Discourse 8-D Thinking as the Object of Research and Training
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22364/BJELLC.10.2020.08Keywords:
integrative 8-dimension model of discourse, Discourse Linguistics, qualitative data processing, training flexibility in collecting qualitative dataAbstract
The article rooted in the tradition of Discourse Linguistics deals with the 8-dimension model of discourse organization and production discussed with reference to three key sources: (1) the Tartu Semiotic School with its focus on the notion of semiosphere (Yuri Lotman) as a ground for revealing the semiosis of communicative signs in functioning; (2) the Causal-Genetic Approach to discourse modelling (Irina Oukhvanova / Oukhvanova-Shmygova) as a ground for reconstructing and classifying the causes of the inherent discourse elements production open to become constructive elements of discourse on micro, meso, and macrolevels of its functioning, and (3) the approach to discourse organization built in the field of Discourse Linguistics / la linguistique du discours (Dominique Maingueneau) as a ground for linguistic approaches to discourse analysis. All three approaches being unique but overlapping and open to integration can work as a holistic ground for a joint theoretical model to be applied as a tool for collecting and organizing qualitative data for multipurpose discourse research and for training researchers to forming skills of processing qualitative data. The author visualises such a model by finding its own meaningful space and functional meaning for each of 8 inherent elements of discourse no matter which representations it takes. It makes the elements categorised as discourse atomic characteristics, and the model as a translevelled classification of discourse elements. The article also suggests a discussion on educational research discourse and within its framework training young researchers to visualise and interpret some of the atomic characteristics of discourse for applying them in production of academic and professional types of discourses.
References
Adam, J.-M. (1999) Linguistique textuelle. Des genres de discours aux textes. Paris: Natan.
Benveniste, Ė. (1966) Problémes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.
CD (1999) Conceptual Dictionary of the Tartu-Moscow Semiotic School. Tartu semiotic library, 2 (pp. 244-248). Tartu: University of Tartu.
Charaudeau, P. and Maingueneau, D. (2002) Dictionnaire d’analyse du discours. Paris: Ėditions du Seuil.
D-ART 2 (2017) Discourse Linguistics and Beyond, 2. Current approaches in Eastern Europe. Y. Kuzmina, I. Oukhvanova and A. Savich (eds.). D-ART: Berlin: De Iure pl – Sprachlit.
Harris, Z. S. ([1952] 1969) Analyse du discours, trad. fr., Langages, 13: 8-45. (Discourse analysis. Language, 28: 1-30.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.3406/lgge.1969.2507
Hutchins, W. J. (1985) Information retrieval and text analysis. In T. van Dijk (ed.) Discourse and Communication: New approaches to the analysis of mass media discourse and communication (pp. 106-125). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110852141.106
Foucault, M. (1969) L’Archéologie du savoir. Paris: Gallimard.
Gardiner, A. H. ([1932] 1989) Langage et act de language. Aux sources de la pragmatique. Presses universitaires de Lille. The Theory of Speech and Language. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Guespin, L. (1971) Problematique des travaux sur le discours politique. Langages, 23: 3-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3406/lgge.1971.2048
Guillaume, G. (1973) Principles de linguistique théorique de Gustave Guillaume. R. Valin (éd.) Québéc: Presses de l’universite Laval/Paris, Klincksieck.
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (2017) Partial perception and approximate understanding. Research in Language, 15 (2): 129-152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/rela-2017-0009
Lotman, J. (2005) On the semiosphere (translated by W. Clark). Sign Systems Studies, 33 (1): 205-226. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2005.33.1.09
Maingueneau, D. (2002) Discourse. In Dictionnaire d’analyse du discours (pp. 185-190). Paris: Ėditions du Seuil.
Oukhvanova, I. (2017) Discourse viewed from a complex system perspective: Causal-genetic approach as an integral discourse theory. In Y. Kuzmina, I. Oukhvanova and A. Savich (eds.) Discourse Linguistics and Beyond, 2. Current approaches in Eastern Europe. D-ART: Berlin: De Iure pl – Sprachlit.
Oukhvanova, I. (2015) Discourse as a macro sign: the causal genetic perspective of discourse linguistics. In A. Kiklevicz and I. Uchwanowa-Szmygowa (eds.) Dyskurs: aspekty lingwistyczne, semiotyczne i komunikacyjne (pp. 43-56). Olsztyn: Warminsko-Mazurski w Olsztyne.
Oukhvanova, I. (2014) Information and interaction management in teaching different types of discourses. In M. Alexandrovich, R. Seebauer and H. Zoglowek (eds.) Diversity in Education in Europe – Insights from Pedagogy and Psychology (pp. 153-168). Vielfalt in Bildung und Erziehung – Pädagogische und psychologische Einblicke Reihe: Austria: Forschung und Wissenschaft – Erziehungswissenschaft Bd. 21.
Oukhvanova, I., Markovich, A., Ukhvanov, V. (2008) Des portraits discursifs des leaders politiques russes et bielorusses. I. Oukhvanova (ed.). Translated from Russian by S. Nikonova and T. Dessova. Мinsk: BUE.
[SEPh] Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Aristotle. Available from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle/#FouCauAccExpAde [Accessed on 7 January 2020].
Yngve, V.H. and Wąsik, Z. (eds.) (2004) Hard-Science Linguistics. London, New York: Continuum.
Internet sources
[Online 1] Available from (https:// www.instagram.com/addfuel/ [Accessed on 7 January 2020].
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 University of Latvia
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
