Linguistic creativity and discourse profiles of English language children’s novels

封面

如何引用文章

详细

Contemporary discourse studies face the necessity to develop the methods of contrastive sub-discourse analysis which apply numeric and comparable data to diversify and describe sub-discourse types. The aim of the research is to propose a method of discourse profiling serving the purpose, and to further test the method in the contrastive study of linguistic creativity in different types of English language children’s novels. The category of linguistic creativity being the leading form of language poesis receives parametric description on all language representation levels (in written form) and provides the discourse values for contrastive analysis. These values are explored in the fragments of non-autobiographic and autobiographic adventure novel sub-discourse types authored by J.C. George, F. Gibson, J.D. Ullman, and G. Durrell (a total amount of 120.000 signs) annotated manually for 52 linguistic creativity parameters on phonological, morphological, word-formation, lexical, syntactic, and graphic levels. The working hypothesis is that the linguistic creativity parametric activity distributions represent the sub-discourse profiles and may serve to contrast sub-discourse types by means of their vectors’ contingency values. The analysis in individual parameter activity and in parameter groups activity demonstrated significant variance in sub-discourse construal, with autobiographic sub-discourse of G. Durrell manifesting several higher activity values in word-formation (occasional compounding), lexical use (the use of professional language, lexical tropes, allusive names, higher register style) and syntactic use (the use of parallel structures and syntactic intensifiers). In terms of morphological activity, the parameter values tend to be lower (morphological category shifts), the same stands true of some syntactic (the use of elliptical structures) and lexical parameters (the use of lower register types and proper names). The sub-discourse profiles demonstrate several common features, evidently typical of the discourse type itself, and the features differentiating non-autobiographic and autobiographic discourse subtypes. Vector correlation analysis revealed lower correlation values for autobiographic sub-discourse, which proves its specificity and testifies to the discourse profiling method applicability.

作者简介

Maria Kiose

Moscow State Linguistic University

编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: maria_kiose@mail.ru

Doctor habil. of Philology, Associate Professor, Leading Researcher of the Centre for Socio-Cognitive Studies of Moscow State Linguistic University. Her research interests embrace cognitive semantics, indirect naming in text, referential semantics, oculographic and corpus-based research of text inference and generation process.

38 Ostozhenka, Moscow, 119034, Russia

参考

  1. Agres, Kathleen, Stephen McGregor, Matthew Purver & Geraint Wiggins. 2015. Conceptualizing creativity: from distributional semantics to conceptual spaces. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computational Creativity, 118-125.
  2. Aijmer, Karin & Diana Lewis (eds.). 2017. Contrastive Analysis of Discourse-pragmatic Aspects of Linguistic Genres. Berlin: Springer.
  3. Ariel, Mira. 2004. Accessibility marking: discourse functions, discourse profiles, and processing cues. Accessibility in Text and Discourse Processing: A Special Issue of Discourse Processing 37 (2). 91-116. doi: 10.1207/s15326950dp3702_2
  4. Bergs, Alexander. 2019. What, if anything, is linguistic creativity? Gestalt Theory 41 (2). 173-183. doi: 10.2478/gth-2019-0017
  5. Carter, Ronald. 2016. Language and Creativity. The Art of Common Talk. 2nd edn. New York: Routledge.
  6. Demjankov, Valeriy Z. 2008. Yazykovoe tvorchestvo i rechevaya kreativnost' [Language art and speech creativity]. Yazyk kak mediator mezhdu znaniem i iskusstvom [Language as Mediator Between Knowledge and Art]. 11-19. Мoscow: Azbukovnik.
  7. Feschenko, Vladimir V. 2020. Ot lingvoestetiki k lingvoevristike: slovotvorchestvo v hudozhestvennom i nauchnom diskursah [From linguistic aesthetics to linguistic heuristics: verbal creativity in literary and academic discourses]. Critique and Semiotics 1. 92-113.
  8. Gernsbacher, Morton A. 1996. The structure-building framework: what it is, what it might also be, and why. In Bybruce K. Britton & Arthur C. Graesser (eds.), Models of Understanding Text, 289-311. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  9. Gordon, Taylor & Tingguang Chen. 1991. Linguistic, cultural, and subcultural issues in contrastive discourse analysis: Anglo-American and Chinese scientific texts. Applied Linguistics 12 (3). 319-336.
  10. Gridina, Тatiana А. 2018. Smyslovaya perspektiva slova v igrovom hudozhestvennom tekste [Sense perspective of a word in fiction texts]. In Tatiana A. Gridina (eds.), Lingvistika Kreativa [Linguistics of Creative-4]. 270-281. Ekaterinburg: Ural State Pedagogical University.
  11. Gylling-Jørgensen, Morten. 2013. The Structure of Discourse: A Corpus-Based Cross-Linguistic Study, PhD Series. Frederiksberg: Copenhagen Business School (CBS).
  12. Iriskhanova, Olga K. 2009. O ponyatii kreativnosti i ego roli v metayazyke lingvisticheskih opisanij [On the notion of creativity and its role in the metalanguage of linguistic description]. Kognitivnye issledovaniya yazyka [Cognitive Studies of Language] 5. 157-171.
  13. Iriskhanova, Olga K. & Alan Cienki. 2018. The semiotics of gestures in cognitive linguistics: contribution and challenges. Issues of Cognitive Linguistics 4. 25-36. doi: 10.20916/1812-3228-2018-4-25-36
  14. Jones, Rodney. 2012. Discourse and Creativity. London: Routledge.
  15. Kiose, Maria I. 2020. Vektornye modeli lingvokreativnosti kak instrument ocenki variativnosti diskursa [Vector models of linguistic creativity and their applicability in discourse diversity assessment]. In Irina V. Zykova & Victoria V. Krasnykh (eds.), Yazyk, Kultura, Tvorchestvo: Mirovye Praktiki Izucheniya [Language, Culture and Creativity: World Practices in Studies], 113-129. Moscow: Gnozis.
  16. Kiose, Maria I. & Andrej A. Efremov. HETEROSTAT. Program for discourse parameters variance calculation. Registered 21.09.2020. Registered Number 2020661240.
  17. Mann, William C. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical structure theory: toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 8 (3). 243-281.
  18. Maxwell-Reid, Corinne. 2013. The challenges of contrastive discourse analysis: reflecting on a study into the influence of English on students’ written Spanish on a bilingual education program in Spain. Written Communication 28 (4). 417-435. doi: 10.1177/0741088311421890
  19. Mikolov, Tomas, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado & Jeffrey Dean. 2013. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. Proceedings of ICLR Workshop, 430-443.
  20. Musolff, Andreas. 2019. Creativity in metaphor interpretation. Russian Journal of Linguistics 23 (1). 23-39. doi: 10.22363/2312-9182-2019-23-1-23-39
  21. Neff, Joanne, Emma Dafouz, Mercedes Díez Prados, Rosa Prieto, Craig Chaudron. 2004. Contrastive discourse analysis: argumentative text in English and Spanish. In Carol L. Moder & Aida Martinovic-Zic (eds.), Discourse Across Languages and Cultures, 267-283. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  22. Paradis, Carita, Simone Löhndorf, Joost van de Weijer & Caroline Willners. 2015. Semantic profiles of antonymic adjectives in discourse. Linguistics 53 (1). 153-191. doi: 10.1515/ling-2014-0035
  23. Perek, Florent. 2016. Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony. A case study. Linguistics 54 (1). 149-188. doi: 10.1515/ling-2015-0043
  24. Péry-Woodley, Marie-Paule. 1990. Contrasting discourses: contrastive analysis and a discourse approach to writing. Language Teaching 23 (3). 143-151.
  25. Ponton, Douglas M. 2016. Movements and meanings: towards an integrated approach to political discourse analysis. Russian Journal of Linguistics 20 (4), 122-139.
  26. Sherratt, Sue. 2007. Multi-level discourse analysis: a feasible approach. Aphasiology 21 (3-4). 375-393. doi: 10.1080/02687030600911435
  27. Silva, Beatriz A. A. & Sheila V. C. Grillo. 2019. New paths for science: a contrastive discourse analysis of modifications in popularizing science through digital media Bakhtiniana. Revista de Estudos do Discurso 14 (1). 51-73.
  28. Simpson, Paul (eds.). 2019. Style, Rhetoric and Creativity in Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  29. Singer, Murray. 2013. Profiles of discourse recognition. Discourse Processes 50 (6). 407-429. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2013.822297
  30. Sligh, Allison C., Frances A. Conners & Beverly Roskos-Ewoldsen. 2005. Relation of creativity to fluid and crystallized intelligence. Journal of Creative Behavior 39. 123-136.
  31. Sokolova, Olga. 2019. Ot Avangarda k Neoavangardu: Yazyk, Sub"ektivnost', Kul'turnye Perenosy [From Avant-garde to Neo Avant-garde. Language, subjectivity, and Cultural Transfer]. Moscow: Kulturnaya Revolutsia.
  32. Steels, Luc. 2016. Meaning and Creativity in Language. In Mirko D. Esposti, Eduardo G. Altmann, François-David Pachet (eds.), Creativity and Universality in Language, 197-208. Berlin: Springer.
  33. Swann, Joan, Rob Pope & Ronald Carter (eds.). 2011. Creativity in Language and Literature. The State of the Art. Melbourne: Red Globe Press.
  34. Swann, Joan & Ana Deumert. 2018. Sociolinguistics and language creativity. Language Sciences 65. 1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2017.06.002
  35. Taboada, Maite, Susana D. Suárez & Elsa G. Alvarez. 2012. Contrastive Discourse Analysis: Functional and Corpus Perspectives. Sheffield: Equinox Publishing Limited.
  36. Tannen, Deborah, Heidi E. Hamilton & Deborah Schiffrin (eds.). 2015. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis 1. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
  37. Van Dijk, Teun A. 1997. Discourse as Structure and Process. Discourse Studies: A Multi-disciplinary Introduction. London: SAGE Publications.
  38. Zawada, Britta. 2006. Linguistic creativity from a cognitive perspective. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 24 (2). 235-254. doi: 10.2989/16073610609486419
  39. Zykova, Irina. 2020. Verbal sources of cinematic metaphors: From cinematic performativity to linguistic creativity. Lege artis. Language yesterday, today, tomorrow 5 (1). 499-532.
  40. Zykova, Irina V. & Maria I. Kiose. 2020. Parametrizaciya lingvisticheskoj kreativnosti v mezhdiskursivnom aspekte: kinodiskurs vs. diskurs detskoj literatury [Linguistic creativity parametrization in contrasting discourse types: cinematic discourse vs. discourse of children’s literature]. Voprosy Kognitivnoj Lingvistiki [Issues of Cognitive Linguistics] 2. 26-40. doi: 10.20916/1812-3228-2020-2-26-40

版权所有 © Kiose M., 2021

Creative Commons License
此作品已接受知识共享署名-非商业性使用 4.0国际许可协议的许可。

##common.cookie##