeness in the speech genre of scientific review. Speech Genres, 2025, vol. 20, iss. 3 (47), pp. 254-264. DOI: 10.18500/2311-0740-2025-20-3-47-254-264, EDN: LFZGOJ
The boundaries of (anti-)politeness in the speech genre of scientific review
The article examines scholarly reviews in terms of communicative categories of politeness and antipoliteness, as well as the strategies associated with them. It offers a generalized description of the scholarly review as a speech genre, highlighting key parameters for analyzing (anti-)politeness: the roles of participants, communicative-pragmatic relations between them, and the conflict potential inherent in the critical evaluation of another scholar’s work. The authors propose adapting G. Leech’s maxims, which align with the communicative category of politeness, to the genre of scientific reviews and introduce five specific principles: the maxim of constructive criticism, the maxim of academic respect, the maxim of impartiality, the maxim of scholarly dialogue, and the maxim of academic support. Through the analysis of empirical data, four primary antipoliteness strategies in scientific reviews are identified: direct discrediting of the reviewed work, undermining the author’s status, destructive rhetoric, and formal discrediting. The study concludes that the boundary between politeness and anti-politeness in scholarly reviews is not rigid but rather represents a continuum influenced by factors such as genre conventions and norms, the constructiveness or destructiveness of criticism, the reviewer’s intent, and the emotional tone of the review.
- Bakhtin M. M. Estetika slovesnogo tvorchestva [Aesthetics of verbal creativity]. Moscow, Iskusstvo, 1979. 423 p. (in Russian).
- Brown P., Levinson S. C. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1987. 310 p.
- Dementyev V. V. Anonymous review-rejection in a scientific journal. In: Dementyev V. V. Integral description of speech genres. Saratov, Saratov State University Publ., 2024, pp. 142–161 (in Russian).
- Grajs G. P. Logic and speech communication. New in Foreign Linguistics, 1985, iss. XVI, pp. 217–238 (in Russian).
- Homutova T. N., Kravtsova E. V. Scientific review: An integral approach. Language and Culture, 2014, no. 1 (25), pp. 70–76 (in Russian).
- Larina T. V. Emotions and politeness in the style of an anonymous scientific review. In: The Present and Future of Stylistics: Coll. of sci. arts of the intern. sci. conf. (Moscow, May 13–14, 2019). Moscow, Flinta, 2019, pp. 387–394 (in Russian).
- Leech G. An anatomy of politeness in communication. International Journal of Pragmatics, 2003, vol. 14, pp. 101–123.
- Leech G. Pragmatics and dialogue. In: Mitkov R., ed. The Oxford handbook of computational linguistics. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 136–156.
- Mikhajlova E. V. Intertextuality in Scientific Discourse (Based on Articles). Thesis Diss. Cand. Sci. (Philol.). Volgograd, 1999. 205 p. (in Russian).
- Nikitina L. B., Malyshkin K. Yu. The speech genre of a scientific review: A view at the assessment assertiveness. Speech Genres, 2015, no. 2 (12), pp. 72–79 (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.18500/2311-0740-2015-212-72-79
- Nikolaev A. M. Representation of the semantic structure of a scientific review in the form of a frame. Proceedings of Tula State University. Humanities, 2014, no. 3, pp. 220–228 (in Russian).
- Nikolaev A. M. Scientific review as a specific genre of scientific discourse. Proceedings of Tula State University. Humanities, 2014, no. 3, pp. 228–235 (in Russian).
- Viktorova E. Yu. Article hedges vs boosters: Communicative mitigation and enhancement in the genre of dissertation review. Speech Genres, 2023, vol. 18, iss. 2 (38), pp. 126–131 (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.18500/2311-0740-2023-18-2-38-126-131, EDN: ZRZDAG