Text and Discourse: Looking for a Way out of the Labyrinth

Cover Page


Full Text

1. Introduction The issue of the Journal presented below features articles on text and discourse, which, through the communicative and cognitive approach, address issues of intertextuality and speech genres, rhetoric and nonverbal forms of communication, linguistic manipulation and lingvopersonology/linguistic personality studies, as well as term matching and translation studies. All these and many other issues are still topical, although the history of studying them is quite long. And that is not accidental. Text is justly considered to be a most important notion in philology. As a means of creation and storage of human knowledge, it is studied by many humanities such as literature studies, linguistics, history, psychology, semiotics, theology, hermeneutics, and ethnology. Texts have long attracted attention of scholars as a unique, complex, and controversial object of study. Originally, it referred to sacred texts which are pivotal to all major religions. Then, texts in the fields of law and literature became an object of study. In the late 19th century texts began to be carefully examined by ethnologists. In the 19th-20th centuries the text as a structure aroused particular interest among researchers. Influenced by the theorists of structuralism and post-structuralism (R. Barthes, A.J. Greimas, J. Derrida, J. Lacan, M. Foucault etc), modern scholarship not infrequently relates human consciousness to a written text as a reliable method of keeping a record. As a result, many phenomena - culture, society, history, and a human being - may be regarded as a text. The tenet that history and society can be “read” as a text has resulted in perceiving human culture as a single “intertext” that serves as a kind of precursor text for any other text being created. The metaphor “the world is a text”, that can be traced back to I. Kant, creates a vision of cognition as reading a global text - “a book of nature”. The interdisciplinary character of the general theory of text causes difficulties with defining and studying this multifaceted notion, which manifest themselves particularly in default, thus far, of the definition of text that would work for all scholars. Text has been studied from different perspectives: as an overall, interdisciplinary target - in terms of semiotics and hermeneutics (I.V. Arnold, А.А. Brudny, Yu.M. Lotman, U. Eco etc); as a sequence of signs - in terms of its structure, content, and communicative and pragmatic arrangement (V.G. Gak, L.M. Loseva, O.I. Moskalskaya, Z.Ya. Turaeva etc); as a sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic phenomenon (T.A. van Dijk, A.A. Zalevskaya, A.A. Leontyev, Ya.A. Sorokin etc). The activity-related and communicative approach to text studies, that takes account of the positions of the producer and recipient and aims to formalize as much as possible the processes of text understanding and production, was substantiated by the works by I.A. Melchuk, Ye.S. Kubryakova, G.I. Bogin, M.Ya. Dymarsky etc. The problems of text production are less well understood than those of text understanding, although they have many times been addressed within the framework of the theory of text. Scholars highlight complexity and ambiguousness of text formation. Text production is connected with meaning production. The meaning-text theory is based on the presumption of the invariant meaning which is invariable when undergoing all mappings of the text (Lotman, 2000). The approach related to studying the processes of understanding and producing texts belonging to various types and genres, has an immediate effect on the practice of language teaching. Living in the world of texts, a human being can not help producing ever new texts by reacting and responding to both life events and the existing texts. However, the ability to understand and create texts of diverse complexity is not innate. “The skill to build texts consistent with a certain situation and to successfully decode texts coming from the outside, most often results from a conscious effort made by the active linguistic personality” (Bogdanova 2014:11). Although the phenomenon of complete mastery of a language, to quote B.M. Gasparov, is mostly based on the existence in the speaker’s memory of a considerable arsenal of communicative episodes and extensive network of analogies, contaminations, and associative trains of thoughts (Gasparov 1996:129-130), it would be the mistaken belief that mastery of internal “norms of text production” (Dymarsky, 2001) is gained intuitively and unconsciously. B.M. Gasparov stresses that language existence like any other existence is not just an intuitive and unconscious process. “The intuitive evolution of language experience is inseparable from language reflection” (Gasparov 1996:17). People tend to organize and rationalize their language experience; apparently this tendency has got to be used when deliberately developing text competence. Nowadays the most promising and heuristically significant trend is the one based on the tenet that “knowledge about global text diversity, i.e. text typology knowledge, is a mandatory component of the communicative competence as a whole” (Chernyavskaya 2014:66). In scholarly literature in English that corresponds to the term superstructure. According to Teun van Dijk, superstructures represent knowledge about global communicative and speech types, that knowledge is contained in the head rather than just actualized in the text (van Dijk, Kintsch 1983:25). 2. The Review of the Issue 2.1. Text Analysis This issue of the Journal addresses a wide range of problems which are directly or indirectly related to text. Intertextuality is a notion that has a long linguistic life ahead. In 1967, it was brought into scholarly usage by Julia Kristeva, the theorist of post-structuralism, who literary broke Paris’s intellectual environment at that time. J. Kristeva introduced the term upon analysing M.M. Bakhtin’s conception of “a polyphonic novel”, who was a first one to observe the phenomenon of a continual dialogue of a text with other texts. Today, intertextuality is understood both in a broad and narrow sense. The term intertextuality in a narrow sense means quotation and allusion. In a broad sense, it is used to express a multifaceted interrelationship between texts in order to indicate the interaction between text and the semiotic cultural environment as a whole, since any text, in this respect, makes part of the entire cultural text. The dynamic model developed by M.M. Bakhtin to supersede the static segmentation of texts (Bakhtin, 1979) can only be used if based on a conception that does not see a text as an invariable meaning, but rather “an intersection of text planes” (Kristeva, 2000), a dialogue between the author and the character, the author and the reader, and a dialogue between the contemporary understanding and the preceding cultural context. Almost half a century later, the notion of intertextuality is still controversial and extensively discussed (Fateyeva, 2012), (Piegay-Gros, 2008), it reveals new facets - for instance, a linguocultural view of intertextuality based on the notion of the conceptual sphere of the text makes it possible to build a model of the concept of the precedent text (Slyshkin, 2000). The first section of the issue opens with an article in English by Zinaida Turaeva (Böblingen, Germany), a leading expert in the field of text linguistics (Turaeva, 1986). The article Intertextuality: Ariadne’s Thread in the Exploration of Literature analyses the above-mentioned notion as a category that can be traced back to M.M. Bakhtin’s works, to his theory of the dialogic nature of the text and culture. The conceptual title of the article makes us believe that there is a way out of the labyrinth of serious problems that arise when understanding and producing a text. Viewing intertextuality as Ariadne’s thread, i.e. as some sort of key to understanding a text, the author comes to the valuable conclusion that not only does intertextuality encourage establishing links between epochs and uphold human experience, but it also makes it possible to spur creative thinking. The interaction/melange in a literary text of two contradictory tendencies towards stability and constant innovation stimulates the preservation of the old and generation of new knowledge. Understood in a narrow sense, intertextuality, with quotation regarded as its most important manifestation, is still attractive to researchers. In her article Pragmatic Aspects of Quotation in Spanish Media Texts, Ekaterina Terentieva (Moscow, Russia) groups all texts cited in media into two categories: 1) texts that are high-profile and topical at a certain period of time and 2) precedent texts that are time and time again reproduced in certain society. The article provides an analysis of pragmatic functions of explicit and implicit quotes, which gives an insight into some mechanisms for exerting an influence upon the reader, whose recognition and description is considered to be a most important purpose of studying media texts nowadays. Another major issue of text linguistics is the problem of speech genres. M.M. Bakhtin is justly regarded as the founder of the theory of speech genres. Today, it is a rapidly progressing research area of linguistics represented by research findings, including works by Vadim Dementyev (Dementyev, 2010). The joint article Corpus Methods in the Study of Speech Genres: the Problem of Key Phrases by Vadim Dementyev and Nataliya Stepanova (Saratov, Russia) introduces the reader to the findings of the survey conducted with the financial backing from the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation (within the framework for the basic section of the government task). The article discusses theoretical and practical issues relating to the study of speech genres from a new perspective - on a corpus linguistics level. On the one hand, the authors point to the undeniable effectiveness of the corpus methods for solving various linguistic problems, on the other hand, they note that corpus methods for “diagnosing” speech genres have not been developed thus far. According to the authors, key phrases could play the role of certain text markers for speech genres in order to perform a search in corpora. The article develops and supports a constructive idea that the key phrase of a speech genre should be incorporated in its appropriate description as an additional parameter. Such approach to studying and describing speech genres has potential as it helps develop an algorithm of their identification process. This issue of the Journal contains articles on analysis of certain genres. For example, analysing texts belonging to the genre of a fairy tale, Nataliya Solovyeva (Moscow, Russia) in her article Linguistic Representation of the Category of Oppositeness in English Folk Tales in the English language, looks at the text in terms of structural semantics. The fairy tale as a genre has long been studied, with the Russian linguist, folklorist, and ethnographer V.Ya. Propp ranking near first in this field. In his early work on text structure Morphology of the Tale that received wider recognition later, V.Ya. Propp made a discovery about identifying recurrent features in fairy tales, i.e. a finite number of types of events and characters, a virtually unchanging set of functions performed by the characters (Propp, 1928). Being in advance of its time, in many respects on the methodology level, V.Ya. Propp’s research endeavour in terms of its calibre and significance may be ranked among works by the famous Russian scholars of the 20th century such as M.M. Bakhtin, R.O. Jacobson, A.F. Losev, S.S. Awerinzew, Yu.M. Lotman whose research interest range was wider than just linguistics. Directly or indirectly, all those scholars adopted the interdisciplinary approach to their research, that is much in demand nowadays, in the 21st century, and exerted a profound influence upon the development of the humanities in the contemporary world, including the theory of text. In the late 1950s - early 1960s V.Ya. Propp’s book was translated into foreign languages to become a best-seller in the academic community, thereby making a profound impact upon a number of research areas, including semiotics and text linguistics, and marking the beginning of structure and typology research of the narrative. V.Ya. Propp’s ideas either explicitly or implicitly influenced structuralists and semiologists (R. Barthes, A. Greimas, C. Lévi-Strauss, Tz. Todorov etc) in particular. Analysing English folk tales, the author of the above-mentioned article partly draws on the works by these scholars to do her research (Levi-Strauss, 1983). The purport of the article is to develop a typology of text oppositions as applied to English folk tales. With the method of phonological oppositions serving as a basis, the author views the category of oppositeness as assemblage of phonological, semantic, and grammatical oppositions. The article reveals how text oppositions, the existence of which derives from semantic and grammatical oppositions, manifest themselves through the opposition between explicit and implicit spatial images, fairy tale characters, and the beginning and ending of the text. Today, rhetoric is developing into one of the socially needed arts. It has gone through several developmental stages - from the art of persuasion (ancient Greece) to the art of embellishing and beautifying the speech (the Middle Ages and Renaissance). Being influenced by such rapidly progressing fields as the theory of linguistic manipulation and communicative linguistics, rhetoric as a branch of knowledge of persuasion turns out to be of utmost importance nowadays. Georgiy Khazagerov (Rostov-on-Don, Russia), the author of the dictionary of rhetorical terms, textbooks on rhetoric and literary theory, surveys on political rhetoric, is a famous expert in the field of rhetoric and text stylistics (Khazagerov, 2002). Georgiy Khazagerov is a scholar who is looking for tips in rhetorical heritage that could help meet the challenge of the 21st century. The article The Teleological Sense and Social Role of Rhetorical Figures Classification views classifications of rhetorical figures in the context of their goals. The author rightly claims that a rational approach to the classification depends on the speaker’s aims, and organises these aims into three groups in terms of short-term, continued, and long-term pragmatics. In accordance with the aims, three strategies are formulated for classifying rhetorical figures, which, as we can see, could be of both academic and social significance. On the level of short-term pragmatics, the main aim is regarded as educational, so the classification is supposed to be simple and easy to remember. On the level of continued pragmatics, rhetorical figures, to quote the author, need to be connected with intentions orientated towards building an image. At this point the author sets an important task of producing an atlas of such intentions. On the level of long-term pragmatics, lists of figures are needed, that can be circulated in the public space, off the university’s premises. 2.2. Discourse analysis In modern research text cannot be considered in isolation from discourse. Because in the long term a special issue devoted to discourse analysis is expected, here we will briefly outline some differences in the understanding of discourse. In American and English linguistics discourse is understood as a connected speech, and is usually equated with a dialogue (Chernyavskaya 2014:103). In French linguistic school the notions of discourse and discursive analysis are connected with the names of M. Foucault, J. Lacan, M. Pêcheux and others. M. Foucault understands discourse as a body of utterances (segments of human knowledge), belonging to one historical period. In Foucault’s framework discursive practices (French “practiques discoursives”), which include discourse, represent a set of historically formed rules that determine the fulfillment of the functions of an utterance in this epoch and for this particular linguacultural environment (Foucault 1994). Valuable for the development of science should be recognized the idea of M. Foucault that each academic discipline has its own discourse, acting as a specific “form of knowledge”, which possesses certain power over a man. In Foucault’s opinion, it is necessary to liberate the man from the “power of discourse”, from the hidden assumptions, to give him the freedom to think differently, in his own way, and to clear the area of freedom for the “new forms of subjectivity” (Ibid.). Another understanding of discourse is associated with the body of thematically related texts (Chernyavskaya 2014:112), which is reflected in many recent studies, such as in the analysis of medical, legal, political, financial, family and other discourses. The second section of this issue of the journal opens with an article “Cross-cultural communication in Russian-speaking immigrant families in Israel: Language practices of the second generation”, where its author, Claudia Zbenovich (Israel, Jerusalem), considers the aspects of everyday communication dynamics between parents and children in the families of Russian-speaking Israelis. Analyzing family discourse in the framework of intercultural bilingual communication, the author indicates clearly that cultural scripts - Russian and Israeli - actively interact. The results of the discursive and pragmatic analysis conducted by the author confirm that both parties are involved in the process of “cultural translation” of linguistic paradigms: the inherited mentality of the older generation and the new cultural and linguistic experiences of the younger generation interact in the construction of a socio-cultural and linguistic identity of immigrant children. The study of culture specific behavior is still of immediate interest despite a wide range of research in this field (Prokhorov, Sternin 2006; Issers 2008; Larina 2009; West, Turner 2000 and many others) The modern study of communicative behavior is impossible without considering the data of imageology (Pocheptsov, 2001; Bird, 1994), linguistic personology, and cognitive linguistics (Karasik, Dmitrieva 2005; Evans, 2006; Jackendoff, 2007). A joint article “The Juror’s Image of an Entertainment TV-Show (on the basis of “The Voice” Show)” by Anastasia Gerasimova and Oxana Issers (Omsk, Russia) deals with identifying the characteristics of public discourse, specifically the communicative characteristics of the image of the members of the jury of a creative entertainment TV-project “The Voice”. The authors aim to determine verbal and nonverbal dominant features of the Russian communicative behavior, which form a universal image of a mentor in a creative TV show (lexical means and tactical speech techniques, as well as gestures, facial expressions, and the demeanor). In order to identify verbal and non-verbal correlates of a coach the concepts of “image” and “linguacultural type” are compared, given that the latter is becoming more common and multidimensional but in a reduced form is transformed into an image. Modern studies have repeatedly proven an essential role of non-verbal means in communication. The article “Grammatical Aspect and Gesture in French: a kinesiological approach” by Dominique Boutet (Paris, France), Aliyah Morgenstern (Paris, France) and Alan Cienki (Amsterdam, the Netherlands,) presents the results of a study supported by the grant of the Russian Scientific Foundation. The authors aim to prove that the study of the functioning of gestures in speech opens up new possibilities for understanding the conceptualization of grammatical categories in speech. The kinesiological approach utilized by the authors in the study of gestural aspects of speech is well-known in pedagogy. Physiologists, psychologists, teachers (I.M. Sechenov, W. Wundt, L.S. Vygotsky, A.R. Luria et al.) discovered physiological relationship between verbal and cogitative and motor actions. Pedagogy points to the impact of this interdependence on the overall development of children, on the formation and development of speech, and on language training. Didactic techniques and methods of the formation of new knowledge and skills of students through motor activity are termed as “kinesiological techniques” that corresponds to the term “educational kinesiology” used in the American educational literature. The kinesiological approach to gestures described in the given article allows the analysis of bodily movements in accordance with the biomechanical theory, which in its turn takes into account physiological characteristics. The authors experimentally prove that speakers’ construction of aspectual differences grammaticalized in language can be manifested in gestures as well. One of the objectives of the study is to find out how the differences in the structure of an event expressed by the category of aspect correlate with kinesiological features of gestures. This study makes one think about the following questions: 1) whether kinesics may participate in the expression of specific semantic differences, 2) whether there is an internal source which affects the speed of a gesture in a conversation, 3) whether a speaker’s interpretation of an event, which is realized in the choice of aspect, may lead to the choice of a gesture characterized by specific features. The article attempts to address these and other complex issues related to the new approach to the analysis of gestural aspects of speech. Besides gestures that have an additional impact on the addressee in the process of speaking, figures of speech are no less effective in communication. The article “Features of Realization of Figurativeness in the Turkish Political Discourse of Oral Public Statements” by Andrei Shtanov and Ekaterina Belykh (Moscow, Russia) shows that each figure of speech has its associative resources. Figurative language in the oral public speech of a political leader is by all means a specific tool that influences the audience in order to affect the vision of the political situation. The authors point out both universal and cultural characteristics of the functioning of figurative linguistic means in Turkish political discourse. 2.3. Comparative analysis of terminology Due to cross-cultural contacts and the expansion of international cooperation in the economy, politics, culture, education, etc., the professional occupation of a person is becoming virtually impossible without a study of specific languages and their terminology in particular. The problem of translation of terms and the search for terminological correspondences in the original language and the target language is among the most pressing. The questions of comparative terminology do not cease to interest contemporary academics (Saraganova, 2017). One of the key issues at that is the harmonization of terminology in translation. Achieving this goal is possible provided that there is a new understanding of existing problems. Modern terminology studies is the study of terms in the broader context at the intersection of various fields, such as lexicography, translation studies, pragmatics, and cognitive linguistics. The cognitive approach to the study of terms is realized by frame analysis formed under the influence of M. Minsky (Minsky, 1975), G. Lakoff (Lakoff, 1986), Ch. Fillmore, B. Atkins (Fillmore, Atkins, 1992) and others. A linguistic term, according to the cognitive approach, is often understood as a concept. Thus, the third section of the journal dedicated to the comparative study of terms, opens with a joint article in English “Multi-word Lexical Units in English and Slovak Linguistics Terminology”, conducted under the grant “Virtual interactive bilingual English-Slovak Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary”, in which its authors, Magdaléna Bilá and Alena Kačmárová (Preshov, Slovakia), show that the differences in the conceptualization of terms in Slovak and English cause difficulties in the translation process. According to the authors, appealing to a deeper structure of a term makes it possible to present its interpretation translation in the dictionary more accurately. The authors believe that when preparing the glossary of the future dictionary, it is necessary to consider the results of the conceptualization in accordance with which the term should receive its interpretation and translation. The comparative study of terms is often conducted within legal discourse, which is no coincidence since the field of law requires special attention to the accuracy of the translation of terms. In a joint article “The semantic structure of a legal term” Ekaterina Kulevskaya and Nadezda Dudik (Moscow, Russia) explore the semantics of the term from the cognitive perspective. Using frame analysis, the authors identify homogeneous and heterogeneous semantic structures. The article shows that the legal term in practice does not always have a precise and definite meaning, because some terms are polysemantic. Significant results in the comparative study of the legal terms have been achieved in a series of articles by Vladimir Ozyumenko (Moscow, Russia), exploring various nominations of individuals related to the proceedings in the English and Russian languages. Having considered such terms as “lawyer” and “prosecutor” (Ozyumenko, 2014, 2015), the author of the article “Lexical and Semantic Fields Judge and Sudya in the English and Russian languages” addresses the term judge. The comparative analysis revealed significant differences in nominating officials executing justice: 1) there are more lexemes used to describe this concept in English than in Russian; 2) English and Russian terms differ in the volume of their meaning and distinctive features; 3) nominative specification, territorial variability and polysemy are typical of the English terms. The results make it possible to propose specific recommendations in translation. Ekaterina Pryakhina (Moscow, Russia) turns to the comparative study of the verbalization of participants of the educational process. This should be deemed important as the educational systems of many countries of the world are undergoing significant changes. The article “School Community Members Nomination in the French and Russian Languages” provides the findings of the comparative analysis of the “Students/Éleves” slot in the French and Russian languages, conducted on the basis of the frame approach to learning vocabulary. According to Ch. Fillmore and B. Atkins (Fillmore, Atkins, 1992), a frame structures a group of words into a single scheme of experience and knowledge. Since the frame is fixed in the language thesaurus via a correlated linguistic structure, it is a part of the regulated system of experience reflection of the reality. That is why the analysis was carried out from a unit of meaning to linguistic forms of its expression, resulting in the model of the slot under study; furthermore, structural and morphological characteristics of the lexemes included into the analyzed slot were identified, as well as their component analysis was performed. The study found differences in both the presence / absence of certain semes and lacunarity of some names of pupils. This is indicative of cultural specifics of the studied slot which, in particular, manifests itself in significant differences in the expression of such semes as “apprentice” and “training beginner”. The article notes the difference in the connotative characteristics of the lexical units, and registers the semes that are present in Russian and absent in French (such as a form of learning, achievement, tuition, etc.). 2.4. Translation theory and practice A comparative study of terminology is directly related to translation theory and practice. The section of the journal devoted to the problems of translation opens with a joint article in English “From Function to System: Advances in Choosing a Matrix Structure of the Translation Process” by Irina Remkhe (Magnotogorsk, Russia), Liliya Nefedova (Chelyabinsk, Russia) and David Gillespie (Bath, Great Britain). The article establishes a claim for an interdisciplinary approach to the theory of translation. The authors offer their own vision of the cognitive nature of the translation process that is made up of many parameters, including synergy, cooperation, interdependence, and others. The practical significance of the model is verified, as specified in the article, through a psycholinguistic experiment, the results of which are presented in the form of the levels of effectiveness of translation problems on the basis of mental spaces of the matrix structure of the translation process. Translation issues are also addressed in the article by Vera Gorshkova (Irkutsk, Russia) “Fiction Film Dialogue vs Documentary Film Dialogue: Genre Peculiarities of Translation”, which considers the problems of translation of the film dialogue depending on its genre. The author aims to show a universal character of the concept of “image-meaning” in its application to certain cinematic genres. Examining the problem on the material taken from French films and documentaries and their translations, the author concludes that separate verbal components can acquire particular importance in the context of the artistic film dialogue, enhancing its poetic function and forming its complete “image-meaning”. The article also points to the importance of lexical units like personal pronouns “toi” and “vous”, the adequate translation of which contributes to the integrity of the viewer’s perception of the film. 2.5. Chronicle The discussion of the current problems of modern linguistics continues in the “Chronicle”, where one can read Olga Abdrakhmanova’s (Chelyabinsk, Russia) review of the collective monograph edited by prof. V.E. Gorshkova “Film Dialogue. Sense-image. Translation” (Irkutsk, 2014). The review by Alexander Factorovich (Krasnodar, Russia) introduces the reader to “Ecological Linguistics”, the book by L.A. Brusenskaya and E.G. Kulikova (M.: FLINTA Science, 2016). In the academic events section noteworthy is the information about the International Conference in Paris (18-22.07.2016) during which current issues of gestures studies were discussed (see a special article in this issue of the journal). Of interest are also the reports of past conferences in stylistics (Moscow State University, Faculty of Journalism) and Intercultural Pragmatics (Split, Croatia). 3. Conclusion In conclusion, it should be noted that the presented selection of articles in the journal cannot cover the entire range of issues related to the study of text and discourse. However, it is sufficiently representative for the reader to assess the prospects of various research areas and their contribution to the development of linguistics. Text linguistics / discourse linguistics brings up a lot of questions with no simple answers. Among them there are the problems of delimitation and identification of text and discourse, the typology of texts and discourses, the distinction between discourse and a functional style, and many others. The analysis of research questions that the authors of the articles address shows that they are quite complex and ambiguous, on the one hand, and demonstrates progress in many areas of knowledge, on the other hand. The editors dare to hope this issue of the journal will provide readers with intellectual pleasure and will be an additional impetus to new discoveries. © Ludmila Bogdanova, 2016 REFERENCES Bakhtin M.M. (1979). Estetika slovesnogo tvorchestva [Aesthetics of verbal art]. Moscow: Iskusstvo. 251 p. (In Russian). Bogdanova L.I. (2014). Formirovanie tekstovoi kompetentsii v protsesse retsepcii i produktsii tekstov [Forming of textual competence in process of reception and production of texts] // Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 19. Lingvistika i mezhkul'turnaya kommunikatsiya. № 1, 11-19 (In Russian). Chernyavskaya V.Ye. (2014). Lingvistika teksta. Lingvistika diskursa [Linguistics of text. Linguistics of discourse]. Moscow: LENAND. 200 p. (In Russian). Gasparov B.M. (1996). Yazyk, pamjat', obraz. Lingvistika yazykovogo sushchestvovaniya [Language, memory, image. Linguistics of verbal existance]. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie. 348 p. (In Russian). Dement’ev V.V. Teoriya rechevykh zhanrov [Theory of speech genres]. Moscow: Znak, 2010. 600 p. (In Russian). Dymarskii M.Ya. (2000). Problemy tekstoobrazovaniya i khudozhestvennyi tekst (Na materiale russkoi prozy XIX-XX vekov) [Problems of text formation and literary text (on the basis of Russian prose of XIX-XX centuries)]. Moscow: Editorial URSS. 328 p. (In Russian). Fateeva N.A. (2012). Intertekst v mire tekstov: kontrapunkt intertekstual'nosti [Intertext in the world of texts: counterpoint of intertextuality]. Moscow: URSS. 82 p. (In Russian). Fuko M. (1994). Slova i veshchi. Arheologiya gumanitarnykh nauk [The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences]. Saint Petersburg: A-cad. 408 p. (In Russian). Hazagerov G.G. (2002). Politicheskaya ritorika [Political rhetoric]. Moscow: Nikolo-Media. 313 p. (In Russian). Issers O.S. (2008). Kommunikativnye strategii i taktiki russkoi rechi [Communicative strategies and tactics of Russian speech]. Moscow: URSS, 288 p. (In Russian). Karasik V.I., Dmitrieva O.A. (2005). Lingvokul'turnyj tipazh: k opredeleniyu ponyatiya [Lingvocultural archetype: on the definition of the concept] // Pod red. Karasika V.I. Aksiologicheskaya lingvistika: lingvokul'turnye tipazhi: sb. nauch. tr. Volgograd: Paradigma. 240 p. (In Russian). Kristeva Yu. (2000). Bakhtin, slovo, dialog i roman [Bakhtin, word, dialogue and novel]. // Frantsuzskaya semiotika: ot strukturalizma k poststrukturalizmu / Perevod s frants., sost., vstup. statya G.K. Kosikova. M.: Progress. 427-457. (In Russian). Larina T.V. (2009). Kategoriya vezhlivosti i stil' kommunikatsii: Sopostavlenie angliiskikh i russkikh lingvokul'turnyh traditsii [Category of politeness and communicative style: Comparison of Russian and English language and culture traditions]. M.: Yazyki slavyanskikh kul'tur. 512 p. (In Russian). Lotman Yu.M. (2000). Semiosfera [Semiosphere]. Sankt-Peterburg: Iskusstvo-SPb. 704 p. (In Russian). Ozyumenko V.I. (2014). Perevodnye sootvetstviya slova «advokat» v angliiskom yazyke [Translation equivalents of the word «advokat » in English]. // Vestnik RUDN. Seriya «Russkii i inostrannye yazyki i metodika ikh prepodavaniya». № 4, 114-119. (In Russian). Ozyumenko V.I., Chilingaryan K.P. (2015). Polisemantichnst' angliiskoy yuridicheskoy leksiki kak problema perevoda [Polysemy of English legal lexis and the problems of translation]. Russian Journal of linguistics, 2, 180-193. (In Russian). Pocheptsov G.G. (2001). Professiya: imidzhmeyker [Profession: imagemaker]. Saint Petersburg: Aleteya. 256 p. (In Russian). Propp V.Ya. (1928). Morfologiya skazki [Morphology of a fairy tale]. Leningrad: Academia. 152 p. (In Russian). Prokhorov Yu.Ye., Sternin I.A. (2006). Russkie: kommunikativnoe povedenie [The Russians: communicative behavior]. M.: Flinta. 328 p. (In Russian). P’ege-Gro N. (2008). Vvedenie v teoriyu intertekstual'nosti [Introduction to the intertextual theory] / Perevod G.K. Kosikova. Moscow: LKI. 240 p. (In Russian). Sarangova T.A. (2017). Terminologiya Investor Relations v russkom i angliiskom yazykah [Terminology Investor Relations in Russian and English]. Moscow: Infra-M. 126 p. (In Russian). Slyshkin G.G. (2000). Lingvokul'turnye kontsepty pretsedentnykh tekstov v soznanii i diskurse [Language and culture concepts of precedent texts in mind and discourse]. Moscow: Academia. 118 p. (In Russian). Turaeva Z.Ya. (1986). Lingvistika teksta [Linguistics of text]. Moscow: Prosveshchenie. 127 p. (In Russian).

About the authors

Ludmila Ivanovna Bogdanova

Lomonosov Moscow State University (MSU)

Email: libogdanova1@mail.ru
31-1, Lomonosovsky Pr., 119192, Moscow, Russia


  1. Бахтин М.М. Эстетика словесного творчества. М.: Искусство, 1979. 251 с
  2. Богданова Л.И. Формирование текстовой компетенции в процессе рецепции и продукции текстов. Вестник Московского университета. Серия 19. Лингвистика и межкультурная коммуникация. 2014, № 1. С. 11-19
  3. Гаспаров Б.М. Язык, память, образ. Лингвистика языкового существования. М.: Новое литературное обозрение, 1996. 348 с
  4. Дементьев В.В. Теория речевых жанров. М.: Знак, 2010. 600 с
  5. Дымарский М.Я. Проблемы текстообразования и художественный текст (на материале русской прозы XIX-XX веков). М.: Эдиториал УРСС, 2001. 328 с
  6. Иссерс О.С. Коммуникативные стратегии и тактики русской речи. М.: УРСС, 2008. 288 с
  7. Карасик В.И., Дмитриева О.А. Лингвокультурный типаж: к определению понятия // Под ред. В.И. Карасика. Аксиологическая лингвистика: лингвокультурные типажи: сб. науч. тр. Волгоград: Парадигма, 2005. 240 с
  8. Кристева Ю. Бахтин, слово, диалог и роман // Французская семиотика: от структурализма к постструктурализму / Перевод с франц., сост., вступ. статья Г.К. Косикова. М.: Прогресс, 2000. С. 427-457
  9. Ларина Т.В. Категория вежливости и стиль коммуникации: Сопоставление английских и русских лингвокультурных традиций. М.: Языки славянских культур, 2009. 512 с
  10. Лотман Ю.М. Семиосфера. Санкт-Петербург: Искусство-СПб, 2000. 704 с
  11. Озюменко В.И. Переводные соответствия слова «адвокат» в английском языке. Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Русский и иностранные языки и методика их преподавания. 2014. № 4. С. 114-119
  12. Озюменко В.И., Чилингарян К.П. Полисемантичнсть английской юридической лексики как проблема перевода. Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Лингвистика. 2015, № 2. C. 180-193
  13. Почепцов Г.Г. Профессия: имиджмейкер. СПб.: Алетейя, 2001. 256 с
  14. Пропп В.Я. Морфология сказки. Ленинград: Academia, 1928. 152 с
  15. Прохоров Ю.Е., Стернин И.А. Русские: коммуникативное поведение. М.: Флинта, 2006. 328 с
  16. Пьеге-Гро Н. Введение в теорию интертекстуальности. / Перевод Г.К. Косикова. М.: ЛКИ, 2008. 240 с
  17. Сарангова Т.А. Терминология Investor Relations в русском и английском языках. М.: Инфра-М, 2017. 126 с
  18. Слышкин Г.Г. Лингвокультурные концепты прецедентных текстов в сознании и дискурсе. М.: Academia, 2000. 118 с
  19. Тураева З.Я. Лингвистика текста. М.: Просвещение, 1986. 127 с
  20. Фатеева Н.А. Интертекст в мире текстов: контрапункт интертекстуальности. М.: УРСС, 2012. 82 с
  21. Фуко М. Слова и вещи. Археология гуманитарных наук. СПб.: A-cad, 1994. 408 с
  22. Хазагеров Г.Г. Политическая риторика. М.: Николо-Медиа, 2002. 313 с
  23. Чернявская В.Е. Лингвистика текста. Лингвистика дискурса. М.: ЛЕНАНД, 2014. 200 с
  24. Bird, P. (1994). Sell Yourself. Persuasive Tactics to Boost Your Image. London: Vintage
  25. Evans, V. (2006). Cognitive linguistics. Edinburgh: University Press
  26. Fillmore, Ch., and Atkins, B. (1992). Towards a Frame-based organization of the lexicon: the semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In A. Lehrer, E. Kittay (Eds.). Frames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantics and Lexical Organization (pp. 75-102). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum
  27. Jackendoff, R. (2007). Language, consciousness, culture: essays on mental structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  28. Lakoff, G. (1986). Frame semantic control of the coordinate structure constraint. In Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory (pp. 152-167). Chicago: University of Chicago Press
  29. Levi-Strauss, C. (1983). The Raw and the Cooked. Mithologiques. (Vol. 1). Chicago: University of Chicago Press
  30. Minsky, M. (1975). A Framework for Representing Knowledge. New York: McGraw Hill
  31. Van Dijk, T. A., and Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension (pp. 189-206). New York: Academic Press
  32. West, R., and Turner, L.H. (2000). Introducing communication theory: Analysis and application. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield



Abstract - 383

PDF (Russian) - 290


Copyright (c) 2016 Богданова Л.И.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies