scholarly journals Verbalisation of encouragement in contemporary French dialogic discourse

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 77-92
Author(s):  
Nataliia V. Poliakova ◽  
Victoria V. Sibul
Keyword(s):  
2021 ◽  
Vol 79 (3) ◽  
pp. 116-119
Author(s):  
KUDRYASHOV IGOR A. ◽  

The article analyzes the implicit content, the carrier of which is a stimulating or reacting statement. This content belongs to the dialogic discourse as a whole, since the pragmatic condition for its existence is the use of an utterance in the context of a spontaneous dialogue. The implicitness of the utterance is characteristic of the dialogue, and the logical connections between the replicas of the dialogue are often not explicated, the meaning of the sounding utterance is the result of its semantic interaction with one of the subsequent or previous utterances.


PMLA ◽  
1987 ◽  
Vol 102 (5) ◽  
pp. 830-831
Author(s):  
Susan Hollis Merritt
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Xitao Fu

<p>The typical view considers metonymy as an intra-domain mapping which involves the source providing mental access to the target within the domain, with PART-WHOLE as the prototypical relation. This commonly held view of metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics pays attention to what happens after the domain, or rather, the WHOLE, has been established. How the WHOLE is formed seems to be missing. Based on the research results of cognitive science, especially in cognitive psychology, developmental psychology, and neuroscience, metonymy is tentatively argued to be an innate cognitive mechanism involving PART-WHOLE FORMING, PART-WHOLE/PART RELATING processes. The PART-WHOLE FORMING process establishes the WHOLE from the PART: It picks up some prominent element(s) in an interactive process to form a patterned experience, and the PART-WHOLE/PART RELATING process relates PART to PART, relating PART to the WHOLE and vice versa. The PART-WHOLE/PART RELATING process is made possible by the PART-WHOLE FORMING process. Metonymic operations usually precede metaphoric operation. Metaphor is essentially grounded on metonymy. Metonymy as a cognitive mechanism is most noticeably realized in language. It operates in various aspects of language and language use. The experience pattern (i.e. the WHOLE) formulated through the PART-WHOLE FORMING process is found to underpin the process of grammaticalization, the development of meaning prototype, and to motivate such daily language use as football nicknaming and to bring in certain cognitive and communicative functions. In the light of this view of metonymy, grammaticalization is considered from the conceptual perspective as a process from the general/global to the specific/local, or from focus on one specific aspect to focus on another particular aspect within the global WHOLE, rather than the usually held concrete-to-abstract process. This also applies to word meaning prototypes. Word meaning develops due to the dynamic of meaning prototypes. When considered from the conceptual perspective, meaning prototypes generally develop from the general/global to the specific/local with the change and specification of contextual situations. The cognitive analysis of football nicknames also suggests that metonymy is overwhelming and provides the requisite basis for metaphor. The PART-WHOLE FORMING and the PART-WHOLE/PART RELATING processes of metonymy as an inherent cognitive mechanism often interact in the mind, which is evidenced in language and may be best illustrated through analysis of interactive communication in general, and dialogic discourse in particular. Metonymy in interaction is embodied in its functions and operations in dialogue and its contribution to the dialogue as a discourse entity. Metonymy operates in dialogic discourse in various patterns of GENERAL-SPECIFIC scheme. It operates in the development of dialogue and helps structure the dialogic discourse, making it a coherent discourse entity; it makes meaning out of the local utterance and relates it to the whole dialogue; it underlies the decision-making process, helping make a final decision among alternatives. It also motivates the problem-solving process, helping formulate and organise replies to the questions posed by the counterpart in dialogic discourse, and facilitating the solution of daily problems.</p>


BioScience ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 70 (10) ◽  
pp. 901-913
Author(s):  
Petra Kranzfelder ◽  
Jennifer L Bankers-Fulbright ◽  
Marcos E García-Ojeda ◽  
Marin Melloy ◽  
Sagal Mohammed ◽  
...  

Abstract Reform efforts in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) instruction often emphasize student-centered teaching approaches, but relatively little attention is paid to the way STEM teachers use discourse when interacting with their students. In the present study, we examined the instructional and discourse behaviors of biology faculty members (N = 20) teaching in undergraduate biology classes. Although we found that the biology teachers spent most of their time guiding student learning in active learning activities and less time presenting, an analysis of their classroom communicative approaches showed that the participants mostly used authoritative and not dialogic discourse to teach biology content. Similarly, we found a strong positive correlation between biology teachers guiding student learning and authoritative, interactive approaches, suggesting that these teachers mostly asked the students to recall facts or basic concepts rather than asking them to collaboratively build knowledge. We describe the implications of these findings and our results for undergraduate biology instruction.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document