Discourse 8-D Thinking as the Object of Research and Training

The article rooted in the tradition of Discourse Linguistics deals with the  8-dimension model of discourse organization and production discussed with reference to three key sources: (1) the Tartu Semiotic School with its focus on the notion of semiosphere (Yuri Lotman) as a ground for revealing th...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Irina Oukhvanova
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: University of Latvia Press 2020-08-01
Series:Baltic Journal of English Language, Literature and Culture
Subjects:
Online Access:https://journal.lu.lv/bjellc/article/view/78
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The article rooted in the tradition of Discourse Linguistics deals with the  8-dimension model of discourse organization and production discussed with reference to three key sources: (1) the Tartu Semiotic School with its focus on the notion of semiosphere (Yuri Lotman) as a ground for revealing the semiosis of communicative signs in functioning; (2) the Causal-Genetic Approach to discourse modelling (Irina Oukhvanova / Oukhvanova-Shmygova) as a  ground for reconstructing and classifying the  causes of the  inherent discourse elements production open to become constructive elements of discourse on micro, meso, and macrolevels of its functioning, and (3) the approach to discourse organization built in the field of Discourse Linguistics  / la linguistique du discours (Dominique Maingueneau) as a ground for linguistic approaches to discourse analysis. All three approaches being unique but overlapping and open to integration can work as a holistic ground for a  joint theoretical model to be applied as a  tool for collecting and organizing qualitative data for multipurpose discourse research and for training researchers to forming skills of processing qualitative data. The author visualises such a  model by finding its own meaningful space and functional meaning for each of 8 inherent elements of discourse no matter which representations it takes. It makes the elements categorised as discourse atomic characteristics, and the model as a translevelled classification of discourse elements. The article also suggests a  discussion on educational research discourse and within its framework training young researchers to visualise and interpret some of the  atomic characteristics of discourse for applying them in production of academic and professional types of discourses.
ISSN:1691-9971
2501-0395