CC BY
36
List of References
1. Beaugrande, R. de Cognition, Communication, Translation, Instruction. The Geopolitics of Discourse [Text] / R. de Beaugrande // Language, Discourse and Translation in the West and Middle East; ed. by R de Beaugrande, A Shunnaq and M. H. Helief. - Amsterdam; Philadelphia : John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1994.- P. 1-22.
2. Crystal, D. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language [Text] / D. Crystal. -Second edition. - Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1997. -487 p.
3. Donaldson, T. Values in Tension: Ethics Away from Home [Text] / T. Donaldson // Harvard Business Review. - 1996. - V. 74. - № 5. - P. 48-62.
4. Fairbanks, M. Changing the Mind of a Nation: Elements in a Process for Creating Prosperity [Text] / M. Fairbanks // Culture Matters: how values shape human progress; ed. by L. E. Harrison, S. P. Huntington. - New York : Basic Books, 2000. - P. 268-281.
5. Kohls, L. R. Developing intercultural awareness: a cross-cultural training book [Text] / L. R. Kohls, J. M. Knight. - Yarmouth : Intercultural Press, Inc., 1994.-283 p.
6. Macionis, J. J. Society. The Basics [Text] / J. J. Macionis. -6th ed. - New Jersey : Prentice Hall, 2002. -515 p.
7. Powell, J. Why Am I Afraid to Tell You Who I Am. Insights into Personal Growth [Text] / J. Powell. -Allen, Texas : Tabor Publishing, 1969. - 198 p.
8. Казыдуб, Н. Н. Аксиологические системы в языке и речи [Текст] / Н. Н. Казыдуб // Вестник Иркутского государственного лингвистического университета. - 2009. - № 2 (6). - С. 132-137.
Тюрнева Татьяна Викторовна
Кандидат филологических наук, доцент кафедры английского языка 2-ая специальность ФГБОУ ВПО «ИГЛУ», Иркутск, Россия
УДК 81 ББК 81.432.1
ФЕНОМЕНОЛОГИЯ Э. ГУССЕРЛЯ КАК ОСНОВА КОГНИТИВНОГО ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ МАНИПУЛЯЦИИ И СТОЛКНОВЕНИЯ
ИНТЕРПРЕТАНТ ЧЕРЕЗ ОНТОПСИХОЛОГИЧЕСКУЮ ПРИЗМУ
Дискурс различий может наблюдаться в любой исторический период, однако именно в современную эпоху постмодерна эта дискурсивная практика наиболее распространена. Отсутствие единого вектора интерпретации приводит к появлению индивидуальных контекстов интерпретации знаков, которые зиждутся на личном опыте интеракции индивида со знаками какой-либо семиосферы. Более того, подобный хаос интерпретаций послужил отправной точкой к началу процесса симулякризации ключевых знаков культуры.
Ключевые слова: Дискурс Различий; концепт; феноменология; опыт; интерпретация; онтопсихология.
E. HUSSERL’S PHENOMENOLOGY AS A BASIS FOR A COGNITIVE RESEARCH OF MISUNDERSTANDING AND MANIPULATING THROUGH
THE ONTOPSYCHOLOGICAL PRISM
The discourse of differences can appear in any historical period including contemporary postmodern era where one observes significantly different opinions and lack of a single interpretative vector, which probably leads to the beginning of simulacrum development and clashes. Moreover, the discourse of differences is closely connected to a phenomenological component that is based on the subjective cognition of being.
Key words: ontopsyhology; discourse of differences; concept; phenomenology; experience; interpretation.
From the time of ancient thinkers, people have been trying to find the truth, which sometimes comes as a result of a dispute. Individual or mass confrontation of opinions is a process that is largely similar to the military actions that can or, to put it more correctly, may result in a certain ending: we observe either the reconciliation of opinions or conversely the development of entire misunderstanding. I strongly believe that individual interpreting of the concepts is based on the phenomenology and connected with ontopsychological approach to the cognition process as ontopsychology, which is the study of mental processes in their primary relevance, including an understanding of being. So, on the one hand, this study belongs to the humanistic and existential psychology, which examines the identity in the context of the life and on the other hand I will try to present the process of human cognition in the frames of modern linguistic paradigm.
It is supposed that modern science needs a term which can definitely describe the opposition of personal points of view with a certain ontopsychological basis. Such term was given by professor A. Kaplunenko who describes “the beginning of the movement to the universal” and defines is as a discourse of differences. [Kaplunenko, 2007, p. 117]. It is a mistake to believe that discourse of differences is characterized by chaos of opinions and lack of rational core, on the contrary the participants definitely understand the main essence of the dispute, but they deny their opponents’ points of view. The ability to overcome dialectically the differences is inferior in this case to the wish to focus the audience’s attention on one’s position.
Discourse of differences can appear in any historical period, including contemporary postmodern era, where divisions of opinion and lack of a single interpretative vector (interpretation, conceptualization relations character / object in a subsequent sign [Peirce, 2000, p. 93]), which probably served as the starting point to the beginning of the process of simulacrum development.
Due to the fact that the discourse of differences is connected both to the phenomenon of intentionality and to a phenomenological component (“individual contexts of interpretation or internal time Ego”) different opinions arise because of the subjective cognition of being. Thus, the phenomenological value appears to us as an individual interpretation of signs, which is not based on the collective experience, but on the personal experience of the individual interaction with the signs of a
semiosphere. In this practice a concept is presented as a certain sense that a person operates in the process of thinking and that reflects his experience, knowledge, and the results of one’s operations and processes of understanding the world in the form of some “quanta of knowledge” [Hintikka, 1989, p. 90-92]. Within the discourse of differences “man” is not that of commonality, but he is individual, having opinions and judgments, which are based on the subjective perception of life, experience and intuition gained previously.
Speaking of intuition Husserl distinguishes above all, experience and intuitive acts, which are empirical or real objects and ideative acts of intuition - objects that are not real, therefore, it refers to the idea or concept. He writes: “The epoche can also be said to be the radical and universal method by which I apprehend myself purely: as Ego, and with my own pure conscious life, in and by which the entire Objective world exists for me and is precisely as it is for me. Anything belonging to the world, any spatiotemporal being, exists for me — that is to say, is accepted by me — in that I experience it, perceive it, remember it, think of it somehow, judge about it, value it, desire it, or the like. Descartes, as we know, indicated all that by the name cogito. The world is for me absolutely nothing else but the world existing for and accepted by me in such a conscious cogito” [Husserl, 1998].
Intentional experience is the essence of experienced subject, so the mind and its object form an individual unity made in pure feelings. Such unity includes the original experience and consciousness which is based, according to Husserl, on the sensory experience or sensory perception. Thus, we live in the acts, which become acts of cognition only post factum. Life in the acts or in other words experience can be defined as bodily movement and perception, creating a syncretic (non-shared) image of the world that people are always interested in and even captured. As a result experience is the source of idea creation, because the individual is focused on the idea inside and outside of a human being. Russell also wrote that a person gains knowledge through experience that we can characterize as an individual’s cognitive context of interpreting [Russell, 1940].
In the phenomenology of Husserl universe of experiences making up the real existential content of the transcendental Ego, accommodates all these experiences only in a universal form of a single stream, which all of the separate individual experiences are subject to. The continuity of the internal time is also a prerequisite for every experience. In other words, the experience has “its own time”. Inner experience and time lead to the appearance of pure idea which later being thought over becomes apparent to our consciousness, the idea moves away from its original transcendence, and at this point it is possible to pass it through a semiotic system.
Returning to the language system, it can be assumed that the cause of the subjective nature of the concept is these phenomenological events, described in details by E. Husserl. Concept forms the discourse of differences, as it has a phenomenological nature1. The latter leads to individual interpretations based on the
1 For more detailed research see: Tyurneva T.V., On the question of the concept nature as the main cognitive unit in the discourse of difference [Electronic resource] / T.V. Tyurneva // Magister Dixit:
77
experience and existing knowledge. The contradiction of members’ opinions results in different perceptions and understanding of concepts leading to the semiotic entities development.
As an example of such a discourse one can take various descriptions of the same phenomenon, different views about what should be considered as a determinacy. It is assumed that the concepts are conceived and experienced differently organizing the discursive practice of differences: “People do not understand each other ...by mutually occasioning each other (“sich gegenseitig bestimmen”) to produce exactly the same concept, they do it by touching in each other the same link in the chain of their sensory ideas and internal conceptualizations, by striking the same note on their mental instruments whereupon matching but not identical concepts are engendered in each” [Humboldt, 1903-36, 160-170 p.].
Examples supporting the thesis of the different character of the interpretation of the concept can be easily found. The concept EVIL is interpreted by representatives of different social groups based solely on one’s personal previous experience, on the basis of the participants’ value system and the intentional horizon. EVIL concept is defined as ignorance, taxes, drought, cruel master, etc. - All of these definitions in the light of individual interpretation (based on the certain ontopsychological perception) lead to a clash of opposites in terms of communication, where participants of discourse will be for example a pawnbroker or a scholar. The notion of "evil" unites all participants due to the capacity to overcome differences, each member of the discourse is aware that the "evil" has a negative connotation, but this negative characteristic is fixed on the corresponding interval mental space of communicators, often coinciding with conceptual features of the other participants of discourse.
Individual interpretation leads toward different clashes which are based on the opposite opinions what this or that concept is. I am quite confident that ontopsychology has to focus attention on the problem of misunderstanding which has taken its theoretical roots in phenomenology of E. Husserl and developed by linguists as language reflects human’s thoughts and intentions.
Moreover, the concept may become a means of manipulating in a particular expert discourse and actually it is often does. Let us analyze it on several examples. “Quality” is the category that expresses the collection of substantial features and characteristics that distinguish one object or event from others and give it a certainty. The quality of an object or phenomenon, as a rule, is not reducible to its individual properties. It is connected with the subject covering it completely, and inseparable from it, so the concept of quality is associated with the existence of the subject. It is a particular property, characteristic or feature that defines the dignity of any subject or phenomenon.
Let us turn to the analysis of the content of the dictionary definitions: «a characteristic, property, attribute; character or nature; high grade or superiority» [RHDEL]; «how good or bad smth is; high standard or level» [OWD]; «high standard or degree» [LDCE]. From the definitions it is clear that the quality can be understood
electronic scientific and pedagogical journal of Eastern Siberia. - №4. - 2012. - URL: http://md.islu.ru/sites/md.islu.ru/files/rar/statya tyurneva.pdf
78
as a differentiating characteristic and a high level of something. In expert discursive community educators this reprezentamen —quality of education” has two interpretants1, vectors are not diametrically opposed, but rather, are a logical continuation of each other.
Thus, the vector of the interpretant «characteristic of education» interpretant can move in «high level of education», which is consistent with the content of the dictionary definitions and is not a prerequisite to the emergence of multiple interpretations. In conditions of real communication the members of expert discourse do not appeal to indicated meanings. Vector of interpretation is directed by the "wrong way", which is one of the technologies of the manipulative influence of operating simulacra signs.
In fact reprezentamen “quality of education” (quality of education) is interpreted as something competitive and attractive: quality of education ^ international attractiveness and competitiveness. Volume of the interpretation of “high level of education” is extended so much that the core of content is difficult to detect, this increase is a characteristic of simulacra, since the source term has nothing in common with the final interpretation, and this stage of the manipulation is shown in Fig. 2 with the dotted line.
In the discourse of experts identified a simulacrum, which indicates the presence of hidden intentions of the addressee. Handling mechanism in this case is the involvement of the recipient in a pseudo-expert discourse, the formation false representation of terms and their definitions to the interlocutor. Such mechanisms can control the location of the recipient through the necessary, beneficial interpretations in the relevant segment of the mental space.
In conclusion I suppose that such mechanisms of both misunderstanding and manipulating have to be revealed by the scientists to explain the models of one particular person’s behavior or even the whole society’s reaction to some social events. Such psychological patterns are closely connected with our personal view of the world and based on ontopsychological explanation of human perception, action, being and the main aim is to develop creative thinking which is researched in the process of cognitive study.
List of references
1. Kaplunenko, A. M. Concept - notion - term: evolution of semiotic entities in the context of a discursive practice [Text] / A. M. Kaplunenko // Asia-Pacific: dialogue of languages and cultures: a collection of scientific papers of the international conference (20-31 January, 2007). - Irkutsk : ISLU, 2007. - P. 115-120.
2. Peirce, Ch. S. The beginning of pragmatics, translated by V. V. Kirjushenko [Text] / Ch. S. Peirce. - Saint Petersburg : Laboratory of metaphysical studies at philosophy department Saint Petersburg State University, 2000. - 352 p.
1 The terms reprezentamen and interpretant are used after Charles Sanders Peirce's "triadic" theory of the sign.
3. Peirce, Ch. S. Literary Works by Charles Sanders Peirce on-line [Electronic resource] / Ch. S. Peirce. -URL :
http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/peircetexts.html (дата обращения:
11.02.2013).
4. Hintikka, J. The Logic of Epistemology and the Epistemology of Logic [Text] / J. Hintikka. - Dordrecht : Kluwer, 1989. - 266 p.
5. Russell, B. An inquiry into meaning and truth [Electronic resource] / B. Russell. - London : London Pub., 1940 - 400 p.
6. Humboldt, H. Gesammelte Schriften, ed. Albert Leitzmann [Text] / H. Humboldt. - 17 vols., vol. 7. - Berlin : Behr, 1903-36. - P. 160-170.
7. Tyurneva, T. V. On the question of the concept nature as the main cognitive
unit in the discourse of difference [Electronic resource] / T. V. Tyurneva // Magister Dixit: Electronic scientific and pedagogical journal of Eastern Siberia. - №4. - 2012. - URL:
http://md.islu.ru/sites/md.islu.ru/files/rar/statya tyurneva.pdf (дата
обращения: 11.02.2013).
Ефремова Ольга Юрьевна
Магистрант факультета европейских языков ФГБОУ ВПО «ИГЛУ», Иркутск, Россия
УДК 8.81 ББК 81
МОДЕЛИРОВАНИЕ БИНАРНОГО ФРЕЙМА «ИММИГРАНТ» И «ИММИГРАЦИЯ» В ПРОЦЕССЕ МЕДИАТИЗАЦИИ СОЦИАЛЬНОГО
ДИСКУРСА
В данной статье рассматриваются аспекты социального дискурса предметной сферы иммиграции в процессе его медиатизации российскими СМИ. Моделируется фрейм предметной сферы иммиграции, устанавливаются тематические и концептуально-оценочные структуры контента фрейма.
Ключевые слова: фрейм; фреймовая структура; медиатизация; социальный дискурс; предметная сфера иммиграции.
MODELLING OF THE BINARY FRAME “IMMIGRANT” AND “IMMIGRATION” IN THE SOCIAL DISCOURSE OF MASS MEDIA
The article considers the social discourse aspects of the subject immigration sphere in the course of its mediatization by the Russian mass media. The research models the frame of the subject sphere of immigration and establishes thematic and conceptual structures of a frame content.
Key words: frame; frame structure; mediatization; social discourse; subject domain of immigration.
В современном российском обществе одна из наиболее острых конфликтогенных зон порождается иммиграцией и массовым присутствием иммигрантов
