KONTRASTIVNO ISTRAŽIVANJE INTERAKCIONIH METADISKURSNIH MARKERA U ARAPSKIM I SRPSKIM APSTRAKTIMA NAUČNIH RADOVA

Lipar 86 (2025) (str.57-70)

AUTOR(I) / AUTHOR(S): Nikola Z. Lazović

Download Full Pdf   

DOI: 10.46793/LIPAR86.057L

SAŽETAK / ABSTRACT:

Cilj ovog rada je da pokaže sličnosti i razlike u upotrebi interakcionih metadiskursnih markera u apstraktima naučnih radova na arapskom i srpskom jeziku. U istraživanju je primenjen Hajlandov (2005) interpersonalni model metadiskursa, te su utvrđene kategorije interakcionih metadiskursnih markera: markeri ograđivanja, markeri pojačavanja, markeri stava, markeri angažovanja i markeri ličnog upućivanja. Zatim smo uporedili upotrebu ovih markera na kvantitativnom i kvalitativnom nivou. Rezultati istraživanja su pokazali da arapski autori koriste više interakcionih metadiskursnih markera u svim kategorijama osim markera stava. Analiziran je i upoređen način na koji arapski i srpski autori uključuju čitaoca u tekst i izražavaju svoj stav prema iskazu u tekstu apstrakta naučnog rada.

KLJUČNE REČI / KEYWORDS:

metadiskurs, apstrakt naučnog rada, arapski jezik, srpski jezik, kontrastivna analiza, akademski diskurs

LITERATURA / REFERENCES:

Izvori
Literatura
  • Abdul Raof 2006: H. Abdul-Raof, Arabic rhetoric: A pragmatic analysis, New York: Routledge.
  • Almakrob 2023: A. Y. Almakrob, How do Arab Writers Interact With Their Readers? An Analysis of the Use of Metadiscourse Markers, Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 13(6), 1591–1600.
  • Alotaibi 2015: H. Alotaibi, Metadiscourse in Arabic and English research article abstracts, World Journal of English Language, 5(2), 1‒8.
  • Alotaibi 2016: H. Alotaibi, Comparison of metadiscourse markers in Arabic and English research articles in the introduction and conclusion sections, The Linguistics Journal, 10(1), 182–202.
  • Alharbi, Svejlz 2011: L. M. Alharbi, J. M. Swales, Arabic and English abstracts in bilingual language science journals: Same or different?, Languages in Contrast, 11(1), 70–86.
  • Alhukbani 2015: M. N. Alhuqbani, A cross-linguistic and cultural analysis of structure moves in Arabic and English police and security research article abstracts, Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 35, 1‒54.
  • Andrušenko 2015: A. Andrusenko, A contrastive analysis of Spanish-Arabic metadiscourse use in persuasive academic writing, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 178, 9‒14.
  • ANSI 1979: American National Standards Institute, The American National Standard for Writing Abstracts, New York: ANSI Publications.
  • Blagojević 2008: S. Blagojević, Metadiskurs u akademskom diskursu, Niš: Filozofski fakultet.
  • Vande Kopl 1985: W. Vande Kopple, Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse, College Composition and Communication, 36, 82–93.
  • Vučićević, Rakić 2020: A. L. Vučićević, A. D. Rakić, Textual metadiscourse in academic book reviews in Serbian and English, Priština: Zbornik radova Filozofskog fakulteta, 50(3), Priština, 269‒292.
  • Đorđević 2017: D. Đorđević, Ograde u naučnim radovima na engleskom i srpskom jeziku, (doktorska disertacija), Beograd: Filološki fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu.
  • Đorđević, Vesić Pavlović 2020: D. Đorđević, T. Vesić Pavlović, Metadiskursni markeri u kontekstu sažetaka naučnih radova iz poljoprivredne tehnike, u: V. Lopičić, B. Mišić (ured.), Jezik, književnost, kontekst, Niš: Filozofski fakultet, 303‒317.
  • El Dahs 2020: D. A. S. El-Dakhs, Are Arabic and English Research Article Abstracts Different? Rhetorical Structure & Interaction in Focus, The Asian ESP Journal, 16(5.1), 6‒32.
  • Zaki 2022: M. Zaki, The metadiscourse of Arabic academic abstracts: A corpusbased study, Research in Corpus Linguistics, 10(2), 113–146.
  • Katalinić-Udovčić 1979: P. Katalinić-Udovčić, Naučni funkcionalni stil, Zagreb: Strani jezici, 8(1–2), Zagreb, 74–82.
  • Klikovac 2008: D. Klikovac, Jezik i moć – Ogledi iz sociolingvistike i stilistike, Beograd: Biblioteka XX vek.
  • Krismor i dr. 1993: A. Crismore et al., Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students, Written Communication, 10(1), 39–71.
  • Lazović 2024: N. Lazović, Interaktivni metadiskursni markeri u arapskim i srpskim apstraktima naučnih radova – kontrastivna analiza, u: M. Kovačević, J. Petković (ured.), Savremena proučavanja jezika i književnosti: Zbornik radova sa XV naučnog skupa mladih filologa Srbije, održanog 1. aprila 2023. godine na Filološko-umetničkom fakultetu u Kragujevcu. Knj. 1, Kragujevac: Filološkoumetnički fakultet, 113–122.
  • Mirović i Bogdanović 2016: I. Mirović, V. Bogdanović, Use of metadiscourse in research articles written in L1 and L2 by the same authors, in: S. Plane, C. Bazerman,
  1. Rondelli, C. Donahue, A. N. Applebee, C. Bore … D. Russell (Eds.), Recherches en écritures: Regardspluriels. Recherches Textuelles, No. 13, Metz: Université de Lorraine, 435–456.
  • Mitrofanova 1979: O. D. Mitrofanova, Jezik znanstveno-tehničke literature, Zagreb: Strani jezici, 8(1–2), Zagreb, 68–73.
  • Sultan 2011: A. Sultan, A contrastive study of metadiscourse in English and Arabic linguistics research articles, Acta Linguistica, 5(1), 28–41.
  • Tošović 2002: B. Tošović, Funkcionalni stilovi, Beograd: Beogradska knjiga.
  • Hajland 2000: K. Hyland, Disciplinary discourses: social interactions in academic writing, London and New York: Pearson Education (Longman).
  • Hajland 2005: K. Hyland, Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing, London: Continuum.
  • Hakin 2006: T. Huckin, Abstracting from abstracts, in: Hewings M. (ed.), Academic Writing in Context: Implications and Applications, Birmingham: Birmingham University Press, 93–103.