INTERPRETATION OF THE CONCEPT OF DISCOURSE: INSTITUTIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, SCIENTIFIC AND INNOVATIVE DISCOURSE
INTERPRETATION OF THE CONCEPT OF DISCOURSE: INSTITUTIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, SCIENTIFIC AND INNOVATIVE DISCOURSE
Shakhrizada Tynym
Master's student, Korkyt Ata Kyzylorda University,
Kazakhstan, Kyzylorda
Saltanat Nyshanova
Scientific supervisor, Korkyt Ata Kyzylorda University,
Kazakhstan, Kyzylorda
ABSTRACT
This article is devoted to the study of various types of scientific discourse. The purpose of the article is to summarize the materials available in science about scientific discourse and its types, as well as to systematize them to facilitate its perception by students at the university.
Keywords: discourse, research, education, scientific discourse, scientific and innovative discourse.
Scientific discourse is one of the fundamental research topics. On the other hand, the peculiarities of knowledge dissemination require consideration of aspects of writing, editing and dissemination of specialized texts in scientific research. Such characteristics are related to the rhetorical nature of the published materials, which implies various genres of discourse, fields of knowledge and institutions.
Analyzing the specifics of an institutional discourse, we determine its place, role in the system of society, the characteristics of the values of representatives of society and the exchange of information, interaction in the structure of the studied discourse and, accordingly, the scope of activity. Such a direction is quite consistent with the anthropocentric orientation of modern linguistics, whose range of interests includes issues that differ in interdisciplinarity and practical orientation. attention to the use of language, to its use for various purposes and for solving various tasks generates an understanding of discourse as a free flow of continuous human communicative activity that unfolds over time, as a process of social interaction [1, p. 38].
Discourse is not a consciousness that accommodates its project under the external form of language, it is not the language itself and, moreover, not the subject speaking it, but a practice that has its own forms of cohesion and its own forms of sequence [2, p. 64].
Discourse is considered not as a static structure of utterances conditioned by internal and external factors, but as a sequence of utterances developed in a certain historical and social framework, organized in a special way and thematically focused, the reception of which is able to influence the models of a person's subjective experience, his internal representation of the world, beliefs and behavior — that is, not only as a result of human activity, but also as the activity itself [3].
As one of the criteria for classifying the types of discourse, the category of formality is distinguished, which is based on the nature of social relations between the speaker and the addressee [4].
Personality-oriented discourse is represented by communication around familiar people who reveal their inner world to each other, it can be carried out in two varieties: everyday discourse, the specifics of which is the use of an abbreviated code of communication, in which people are able to understand each other from a half-word, and existential discourse, the purpose of which is to find and experience essential meanings, artistic and philosophical comprehension of the world.
Status-oriented discourse is a verbal interaction of representatives of social groups or institutions with each other, with people realizing their status-role opportunities within the established public institutions, the number of which is determined by the needs of society at a specific stage of its development [5, p. 193]. The specificity of institutional discourse is due to the formal nature set by social norms, which must correspond to a specialized cliched type of communication between people who may not know each other, but must communicate in accordance with the norms of this society. The institutional discourse is characterized by a rigid structure with a maximum of speech restrictions, a fixed change in communicative roles, less assignment to the immediate context, and a limited number of globally defined goals.
The core of institutional discourse is the communication of a basic pair of communication participants — a teacher and a student, a doctor and a patient, a journalist and a reader, and the like. an integral attribute of institutional communication is a clearly formulated goal and a prototype place (temple, school, stadium, etc.).
Institutional discourse is a conventional, culturally conditioned, normative verbal interaction of people who assume certain status roles within any social organism (institution) specially created to meet certain needs of society. The main purpose of communication within the framework of institutional discourse is not the transfer of information, but the institutionalization and legitimization of social relations. in other words, the main feature of institutional discourse is not a message about anything, not a semiotic reflection of objectivity, but the construction of social meanings; discourse does not act as an instrument of reflection, expression, but as a mode of operation or way of being of an institution. In this regard, the most significant institutional discourses are political, medical, legal, scientific, pedagogical. It is within the framework of these discourses that semiotic activity can be considered as an element of their structure, a tool for expressing basic ideas, principles and values.
As for scientific and pedagogical discourses, in the scientific literature one can find both the differentiation of these types of institutional discourse and their integrated study. V.I. Karasik notes the differences between pedagogical and scientific discourses in all analyzed categories. the typical participants of pedagogical discourse are a teacher and a student, while scientific discourse is represented by the interaction of fundamentally equal communication participants — researchers as representatives of the scientific community.
The purpose of pedagogical discourse is the socialization of a new member of society, scientific-the process of obtaining new knowledge. Values in pedagogical discourse are derived from the totality of moral values shared by society, while the values of scientific discourse are mainly associated with the concepts of “truth”, "knowledge”, "research". The author groups many strategies of scientific discourse into the following classes: execution of research, examination of research, implementation of research into practice. strategies of pedagogical discourse are reduced to explanatory, evaluative, controlling, facilitating, organizing. the genres of pedagogical and scientific discourses do not coincide either: lesson, lecture, seminar, exam, conversation, etc.; scientific article, monograph, dissertation, etc. Texts of textbooks, anthologies, rules of student behavior and others act as precedent phenomena of pedagogical discourse, V.I. Karasik refers to the works of classics of science, famous quotations, titles of monographs, articles, some illustrations among the precedent texts of scientific discourse [5, pp. 209-221, 230-233].
Despite the common features highlighted during the analysis of scientific and academic discourses (subject matter, material, the presence of precedent texts and cliches, partial coincidence of values and strategies), insists on the separation of academic discourse into an independent type. Some authors consider pedagogical discourse within the framework of scientific. So R. S. Alikaev interprets pedagogical discourse as a special case of the implementation of scientific discourse: at the same time, the scientific substyle itself acts as an archetype, and the scientific-educational and scientific-journalistic substyle are located on its periphery. It is emphasized that these types of texts have a high frequency, and it is in these texts that the state of disciplinary knowledge is recorded in a certain time period [6]. Depending on the sphere of communication and functioning, communicative and stylistic types of scientific text are distinguished, among which academic and educational scientific texts are considered separately. academic texts, according to the authors, presented in the genres of articles, monographs, dissertations, etc., are intended to reliably inform about the subject of research. Educational scientific texts serve the purposes of teaching, but at the same time they fix the already established system of knowledge, generally accepted concepts and laws of a certain science.
The practice of solving problems of linguistic support for promising areas of the global innovation market and communication with foreign partners in the context of the development of new technologies introduce a special type of discourse - scientific and innovative discourse.
Scientific and innovative discourse is an actual speech action, a kind of genre representing innovations, a product of written or speech communication with its inherent verbal and extralinguistic components. It should be noted that the potential of scientific and innovative discourse has not been sufficiently studied to date. The cognitive approach of the research of scientific and innovative discourse is associated with the analysis of the mentality, linguistic and linguistic features of the communities of society and the desire to solve individual problems of an applied nature at the junction of several scientific directions. In international communication, important mental processes are the comprehension of the content of scientific and innovative discourse and its transformation into a different picture of the world. In the process of communication, the communicant comprehends, analyzes and combines linguistic information, using and creating new knowledge of personal or social significance.
Sounding scientific and innovative discourse is understood as a kind of scientific discourse, a type of institutional communication, the purpose of which is to transfer information of scientific and innovative content to students.
References:
- Шпенюк И.Е. Научно-академический дискурс как институциональный тип дискурса // Гуманитарные науки. — известия Гомельского государственного университета имени Ф. Cкорины. — 2016. — № 4 (97). — с. 133–137.
- Фуко М. Археология знания: пер. с фр. / общ. ред. Б. Левченко. — К.: НикаЦентр, 1996. — 208 с.
- Кожемякин Е.А. институциональные дискурсы: программа сравнительных исследований // Человек. сообщество. управление. — Краснодар, 2007. — № 2. — с. 96–106.
- Бурмакина Н.Г. академический дискурс в теории институциональных дискурсов [Электронный ресурс] / сибирский федеральный университет, Красноярск. — режим доступа к ресурсу: http://study-english.info/article051. php#ixzz4O4I8s99B
- Карасик В.И. Языковой круг: личность, концепты, дискурс. — Волгоград: Перемена, 2002. — 477 с
- Аликаев Р.С. Язык науки в парадигме современной лингвистики. — Нальчик: Эльфа, 1999. — 317 с.