Epistemic markers in Russian academic discourse: A comparative analysis of research articles by Russian and Chinese authors

Chepurnaya Alena Ivanovna ORCID: 0000-0002-3329-0070 PhD in Philology Associate Professor; Department of Foreign Languages; Stavropol State Agrarian University 12 Zootechnicheskiy Lane, Stavropol, Russia, 355017 alena-chep@mail.ru

Introduction

As is known, the language of science, designed to abstractly and generalize verbalize new knowledge, is characterized by a weak representation of subjective modal meanings ^{[1, 2]}. However, as researchers of the modality of a scientific text note, the epistemic assessment of the reliability of an utterance is an important component of the semantic and pragmatic structure of scientific discourse ^{[3, 4, 5, 6]}. More moreover, the epistemic "shift" ^[7] in the modal frame of the statement is due to the very norms of scientific communication ^[8] and allows the author to avoid overly categorical formulations, hedge against possible critical remarks from opponents, strengthen argumentation, express restrained disagreement with the point of view of other researchers, demonstrate respect for pluralism of opinions and professional modesty ^{[4, 8, 9]}.

The important role of reliability assessment of information in scientific communication explains the high interest of scientists in the problem of epistemic modalization of a scientific text and the relevance of addressing it in the framework of this article.

Russian Russian language research The purpose of this study is to identify the national and cultural features of the functioning of epistemic markers in scientific discourse based on a comparative analysis of Russian-language scientific articles written by native Russian speakers and authors for whom Russian is a foreign language. The involvement of works by Chinese authors in the analysis as an empirical material is due to the growth of publications by researchers from China in Russian scientific publications.

The analysis of national peculiarities of the use of epistemic markers in a scientific text is not new for linguistic science in itself. So, in the articles ^{[10, 11]}, the authors presented the results of a comparative study of hedging and functioning of epistemic verbs in English-language articles written by native English speakers, on the one hand, and native Chinese speakers, on the other hand. As a result of the analysis, the authors revealed a tendency for Chinese authors to express a stronger epistemic commitment in comparison with native English speakers ^[10], as well as a lower frequency of epistemic markers in articles by Chinese authors ^[11]. The authors cited the lack of pragmatic competence among Chinese researchers writing articles in a non-native language, as well as socio-cultural factors, namely the national tradition of scientific communication, as possible reasons for these differences. The paper ^[12] presents the conclusions that Chinese authors strive for greater objectivity and use modal markers in a scientific text more carefully than German researchers.

As far as we know, no comparative analysis of the use of epistemic indicators in Russian-language scientific texts written by native speakers of Russian and foreigners has been conducted. However, such studies may have some theoretical and practical significance, in particular, for a deeper understanding of the patterns of constructing a scientific text in Russian and the development of methodological recommendations for foreign authors. The present work is aimed at filling this gap.

We also consider it necessary to argue that there are no clear differences between the terms "scientific discourse" and "scientific text" in this article. As T. P. Tretyakova notes, these terms are not differentiated in the scientific literature on linguistics, due to the fact that in the context of the growing digitalization of communicative processes, including in the field of scientific research, "the linguistic parameters of a scientific text are formed in dynamic interactive, that is, discursive, parameters" ^{[13, p. 98]}. In the framework of this study, we take as a basis the definition of discourse as "a socially determined type of communication, the form of expression of which is texts" ^{[14, p. 522]}. As O. G. Orlova and V. L. Karakchieva rightly point out, "every text is a representative of its own discourse," and therefore, "discourse can be called both the entire text and its part, represented by a sentence or a series of sentences" [Ibid.]. This explains the lack of clear differentiation of the terms under consideration in this work.

Material and methods

For the analysis, 30 scientific articles (15 articles by Russian authors with a total volume of 23,751 words and 15 articles by Chinese authors with a volume of 21,883 words) published in Russian scientific journals from 2023 to 2025 and related to the subject area of Linguistics were selected. Quantitative content analysis of the selected material was carried out using the Voyant Tools web application (https://voyant-tools.org /).

Results

As a result of the analysis, it was found that articles by Russian authors are characterized by a greater variety and higher frequency of epistemic markers than articles by Chinese authors (Table 1). At the same time, attention is drawn to the fact that differences in the functioning of epistemic modality indicators in the two analyzed text bodies relate mainly to markers of problematic reliability, whereas Both the set of means of expressing categorical reliability and their overall frequency (0.101% in the texts of Russian authors and 0.091% in the publications of Chinese authors) do not differ significantly. In both bodies of empirical material, indicators of problematic reliability prevail, which may indicate the desire of both Russian and Chinese authors to avoid overly categorical statements.

Table 1. Frequency of means of expressing epistemic assessment in articles by Russian and Chinese authors

Taking into account the typology proposed by us in ^[15], the markers of categorical reliability identified in the course of this study can be divided into the following groups:

1. introductory words that emphasize the author's confidence in the authenticity of the statement based on the natural nature of things and normative ideas about the world (naturally, of course) or suggesting the absence of conditions and doubts about the reliability of what is being reported (certainly, undoubtedly);
2. adverbs expressing confidence based on directly observable signs (explicitly), or emphasizing the factual status of a proposition (actually);
3. the main part of a compound sentence with an explanatory subordinate clause, in which the epistemic adverb acts as the core of the modal meaning (it is obvious that);
4. noun fact;
5. the adjective is explicit (found only in the corpus of texts by Chinese authors).

It should be noted that in the articles of Russian authors, the most frequent means of expressing categorical certainty are introductory words, followed by the noun fact, followed by the main part of a compound sentence with a subordinate explanatory and adverbs with the meaning of confidence. In the texts of Chinese authors, preference is given to adverbs and the adjective explicit, introductory words and the main part of a compound sentence are in second place in frequency, and the noun fact is in third place.

The means of expressing problematic authenticity include 7 groups, four of which are common to both bodies of articles, two are found only in publications by Russian authors, and one was identified only in the works of Chinese researchers.:

1. introductory words with semantics of assumption (it seems, apparently, apparently), possibility (maybe, probably, maybe) or probability (probably, obviously);
2. The modal operator can be combined with the infinitive verb of a mental (assume, conclude, consider, etc.) or speech (say, name, assert, etc.) activity.;
3. confusing verbs that reduce the categoricality of an utterance and formalize a proposition as an opinion or assumption (we believe, we believe, it seems, it seems);
4. the verb to be able, expressing the meaning of possibility in epistemic use (could, could);
5. noun opinion (only in the corpus of articles by Russian authors);
6. introductory constructions indicating that the content of the utterance belongs to the author's mental world, representing a prepositional-nominal turn (in our opinion) or a construction with a verb form (as far as we know) (identified only in publications by Russian authors);
7. rather, the word indicates the author's comparison of several alternative options and the choice in favor of one of them as more likely (found only in the texts of Chinese authors).

Among the differences in the functioning of the modal indicators of problematic reliability, it should be noted, firstly, the higher frequency of markers in the works of Russian authors (0.328% compared with 0.233% in the articles of Chinese authors), and secondly, the greater lexical and structural diversity of markers used by Russian researchers.

Introductory words are the most frequent in the corpus of empirical material by Russian authors. The second place is occupied by combinations of the modal operator, possibly with the infinitive of the verb, while in the articles of Russian authors there is a greater variety of verb forms used in such combinations, in comparison with the publications of Chinese authors. The third place in terms of the number of entries in the corpus of articles by Russian researchers is shared by confusing verbs and introductory constructions indicating that the content of the utterance belongs to the mental world of the author. Constructions with the verb to be able and the noun opinion turned out to be the least frequent.

Of the identified markers of problematic reliability in the articles of Chinese authors, constructions such as "it is possible in combination with the infinitive verb of mental and speech activity" are leading. The second place with an equal percentage belongs to introductory words and confusing verb forms, and the third and fourth places in terms of frequency are the word rather and the verb can, respectively.

The conducted research has shown that in the publications of Russian authors, constructions explicating the author's "I" are more common. Four types of such markers have been identified: a prepositional noun construction with the possessive pronoun our (in our opinion), verbs in the first person plural form (we believe, we believe, we suspect), a combination of an infinitive with a modal verb in the first person plural form (we can assume), as well as an introductory turn expressed by a personal pronoun we are combined with an epistemic verb (as far as we know). In the corpus of texts written by Chinese authors, only one type of such constructions has been identified, namely verbs in the first person plural form (assume, assume, count).

A notable feature of the functioning of epistemic markers in the scientific texts of Chinese authors is a fairly wide representation of modal means, in the semantic structure of which there is a perceptual component. Such lexical units are characterized by high frequency both in the group of indicators of categorical reliability (explicit, explicit, obvious) and among the markers of problematic reliability (it seems to be seen, apparently, apparently). A distinctive feature of the use of epistemic modality tools by Russian authors is the predominance of introductory words over other structural types of modal constructions expressing both categorical and problematic validity.

Conclusion

The conducted research has shown that the functioning of epistemic assessment markers in Russian-language scientific articles prepared by native Russian authors and foreign authors whose native language is Chinese is characterized by a number of differences. In scientific texts written by native speakers of Russian, indicators of problematic reliability are more frequent and have greater lexical and structural diversity. In the publications of Russian authors, modal means explicating the author's "I" are more common (verbs in the first person plural, pronouns we and our). At the same time, the differences in the use of indicators of categorical reliability in the analyzed scientific publications do not seem significant.

The revealed discrepancies in the functioning of markers of epistemic modality allow us to conclude about the influence of the national tradition of scientific communication on the preparation of scientific papers in a foreign language. The desire for an objective presentation of scientific knowledge without the direct manifestation of the author's "I", inherent in Chinese scientific discourse, is reflected in the writing of scientific articles by Chinese authors in foreign languages. The results obtained in the framework of this study are generally consistent with the results of previous studies, the subject of which was the national and cultural peculiarities of the use of epistemic markers in scientific texts by Chinese authors.

The article is published in the version approved by the reviewers (after receiving a positive review recommending the manuscript for publication) with corrections made by the author (after receiving the editor’s comments, if any).
Read all reviews on this article