CC BY
33
Original Paper УДК 81'42:811.11
DOI: 10.29025/2079-6021-2019-3-66-72
Popular science business discourse: its model and functions
Olga I. Natkho
Pyatigorsk State University, Pyatigorsk, Russian Federation ORCID ID: 0000-0002-9638-7507; e-mail: onatkho@mail.ru
Received: 9.08.2019 /Accepted: 29.08.2019 /Published online: 25.09.2019
Abstract: The article deals with the model of the popular science business discourse and its functions of expanding and deepening professional knowledge and skills among unprepared audience. The work examines the linguistic component of the popularization of scientific knowledge, its pragmatic conditioning and multistage, that involve not only psycholinguistic, but also cognitive mechanisms of perception and cognition of reality by the individual. The article focuses on the functional and pragmatic deregulation of business discourse which means targeted violation of traditional rules and conventional business communication standards by communicants and deliberate destabilization of the functional space and, as a consequence of all this, increased pragmatic effects on the recipient. The main goal of the article is to consider the popular science business discourse in the form of a tool representing the professional business picture of the world, expressed in the speech publicis-tic works, aimed at presenting the knowledge typical for commercial and business spheres, in text forms which are understandable for the untrained but motivated addressee to perceive new knowledge. The article describes such functions of the popular science business discourse as information and acting (manipulative) functions, popularizing function, as well as the function of constructing social actions. The article also argues that failure to follow business discourse-specific formulas is compulsory for the popular science business discourse, since the pragmatic dominant of the popular science business discourse is aimed specifically at the simplicity of information and the interest increase of the potential recipient to it. The results obtained allow us to conclude that the message focus on an unprepared, but motivated to perceive new knowledge recipient is one of the fundamental functions of the popular science business discourse and the basic component of communication.
Keywords: business discourse, popular science business discourse, scientific popularization of knowledge, communicative strategy, communication participants, functional pragmatic deregulation.
For citation: Natkho O.I. Popular science business discourse: its model and functions. Current Issues in Philology and Pedagogical Linguistics. 2019; 3: 66-72. DOI: 10.29025/2079-6021-2019-3-66-72 (In Russ.).
Оригинальная статья
DOI: 10.29025/2079-6021-2019-3-66-72
Модель научно-популярного делового дискурса: его модель и функции
О.И. Натхо
Пятигорский государственный университет, г. Пятигорск, Российская Федерация ORCID ID: 0000-0002-9638-7507; e-mail: onatkho@mail.ru
Получена: 9.08.2019 /Принята: 29.08.2019 /Опубликована онлайн: 25.09.2019
о.и. НАТХО
Резюме: В статье рассматривается модель научно-популярного делового дискурса и его функции расширения и углубления профессиональных знаний и навыков у неподготовленной аудитории. В работе исследуется лингвистическая составляющая популяризации научных знаний, ее прагматическая обусловленность и многоступенчатость, вовлекающая не только психолингвистические, но и когнитивные механизмы восприятия и познания действительности индивидом. Статья уделяет внимание функционально-прагматической дерегламентации делового дискурса, под которой понимается целенаправленное нарушение коммуникантами традиционных правил и конвенциональных норм осуществления делового общения и преднамеренная дестабилизация функционального пространства посредством использования манипулятивных дискурсивных элементов и, как следствие всего этого, усиление прагматического воздействия на реципиента. Главной целью статьи является рассмотрение научно-популярного делового дискурса в виде инструмента, репрезентирующего профессионально-деловую картину мира, находящего выражение в речевых публицистических по жанру произведениях, которые объединяет цель представления знаний, типичных для деловой и бизнес-сферы, в текстовых формах, являющихся доступными для понимания неподготовленного, но мотивированного адресата на восприятие нового знания. В статье описываются такие функции научно-популярного делового дискурса, как информационная и воздействующая (манипулятивная) функции, популяризаторская, а также функция конструирования социальных действий. В статье также утверждается, что неследование специфичным для делового дискурса формулам является вынужденным для научно-популярного делового дискурса, поскольку его прагматическая доминанта нацелена на доступность сообщающейся информации и повышение интереса потенциального адресата к ней. Полученные результаты позволяют заключить, что нацеленность сообщения, имеющего сугубо научно-деловой характер, на неподготовленного, но мотивированного для восприятия новых знаний адресата является одной из основополагающих функций Н-П ДД и базисным компонентом коммуникации.
Ключевые слова: деловой дискурс, научно-популярный деловой дискурс, научная популяризация, коммуникативная стратегия, участники коммуникации, функционально-прагматическая дерегламентация.
Для цитирования: Натхо О.И. Модель научно-популярного делового дискурса: его модель и функции // Актуальные проблемы филологии и педагогической лингвистики. 2019; 3: 66-72. Б01: 10.29025/2079-6021-2019-3-66-72.
Introduction
There has been a steady tendency towards a systematic deviation from an already established communicative norm over the past few decades. This is expressed in such aspects as the widespread use of previously unacceptable democratization when it is necessary to observe the stylistic norms of business communication, the reduction in the formalization level of business discourse pieces, the neglect of previously undeniable rules of business speech etiquette [6, p. 126-133]. The reason for these trends is a whole range of environmental transformations, the leading position in which it is precisely the intensification of the processes of democratization and popularization of special knowledge permeating all spheres of life in modern society. The situation presented is clearly global and is one of the main extralinguistic factors causing the emergence and rapid spread of the popular science business discourse as one of the most priority and mass-oriented types of business discourse.
The aim of the article
The aim of the article is to describe the model of the popular science business discourse and its functions of expanding and deepening professional knowledge and skills among unprepared audience.
A review of the literature
Today there are a large number of different classifications of business discourse which is explained and to some extent justified by the essence of business discourse, its multidimensionality and versatility. Of course, the variability of classification approaches also depends on the principle or a system of principles underlying the classification [9, p. 83].
Given the importance of strategic competence based on knowledge about the world and linguistic resources of the communication participants' ability to choose the most effective verbal and non-verbal means to produce a certain communicative act [17, p. 179-194], as well as the fact that it consists of communicative strategies that implement the author's intentions, we can also classify business discourse depending on the type of communicative strategy implemented in it. In accordance with this parameter, it is customary to distinguish four
principal areas: business discourse of cooperation, business discourse of competition, business discourse of obedience, business discourse of authoritarianism.
It should be noted that this classification does not have a high degree of stability. For example, N.A. Balan-dina prefers only two main groups of strategies - conventional and manipulative [2, p. 14], while K.F. Sedov highlights invective, courteous and heuristic strategies [8, p. 12]; based on the presented variations L.N. Tar-nayeva reduces the whole variety of communicative strategies of business discourse to three groups: argumentative, manipulative and courteous [10, p. 171].
Speaking about the very essence of this phenomenon, it is important to note that scientific popularization is an integral part of human society and occupies a very important position in the field of public institutions including business communities.
Speaking about the linguistic component of popularization, we emphasize that the latter is a complex aggregate process which is pragmatically determined and multi-staged; it involves not only psycholinguistic, but also cognitive mechanisms of perception and cognition of reality by the individual [7, p. 5-7].
It must be noted that such circumstances as the understanding of the need for the process of popularization, the study of its mechanisms and purposes of use in practice, attempts to modernize it and increase its effectiveness, the introduction of any community into the social reality, commenting on all information in the media, involving in this process a wide circle of scientists, journalists, research institutes, businessmen, corporations, are extremely important and contribute to further growth and relevance of science [16].
In the evolutionary process of English-language business discourse functioning, we see its functional pragmatic deregulation which means targeted violation of traditional rules and conventional business communication standards by communicants and deliberate destabilization of the functional space and, as a consequence of all this, increased pragmatic effects on the recipient.
D.S. Khramchenko who has developed the theory of functional-pragmatic evolution of the English business discourse on the methodological basis of functional linguosynergetics, argues that the constructive nature of the randomization of pragma-semantic space determines the effectiveness of operators involved in functional-pragmatic deregulation, and it gives the opportunity to solve urgent tasks of business communication [11, p. 13-15].
Following M.A. Kobozeva we view the popular science business discourse as a tool representing the professional business picture of the world expressed in the speech publicistic works, aimed at presenting the knowledge typical for commercial and business spheres, in text forms which are understandable for the untrained but motivated addressee to perceive new knowledge [5, p. 44].
Research methods
The following methods are used in the work: definition analysis, component analysis, cognitive-discursive and pragma-communicative analysis.
Results and discussion
The popular science business discourse can be characterized using the following discourse categories: participants, chronotope, goals, values, strategies, material, varieties and genres, case texts, discursive formulas [4, p. 8]. Business discourse is characterized by a specific set of participants: these are, firstly, communicative dyads "agent <-> agent" and "agent <-> a client of the institution" covering a fairly wide situational range, namely, entrepreneurs who discuss business; negotiating business people; any specialists who provide various kinds of business services; etc. As for the popular science business discourse, it focuses on other status-role characteristics of participants and occurs in the field of interaction "specialist <-> non-specialist" [15, p. 93]. Business discourse has a relatively fixed change of communicative roles while in the popular science business discourse such a parameter is not specified due to the fact that it is not relevant for the transmission of information of a promotional nature. Therefore, the communication between an amateur and a business expert is facilitated by the texts of the popular science business discourse.
A significant driving force for the effectiveness of the deregulation of business discourse represents an understanding of genre-specific features by the sender, individual specifics of information recipients and their level of understanding the required vertical context. The participants of communication in the popular science business discourse have various apperception bases. The nature of the communication participants' interaction in the popular science business discourse is determined by the multilevel cognitive-semantic and partially communicative-pragmatic systems, however, it should be noted that especially important is the motivation for the approximation of their apperception bases.
We give the following texts of business discourse and the popular science business discourse to compare:
"The local GM dealership may soon be able to finance car sales again. GMAC, the auto lending company owned by private equity firm Cerberus and General Motors, was given a $5 billion infusion from the Treasury, which will receive preferred stock in return. The mender qualified for funds after being certified as a bank holding company. To maintain that status, GMAC has to convert 75% of $38 billion in debt into equity." [Business week, 2009]
As you can see, the format for creating the text and the language tools used in it, indicate not only the presence of a specific sender, but also a specific addressee, because this text, undoubtedly, will be understood only by the audience fully possessing not only a professional terminological apparatus, but also the entire volume of their professional picture of the world. A completely different approach is used in the following case:
"The result of downsizing is a mad dashto cram more work into fewer people. If six people are doing the work that ten used to do, and at the same time are expected to meet or exceed previous budget and productivity targets, something has to give. To this pressure-cooker environment, we can add the globalization trend that has swept through corporate boardrooms." [The Business]
Despite a certain number of terminological units of business communication, they do not hinder the general understanding of the text, firstly, due to the high frequency of their use in the modern world, and, secondly, because the text is accompanied by explanations of the described situation through expanded syntax constructions and the use of colloquial vocabulary; this significantly reduces the level of formalization of the statement. Thus, it is obvious that the text is written focusing on a completely different addressee than in the previous example, taking into account the obvious differences in the apperception and cognitive databases of the sender of this text and its addressees.
The chronotope representing a natural connection of spatial and temporal relations has its own specifics in business discourse: it falls into the concept of social time and the concept of social space [14, p. 80-81]. The popular science business discourse cannot be characterized by such restrictions, since it can be used almost everywhere without any time limiters.
We believe that the main goal of business discourse is carrying out professional mutually beneficial activities, the establishment of specific conditions for the cooperation between participants in communication (or interested parties), that is, thoughtful alignment of the functional perspective of the English-language business discourse. Speaking about reaching the main communicative goal of business discourse we should clearly note the dominance of the administrative-informational and cooperative component of communicative interaction. As for the popular science business discourse, a more abstract character is suitable for its target audience. The popularization of specific scientific or sociological studies and their results acts as the main element in the popular science business discourse presenting a specific fragment of the scientific and business picture of the world in the form in which it appears in the works of various scientists and experts in the field of business. But in this presentation in the popular science business discourse, the popularization of specific scientific or sociological studies and their results acts as the main element; this also includes the popularization of the state of affairs in the business community and familiarization with these facts to a wide audience Therefore, the popularizing function is one of the prevailing functions of the popular science business discourse.
We give the following texts of business discourse and the popular science business discourse to compare:
"Memorandum of Agreement
<...>
Now it is hereby mutually agreed as follows:
Subject to the terms detailed in this Agreement, the Proprietors hereby grant to the Publishers the exclusive licence to produce and publish a single printing of 10,000 copies only of the Work in paperback form in the
English language under the Publisher's own imprint for sale throughout_only." [Publishing Agreements: A
Book of Precedents, 1993].
As you can see, this example of business discourse demonstrates the impeccable architectonics of the text and functional alignment of all language material clearly thought-out corresponding to the originally set target settings of the addressee: to pursue professional activities productively through mutually beneficial cooperation. In this case, the whole pragma-semantic load is completely focused on a purely business component.
"If you're familiar with the ideas behind the wisdom of crowds and swarm intelligence, you're probably nodding knowingly. Under the right conditions, groups can be smarter than any of their members.
Early in my career as an equity research analyst on Wall Street, I was told that earnings per share is the key to a company's stock price. (Investors and the media still beat that drum.) But then I saw studies by financial
economists who concluded that cash flow, not earnings, drives the stock price. The earnings camp listened to what people talked about day to day in the investment community, on television, and in the Wall Street Journal's pages." [Harvard Business Review, 2009]
This example shows a completely different construction of the target dominant: a much freer construction of the text (the initial part is a detailed metaphor explicating the main idea of the author) with common lexical and syntactic tools (the use of contracted forms of the verb; idiomatic expressions; use of stylistic devices -metaphor, enumeration; simplified syntactic constructions) is used by the author as a deregulatory complex of interdiscursive elements.
An impartial search for knowledge, proof of its objectivity, its multiplication, as well as respect for the factual material are the scientific characteristics on which the deep value focus of business discourse is based. Specific values arising from the above are in making a profit, effective business management, creating partnerships, studying the competitive environment and the personnel market, etc. Here, we see the obvious coincidence of the targets of the popular science business discourse and business discourse, since if the popular science business discourse lacks at least one of the values presented above, this would lead to the mandatory loss of the status of scientific character in the latter.
The complex of manipulative, argumentative and administrative-compulsory strategies (domination strategies) acts as the main communicative strategies of business discourse: they are implemented in the following activities: presentations, interviews, negotiations, articles in specialized periodicals, etc. As for the popular science business discourse, another set of characteristics prevails: information and acting (manipulative - to some extent) functions, as well as to some extent the function of constructing social actions. In this case, we agree with T.G. Dobrosklonskaya who assumes that the mechanism of functioning of mass media (here we would like to note that the popular science business discourse has a significant number of characteristics that distinguish the mass media discourse (metaphorization, suggestiveness, emotional-axiological element, reframing, etc.); this may indicate the validity of this comparison) is not only the reflection of the reality surrounding us, but its assessment, interpretation, comment which contribute to the formation of a certain ideological background [3, p. 193]. Previously presented examples of business discourse and popular science business discourse texts confirm this. Consequently, the difference in the strategic planning of business discourse and popular science business discourse is based, first of all, in their different target audience because strategies arise directly from the goals of any type of discourse.
The material of business discourse determines the thematic material of the popular science business discourse, and the latter is completely dependent on it. The following fact also confirms this: in the case of viewing the topics of the popular science discourse as a specific semantic set, it will necessarily be considered a subset with respect to the topic in the essence of scientific discourse. As for the popular science business discourse, it is a set relating both to the popular science discourse and to business discourse.
When viewing the possible stratification of the popular science business discourse and its genre variety, it is worth saying that this parameter shows a rather complete correlation of the popular science business discourse with the mass media discourse by demonstrating the implementation of the principle of the secondary nature of the popular science business discourse texts in relation to the texts of the scientific discourse (and in our case the popular science business discourse in relation to business discourse). At the same time, neither in terms of meaning, nor in composition popular science business discourse texts are based on specific precedent texts [12, p. 42].
A certain similarity between business discourse and popular science business discourse regarding precedent (cultural) texts consists in a high degree of intertextuality inherent in both of them, as well as the relevance of these texts as sources of scientific business-critical information. The differences are manifested in the fact that the text in the business discourse often has the so-called indexes of social status which apriori characterize the position of the addressee in the hierarchy and his socio-professional status. Regarding the popular science business discourse, then, in it, the interaction and impact on the recipient have a freer form of modeling and can be characterized by the almost complete absence of the scenario principle of textual construction rather than being based on the rules of communication and institutional norms that are accepted in the business community.
Intertextuality as a property of the popular science business discourse is a natural mechanism of meaning and text formation, including counterposition of different mental code systems, operations, frames in the process of text production [13, p. 228]. Sharing this point of view we tend to adhere to a semiotic-synergetic approach in determining interdiscursivity, according to which it is nothing more than a discursive ability to
demonstrate its basic extremely important features in an atypical situation for this type of discourse, the discursive ability to push their boundaries permeating another discourse. And given that the popular science business discourse is also a kind of the penetration result of business discourse into the media discourse, interdiscursiv-ity is one of the fundamental aspects of the popular science business discourse.
This statement can also be defended by the fact that the concepts of inter-discursivity and deregulation are directly interconnected, since both inside the discourse system and between different systems of discourse the boundaries change when using together various discourses in a single communicative event through a new use of discourses.
Significant differences can be traced between business discourse and popular science business discourse regarding discursive formulas. Failure to follow business discourse specific formulas is compulsory for the popular science business discourse, since the pragmatic dominant of the popular science business discourse is aimed specifically at the simplicity of information and the interest increase of the potential recipient to it. For these purposes, information redundancy is created that is characteristic of the popular science business discourse, as well as the rest of the set of methods of popularization which includes a complex of lexical, syntactic, architectonic and paratextual devices [1, p. 176].
Conclusion
We can draw the following conclusions from the analysis carried out:
The popular science business discourse is a clear example of the organic combination and interpenetration of significant parameters of business discourse and linguo-pragmatic purposes of the media discourse representing, however, a relatively independent type of discourse.
The popular science business discourse can be characterized by the principle of secondary representation of business discourse theoretical and practical material; in this case, the presentation of the material is carried out in an accessible manner for the unprepared recipient.
Having a purely scientific and business character, message focus on an unprepared, but motivated to perceive new knowledge recipient is one of the fundamental functions of the popular science business discourse and the basic component of communication; the application of the popularization function in order to expand and deepen professional knowledge and skills with unprepared audience turns out to be a consequence of this.
References
1. Bagiyan, A.Y., Natkho, O.I, Shiryaeva, T.A. (2017). Wisdom of centuries in the language of business. Paroemias in the English-speaking popular scientific business discourse: cognitive and discursive aspect, Kazan: Book, 184 p. (In Russ.).
2. Balandina, N.A. (2014). The discourse of negotiations in the English-speaking business communication. PhD thesis, Volgograd: Volgograd State University, 20 p. (In Russ.).
3. Dobrosklonskaya, T.G. (2000). The issues of studying media texts: Research experience of modern English media speech, Moscow: MAKS Press, 288 p. (In Russ.).
4. Karasik, V.I. (2000). About discourse types. Language personality: institutional and personal discourse, Volgograd: Peremena, pp. 9-28 (In Russ.).
5. Kobozeva, M.A. (2011). Cognitive and speech strategies for introducing topics in the popular science discourse. PhD thesis, Stavropol, 236 p. (In Russ.).
6. Larina, T.V., Kozyreva, M.M., Gornostayeva, A.A. (2012). About rudeness and communicative ethics in an intercultural aspect: problem statement. RUDN Journal of Linguistics, no 2, pp. 126-133 (In Russ.).
7. Muboriyeva, A.R. (2009). Pragmatic and cognitive aspects of popular science texts on economic subjects. PhD thesis, Voronezh, 23 p. (In Russ.).
8. Sedov, K.F. (1996). Types of linguistic personalities and strategies for verbal behavior. Language and man. Issues on stylistics. Saratov: Saratovskiy Gosudarstvenniy Universitet, no 26, pp. 8-14 (In Russ.).
9. Stodolinskaya, Y.V. (2013). Business discourse as an independent type of discourse: Translation and comparative linguistics, no 9, pp. 82-86 (In Russ.).
10. Tarnayeva, L.P. (2014). Species differences in business discourse: linguodidactic aspect of the issue: Philological sciences. Issues of theory and practice, no 12-3 (42), pp. 171-174 (In Russ.).
11. Khramchenko, D.S. (2014). Functional and pragmatic evolution of the English business discourse. PhD thesis. Moscow: Moscow State Institute of Foreign Affairs, 448 p. (In Russ.).
12. Chernyavskaya, V.E. (2007). The interpretation of a scientific text. Moscow: LKI, 128 p. (In Russ.).
13. Chernyavskaya, V.E. (2009). The Linguistics of the text: polycoding, intertextuality, inter-discursivity, Moscow: Librokom, 248 p. (In Russ.).
14. Shiryaeva, T.A. (2006). Cognitive model of business discourse, Pyatigorsk: PSLU, 256 p. (In Russ.).
15. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse. Cornwall: MPG Books Ltd. 230 p.
16. Massarani, L., Moreira, I.C. (2004). Popularisation of science: historical perspectives and permanent dilemma: Quark, no 32, pp. 75-79.
17. Yule, G., Tarone, E. (1990). Eliciting the Performance of Strategic Competence: Developing Communicative Competence in a Second Language, Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers, pp. 179-194.
Список литературы
1. Багиян А.Ю., Натхо О.И., Ширяева Т.А. Мудрость веков в языке бизнеса. Паремии в англоязычном научно-популярном деловом дискурсе: когнитивно-дискурсивный аспект. Казань: Издательство «Бук», 2017. 184 с.
2. Баландина Н.А. Дискурс переговоров в англоязычной деловой коммуникации: автореф. дис. ... д-ра филол. наук. Волгоград: Изд-во ВГУ 2004. 20 с.
3. Добросклонская Т.Г. Вопросы изучения медиа-текстов: Опыт исследования современной английской медиа-речи. М.: МАКС Пресс, 2000. 288 с.
4. Карасик В.И. О типах дискурса // Языковая личность: институциональный и персональный дискурс. Волгоград: Перемена, 2000. С. 5-20.
5. КобозеваМ.А. Когнитивные и речевые стратегии ввода темы в научно-популярном дискурсе: дис. ... канд. филол. наук. Ставрополь, 2011. 236 с.
6. Ларина Т.В., Козырева М.М., Горностаева А.А. О грубости и коммуникативной этике в межкультурном аспекте: постановка проблемы // Вестник Российского ун-та дружбы народов. Серия: Лингвистика. 2012. № 2. С. 126-133.
7. Мубориева А.Р. Прагматический и когнитивный аспекты научно-популярных текстов на экономическую тематику (на материале французского языка): автореф. дис. ... канд. филол. наук. Воронеж, 2009. 23 с.
8. Седов К.Ф. Типы языковых личностей и стратегии речевого поведения // Язык и человек. Вопросы стилистики. Саратов: Изд-во СГУ, 1996. Вып. 26. С. 8-14.
9. Стодолинская Ю.В. Бизнес дискурс как самостоятельный тип дискурса // Перевод и сопоставительная лингвистика. 2013. № 9. С. 82-86.
10. Тарнаева Л.П. Видовые различия делового дискурса: лингводидактический аспект проблемы // Филологические науки. Вопросы теории и практики. 2014. № 12-3 (42). С. 171-174.
11.Храмченко Д.С. Функционально-прагматическая эволюция английского делового дискурса: дис. ... д-ра филол. наук. М.: МГИМО, 2014. 448 с.
12. Чернявская В.Е. Интерпретация научного текста: учеб. пособие. Изд. 4-е. М.: Изд-во ЛКИ, 2007. 128 с.
13. Чернявская В.Е. Лингвистика текста: поликодовость, интертекстуальность, интердискурсив-ность. М.: Либроком, 2009. 248 с.
14. Ширяева Т.А. Когнитивная модель делового дискурса: монография. Пятигорск: Изд-во ПГЛУ, 2006. 256 с.
15. HylandK. Metadiscourse. Cornwall: MPG Books Ltd., 2005. 230 p.
16. Massarani L., Moreira I.C. Popularisation of science: historical perspectives and permanent dilemma // Quark. 2004. № 32. P. 75-79.
17. Yule G., Tarone E. Eliciting the Performance of Strategic Competence // Developing Communicative Competence in a Second Language / R.C. Scarcella, E.S. Andersen, S.D. Krashen (eds.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers, 1990. Pр. 179-194.
Olga I. Natkho, Candidate of Philology, Pyatigorsk State University, Professionally Oriented English Language Department, associate professor; 357532, 9 Kalinin Avenue, Pyatigorsk, Stavropol Krai, Russia; e-mail: onatkho@mail.ru
Натхо Ольга Игоревна, кандидат филологических наук, доцент кафедры профессионально-ориентированного английского языка, Пятигорский государственный университет; 357532, пр. Калинина, 9, г. Пятигорск, Ставропольский край, Российская Федерация; e-mail: onatkho@mail.ru
