Strategies of criticism and disapproval in the academic administrative discourse
Abstract
This article addresses the problem of communicative strategies for conveying criticism and disapproval in statements of appellative genre issued by presidents of American and British top universities. We claim that discursive representation of university chief leaders who are critically evaluating government decisions and incidents forms a linguistic and sociocultural communicative genre system with a set of effective rhetoric and communicative means. In academic administrative discourse, statements of appellative genre are characterized by dynamic application of positive and negative politeness strategies and regular reproduction of value-centered arguments, which update the system of values of the American and British academic communities. Discursive behavior of university chief academic administrators contains the rhetoric that appeals to logic, addressee’s emotions (pathos) and is based on the arguments to ethos, combining this with lexical and stylistic means that ‘threaten’ addressee’ face. Speakers use strategic tautology to increase the significance of the value system of an academic community. The concepts, themes, tasks, and tactical means, identified in the appellative statements of university leaders, contribute to the formation of the concept sphere of American and British academic communities. The results of this present study detail discursive and genre characteristics of the administrative academic discourse and the strategies of conflict (disapproving) discourse in particular. Communicative behavior of university leaders determined, on the one hand, by the value system and, on the other, by strategic aims of communication, can serve as a model of leadership communication and a resource for improving the competence of modern academic leaders.
Downloads
References
Bawarshi, A. S., & Reiff, M. J. (2010). Genre: An introduction to history, theory, research, and pedagogy. West Lafayette, Indiana: Parlor Press.
Brandebury, A. R. (2015). Speaking to value: A content analysis of state of the university speeches. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana State University, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bryman, A. (2007). Effective leadership in higher education: A literature review. Studies in Higher Education, 32(6), 693-710. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070701685114
Dijk, T.A., van. (1981). Discourse studies and education. Applied Linguistics, II(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/II.1.1
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.
Govorukha, N. (2009). Strategicheskiye aspekty upotrebleniya tavtologicheskikh vyskazyvaniy v dialoskom diskurse) Diskursologíya í língvístika tekstu. [Srategic aspects of tautology usage in dialogue discourse. Discoursology and linguistics of the text]. Visnyk Kharkivskoho natsionalnoho universytetu imeni V. N. Karazina, 848, 110-113.
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, 3: Speech Acts (pp. 41–58). New York, NY: Academic Press, Retrieved from https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ls/studypacks/Grice-Logic.pdf
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations of sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Jucker, A., & Taavitsainen, I. (Eds.) (2020). Manners, norms and transgressions in the history of English: Literary and linguistic approaches [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 312]. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.312
Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges. A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0x0010nv
LaMagdeleine, D. R., Maxcy, B. D., Pounder, D. G., & Reed, C. J. (2009). The context of university-based educational leadership preparation. In M. D. Young, G. M. Crow, J. Murphy, & R. T. Ogawa (Eds.), Handbook of research on the education of school leaders (pp. 129-156). New York, NY: Routledge.
Leech G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London, New York: Longman.
Meyer, E. (2014). The culture map: Breaking through the invisible boundaries of global business. New York, NY: Public Affairs.
Miller, C. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151-167.
Molodcha, N. S. (2021). Administrativno-akademicheskii diskurs i yego zhanrovyye osobennosti (na materiale publichnykh vustupleniy rukovoditeley amerikanskikh I britanskikh vuzov) [Administrative and academic discourse and its genre peculiarities (based on the official statements of the leading American and British university leaders). Sovremennye podkhody k metodologii lingvisticheskikh i linguodidakticheskikh issledovaniy (pp. 62–93). Kharkov: People’s Ukrainian Academy. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5047832
Molodcha, N., Khilkovska, A. (2022). Yazykovye sredstva vyrazhenyya krytyky v kommunykatsyy lyderov akademycheskykh soobshchestv [Language means of expressing criticism in the communication of academic community leaders]. Tezy dopovidey KHXI naukovoyi konferentsiyi z mizhnarodnoyu uchastyu “Karazinsʹki chytannya: Lyudyna. Mova. Komunikatsiya” (pp. 46-48). Kharkiv: V. N. Karazin Kharkiv national university. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/natal/Downloads/1643824169651651.pdf
Nagy, E. (2014, August 4). Drew Gilpin Faust has attacked Harvard’s diversity problem. Fast Company Newsletters. Retrieved from https://www.fastcompany.com/3031331/drew-gilpin-faust
Partch, J. J., & Kinnier, R. T. (2011). Values and messages conveyed in college commencement speeches. Current Psychology, 30(1), 81-92. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-011-9101-6
Pocheptsov, G. (1986). Osnovy pragmaticheskogo opisaniya predlozheniya [Foundations of pragmatic description of the sentence]. Кyiv: Vyssha shkola.
Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, Speech Acts (pp. 59-82). New York: Academic Press.
Shevchenko, I., Alexandrova, D., & Gutorov, V. (2021). Impoliteness in parliamentary discourse: a cognitive-pragmatic and sociocultural approach. Cognition, communication, discourse, 22, 77-94. http://doi.org/10.26565/2218-2926-2021-22-05
Shevchenko, I., & Gutorov, V. (2019). A cognitive-pragmatic perspective on apologies in English and Ukrainian discourse. Lege artis. Language yesterday, today, tomorrow. The journal of University of SS Cyril and Methodius in Trnava, IV(2), 301-341. Retrieved from https://lartis.sk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/ShevchenkoGutorov_Issue-2_2019.pdf
Sifianou, M., & Blitvich, P. G.-C. (2019). Im/politeness and discursive pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 91-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.03.015
Tarasova, O. (2020). Sinergetika i nauka o yazyke: kontseptsii i printsipy sinergetiki v lingvisticheskikh issledovaniyakh, provodimykh v KHGU «NUA» [Synergistics and science about the language: concepts and principles of synergistics in language studies held in People’s Ukrainian academy]. Vcheni zapiski HGU NUA, 25, 302-314. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3707942
Copyright (c) 2022 Natalia Molodcha, Asya Khilkovska
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors, who publish with this journal, accept the following conditions:
The authors reserve the copyright of their work and transfer to the journal the right of the first publication of this work under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Non-Derivs License (CC BY-NC-ND), which allows other persons to freely distribute a published work with mandatory reference to the authors of the original work and the first publication of the work in this journal.
Authors have the right to enter into separate additional agreements for the non-exclusive dissemination of the work in the form in which it was published by this journal (for example, to post the work in the electronic institutions' repository or to publish as part of a monograph), provided that the link to the first publication of the work in this journal is given.
The journal policy allows and encourages the authors to place the manuscripts on the Internet (for example, in the institutions' repositories or on personal websites), both before the presentation of this manuscript to the editorial board and during review procedure, as it contributes to the creation of productive scientific discussion and positively affects the efficiency and dynamics of citing the published work (see The Effect of Open Access).
