CC BY
5MODERN APPROACHES TO THE CONCEPT OF PEDAGOGIC DISCOURSE
Abstract
The present article highlights various approaches to the study of discourse and, in particular, pedagogic discourse. The authors present a brief analysis of the definitions of the term "discourse". In addition, the article introduces the discursive model consisting of hierarchically organized modules, namely: axiological, cultural, legal and conventional. The authors presented a brief description of the pedagogic discourse, as a form of institutional discourse, with the characteristics of a discourse. Pedagogic discourse includes didactic texts (school textbooks and anthologies) and texts in communicative situations, if the purpose of communication becomes the content of education and upbringing of the rising generation.
Keywords
discourse, pedagogic discourse, communicative situation, concept
AUTHORS
Zhanbota Esmurzaeva PhD in Language Head of the Department of Foreign Languages and Applied Linguistics Omsk State Agrarian University Omsk, Russia yesmurzaeva@mail. ru Elena Novikova PhD in Language, Associate Professor Department of Foreign Languages and Applied Linguistics Omsk State Agrarian University Omsk, Russia evl. novikova@omgau. org Marina Lukina Senior lecturer Department of Foreign Languages and Applied Linguistics Omsk State Agrarian University Omsk, Russia mn.lukina@omgau.org
In the context of radical socio-economic changes in the late XX - early XXI century there is a shift of emphasis in the value orientations of the Russians. Among the many reasons that have brought about these changes in consciousness, including the consciousness of young people, the researchers call the reduction of education to training and lack of attention to the educational potential of the national culture. And today it is important to understand that education - is a way to shape the nation's future, and not just an industry of service and technological innovation [Esyukov, Zhilyaeva, 2007: 5]. In other words, in regard to a special role which is given to the new Standard of General Education as an ideological fundament of the Russian education, where the ultimate outcome of training and education activities - is a citizen of Russia, a carrier of civil society values, who recognizes his involvement in the destiny of his mother country [Dronov, Kondakov, 2009: 24], the analysis of pedagogic discourse is considered as an actual one. Let us examine some definitions of a discourse as a linguistic category.
Among the fundamental approaches to discourse are the following: functional approach (Brown, Yule 1983; Paducheva 1985; Makarov 2003), pragmalinguistic approach (Karaulov 1987; Susov 1998), theory of speech acts (Austin 1962; Searle 1969; Kobozeva 1986; Bogdanov 1990), linguistic analysis of a dialogue (Carlson 1983; Dementiev 1998), critical discourse analysis (Fairclough 1989; Wodak 1996), sociolinguistic approach (Labov 1972; Ervin-Tripp 1973), cognitive and psycholinguistic models for processing and understanding discourse (Van Dijk, Kintch 1983, Sternin 2003) and other approaches.
Although a number of studies have been devoted to a discourse for a fairly long period of time, the term "discourse" is one of the most complex and least amenable to a
clear definition. At the end of the twentieth century it gained broad scientific interpretation and terminological ambiguity. On the one hand, discourse is conceived as speech in a communicative situation, as "language functioning in real-life communication," which means "language actualized in speech by a speaker" (Benveniste) [cit. by Arutyunova, 1990: 136 - 137]. On the other hand, advanced discourse analysis is associated with the study of information flow principles in frames of a communicative situation carried out through the exchange of utterances, "it is sphere of speech communication" [Sheigal, 2002: 24]. But Yu.S. Stepanov mentions "discourse - is originally a special use of language ... to express a special mentality," which "involves the activation of some features and, ultimately, particular grammar and particular rules of vocabulary"[Stepanov, 1995: 38]. It is "a language in the language", but which is presented as a distinctive social reality, "a special world" [Stepanov, 1995: 43].
Discourse is a core part of human life "in language", that is what B.M. Gasparov names as linguistic existence: "Each act of language use - whether it is a high value product or a passing remark in a dialogue - is a particle in a continuously moving stream of human experience. As such, it absorbs and reflects in itself a unique set of circumstances in which and for which it was created" [Gasparov, 1996: 10]. In other words, "discourse is a phenomenon intermediate between speech, communication and language behavior, on the one hand, and text that remains the "bottom line" of communication, on the other" [Karasik, 2004: 231]. And socio-cultural content of discourse components determines the cognitive aspect of its consideration [Karasik, 2004: 227].
This point of view is supported by E.S. Kubryakova, who considers discourse as designation of language behavior common to some sphere (for example, political discourse) or an individuum (all speech acts produced by a man - discourse of linguistic identity), as well as designation of coherent text together with extra linguistic -pragmatic, sociocultural, psychological - factors [Kubryakova, 2000]. The researcher points out that "under discourse one should bear in mind exactly the cognitive process related to real speech production, creation of speech act, and text is the ultimate result of speech activity process, which (the text) acquires a definite, completed (and fixed) form" [Kubryakova, 1995: 164].
According to the opinion of N.N. Troshina, discourse represents semiotic space which includes verbal and nonverbal signs oriented on servicing present communicative sphere and communication type, thesaurus of precedential utterances and texts, and also the notion of typical models of language behavior [Troshina, 2004: 110]. Discourse is a socially determined type of speech communication, where text is a form of speech communication, and language - is a means to carry out this activity [Manaenko, 2003: 2640]. Discourse is a multi-aspect and interdisciplinary essence that is examined from different points of view, which do not exclude one another, but, on the contrary, they often complement each other. It particularly applies to socio-lingua-cultural aspects of discourse analysis [Troshina, 2004: 112].
Thus, in accordance with the sociolinguistic approach there are two main types of discourse: personal and institutional [Karasik, 2004: 250]. The pedagogic discourse as an object of present research has all the characteristics of institutional discourse. It is status-oriented, and it is a cliched kind of communication between people in conformity with the norms of present society.
The backbone characteristics of this type of discourse are the goals and the participants of communication, and the latter are divided into institute representatives (agents) and people who turn to them: a teacher - a student [Karasik, 2004: 251]. The peculiarity of this kind of discourse lies in its shaping-the-worldview essence - due to its underlying moral values inherent in the mental characteristics of the group under study. The pedagogic discourse values correspond to the values of socialization as a social phenomenon and society established institution, on the one hand. On the other hand, they
possess "personal" unique features in spatial-temporal, intentional-, illocutionary, thesaurus and other aspects [Karasik, 2004: 255].
Discourse has its structure which is fundamentally different from the linguistic units of various levels. In the described discourse model one can highlight the hierarchically organized modules which are engaged in the formation of transfer, perception and information interpretation processes:
— axiological module is aimed at the implementation (achievement) of the planned form of the generated discourse as a "value" product;
— cultural module provides an organic interaction of cultures of the addresser and the addressee and synchronizes linguistic worldviews of the communicants for perception and interpretation of the reported information;
— regulatory and conventional module is associated with the dominant discourse norm in coordinates of a particular culture - institutions, rituals, customs - as well as with the limitations based on socio-cultural communication regulators [Oleshkov, 2006: 101].
The dynamic nature of pedagogic discourse is determined by extra-linguistic factors. Mental characteristics of national and socio-cultural population groups, which are a part of the ethnic group, manifest in the system of settings, social and cultural beliefs, and also behavior models. Political and therefore socio-cultural changes in society inevitably lead to a restructuring of the conceptual sphere of language; thus, concepts that already exist in the national language consciousness can be filled with new content or acquire new axiological connotation [Troshina, 2004: 114].
Discourse as space for the realization of concepts is understood by A.V. Olyanich [Olyanich, 2007]. According to his opinion, the identification of means of conceptualization and implementation of knowledge on the concept in discourse is important. Mental constructs of knowledge (concepts) are grouped into a system, and then they get verbal expression through formed on their basis structures, which, in turn, form discourse system consisting of a presentational structure and its embodiment in speech [Olyanich, 2007: 212]. V.Z. Demyankov also believes that discourse as an arbitrary piece of text, consisting of more than one sentence, often, but not always, concentrates around some backbone concept.
Furthermore this concept creates a common context and is determined not only by sequence of sentences, but the number of themes in common as for the creator of discourse and his interpreter of the world [Demyankov, 1982: 7]. Thus, discourse is defined not as the entity adequate to text, but much wider: it reflects mentality and culture of a speaker. Different types of text actualization, viewed from the point of mental processes and in connection with extra-linguistic factors, make it possible to interpret discourse as text in the event-related aspect - text immersed in the sociocultural context, i.e. in real life [Karasik, 1998].
The pedagogic discourse rightly includes both didactic texts (school textbooks and anthologies) and texts in the communicative situations if the purpose of communication is the content of education and upbringing of the rising generation.
At different times the analysis of pedagogic discourse was undertaken in the works of V.I. Karasik (1999), O.V. Koroteeva (1999), N.A. Lemyaskina (1999), Zh.V. Milovanova (1998). The material on pedagogic discourse served as basis for analysis of such concepts as TEACHER (S.L. Smyslova, 2007), CRITICISM (N.V. Gavrilova, 2007), INTELLECTUAL INTERACTION (Yu.Yu. Pospelova, 2009) and other concepts. Communicative strategies, speech tactics and genres of this type of discourse are presented in the works of N.A. Antonova (2007), N.S. Zubareva (2001), I.V. Pevneva (2008) and other authors. Pedagogic metaphorics is studied by E.V. Budaeva and A.P. Chudinov (2007), E.G. Kabachenko (2007), N.V. Melnikova (2007).
After considering different approaches to the definition and content of the concept of "discourse", it seems possible to determine the pedagogic discourse as a kind of
institutional discourse (goals and participants), which consists of hierarchically organized modules (axiological, cultural, legal and conventional), stands out for its dynamism, and includes didactic texts (school textbooks and anthologies) and texts in the communicative situations if the purpose of communication is the content of education and upbringing of the rising generation.
REFERENCES
1. Arutyunova N.D. Discourse // Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary. - M., 1990. - P. 136 - 137.
2. Gasparov B.M. Language, memory, image. Linguistics of language existence. - M.: New Literary Review, 1996.- 352 p.
3. Demyankov V.Z. English-Russian terms in applied linguistics and automatic text processing // Methods of text analysis. - M., 1982. - 288 p.
4. Dronov V.P., Kondakov A.M. The new Standard of General Education -ideological foundation of the Russian school // Pedagogy. - 2009. - № 4.- P. 22 - 26.
5. Esyukov A.I., Zhilyaeva E.I. Axiological basis for worldview of M.V. Lomonosov // Problems of conceptualization the reality and modeling the linguistic world-image: collection of scientific papers / author, editor in chief T.V. Simashko; Pomorskiy State University named under M.V. Lomonosov. - Arkhangelsk: Pomorskiy University, 2007. - P. 5 - 11.
6. Karasik V.I. On the categories of discourse // Linguistic identity: Sociolinguistic and emotive aspects. - Volgograd; Saratov, 1998. - p. 185-197.
7. Karasik V.I. Linguistic cycle: personality, concepts, discourse. - M.: Gnosis, 2004. - 390 p.
8. Kubryakova E.S. The concepts of place, object, space // Logical analysis of language: Languages in space. - M.: School "Russian Culture Languages", 2000. - P. 84-93.
9. Kubryakova E.S. Evolution of linguistic ideas in the second half of the twentieth century (the experience of paradigmatic analysis) // Language and Science of the late twentieth century. - M.: Russian State Humanitarian University, 1995. - P. 144-238.
10. Manaenko G.N. Discourse in its relation to speech, text and language // Language. Text. Discourse. - Stavropol: Pyatigorsk State Linguistic University, 2003. - P. 26-40.
11. Oleshkov M.Yu. Basics of functional linguistics: discursive aspect: textbook for the students of the faculty of Russian language and Literature. - Nizhny Tagil, 2006. - 146 p.
12. Olyanich A.V. Presentational theory of discourse. - M.: Gnosis, 2007 - 408 p.
13. Stepanov Yu.S. Alternative World, Discourse, Fact and Principle of Causality // Language and Science of the late 20th century. - M., 1995. - P. 35-73.
14. Troshina N.N. Sociocultural parameters of discourse // Sociolinguistics yesterday and today: Collection of reviews / Russian Academy of Sciences. Institute of Scientific Information for Social Sciences. Center of humanitarian, scientific and information research. Department of linguistics; Editorial board: Troshina N.N. (editor in chief) and others - M., 2004. - P. 107-131.
15. Sheigal E.I. Cultural concepts of political discourse // Communication: Theory and practice in different social contexts. Materials of the International research and practice conference "Communication - 2002". - Pyatigorsk: publisher Pyatigorsk State Linguistic University, 2002. - P. 24 - 26.
