Добавил:
ivanov666
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Вопросы современной лингвистики и методики обучения иностранным языкам в школе и вузе. Материалы X Международной конференции FEELTA «Раздвигаем горизо
.pdf
МИНОБРНАУКИ РОССИИ
федеральное государственное бюджетное образовательное учреждение
высшего профессионального образования
«Амурский гуманитарно-педагогический государственный университет»
Вопросы современной лингвистики
и методики обучения иностранным языкам
в школе и вузе
Материалы X Международной конференции FEELTA
«Раздвигаем горизонты: Язык, Культура, Познание» /
―Crossing Borders: Language, Culture, Cognition‖
(23-25 июня 2014 года)
Комсомольск-на-Амуре
2015
УДК 81.1+378
В 74
Вопросы современной лингвистики и методики обучения
иностранным языкам в школе и вузе: материалы X
Международной конференции FEELTA «Раздвигаем горизонты:
Язык, Культура, Познание» / ―Crossing Borders: Language,
Culture, Cognition‖ (23-25 июня 2014 года). – Комсомольск-наАмуре: Изд-во АмГПГУ, 2015. – 172 с.
ББК 81+74.58
В 74
Редакционная коллегия:
Н.В. Саварцева, Ю.В. Краснопѐрова
ISBN 978-5-85094-589-3
В сборнике представлены материалы, освещающие современные
проблемы лингвистики, в частности вопросы межкультурной
коммуникации, семантики и прагматики языковых единиц,
концептуализации и категоризации. Кроме того, рассматриваются
проблемы педагогики и методики преподавания иностранных языков,
повышения уровня их преподавания и усвоения, применения современных
подходов к обучению.
Ответственность за содержание статей лежит на авторах материалов.
УДК 81.1+378
ББК 81+74.58
ISBN 978-5-85094-589-3
© Коллектив авторов, 2015
© Издательство АмГПГУ, 2015
3
CONTENTS
Borovikova K.V., Kuznetsova V.V.
Interactional Strategies in Topic Development
6
Cherniaeva O.I.
The Peculiarities of Different Types of Metaphors in the Chinese English
(by the Example of Economic Articles)
12
Drozdova N.V.
Australian Language – The Uniqueness of Aussie Slang Words and Phrases
18
Dudchenko O.V.
Aesthetics as a Sign Marking Reality
24
Karavanova E.K.
Manifestation of Freedom of the Individual in the Literary Text of the Stream of
Consciousness (Based on the Novel by J. Joyce ―Ulysses‖)
29
Kuznetsova V.V., Borovikova K.V.
Specifics of Corporate Discourse Role Structure
36
Lungu I.A.
Framing the Concept (with the Example of the Word ―School‖)
41
MaximovaYu.S.
English for Negotiation, Nonkilling Linguistics, and Compromise
47
Prozorskaya Ya.Yu.
Impact of Politics on Ethnonym «Ukrainian»
52
Pshenichnikova A.B.
Action vs. Emotion: Gender Aspects of Menacive Patterns
58
Savartseva N.V.
The Ethic Concepts of Faithfulness and Betrayal: Metaphoric Representation
64
LINGUISTICS:
4
Shusharina G.A.
Linguistic and Axiological Approach to the Study of National Character in the Light
of National Identity
71
Tyuryukhanova N.N.
Some Peculiarities of Translating Publicistic Style Texts
74
Vdovichenko S.S.
Leet Speak in Modern Gamer Slang
78
Vlasova T.M.
Hierarchy in Chinese Men and Women Relations Expressed by Non-Verbal Means
of Communication
85
Zavyalova V.L., Shaidullina D.S.
On Cognitive Aspects in Phonology
90
Adaeva E.A.
Project Method as a Condition of the Development of Motivation
96
Borodina N.V., TsvetkovaT.N.
Relevance of Sailing Practical Training of Maritime Cadets to Esp Teaching
101
Golovacheva L.R., Pavlova L.V.
Building Cultural Awareness in Business English Classroom
108
Kotikova L.N.
Effective Principles and Techniques in a Foreign Language Teaching and Learning
115
Krasnoperova Yu.V.
Teaching Argumentation: from Theory to Practice
122
Maximova N.R.
Preparing EFL Pre-service Teachers for Using Mobile Technologies in Language
Learning
125
METHODOLOGY:
5
Norkina P.S., Rogovaya N.A.
Useful Online Resources for Teachers of Foreign Languages (Podcasts)
133
Pavlova L.V.
Different Approaches to Error Treatment
139
Tarasenko V.V.
Preparation for Reading in Major State Exam and Russian State Exam
144
Tokareva O.Yu.
The Specificity of Pedagogical Aspects of Students Universal Human Values
Development as a Factor of Their Socialization
149
Vinnikova L.B.
A Newspaper Article Potential for Raising Intercultural Awareness of Language
Students
154
Zaytseva К.А.
Comparative Approach to Chinese Adjectives Study
160
6
УДК 81
Linguistics
LINGUISTICS
INTERACTIONAL STRATEGIES IN TOPIC DEVELOPMENT
Borovikova K.V.
Amur State University of Humanities and Pedagogy,
Komsomolsk-na-Amure, Russia,
e-mail:karina.v@inbox.ru
Kuznetsova V.V.
Amur State University of Humanities and Pedagogy,
Komsomolsk-na-Amure, Russia,
e-mail:cool-breeze@yandex.ru
Summary:
Theories of interaction argue that people must agree on basic beliefs or break up their
relationship. Participation in any contact with others is a commitment. Conversation is a joint
production of its participants. One speaker initiates the talk, and the other speaker adds up to
it participating in forming the conversational structure.
Since the unity of language, situation and knowledge has been recognized by linguists,
modern linguistics focuses mainly on the discourse analysis: that describes how conversation
between people is organized; what makes it coherent and understandable; how people
introduce and change the topics; how they interrupt, ask questions, give or evade answers and,
in general, how the conversation flow is maintained or disrupted.
In order to communicate successfully people should try to solve problems together,
that is to cooperate towards mutual communicative ends. However sometimes people do not
want to cooperate with their interlocutors in problem solving, in other words they refuse to
collaborate in topic development. The paper will focus on major strategies people use to
maintain or disrupt a conversation.
Keywords / phrases: conversation, discourse analysis, interactional strategies, the
cooperative principle, conversational implicature, collaborative interaction.
Linguistics
7
As the modern view holds it, language situation and knowledge are inseparable. It
has become increasingly clear that coherent view of language, including syntax, must take
account of discourse phenomena. Conversation is a specific kind of text composed and
interpreted in real time. It is based on a dynamic model of text structure. Dynamic models
contrast with synoptic models where text is treated as a finished product, something to be
compared with other finished products of the same sort. In conversation the systemic
model is modified to allow dynamic representation. Speakers design the talk for their
hearers so that the structure of the conversation is not decided all at once. Rather, at
various points, participants are faced with sets of alternatives from which they choose.
Features of the conversation are selected interactively, through the usage of various
interactional strategies [4].
Generally, people entering into conversation with each other tacitly agree to obey the
cooperative principle, that is cooperate towards mutual communicative ends. The function of
establishing and maintaining social relationships and solidarity is the basic conversational
priority. In the 1970s, the philosopher Paul Grice put forward a set of four rules (he called
them ―maxims‖) to describe how participants ―cooperate‖ in conversation to achieve smooth
and efficient interaction:
1) Maxim of Quality: do not say what you believe to be false or for which you lack
adequate evidence.
2) Maxim of Quantity: say neither too little or too much; make your contribution as
informative as is required; do not make your contribution more informative than is
required.
3) Maxim of Relation; what you say should be clearly relevant.
With respect to this maxim, Grice writes, "Though the maxim itself is terse, its
formulation conceals a number of problems that exercise me a good deal: questions about
what different kinds and focuses of relevance there may be, how these shift in the course of a
talk exchange, how to allow for the fact that subjects of conversations are legitimately
changed, and so on. I find the treatment of such questions exceedingly difficult, and I hope to
revert to them in later work" [3].
4) Maxim of Manner: avoid obscurity of expression and ambiguity.
Thus, it is assumed that the participants of the conversation will not lie or bluff, will
not be brief or over-talkative, will not say completely irrelevant things and try to be as clear as
Linguistics
8
possible. These maxims may be better understood as describing the assumptions listeners
normally make about the way speakers will talk, rather than prescriptions for how one ought
to talk. These maxims are extremely good to follow to be an efficient and reasonable
conversationalist and they apply to both speech and writing.
However, people are not perfect and sometimes they break these rules by accident,
through misunderstanding or clumsiness, which can result in conversation going astray. There
are also occasions when people deliberately violate these cooperative principles for some
reason, usually to express some subtle meaning. For example, we may say untrue things to
express irony or sarcasm. We may be too brief, because we want to show that we are angry or
want to discourage someone from talking. We can be irrelevant to indicate reluctance to
pursue the topic, and we may consciously be obscure to hide some facts.
The name which Grice gives to this kind of meaning, where the hearer can easily infer
the unstated meaning of the speaker, is conversational implicature. This deliberate breaking
/flouting in Gricean terms/ of the maxims is something which we do regularly in conversation
and in writing, and it is clearly an important way in which we can explicate ―the meaning
between lines‖ in texts. It accounts for much of what is involved when ordinary people say
things like ―yes, I know what he said, but I‘m not sure that I like what be implied‖. Here are
Grice's own words:
"He [the speaker] may flout a maxim; that is, he may blatantly fail to fulfill it. On the
assumption that the speaker is able to fulfill the maxim and to do so without violating another
maxim (because of a clash), is not opting out, and is not, in view of the blatancy of his
performance, trying to mislead, the hearer is faced with a minor problem: How can his saying
what he did say be reconciled with the supposition that he is observing the overall
Cooperative Principle? This situation is one that characteristically gives rise to a
conversational implicature; and when a conversational implicature is generated in this way, I
shall say that a maxim is being exploited."
The meanings created by the flouting of the maxims are often social, signaling the
attitude of the sender to the receiver of the message, and the kind of relationship which exists
or is developing between them.
In order to communicate successfully people should try to solve problems together. As
well known in cognitive science, problem solving takes place in problem space. The elements
of this space consist of states of knowledge about the problem the speakers are faced with.
Problem solving is always a matter of search – of starting from some initial position (initial
Linguistics
9
state of knowledge). Search in a problem space is constructive. The elements of the space do
not exist for the problem solver unless he generates them, or remembers them for the later
retrieval once generated.
Sometimes people do not want to cooperate with their interlocutors in problem
solving. In this case the best thing for them to do would be to abstain from talking altogether.
But if it is not possible, people can still find a way of disrupting the conversation. Usually
they refuse to collaborate with other speakers in the topic development. The main idea of
topic is that each discourse fragment has a single referent according to which it is segmented
from other discourse fragments. So, topic can be defined as a referent in the world, expressed
linguistically by a noun or a noun phrase.
Collaborative interaction is often violated in situations of power relationship, conflict
situations, situations of deceiving or persuading the interlocutor. In spoken interaction rules of
verbal behavior can be symmetrical or asymmetrical. Thus, the person occupying the
dominant position in the party is likely to enjoy superior speaking rules. He makes
challenging moves in the conversation. These challenging moves are predominantly directives
or accusations even though they may sound as informatives or elicitations. At the other
extreme, with no speaking rights, are those who have the status of dependants. In the
following example we can see how power is exercised by the dominant person (stepfather)
over his dependant (stepson).
―When we two were left alone, he shut the door, and sitting on a chair, and holding me
standing before him, looked steadily into my eyes. I felt my own attracted, no less steadily, to
his. As I recall my heart beat fast and high.
―David,‖ he said, making his lips thin, by pressing them together, ―if I have an
obstinate horse or dog to deal with, what do you think I do?‖
―I don‘t know.‖
―I beat him.‖
I had answered in a kind of breathless whisper, but I felt, in my silence, that my breath
was shorter now.
―I make him wince, and smart. I say to myself, ‗I‘ll conquer that fellow;‘ and if it were
to cost him all blood he had, I should do it. What is that upon your face?‖
―Dirt,‖ I said.
Linguistics
10
D
I don‘t see why you should be blaming me, Jack. We‘re in a competitive business –
you know that. I can‘t get contracts from you if I don‘t look after my clients properly.
They expect the best treatment, and if they don‘t get it from us, they‘ll go somewhere
else.
J
I know that. You don‘t need to tell me how important service is in our business, all
right? Look, all I‘m asking you to do, Dennis, is to check with Philip‘s department
before you commit us to a completion date, OK?
D
But Jack, I can‘t be spending every minute of the day on the phone to Philip. My job‘s
He knew it was the mark of tears as well as I. But if he had asked the question twenty
times, each time with twenty blows, I believe my baby heart would have burst before I would
have told him so.
―You have a good deal of intelligence for a little fellow,‖ he said with a grave smile
that belonged to him, ―and you understood me very well, I see. Wash that face, sir, and come
down with me.‖ [2].
In the above example the stepfather violates all the maxims of Cooperative principle –
he resorts to metaphor (breaking the quality maxim) to express his desire to beat the child
(comparing him with an obstinate horse or dog); he is wordy and ambiguous; what he says is
not relevant – he is not talking about the interlocutor and his behavior, but focuses on how
one should deal with animals. At the same time his behavior can‘t be called irrational, he
pursues his communicative goals. He (the stepfather) designs his discourse to realize his
intention. The person in power involves his interlocutors in the network of control and
influence. Thus, both types of discourse (of power and submission) depend on the dominant‘s
intentions i.e. the topics relevant for a person occupying the dominant position.
Conversation is an unplanned discourse. Usually talk is not thought out prior to its
expression. Of course, speakers try to predict what their interlocutors are likely to say. But
sometimes they make wrong predictions or their interests do not coincide. All this may lead to
a conflict. Interlocutors can battle for control of the topic of conversation. In this case they
fight for the floor. There can be two types of floor: a singly developed floor in which one
person speaks and the other listen silently, and a collaboratively developed floor in which
more than one speaker can be heard. In the example given below Dennis (employee) and Jack
(manager) ―fight for the floor‖.
[D – Dennis; J – Jack]
Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]