Pedagogical discourse of a bilingual - future teacher of the Russian language

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Learning of the Russian pedagogical discourse of a bilingual person plays a great role in science, because this discourse is based on ethno-cultural/bilingual consciousness, cognitive processes, speech activity and communicative behavior peculiarities. The relevance of the study is determined by the need to analyze pedagogical discourse of a bilingual Komi-Permyak bachelor in the process of training for the profession of a Russian language teacher. The aim of the research is to build a model of communicative-verbal act of a bilingual in different educational environments: monolingual (Russian-speaking), bilingual (Komi-Permyak-Russian), multilingual in multi-ethnic classes. Research materials include scientific sources on cognitive science, psycholinguistics, discourse studies, bilingualism; textbooks and manuals on teaching Russian as a native/non-native tongue/foreign language; scientific works on comparison of Komi-Permyak and Russian languages. The research methods are the following: involved observation of the process of educational communication, analysis of the Russian-language pedagogical discourse of a Komi-Permyak bachelor bilingual personality, communicative speech acts modeling. The study proved that the pedagogical discourse of a bilingual teacher of the Russian language specifically reflects the processes of ethno-linguistic consciousness, manifested in cognitive, speech, linguistic and methodological activity, and communicative behavior. Communicative acts are not perfect and should be controlled by the bilingual consciousness of the teacher and vary depending on the certain audience. Pedagogical discourse research both from the side of the teacher bilingual personality and of students provides grounds for effective training of a future teacher at the university. The results of discursive analysis are presented by models of communicative speech acts based on different learning environments and addressees, that allow to create linguistic and methodological base for a future bilingual teacher of the Russian language, who will be ready to teach Russian-speaking monolinguals, bilingual Komi-Permyaks, students with different native languages.

About the authors

Bilyana Mirchevska-Bosheva

Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje

Email: biljana.mirchevska@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-9146-8538

Doctor of Philology, Professor, Professor of the Department of Slavic Studies

Skopje, 1000, North Macedonia

Natalia V. Medvedeva

Perm State Humanitarian Pedagogical University

Author for correspondence.
Email: basha_n@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0152-2922

Candidate of Philology, Associate Professor, Associate Professor of the Department of General Linguistics, Russian and Komi-Permian Languages and Methods of Teaching Languages

24 Sibirskaya St, Perm, 614990, Russia

References

  1. Andreeva, N.V. (2020). Pedagogy of effective blended learning. Journal of Modern Foreign Psychology, 9(3), 8–20. (In Russ.)
  2. Antonova, N.A. (2007). Pedagogical discourse: Speech behavior of the teacher at the lesson (Candidate dissertation, Saratov). (In Russ.)
  3. Bakhtikireeva, U.M. (2014). Theory of bilingualism in Russian linguistics. Linguistics of the XXI century: collection of scientific articles: to the 65th anniversary of prof. V.A. Maslova (pp. 44–55). Moscow: Flinta Publ., Nauka Publ. (In Russ.)
  4. Bakhtikireeva, U.M., & Sinyachkin, V.P. (2016). From the study of the content of the linguistic consciousness of the people to the study of the individual characteristics of an individual linguistic personality. Journal of Psycholinguistics, (2), 56–63. (In Russ.)
  5. Bryan, A., & Volchenkova, K.N. (2016). Blended learning: Definition, models, implications for higher education. Bulletin of the South Ural State University. Series: Education. Educational Sciences, (2), 24–30. http://doi.org/10.14529/ped160204
  6. Danilova, N.K. (2001). ‘Subject signs’ in discourse. Samara: SamSU Publ. (In Russ.)
  7. Deikina, A.D. (2019). Axiological method of teaching the Russian language. Moscow: MPGU Publ. (In Russ.)
  8. Demyankov, V.Z. (2007). Text and discourse as terms and as words of everyday language. Journal of Philology, (S1), 86–95. (In Russ.)
  9. Desyaeva, N.D. (2016). Pedagogical rhetoric. Moscow: URAIT Publ. (In Russ.)
  10. Ezhova, T.V. (2006). To the problem of studying of pedagogical discourse. Vestnik of the Orenburg State University, (2), 52–56. (In Russ.)
  11. Grushevskaya, E.S. (2018). The sender and the addressee in a pedagogical discourse: A concept of interaction. The Bulletin of the Adyghe State University. Series: Philology and the Arts, (1), 55–59. (In Russ.)
  12. Heinemann, M., & Heinemann, W. (2002). Grundlagen der Textlinguistik. Interaktion – Text – Diskurs. Tubingen: Niemeyer.
  13. Karasik, V.I. (2002). Language circle: Personality, concepts, discourse. Volgograd: Peremena Publ. (In Russ.)
  14. Kazantseva, A.A., & Kazantseva, E.M. (2020). The role of the addressee factor in pedagogical discourse. Pedagogical Discourse : Teacher’s Speech Quality: Proceedings of the II All-Russian Conference (pp. 105–109). Moscow: Yazyki Narodov Mira Publ. (In Russ.)
  15. Khukhuni, G.T., & Valuitseva, I.I. (2015). The dialogue or the conflict of cultures? (Some aspects of cross-cultural communication). Journal of Psycholinguistics, (2), 153–159. (In Russ.)
  16. Kibrik, A.A. (2003). Discourse analysis in a cognitive perspective (Doctoral dissertation, Moscow). (In Russ.)
  17. Kibrik, A.A., & Podlesskaya, V.I. (2006). The problem of segmentation of oral discourse and the cognitive system of the speaker. In V.D. Solovev (Ed.), Cognitive Research: Collection of Scientific Papers (pp. 138–158). Moscow: Institut psikhologii RAN Publ. (In Russ.)
  18. Krasina, E.A. (2016). Discourse, statement and speech act. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 20(4), 91–103. (In Russ.)
  19. Kubryakova, E.S. (2000). On the concepts of discourse and discursive analysis in modern linguistics (review). Discourse, speech, speech activity: Functional and structural aspects: A collection of reviews (pp. 5–13). Moscow: INION RAS Publ. (In Russ.)
  20. Prokhorov, Yu.E. (2008). National sociocultural stereotypes of verbal communication and their role in teaching Russian to foreigners. Moscow: LKI Publ. (In Russ.)
  21. Seriо, P. (1999). How texts are read in France. Meaning Quadrature: French School of Discourse Analysis (pp. 14–53). Moscow: Progress Publ. (In Russ.)
  22. Spitzmiiller, J., & Warnke, I. (2011). Diskurslinguistik. Eine Einfuhrung in Theorien und Methoden der transtextuellen Sprachanalyse. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG.
  23. Staker, H., & Horn, M.B. (2012). Classifying K-12 blended learning. Mountain View: Innosight Institute. Available October 29, 2021, from https://www.christenseninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Classifying-K-12-blendedlearning
  24. Strelchuk, E.N. (2019). Pedagogical tools: Essence, use and role of the concept in Russian and foreign pedagogy. Perspectives of Science and Education, (1), 10–19. (In Russ.)
  25. Vvedenskaya, L.A., & Chervinskii, P.P. (1997). Theory and practice of Russian speech. Rostov-on-Don: Feniks Publ. (In Russ.)

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. Рис. 2. Коммуникативноречевой акт профессионализирующего педагогического дискурса инонациональнорусского билингва в условиях билингвальной инонационально-русской учебной среды

Download (216KB)
Indexing metadata

Copyright (c) 2022 Mirchevska-Bosheva B., Medvedeva N.V.

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

This website uses cookies

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

About Cookies