This article discusses the issue of the linguistic modelling of scientific communication
in the “Linguistics” area of expertise. The author analyses, with evidence from Germanlanguage monographs and articles, the frequency indices of split-level linguistic means that are prototypically constitutive / taboo for linguistic discourse. With due consideration of wide-range explicit and implicit devices, the operability of the classical triad of general maxims of scientific communication (“prohibition of authorisation” / “das IchVerbot”; “narrative prohibition” / “das Erzähl-Verbot”; “prohibition of metaphors” / “das Metaphern-Verbot”) is specified for scientific texts in theoretical linguistics. These maxims have been observed during a study of the language of natural sciences. The issue of introducing the notion of “special-purpose maxims of scientific communication” is raised, as well as another issue, of extending the list of general scientific maxims with regard to the humanitarian knowledge transfer in general and theoretical knowledge of the language in particular.
linguistic discourse.
References
1. Katsnel‘son S. T. Tipologiya yazyka i rechevoe myshlenie. L.: Nauka, 1972.
2. Kibrik A. A. Modus, zhanr i drugie parametry klassifikatsii diskursov // Voprosy yazykoznaniya. 2009. № 2. S. 3–21.
3. Kozhina M. N. Nauchnyi stil‘ // Stilisticheskiy entsiklopedicheskiy slovar‘ russkogo yazyka / pod red. M. N. Kozhinoy. 2-oe izd., ispr. i dop. M.: Flinta; Nauka, 2006. S. 243–244.
4. Nefedov S. T. Implitsitnaya avtorizovannost‘ nauchnogo teksta // Nauchnoe mnenie: nauchnyi zhurnal / Sankt-Peterburgskiy universitetskiy konsortsium. SPb., 2013. № 10. S. 51–57.
5. Boyd R. Metaphor and theory change: what is “metaphor” a metaphor for? // Ortony A. (ed.). Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Press, 1993. P. 481–553.
6. Chafe W. Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature // Tannen D. (ed.) Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy. Norwood, 1982.
7. Graefen G. Der wissenschaftlich Artikel – Textart und Textorganisation. Frankfurt a/M; Berlin; Bern; New York; Paris; Wien: Peter Lang, 1997.
8. Grice H. P. Logic and Conversation // Cole P., Morgan J. (eds.). Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 3. New York, 1975. P. 41–58.
9. Knudsen S. Scientific metaphors going public // Journal of Pragmatics. Vol. 35. P. 1247–1263.
10. Myers G. The pragmatic of politeness in scientific article // Applied linguistics. Vol. 10. 1989. P. 1-35.
11. Riesel E., Schendels E. Deutsche Stilistik. M.: Verlag Hochschule, 1975. S. 113–118.
12. Weinrich H. Formen der Wissenschaftssprache // Jahrbuch 1988 der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. 1989. S. 119–158.
13. Weinrich H. Sprache und Wissenschaft // Kretzenbacher H. L., Weinrich H. (Hrsg.). Linguistik der Wissenschaftssprache. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 1994. S. 3–14.
14. Weinrich H. Sprache, das heißt Sprachen. 3., ergänz. Auflage. Tübingen: Narr, 2006.
