Linguo-cultural speech "portrait" of the modern Russian language: retrospective generalization
Melnikova N.V.1
1 Тульский государственный педагогический университет им. Л.Н. Толстого
Download PDF | Downloads: 14
Journal paper
Economics and society: contemporary models of development (РИНЦ)
опубликовать статью
Volume 8, Number 2 (April-June 2018)
Indexed in Russian Science Citation Index: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=36544041
Abstract:
Purpose: the current period of the state of the Russian language is characterized by transformational processes, especially in the aspects of its new, innovative, manifestations. One of such aspects is the formation of its linguistic component, which serves as an indicator of a certain level of development of modern Russian society. Naturally, this component, appearing in the form of the Russian language, appears in the form of technology, in the form of means of communication, in the form of methods for expressing mental images and as a unit of existence and, naturally, the development of social change. Along with external factors, the internal factors of its development, which manifest themselves in the language system itself, influence the transformation of the Russian language. Signs of language (morphemes, words, constructions) are systemically interdependent and respond to changes in their personal «organism». Proceeding from this, these changes are manifested at different language levels, namely: on the «morphological», on the «lexical» and, most importantly, on the «syntactic». Materials and methods: the presented research in the context of the methodology of its organization, implementation and determination of results is a comparative (comparative) analysis of theories, concepts and main directions on the subject matter in the system of scientific knowledge. The research field is the interconnection space of such main components of the aggregate of modern Russian society in the field of the Russian language, namely: [{society → society → education}; {linguistics → sociolinguistics}; {cultural studies → linguistic cultural studies}; {рortraiture → portrait → speech linguistic-cultural portrait}]. The results of their consideration and analysis form the basis for leading conclusions and conclusions. Results: the article reflects the results of systematics of analytical operational actions for the comparative analysis of various components of transformation processes in modern Russian and the author’s definition of the concept of «speech linguoculturological «portrait» is given. Also, the essential and informative elements of the considered components were identified and studied in the context of innovative pedagogy and prognostic ideas in knowledge-didactic and methodical interpretation. Conclusions: the aggregate set of presented conclusions, which are the main conclusions on the research topic, makes it possible to argue that, firstly, all the identified components of transformation processes in the modern Russian language, from the point of view of comparative analysis, are an integrative unity of the development process of the world community; secondly: for their optimal and effective development, it is necessary to avoid the so-called “imbalance” in their systems of evolution and disruption of the connections between their elements when creating a “portrait” of the modern Russian language in the linguistic and culturological aspect; thirdly: for the positive development of Russian society, multiple studies of the transformation of the Russian language in its “portrait”, presented in the linguistic and culturological aspect, are needed; Fourthly: all these studies are necessary to increase the general literacy of the citizens of our country in the modern system of scientific knowledge.
Keywords: analysis, didactics, innovation, interpretation, comparison (comparison), cultural studies, cultural linguistics, methods, society, «knowledge society», generalization, pedagogy, «portrait», speech «portrait», retrospection, society
Highlights:
- анализ, дидактика, инновация, интерпретация, компарация (сравнение), лингвокультурология, методика, общество, «общество знания», обобщение, педагогика, «портретистика», речевой «портрет», ретроспекция, социум
References:
2. Vashchenko E.D. Russian language and culture of speech: Textbook. Rostov n / D: Phoenix, 2012. 349 c.
3. Zavgorodnyaya E.V. Structural and semantic features of conditional constructions on different tiers of the syntax of the modern Russian language. Thesis for the degree of candidate of philological sciences. Stavropol, 2000. 178 p.
4. Akimova G.N. "Water Tower" V. Pelevin – syntactic nonsense? Syntax of the modern Russian language: reader with tasks / comp. G.N. Akimova, S.V. Vyatkina et al. St. Petersburg, 2013. pp. 697–704.
5. Tennis F. Community and Society. Sociological Journal. 1998; (3-4):226.
6. Kuznetsova M.A. Social systems and processes: research methodology: textbook for students of humanitarian faculties. Volgograd: Volga State University Publishing House, 2004. 96 р.
7. Glossary of pedagogical terms. Appeal to the electronic resource: http:// sch1366uv.mskobr.ru/files/gloss.pdf. pp. 3.
8. Susov I.P. Introduction to linguistics. M.: East-West, 2007. 379 p.
9. Weinreich U. Language contacts. State and problems of research. Yu.A. Zhluktenko (ed.). Kiev: Vishcha school. Publishing house at Kiev University, 1979. 261 p.
10. Flier A.Ya. The phenomenon of cultural studies: the experience of new interpretation. Culture Observatory. 2011; (2):4–19.
11. Vorkachev S.G. Linguoculturology, linguistic personality, concept: the formation of the anthropocentric paradigm in linguistics. Philological Sciences. 2001; (1):64–72.
12. Weisgerber Leo. Muttesprache and Geietesbildung. Vamlcnhocck and Ruprecht, Gdttingen, 1929.
13. Vinogradov V.V. On the language of prose. Selected Works. M.: Science, 1980.
14. Kadilina O.A. Strong / weak language personality: communicative-pragmatic characteristics (on the material of D. Carnegie texts): Dis. ... Candidate of Philol. Krasnodar, 2011.
15. Karaulov Yu.N. Russian language and language personality, seventh edition, Moscow, 2010.
16. Madalieva E.V. Pragmatics of language personality politics in the genre of confession. Political linguistics. 2011.
17. Sedov K.F. Types of linguistic personality by the ability to cooperate in speech behavior. Problems of speech communication. 2000. pp. 3–5.
18. Kasimova S.V. Theoretical foundations of modeling scientific texts in linguistics. In: Problems of linguistics, intercultural communication and linguodidactics. The jubilee intercollegiate collection of scientific papers in honor of the 75th anniversary of Professor LK Latyshev. Moscow. Publishing house MGOU, 2010. pp. 94–102.
19. Lakhtyu O.P. Theory of Linguistics (textbook). 2nd reissue. Moscow, National teacher, 2004.
20. Sapir E. Speech as a Personality Trait. American Journal of Sociology. 1927; 32(6):892–905.
21. Sanford F.H. Speech and personality: a comparative case study. Journal of Personality. March 1942; 10(3):169–198. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1942.tb01901.x
22. Lemke J.L. Language development and identity: Multiple timescales in the social ecology of learning. In: C. Kramsch (Ed.), Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives. London: Continuum, 2000. рр. 68–87.
23. Cho G. The role of heritage language in social interactions and relationships: Reflections from a language minority group. Bilingual Research Journal. 2000; 24(4):369–384.
24. Cienki Alan. Bush’s and Gore’s Language and Gestures in the 2000 US Presidential Debates: A Test Case for Two Models of Metaphors. Journal of Language and Politics. 2004; (3):409–410.
25. Anderson R.D. Metaphors of Dictatorship and Democracy: Change in the Russian Political Lexicon and the Transformation of Russian Politics. Slavic Review. 2001; 60(2):312–315.
26. Butt D.G., Lukin A., & I.C M. Grammar – The First Covert Operation of War. Discourse & Society. 2004; 15(2–3):267–290. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1177/0957926504041020
27. Fetzer A. and Johansson M. I’ll Tell You What the Truth Is: The Interactional Organization of Confiding in Political Interviews. Journal of Language and Politics. 2007; (6):147–177.
28. McKenzie K. The Institutional Provision for Silence: On the Evasive Nature of Politicians’ Answers to Reporters’ Questions. Journal of Language and Politics. 2005; (4):443–463.
29. Harris S. Being Politically Impolite: Extending Politeness Theory to Adversarial Political Discourse. Discourse & Society. 2001; 12(4):451–472. 30. Ilie C. Discourse and Metadiscourse in Parliamentary Debates. Journal of Language and Politics. 2003; (2):71–92.
31. Lakoff R.T. The Neutrality of the Status Quo, The Language War. University of California Press, 2000. pp. 42–85.
32. Vorkachev S.G. Linguoculturology, linguistic personality, concept: the formation of the anthropocentric paradigm in linguistics. Philological Sciences. 2001. pp. 64–72.
33. Tarnaeva L.P. The main trends in the study of the phenomenon of linguistic personality: the linguodidactic aspect of the problem. Actual issues of modern university education. 2006. pp. 458–460.
34. Khalyapina L.P. Formation of a secondary (intercultural) language personality in a university education. Current issues of modern university education. 2004. pp. 166–168.
35. Biber O. Variations across speech and writing. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
36. Giles H. & Wicmann J.M. Social psychological studies of language: Current trends and prospects. American Behavioral Scientist. 1993; (36):262–272.
37. Pennebaker J.W., King L. Linguistic styles: Language use as an individual difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1999; (77):1296–1312.
38. Alysheva Yu. S. A speech portrait of a modern political leader: author. dis. ... k. fil. n. Volgograd, Volgograd, the state. Univ., 2012.
39. Kitaygorodskaya M.V., Rozanova N.N. Russian speech portrait. Phonocrestoma. M., 1995.
40. Krysin L.P. The Modern Russian Intelligent: Attempt to Speech Portrait. Russian Language in Scientific Illumination. 2001; (1):90–106.
41. Milekhina T. A. Speech portraits of businessmen. Problems of verbal communication mezhvuz. Sat. scientific tr. Saratov, University, 2003. pp. 64–80.
42. Suvorov D.A. The ratio of types of information in the texts of tourist advertising (on the material of English and Russian languages). Problems of linguistics, intercultural communication and linguodidactics. 2006; (8):79–92.
Страница обновлена: 11.04.2025 в 05:20:10