Educational and pedagogical discourse and its axiological component in the framework of the third generation cognitive research / Учебно-педагогический дискурс и его аксиологическая составляющая в структуре когнитивного исследовательского подхода третьего поколения

Рыбалко Светлана Александровна старший преподаватель, кафедра теоретической и прикладной лингвистики, Байкальский государственный университет 665040, Россия, Иркутская область, г. Иркустк, ул. Маршала Жукова, 70а Rybalko Svetlana Aleksandrovna Senior Lecturer, Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, Baikal State University 665040, Russia, Irkutsk region, Irkustk, Marshal Zhukov str., 70a sveta.rybalko@gmail.com

Pedagogical discourse is a personality-oriented kind of institutional discourse within the framework of the intellectual interaction of teachers and students in the process of forming certain knowledge about the world and introducing them to moral, aesthetic, and other types of human experience ^[1]. Pedagogical discourse and its potential to influence the collective addressee with the teleological goal of socialization has long been the subject of close attention from cognitive linguistics. When considering main developments of the cognitive area of research, it is necessary to highlight the accepted opinion that the cognitive approach means that language activity is one of the types of human cognitive activity, and linguistic phenomena can only be understood in the context of other cognitive processes, which include knowledge, memory, attention, and consciousness. Cognitive approach in linguistics is one of the functional approaches used not to describe but to explain why certain linguistic phenomena are realized in this way and not otherwise.

The cognitive approach to the study of discourse is an alternative to the purely structuralist approach, sociological approach, philosophical approach, and semiotic approach, etc.

In this review, we intend to consider the possibility of analyzing the pedagogical discourse and its axiological component within the framework of the traditions of the third generation cognitive approach.

Reflections on the causes and purposes of human interaction with the environment come to the fore in the studies of the third generation of cognitive research.

Studies conducted within this framework is an interdisciplinary project, the bibliography is extensive ^{[2, 3, 4, 5; 6; 7]}. The adaptation of a person as a biological species through language activity is the foundation of biocognitive theory. Man and society are considered as living self-organizing systems ^[5], the unity of which is created by the relational area of the language where the “system of behavior of human society” unfolds ^[4], both community and its individuals are co-determined in language and through language ^{[9, p.150]}. Language is viewed as an interpersonal activity far from a stable system of symbols.

One of the main assumptions of linguistic semiosis is that we can become linguistic beings and members of society only by participating in the relational realm of linguistic interactions with others and with ourselves ^[8]. It is not possible to create and develop both community and its individual members without the establishment of a cognitive domain of linguistic interactions ^{[9, p.96]}.

The process of semiosis itself and linguistic signs as a manifestation of this process continuously produce, maintain and develop the niche occupied by individual individuals ^[4]. A cognitive niche created by language interactions is a set of opportunities “presented to a person by the relational area of the language interactions as a dynamic environment in which a person acts meaningfully for himself and for others” ^[4]. These possibilities can help either maintain the integrity of a living system, or lead to an imbalance and, as a result, a loss of integrity.

In this regard, we can talk about the formation of a system of value orientations (social imperatives), which determine which possibilities in the relational area of the language are acceptable, possible, and which are not. It is important to emphasize that value orientations do not exist somewhere apart from us, in the world around us, but exclusively in the field of linguistic interactions. Presumably, being in the sphere of linguistic interactions and taking an active role, an individual develops, successfully integrating in these linguistic interactions, including the value orientations of the system into his own cognitive processes.

Why all of this is possible? Being a part of the domain of linguistic interactions (consensual domain of natural language or domain of written texts) people draw on linguistic signs acquired through their personal experience with the world, as well on the linguistic representations of other people’s experience of interactions with the world ^{[9, p.149]}. For instance, when a person says that the highest mountain is in the Himalaya it is not because he himself had an experience of climbing it, but he relies on the experience of others who accomplished it and made the results available to the public. We could argue that the majority of our knowledge acquired during formal schooling years is of that kind of nature. Very few educational institutions, most of them private, allow students to get their own experience with the phenomena / objects so they could form their own representation of them. Why is it important? An individual who had his own unique interactions with the world may have experience that is different from what is accepted and shared by the majority. It in turn may result in values and ideas different from the ones propagated by the society in the public linguistic domains diminishing the orientational effect of the values and ideas of the latter. It, as a side note, could be become quite problematic for the society as a structured system.

Since it is within the relational area of the linguistic interactions that the process of socialization of the individual and the reproduction of society takes place, it is vital for the society to have some control over the ideas and values that are part of the domain of the linguistic interactions. As in the long run it will ensure the uniformity of cognitive domains of individual members of a given society making the former more adaptive.

Researchers working in this area of research ^{[3, 4, 7, 10 and others]} consider language as an activity of orienting character. It allows involving individuals in the consensual sphere of interaction with the world; embedding the individual in the environment in order to coordinate, provide orienting influence, and decrease the degree of uncertainty, which generally contributes to maintaining the vital activity and viability of the individual and society. The created consensual area of the linguistic interactions is capable of exerting a formative influence on the thinking of the individual and society ^{[11, 13, 14, and others]}. It generates a sense of belonging to a separate group using the national language and ensures the vital activity of this social group.

Research carried out within the framework of the traditions of the third generation of cognitive linguistics consider pedagogical discourse as one of the varieties of the consensual sphere of interaction with the world, existing within the framework of the social institution of education.

Considering the “online” phenomena of pedagogical discourse, A.K. Mikhalskaya ^[15]; V.B. Chernik ^[16], and G.V. Dimova ^[17] note that the teacher's activity is not so much communicative as orienting. Studying online phenomena - processes and communication strategies in the tradition of research of the third generation of cognitive linguistics, N.A. Komina ^[18] considers organizational discourse as a product of interaction. The researcher emphasized the importance of the coordinated and dialogic participation of all participants in the educational process: noting that for the teacher, it is a tool of influence, and for the student - a tool for testing knowledge.

The orienting nature of the use of pedagogical discourse is also emphasized in the work of P.V. Tokareva ^[19]. The researcher notes that the educational discourse implemented in the text of the textbook is persuasive in nature, with the main goal of changing the model of the student's world, which was also confirmed in the works of V.S. Grigorieva ^[20] and T.V. Ezhova ^[21]. G.V. Dimova ^[17], studying the main discursive strategies (on-line phenomena), notes that the latter are used in pedagogical discourse for the purpose of the teacher's comprehensive management of the main processes of conceptualization of the students' world, in order to successfully integrate students into the environment and provide orienting influence

Following the postulates of cognitive linguistics of the "third generation", we propose to consider pedagogical discourse as part of a cognitive niche created by language interactions that continuously produce, support, and develop it, including through the formation of value orientations that determine what opportunities in the relational field of language are allowed and which are not.

Pedagogical discourse as a part of the relational area of the language interactions performs an orienting function, as the use of language as an activity has an orienting character. The main task of pedagogical discourse within the framework of these principles is seen as embedding students in the environment, in order to coordinate, provide orienting influence, and reduce the degree of uncertainty, which in general is intended to help maintain the vital activity and viability of the individual and society.