Features of modern pedagogical discourse

Yarygina E.S.

Doctor of Philology, Professor
Professor of the Department of Russian Language
and methods of teaching philological disciplines

State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education "Moscow City Pedagogical University",
e-mail: yaryginaES@mgpu.ru

 

 

The teaching of philological disciplines in contemporary Russia faces serious challenges. This is due not only to processes occurring in Russian culture (for example, its visualization), but also to changes in the field of university teaching: shifting priorities driven by economic changes have led to a situation where the primary goal of a university is not so much the dissemination of scientific knowledge and its reproduction in future generations, but rather meeting the needs of those who have come to study. Therefore, the recipient factor in modern university pedagogy has become much stronger than it was in the last century. Of course, the goal of university pedagogy (to transmit the most up-to-date knowledge) has not changed, but science (including philology) has become more complex, and the volume of scientific knowledge has expanded. This places special demands on the teaching of philological disciplines, particularly Russian linguistics, in modern universities.

In linguistics, it is common to speak of levels of knowledge: scientific knowledge of language (scientific linguistics) is the highest level, followed by university linguistics, and finally, the school subject "Russian Language." There has always been a gap between these levels. The goal of university teaching has always been to narrow the gap between scientific linguistics and university Russian language courses, and ideally, to eliminate this gap. However, the situation has now changed: firstly, the gap between scientific grammar of the Russian language and school grammar has increased, and secondly, as a consequence, the gap between university linguistics and scientific linguistics has also increased. Consequently, universities face a dilemma between the scientific nature of knowledge and the accessibility of knowledge, its focus on scientific grammar or school textbooks.

Unlike other scientific disciplines, linguistics (and, more broadly, philology) provides hypothetical knowledge, since language is an object not directly observable by the researcher. Each subsequent linguistic description of the Russian language is a hypothesis, more or less closely approximating the actual linguistic system. Linguistics is abstract knowledge, requiring significant intellectual effort on the part of the recipient. The level of abstraction in linguistic knowledge is no lower than that of philosophy, since the basic grammatical categories are the result of the linguistic categorization of abstract philosophical concepts (e.g., tense, quality, quantity, modality, etc.). Modern linguistics is characterized by anthropocentricity, textuality, systematicity, and explanatoryness. These features also influence pedagogical discourse: in the practice of teaching Russian, the interpretation of grammatical units and categories is carried out taking into account their textual functions, in connection with the point of view and communicative tasks of the speaker; the importance of linguistic experimentation as a means of proving a particular linguistic position has increased; the attitude towards «linguistic anomalies» (errors and speech defects) has changed, which have become the subject of linguistic analysis and a method of proof «by contradiction».

Contemporary scientific knowledge of the Russian language is characterized by polyphony, a multiplicity of directions, and terminology systems. Therefore, the task of the university teacher today is not only to present the language system in light of the concept that is accepted as the main one, but also to develop the ability of the future specialist to navigate modern philological discourse (i.e., in the sphere of philological knowledge presented in the aggregate of scientific texts, oral presentations at conferences, lectures in various audiences), as well as the ability to generate texts that meet all the requirements of the modern scientific style in its scientific and pedagogical variety (for the features of the written and oral forms of scientific style, see [1; 2; 3; 4; 7; 8; 9]).

Given the contemporary scientific polyphony, pedagogical discourse can be divided into basic lecture-based and problem-based discussion-based. The former is implemented to a greater extent in basic lectures on the contemporary Russian literary language, presenting a level-by-level concept from phonetics to syntax. The latter is implemented in specialized courses devoted to controversial issues in contemporary Russian studies. The first type of lecture prioritizes the object of study—linguistic units, the connections between them, and the relationships between levels. Terminology is used in its generally accepted form, with parallel terminology systems and concepts presented as background knowledge. Of the four components of the cognitive process (objects, terms, ideas, people—see [6, p. 114]), objects come to the fore; ideally, the entire subject index of "Russian Grammar" (1980). Clearly, the basic course cannot include a complete subject index, and programs select the most significant objects for the language system. However, a commitment to empirical precision is a characteristic of the basic Russian language course. The second type of lectures prioritizes ideas and terms from different scientific fields. These lectures focus on scholarly discussions and the types of argumentation offered by each school of thought.

In accordance with these objectives, communication strategies and rhetorical devices are selected, and two different types of pedagogical discourse are formed: object-oriented (system-descriptive) and discussion-oriented (problem-discussion). Each of these two types has its own methods for achieving scientific clarity and accessibility, its own principles of proof, and methods of explanation. However, there is no insurmountable boundary between these types. The difference between the various types of lectures lies in the predominance of one or the other type of discourse. Personal preferences are also possible.

As an example, let us analyze excerpts from a lecture by N.K. Onipenko, given as part of the basic course "Syntax of the Modern Russian Language" (2000; for third-year students of the Philological Faculty of Moscow State University [1]). N.K. Onipenko's lectures are characterized by a high level of scholarly quality and information density, but, unfortunately, sometimes by a lack of accessibility.

The first lecture was devoted to the topic "Predicate, Verbality, and the Problem of Nominative Sentences." The very formulation of the topic makes it clear that the lecturer intends to deliver a problem-based lecture, i.e., in the basic course "Syntax," combines the systemic-descriptive and problem-based-discussion approaches. This is clear from the fact that the topic's formulation connects different sections of the program: morphology and syntax, predicate types and types of monosyllabic sentences, complication of simple sentences, and expressive constructions.

The lecture begins with a statement of the topic and the presentation of the object based on this statement. The lecturer says:

«Today's topic: "Predicate, Verbality, and the Problem of Nominative Sentences." This means we'll discuss what's listed as N1 in Grammar 80 and designated as CopN1 by V.A. Beloshapkova. Both variants indicate the presence of the nominative case, or nominative. In school textbooks, these sentences were called nominative and illustrated with the famous line from Blok's poem: Night. Street. Flashlight. Pharmacy. Scientific grammarians prefer the term nominative. We will use the same term.".

But the unusual formulation of the topic (not from the object) requires explanation, and the lecturer explains the formulation, i.e., discusses the syntactic problem within which the object of interest is embedded and why: "Why does this problem arise? Firstly, because in Russian syntactic science there is a problem of distinguishing between a sentence and a phrase. Secondly, because a sentence is usually associated with a judgment, which is expressed in the presentation of a sentence as a subject-predicate structure (subject-predicate). And all this brings us back to predicativity, which distinguishes a sentence from a phrase and is expressed by grammatical means within the sentence stem. Predicativity is related to verbal categories, and therefore to verbal affixes, which automatically implies a relationship: are predicativity and verbality the same thing or not? And we have already discussed this problem. But if we're talking about so-called nominative sentences, consisting of a single nominative case, what about predicativity (is it present or not?), and another problem—is it a predicate or not a predicate?—which part of the sentence is the nominative? And, accordingly, should we recognize or not recognize the missing verb in them? That is, the problem of the zero copula: is this verb present and in the zero, or is it not? And then we need to talk about a special structure. That's the problem.".

In a 164-word fragment, the lecturer used the word 6 times. problem, Moreover, this text contains seven sentences with interrogative intent. The lexical method is combined with the syntactic one. Problem becomes the lecturer's keyword. The lecturer convinces the audience that the primary goal of intellectual collaboration between teacher and students is problem solving.

The lecturer's next step is a reference to linguistic tradition: "This problem was posed by Alexander Matveevich Peshkovsky and Alexey Alexandrovich Shakhmatov. The nominative sentence also appears in the syntax of Dmitry Nikolaevich Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky. Shakhmatov discussed nominative sentences in the section on "predicate-subject sentences" and identified different types of nominative sentences, while Peshkovsky spoke of the zero copula, i.e., that here one must see the verb be in the zero version. He also compared nominative sentences without and with a distributor and drew conclusions about the relationship between the features of monosemanticity and incompleteness (you will prepare notes for the seminar, and we will analyze them in detail). Academic grammarians, as well as the Prague Grammar of 1979, offer their views on nominative sentences. As a result, the problem remains a problem: some scholars recognize the nominative sentence as a special syntactic type with a zero verb. be, others consider this sentence an incomplete realization of a three-component ontological construction, while others divide one-component sentences into types depending on the semantics of the noun and the purpose of the utterance. We cannot answer all these questions, but we will outline solutions and formulate arguments in favor of one solution or another." This fragment does not contain definitions of terms (monocomposition, incompleteness, zero bunch, predicativity) and there are no references to publications, since these publications are included in the mandatory set of sources required for each lecture in this course on Russian syntax, and the terms are analyzed and recorded in terminological dictionaries that the students themselves compile.

After a brief excursion into the past, the lecturer returns to the object, but this time with specific examples. The goal is to divide the multitude of examples into several syntactic types and point out the features that distinguish one type from another. This part of the lecture presupposes a responsive activity from the audience, that is, a dialogic interaction between the lecturer and the students: "But before solving the assigned tasks, let's see what might be hidden behind this very isolated nominative case. Let's first count the objects.".

So, we're interested in the isolated nominative case, that is, the nominative case plus a period, ending with a period. What examples are usually given? Well, the first one is the simplest, the one we took – Night. Street. Flashlight. Pharmacy.  Another example from Pushkin: Freezing и Sun, day wonderful!  And here it is Day wonderful – a two-part sentence (compare: Day was wonderful/ wonderful)».

The lecturer then turns to the students and asks them to consider which literary genres feature descriptive passages that include a significant number of nominative sentences. Some mention lyric poetry, others book titles, but still others guess that they're referring to stage directions. The lecturer then moves on to examples from plays:

«More complex examples from stage directions to plays. For example, from "The Cherry Orchard": Field. Old, crooked, for a long time abandoned chapel, near her well, big stones, When—That former, By—apparently, grave slabs, и old bench.  From the point of view of AG-80, there are 5 bases of nominative sentences, and from the point of view of Peshkovsky, only 2, since the last three have a distributor (near her), which, according to Peshkovsky, indicates a missing verb, which means these three two-part sentences are incomplete...".

The next discursive step: the teacher brings object-oriented discourse to the fore. A list of examples is offered: (1) Moscow. August. Tverskaya street…; (2) В house panic; (3) В corner closet; (4) On street crowd to the people; (5) Fire! (6) Silence! (7) Here mill. (She already fell apart); (8) Moscow! How many в this sound For hearts Russian merged; (9) Vasya! Go here! (10) Eh, Vasya, Vasya! (11) Fairy tale о priest и employee his Balda.Students are given various tasks: (1) to divide sentences into groups according to several characteristics (structure, meaning, purpose of the utterance, scope of application, possibilities of tense forms, changes in word order); (2) to explain the difference between imperative sentences Fire! и Silence! (3) answer the question: are two or more interpretations (understandings) possible for an isolated nominative? The nominative is offered as an example for reflection. Winter in the example from Pushkin: Winter. Peasant, triumphant, on sleigh updates path.

All these observations should demonstrate to students the importance of semantic and communicative bases for sentence classification, convincing them that morphological form is not the decisive factor in classifying the examples listed. It is necessary to demonstrate that the decision on whether the main part of a sentence is the subject or the predicate depends on the semantics of the noun, word order, and the purpose of the utterance.

The next question: how is predicativity expressed and whether the verb needs to be reconstructed? This is also answered through observation of specific material. Students are asked to identify the situational (pragmatic) difference between the sentences. Freezing и For window freezing.In this case, the problem of the breadth of syntactic possibilities of nominative sentences is addressed, and those features that are necessary and sufficient for qualifying a syntactic structure as a communicative syntactic unit – a sentence – are calculated. It is proposed to conduct a linguistic experiment: from a sentence On shelf are standing books First, remove the noun in the nominative case (but leave the verb), then the verb (but leave the noun), and formulate a conclusion about which of the two components is necessary for the communicative sufficiency of the sentence. From this, the conclusion is drawn that verbless sentences are an independent, communicatively sufficient syntactic construction.

The second topic in this lecture is predicativity and the possibility of a syntactic paradigm. Here, the lecturer switches to complex terminology: predicate, predicativity, predicative categories; syntactic paradigm, syntactic time, syntactic mood, perceptual modus, syntactic zero.

The lecturer compares different definitions of the same term, arguments in favor of one or another definition and counterarguments, while discussing the relationships between concepts predicative, predicate, verb. Unlike the first part of the lecture, which focused on analyzing specific examples and the lecturer relied on the audience's linguistic intuition, the second part is rich in theoretical generalizations. At the same time, problem-based discussion methods become more active. Students compare arguments and decide which are more persuasive and which factors should be decisive.

The high scientific level and information density of this lecture make it difficult for many students to understand, especially those who rely on school knowledge and school terminology.

The lecturer solves this problem with the help of etymological references to terms and an appeal to natural linguistic intuition. In doing so, he takes a step towards the principles of generation and use of terms, comparing word-formationally and semantically close terms. Thus, three variants of the relationship between the terms "nominative sentence" and "nominal sentence" are discussed: (1) complete synonymy; (2) complete discrepancy in the plan of content; (3) one term is a nomination of a type within the class named by the second term. Students themselves find the variant accepted in the school curriculum (1st). Then they are offered the point of view of Peshkovsky (3rd var.), who considered the term "nominative sentence" to be generic, and "nominal sentence" to be specific: "«Oblomov"», «Ionych», «"Gift"», according to Peshkovsky, the sentences are nominative, and Insomnia. Homer. Tight sail (Mandelstam) or Feather. Inkwell. Heat (Brodsky) - nominative existential sentences.

The teacher asks the students the question: «Can nominal sentences be non-nominative?» It turns out that they can;«У fireplace"» (Fet), "«From superstitions"» (Parsnip), «"IN ravine"», «"IN in the carriage"», «"IN in the dark"» (Chekhov).

And here the lecturer offers another step towards methodology – a terminological digression on the specifics of using terminological pairs in Russian studies: subject – subject, predicate – predicate, incompleteness – ellipsis, nominative – nominative, causality – causativity, view – aspect. He discusses two modes of use: distinction—in descriptive grammars—and synonymous approximation in semantic and functional concepts. Thus, a specific syntactic issue is connected with the principles of grammatical description of language in Russian studies.

The problem-discussion technique is also used when comparing sentences. В house fire и House is on fire; У me yearning и Я I'm sad, В city panic, City в panic и Townspeople they're panicking. The question is: are there arguments in favor of the two-part nature of nominative existential sentences and the possibility of a locative subject? A solution that is completely unexpected for students is proposed – recognizing oblique cases as subjects: «You know about metonymy – audience (room) and audience (people). Why not consider that we have a syntactic metonymy before us?Audience makes noise – В audience noise), instead of the nominative case there is a locative. … So, the first solution В house panic - this is CopN1, a one-component, nominative sentence, the second option is an incomplete sentence with a missing verb, the third is a two-component sentence with a locative (metonymic) subject.".

In the same discursive vein, it is proposed to discuss the proposal On street crowd to the people: «In school grammars this sentence is considered in much the same way as В corner closet, since the main member of a sentence is considered an inseparable phrase (two words, but one member of the sentence). Remember, I gave you an example from Blok: millions – you, us – darkness, и darkness, и darkness. How was this sentence treated in school? It was treated as a one-part noun, and you had to create a pair like this: millions you (without dashes), like three us.Blok has a dash there, so it would be: "millions" dash "you, us" dash "darkness, and darkness, and darkness." But what about our school grammar? If there is a genitive case, then there can't be a subject. But maybe a pronoun in the genitive case can be considered a subject (special, with a quantitative meaning), and all quantitative words will be considered predicates? What does school do in this case? It combines the two forms into one phrase and says: This is a nominative sentence. But if Books was two, then it is impossible to collect into one phrase: *Was two books. Means, Books two, To the people on area crowds – this is a two-part sentence with quantitative semantics.".

The final point of discussion is the role of word order and stress placement. This feature is also presented in a debatable tone: "It's well known that Russian word order is free, and logical stress can occur on different parts of a sentence. But is this always the case?" Pairs are then offered for observation. В city panic – Panic в city; On shelf books – Books on shelf.

After the students formulated the pattern, they were given an example from Pushkin for analysis and placement of stresses. «"Everywhere tall chambers, / В living room damask wallpaper / Tsars portraits on walls, / И ovens в variegated tiles"».

In conclusion, the lecturer sums up: «Now, if we return to the entire system, we can say that in Russian syntax, based on the isolated nominative case, there are at least four syntactic types. These four types are distinguished not by form, but by semantics, word order, stress, and the type of text in which they function. If we consider only the form (Nominative case) and the presence of distributors, as the school does, then we will not see much. We will reduce this diversity to a single structural scheme: this is what happens in the Academic Grammar, and in the textbook edited by V.A. Beloshapkova. For some prepositional-case forms, it is recognized that they can be predicates, this is like в panic, в horror, в fear. Only for some, and only as predicates. In all other cases, the nominative case is considered the main clause member, the subject with a zero copula or zero existential verb. In this case, no one is interested in the meaning of the sentence or its semantics, and yet that's the most interesting part. The functions of the nominative case depend on the semantics of the noun, and the subject's form can be related to its semantics. The verb is not an obligatory component of the sentence; predicativity can be expressed syntactically, as I hope you've seen from today's lecture.".

In this lecture, object-oriented discourse alternates with fragments of problem-based discussion. The lecturer not only discusses scholarly debates taking place in contemporary linguistics but also simulates discussion situations during the lecture. This problem-based approach to the same object combines scientific rigor with the accessibility of oral academic discourse, places the object within the multidimensional space of contemporary linguistics, and develops a methodology for a multifactorial approach to complex syntactic objects.

[1] Below are excerpts from the transcript of an audio recording that was produced by the author of this article during N.K. Onipenko’s lecture.