Ninel V. Ivleva

PhD in Pedagogical Sciences, Lecturer

Orel Medical College

(Orel, Russia)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22405/2712-8407-2023-2-74-84

Abstract. The article explores the reasons that create barriers to the understanding of verbal material by participants in scientific or academic discourse. Scientific discourse is a specialized type of written interaction between the author and the recipient of a scientific text in the form of a dynamic process of its generation and perception. In the content and semantic aspects, the effectiveness of professional communication is characterized by the addressee's ability to adequately interpret a text message. The purpose of the article is to consider the relationship of difficulties in a scientific text understanding with the specifics of its structural-semantic and logical-semantic organization. The sources of the language material were texts from various scientific fields (psychology, medicine, veterinary medicine, etc.). The author used a research methodology based on a combination of textual analysis and personal observation to examine the cognitive mechanism of communicators' difficulties in interpreting the semantics of a text message. Failures in the perception of a text message by its addressee are due to linguistic and extra-linguistic groups of factors. Linguistic factors that deform the scientific information understanding are associated with terminological ambiguity and logical-semantic disorder of the text. Among these factors, polysemy, which is a complex linguo-cognitive phenomenon, based on thought decoding, plays the greatest role in creating a communicative barrier. The study shows that the distorted interpretation of the semantic content of isomorphic terms from different subject areas is determined by the misalignment of the linguistic and cognitive bases of the author and the addressee of the scientific message. The author also reveals the dominant influence of the semantics of the terms of a particular sphere of knowledge initially learned by a specialist on the identification of semantic content in the semantic structure of polysemic lexical units of another scientific field.
Keywords: scientific discourse, communication, text material, interpretation, linguistic and cognitive basis, research vocabulary, polysemy.

Full text of the article (PDF)

For citation: Ivleva, NV 2023, ‘Disintegration of the Text Addressee’s Receptive Program: Factors of Scientific Discourse Ineffectiveness’, Tula Scientific Bulletin. History. Linguistics, issue 2 (14), pp. 74–84, http://doi.org/10.22405/2712-8407-2023-2-74-84 (in Russ.)

References

1. Vinogradov, VV 1972, Russkiy yazyk. Grammaticheskoye ucheniye o slove (Russian language. Grammatical studies of the word), Vysshaya shkola publ, Moscow. (In Russ.)
2. Geykhman, LK 2017, ‘Diskurs nauchnogo teksta – vzaimodeystviye avtora s ideyami drugikh lyudey’ (Academic writing discourse as author’s interaction with the ideas of others), Vestnik Permskogo Politekhnicheskogo Universiteta. Problemy yazykoznaniya i pedagogiki, no. 2, pp. 97–110. (In Russ.)
3. Gerasimova, SА 2018, Vstupitel'naya rech kak zhanr akademicheskogo diskursa: Francuzskaya entsiklopediya XVIII veka. Diskurs kak universal'naya matritsa verbal'nogo vzaimodeystviya (Introductory speech as a genre of academic discourse: The French Encyclopedia of the 18th century. Discourse as a universal matrix of verbal interaction), LENAND publ, Moscow. (In Russ.)
4. Doblaev, LP 1982, Smyslovaya struktura uchebnogo teksta i problemy yego ponimaniya (Semantic structure of the educational text and problems of its understanding), Pedagogika publ, Moscow. (In Russ.)
5. Zhabbarova, FU 2013, ‘Rol' terminov v sozdanii svyaznosti nauchno-populyarnogo teksta’ (Role of terms in popular science text), The Liberal Arts in Russia, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 195–201. (In Russ.)
6. Zhirova, IG 2019, ‘Strukturnyye i soderzhatel'nyye kharakteristiki nauchnogo teksta’ (Structural and content characteristics of the academic text), Journal “Vestnik of Northern (Arctic) Federal University”, no. 1, pp. 39–46. (In Russ.)
7. Zolotukhina, TO 2009, Psikhologo-pedagogicheskiye usloviya optimizatsii ponimaniya uchebnykh tekstov studentami-psikhologami (Psychological and pedagogical conditions for optimizing the understanding of educational texts by psychology students), PhD thesis, Kursk. (In Russ.)
8. Ivanova, VP 2004, Ponimaniye nauchnogo teksta kak factor formirovaniya intellektualnoy kul'tury studentov (Understanding of the scientific text as a factor in the formation of intellectual culture of students), PhD thesis, Moscow. (In Russ.)
9. Kochemasova, DR & Voronina, EB 2018, ‘Professional'nyy diskurs’ (Professional discourse), Vestnik of the Mari State University, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 44–49. (In Russ.)
10. Lukov, ValA & Lukov, VlA 2014, ‘Metodologiya tezaurusnogo podkhoda k strategii ponimaniya’ (Methodology of the thesaurus approach: strategy of understanding), Gumanitarnyye nauki: teoriya i metodologiya, no. 1, pp. 18–35. (In Russ.)
11. Lotte, DS 1961, Osnovy postroyeniya nauchno-tekhnicheskoy terminologii. Voprosy teorii i metodiki (Fundamentals of scientific and technical terminology building. Problems of theory and of methods of teaching), Izd-vo AN SSSR publ, Moscow. (In Russ.)
12. Moiseyeva, IYu & Makhrova, EI 2009, ‘Lingvisticheskiye i ekstralingvisticheskiye prichiny neadekvatnosti ponimaniya teksta’ (Linguistic and extralinguistic reasons of inadequate text understanding), Vestnik OSU, no. 5, pp. 22–28. (In Russ.)
13. Nalimov, VV 2013, Veroyatnostnaya model’ yazyka. O sootnoshenii yestestvennykh i iskusstvennych yazykov (Probabilistic model of the language. On the relationship between natural and artificial languages), Kniga po Trebovaniyu publ, Moscow. (In Russ.)
14. Nikitin, MV 1997, Kurs lingvisticheskoy semantiki (The course of linguistic semantics), Nauch. tsentr problem dialoga publ, St. Petersburg. (In Russ.)
15. Nikulshina, NL 2008, Pis'mennyy nauchnyy diskurs kak ob"yekt modelirovaniya v uchebnykh tselyakh (Written scientific discourse as an object of modeling for educational purposes), Journal “Tambov University Review, no. 3(59), pp. 245–250. (In Russ.)
16. Orlova, OG & Karakchieva, VL 2021, ‘Kontseptual'nyye podkhody k nauchnomu diskursu i nekotorym osobennostyam yego funktsionirovaniya’ (Conceptual approaches to scientific discourse and its functions), Bulletin of Kemerovo State University, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 521–523. (In Russ.)
17. Popova, OV 2012, Psikholingvisticheskoye modelirovaniye protsessov vospriyatiya nauchnouchebnogo teksta (Psycholinguistic modeling of the processes of scientific and educational text perception), abstract, PhD thesis, Kemerovo. (In Russ.)
18. Strelets, LI 2013, ‘Retseptivnaya programma ponimayushchego chitatelya’ (Receptive program of understanding reader), Philological Class, no. 1(31), pp. 37–40. (In Russ.)
19. Tretyakova, TP 2021, ‘Determinanty sovremennogo nauchnogo diskursa v kontekste sotsializatsii znaniya’ (Determinants of modern scientific discourse in the context of socialization of knowledge), Science Journal of Volgograd State University. Linguistics, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 97–107. (In Russ.)
20. Turchin, AS 2004, ‘Psikhologicheskiye usloviya organizatsii protsessa vospriyatiya i ponimaniya uchebnykh tekstov’ (Psychological conditions of the organization of the process of educational texts perception and understanding), Psikhologicheskiy zhurnal, no. 25 (4), pp. 14–19. (In Russ.)
21. Cheremokhina, DA & Stebunova, KK 2018, ‘Dezintegratsiya teksta v akademicheskom diskurse’ (Text disintegration within the academic discourse), Proceedings of Kazan University. Humanities Series, vol. 160, no. 5, pp. 1132–1140. (In Russ.)
22. Chernyy, YuYu 2010, ‘Polisemiya v nauke: kogda ona vredna (na primere informatiki)’ (Polysemy in science: when is it harmful? (based on the examples of computer science), Otkrytoye obrazovaniye, no. 6, pp. 97–107. (In Russ.)
23. Shchirova, IA 2019, ‘Kognitivnaya aktivnost' chitatelya kak usloviye uspeshnoy interpretatsii’ (Cognitive activity of the reader as a condition for successful interpretation), Ivzestia of the Volgograd State Pedagogical University, no. 1(134), pp. 148–152. (In Russ.)