摘要：The paper examines some limits of the introduction of SFL-based CLIL approach in non-western sociological doctoral programmes. The author is focusing specifically on pragmatic markers as tools for the structuring of science written discourse and using this approach to identify the differences between Russian and English academic genres. Data was collected from doctoral theses in Russian and in English from the field of sociology of management. It is shown that the average number of pragmatic markers at 1000 words-3.81 in Russian theses and 2.27 in doctoral theses written in English. The author suggests that these variations are associated with the structure and goals of a scholarly paper. English academic genres are more empirical, whereas Russian focused on the development of theory.
其他摘要：The paper examines some limits of the introduction of SFL-based CLIL approach in non-western sociological doctoral programmes. The author is focusing specifically on pragmatic markers as tools for the structuring of science written discourse and using this approach to identify the differences between Russian and English academic genres. Data was collected from doctoral theses in Russian and in English from the field of sociology of management. It is shown that the average number of pragmatic markers at 1000 words-3.81 in Russian theses and 2.27 in doctoral theses written in English. The author suggests that these variations are associated with the structure and goals of a scholarly paper. English academic genres are more empirical, whereas Russian focused on the development of theory.
关键词：Ethnolinguistics;Contrastive analysis;Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL); Discourse markers;Doctoral theses
