UDC

81’42

DOI

10.37482/2687-1505-V065

Authors

Aleksandra A. Talanina
Saint-Petersburg Mining University; 21-ya liniya V.O. 2, St. Petersburg, 199106, Russian Federation;
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8522-055X e-mail: talanina_a@mail.ru

Abstract

Functional and stylistic studies give us an idea of linguistic features of speech products, thus enabling style identification. These specific features become most recognizable when comparing styles. Discourse studies, on the contrary, are mainly focused on understanding and describing basic factors of creating a form of a literary language (style) and factors that determine the characteristics of speech products in individual situations within a socially significant sphere. This article presents an analysis of the logical and compositional organization of the lecture as a genre of academic discourse, taking a university lecture from M. Mamardashvili’s course on M. Proust as an example. The specific nature of the lecture genre in academic discourse is determined by its basic function in the teaching process implemented in direct dialogue with the audience. The research is based on the thesis that a lecture is an event that can be analysed using the concept of chronotope. The use of this concept beyond the analysis of fiction is relevant since spatiotemporal coordination is mandatory for any speech product, regardless of the sphere it is created in or the functions it performs. The main feature of the lecture chronotope is multi-level organization, since a lecture has its own internal spatiotemporal coordinates. The lecture chronotope is explicated at different levels of the text (compositional, lexical and grammatical), which are interconnected. Considering this, two interconnected frameworks of the lecture – structural and semantic – are singled out; they provide the logical and compositional organization of the material, which is important to ensure students’ understanding.

Keywords

academic discourse, lecture genre, chronotope

References

1. Flowerdew J. (ed.). Academic Listening: Research Perspectives. Cambridge, 1994. 306 p.
2. Thompson S. Frameworks and Contexts: A Genre-Based Approach to Analysing Lecture Introductions. Engl. Specif. Purp., 1994, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 171–186.
3. Yaakob S. A Genre Analysis and Corpus Based Study of University Lecture Introductions. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, The University of Birmingham. Birmingham, 2013. 316 p.
4. French S., Kennedy G. Reassessing the Value of University Lectures. Teach. High. Educ., 2017, vol. 22, no. 6, рр. 639–654. DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2016.1273213
5. Thompson S.E. Text-Structuring Metadiscourse, Intonation and the Signalling of Organisation in Academic Lectures. J. Engl. Acad. Purp., 2003, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 5–20.
6. Qing Y. Mestoimeniya pervogo i vtorogo litsa kak sredstvo dialogizatsii v lektsionnoy kommunikativnoy praktike [First-Person and Second-Person Pronouns as a Means of Dialogization in Lecture Communicative Practice]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Rossiyskaya i zarubezhnaya filologiya, 2017, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 87–92. DOI: 10.17072/2037-6681-2017-1-87-92
7. Dronova G.E. Kommunikativnaya kategoriya “yasnost’ rechi” v zhanre lektsii [Communicative Category “Speech Clarity” in the Lecture Genre: Diss.]. Yekaterinburg, 2006. 165 p.
8. Dronova G.E. Stilisticheskie konflikty v situatsii uchebno-nauchnogo obshcheniya [Stylistic Conflicts in the Situation of Educational-Scientific Communication]. Filologicheskie nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki, 2016, no. 6, pt. 3, pp. 86–88.
9. Burmakina N.G., Kulikova L.V. Akademicheskiy diskurs: Institutsionalnost’, stil’, zhanry [Academic Discourse: Institutionality, Style, Genres]. Moscow, 2019. 200 p.
10. Nechaeva N.V. Populyarnaya publichnaya lektsiya zhanra talk: osobennosti yazyka i stilya [Public Talk: Language and Style]. Izvestiya Rossiyskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta im. A.I. Gertsena, 2016, no. 180, pp. 17–22.
11. Nagieva E.B. Sredstva dialogichnosti publichnoy lektsii v aspekte spetsifiki zhanra [The Dialogueness Means of Public Lecture in Terms of Genre Specificity]. Kommunikativnye issledovaniya, 2015, no. 4, pp. 80–87.
12. Pirotti N.V. Otbor kommunikativnogo minimuma dlya chteniya tekstov po spetsial’nosti: 1 kurs, estestvennonauchnyy profil’ [Selecting a Communicative Minimum for Reading Texts for Specific Purposes: Year 1, Natural Sciences Specialty: Diss.]. Moscow, 1985. 183 p.
13. Zeleeva V.P. Kommunikativnoe sobytie i ego analiz v obrazovatel’nom prostranstve vuza [Communicative Event and Its Analysis in the Educational Space of the University]. Obrazovanie i samorazvitie, 2012, no. 2, pp. 30–34.
14. Petrovskiy A.V. Obshchaya psikhologiya [General Psychology]. Moscow, 2005. 251 p.
15. Ukhtomskiy A.A. Dominanta. Stat’i raznykh let. 1887–1939 [Dominant. Articles of Different Years. 1887–1939]. St. Petersburg, 2002. 448 p.
16. Bakhtin M.M. [The Forms of Time and Chronotope in the Novel. Essays on Historical Poetics]. Bakhtin M.M. Voprosy literatury i estetiki. Issledovaniya raznykh let [Questions of Literature and Aesthetics. Studies of Different Years]. Moscow, 1975, pp. 234–407.
17. Mamardashvili M.K. Psikhologicheskaya topologiya puti. T. 1. M. Prust “V poiskakh utrachennogo vremeni” [Psychological Topology of the Way. Vol. 1. M. Proust In Search of Lost Time]. Moscow, 2015. 1072 p.
18. Podoroga V.A. Proekt i opyt (G. Shchedrovitskiy i M. Mamardashvili: sravnitel’nyy analiz stiley myshleniya) [Project and Experience (G. Shchedrovitsky and M. Mamardashvili: A Comparative Analysis of Styles of Thinking)]. Poznayushchee myshlenie i sotsial’noe deystvie. Nasledie G.P. Shchedrovitskogo v kontekste otechestvennoy i mirovoy filosofskoy mysli [Cognitive Thinking and Social Action. G.P. Shchedrovitsky’s Legacy in the Context of Russian and Foreign Philosophical Thought]. Moscow, 2004, pp. 429–523.
19. Polonnikov A. Sotsial’noe deystvie lektsii (Konstruirovanie akademicheskoy real’nosti) [Social Action of a Lecture (Constructing Academic Reality)]. Tyagunova T.V., Polonnikov A.A. (eds.). Akademicheskaya lektsiya: prepodavanie i issledovanie [Academic Lecture: Teaching and Research]. Minsk, 2010, pp. 155–164.
20. Kozhevnikova K. O smyslovom stroenii spontannoy ustnoy rechi [On the Semantic Structure of Spontaneous Speech]. Novoe v zarubezhnoy lingvistike. Vyp. 15. Sovremennaya zarubezhnaya rusistika [News of Foreign Linguistics. Iss. 15. Contemporary Russian Studies Abroad]. Moscow, 1985, pp. 512–529.
21. Cantillon P. Teaching Large Groups. BMJ, 2003, vol. 326. Art. no. 437.