Abstract:
The article specifies and analyzes the basic characteristics of the cognitive style in generative and interpretive activities of participants within the framework of academic discourse. The cognitive style itself can be defined as a dynamic “scheme of action” that facilitates the structuring of the communicative process. The algorithm for creating and translating the results of discursivization in scientific communication contains a flexible sequence of cognitive and verbal actions to solve problems determined by situational and contextual conditions.
As a result of discourse, modus and conversational analysis, the authors determine the illocutionary readiness of producers for generation and verbalization, and recipients for apperception and interpretation of “anchor” concepts as cognitive style markers and elements of structuring cognitive and communicative activity. The empirical material was microcontexts from the collective monograph “Introduction to the Synergetics of Translation”, containing both markers of the generation of cognitive components and their translation and conventionalization.
An analysis of cognitive styles that are combined in academic discourse into a synergistic unity, a cognitive strategy, revealed the dominance of the right-handed characteristics of the Myers-Briggs type indicator: analyticism, field independence, focusing flexibility, reflectivity, and detailing. Compliance with the identified criteria involves the use of soft patterns as components of dynamic “schemes of action”, which leads to the flexibility of algorithms and modification of the sequence of acts of cognition and verbalization. The authors conclude that the potential acceptability of the cognitive styles of various participants in academic communication and the adaptive possibilities of style characteristics make it possible to create a cognitive strategy as a general direction of generative- and interpretative activity. The apperceptive type of cognitive activity, the “anchoring” of individual concepts in the space of scientific reception, the possibility of delayed harmonization of cognitive styles in the “downtime” situation are the conditions for identifying correspondences of the academic discourse macroproposition in the text.
Keywords: academic discourse, cognitive style, cognitive strategies, soft patterns, verbalization / interpretation algorithmization, downtime situation, non-sensory epistemological metaprogram.
For citation: Pugoeva AO, Manaenko GN. Cognitive Style as the Basis for Algorithmization of Verbal and Cognitive Activity in Academic Discourse. Current Issues in Philology and Pedagogical Linguistics. 2023, no 3, pp. 91–101. https://doi.org/10.29025/2079-6021-2023-3-91-101 (In Russ.).
Bionote:
*Asya O. Pugueva1, Gennadiy N. Manaenko2
1Ingush State University;
7 Zyazikova Ave., Magas, Russian Federation, 386001;
2North-Caucasus Federal University;
1 Pushkin Str., Stavropol, Russian Federation, 355017;
1ORCID ID: 0000-0002-3433-1014; 2ORCID ID: 0000-0002-7333-7742;
1Scopus Author ID: 57193752261; 2Scopus Author ID: 57200535049;
* e-mail: pug.asya@yandex.ru
References:
1. Bredikhin SN. Dynamic “Schemes of Action” in Generating a Many-sided Sense. Humane, Social and Economic Sciences. 2013; 6(73): 84-88. Available at: http://gsen.sfedu.ru/articles2013/issue6/6-18a.pdf. Accessed May 11, 2023. (In Russ.).
2. Alikaev RS, Bredikhin SN. “Schemes of Acting” as a Discourse Marker of a Scientific Text: Formal Logics vs. Hermeneutics. Science Journal of Volgograd State University. Linguistics. 2015; 2(26): 121-127. http://dx.doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu2.2015.2.17. (In Russ.).
3. Suharto, Wahyu W, Agus S, Saleh H. The Ability to Understand Concepts: Cognitive Style, Cognitive Structure, Learning Styles and Learning Motivation. PENDIPA Journal of Science Education. 2021; 5(1): 15-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.33369/pendipa.5.1.15-22. (In Eng.).
4. Dudnikova TA. Cognitive Styles and Coping Behaviour. Vestnik of Kostroma State University. Series: Pedagogy. Psychology. Sociokinetics. 2019; 3: 112-117. https://doi.org/10.34216/2073-1426-2019-25-3-112-117. (In Russ.).
5. Ponce-Garcia E, Kennison SM. Cognitive Style. The Encyclopedia of Cross-Cultural Psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118339893.wbeccp081. (In Eng.).
6. Stein R., Swan A.B. Evaluating the validity of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator theory: A teaching tool and window into intuitive psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 2019; 13(2): 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12434. (In Eng.).
7. Livytska I. An exploration of discoursal identity: The rhetoric of narrative writing. XLinguae. 2021; 14(2): 157-168. https://doi.org/10.18355/XL.2021.14.02.12. (In Eng.).
8. Bredikhin SN, Vartanova LR. Ways of Cognitive Beginnings Verbalization in German Texts of a Patent Right: the Original vs. the Translation. Issues of Cognitive Linguistics. 2017; 3(52): 51-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.20916/1812-3228-2017-3-51-56. (In Russ.).
9. Alefirenko NF. Language imagery: discursive and modus creative. Research Result. Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. 2022; 8(4): 3-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.18413/2313-8912-2022-8-4-0-1. (In Eng.).
10. Kushnina LV, Khaidarova IN, Nazmutdinova SS. etc. Introduction into the Synergetic of Translation. Perm: Perm State University, 2014. Available at: https://elib.pstu.ru/docview/1335. Accessed May 13, 2023. (In Russ.).
11. Shin J, Kim J, Kim M.-S, Son Y. Effects of cognitive appraisal styles and feedback types on feedback acceptance and motivation for challenge. Educational Psychology. 2020; 41(7): 1-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2020.1725449. (In Eng.).
12. Gelyaeva AI, Pugoeva AO. The Dominant Feature of Cognitive Style of Egocentric Linguistic Personality (Based on Articles by Alexander Prokhanov in the Newspaper “Tomorrow”). 2016; 3(23): 71-74. Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/dominanty-kognitivnogo-stilya-egotsentricheskoy-yazykovoy-lichnost.... Accessed May 13, 2023. (In Russ.).
13. Cassidy S. Learning Styles: An overview of theories, models, and measures. Educational Psychology. 2004; 24(4): 419-444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144341042000228834. (In Eng.).
14. Plotnikova SN, Serebrennikova EF. The cognitive trajectory of discursivization: destination, strategy, technology. Vestnik of Irkutsk State Linguistic University. 2013; 1(22): 183-188. Available at: ttps://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/kognitivnaya-traektoriya-diskursivizatsii-destinatsiya-strategiya-tehnologiya. Accessed May 16, 2023. (In Russ.).
15. Stanovich KE, Toplak ME. Actively Open-Minded Thinking and Its Measurement. Journal of Intelligence. 2023; 11(2): 27. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11020027. (In Eng.).
16. Manaenko GN. Utterance as the Initial Linguistic Sign: Cognitive Discoursive Rationale. Issues of Cognitive Linguistics. 2018; 1(54): 56-66. https://doi.org/10.20916/1812-3228-2018-1-56-66. (In Russ.).
17. Dijk van TA, alter Kintsch W. Cognitive Psychology and Discourse: Recalling and Summarizing Stories. Current Trends in Textlinguistics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1978: 61-80. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110853759.61. (In Eng.).
18. Buffart H, Jacobs H. A Gestalt Theory Approach to Structure in Language. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021; 12: 1-25. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.649384. (In Eng.).