The formation of discursive thinking language personality

The development of discursive thinking among schoolchildren has the character of mastering ways of reflecting reality in the text. Building a holistic speech statement, the speaker is faced with the need to create a model of reality with language means. At the same time, conveying some information, he seeks, on the one hand, to demonstrate in his speech his attitude to the facts stated, and on the other - to lead the story in such a way that the listener (addressee) can understand what is being said. All these three beginnings - the subject of speech, the author's assessment, the addressee factor - determine the type of discursive thinking of a language personality. The types of discursive thinking are reflected in the choice of communicative strategies of speech behavior.

Scientists distinguish two similar global communicative strategies of discursive behavior: representative, or graphic, and narrative, or analytical.

A representative discourse building strategy in its goal setting has a focus on the image in the discourse of non-linguistic situations. Here we are confronted with the least degree of authorization of the text, the lack of analytics and evaluation. A representative strategy is divided into subtypes: representative-iconic and representative-symbolic.

A representative-iconic strategy of speech behavior involves the image of events by showing them, for which iconic communicative elements are commonly used: non-verbal components, sound-visual communication tools, deixis (indicative words), etc. The communicative situation here is built in such a way as if speaking (author) and the listener (addressee) simultaneously contemplate reality modeled in a speech product.

A representative-symbolic strategy is focused on the modeling of reality by purely linguistic means, relying mainly on arbitrary signs of different language levels. There is no longer an immersion in the situation of communication, the discourse is built on the basis of the contextual organization of the speech whole, where the sentences are not connected with the situation being depicted, but with the preceding text. Modeling of reality in this case is based on the creation of a space-time model of the world by linguistic methods; in iso-

The objects of reference are clearly concerned about the adequate identification of persons and objects during perception. Given that in the described type of strategy there is no immersion in the story situation, the point of view of the author (listener) in the course of unfolding the action follows the development of the plot “on a short drive”, being inside the text space and time. However, with a detailed depiction of reality, there are no elements of its analysis and assessment of the depicted facts.

The narrative strategy of the formation of the text carries the linguistic reflection of the reality of a higher degree of abstraction. The fulfillment of the communicative task here is already being built with the installation of the available information on the recoding, and not on the image of the situation by language means. It is also divided into two subspecies: object-analytical and subject-analytical.

Object-analytical strategy involves not only the image of some elements of reality, but also the presentation of facts and events through the prism of taxonomic processing (classification). The main content of the discourse here is transmitted with reliance on a spatio-temporal model of reality, quite clearly formed by linguistic means. However, the point of view of the author (listener) is outside the depicted space and time. The story in this case does not just care about the adequate perception of objects, but contains their analytical characteristics.

The subject-analytical strategy of discourse unfolding is not so much a model of reality as a subjective author's commentary on the image of events and facts. This is the most complex form of information transfer, reflecting in its structure the peculiarities of the author’s subjective principle and taking into account the potential of perception as much as possible. The point of view of the subject of speech (and the listener) in this case is outside the text, gaining materialization in the off-screen word.

In order to understand the difference in the types of textual thinking described above, let us present the transmission of the same event, given using different discursive message-building strategies. Imagine a pretty ordinary fact: the student failed in the exam (in the course “Fundamentals of Psychological

Guisty "). How can you tell about this incident in different ways.

1. Representative Iconic Type

I go / he sits there // I am shmyg / to the table // Tsop ticket // Yo-yo-yo // By mar // Not in the tooth with a foot // I speak / I am not ready // He is so / You will come next time / /

2. Representative symbolic type

I go to the exam to the auditorium / the teacher at the table // I walk up to him / take a ticket // I read / and understand / that I don’t know anything // I put a ticket on the table / say / I am not ready to answer // The teacher tells me / you will come to the next time//

3. Object-analytical type

Well / in general, the most ordinary story // I wanted to pass the exam free then / and flunked // With the ticket / certainly not lucky // When you don’t know anything / as is usually the rule // I refused to answer / now I will go to prepare //

4. Subject-analytical type

Eh / I was not lucky // The exam failed ... now there will not be scholarships // Of course / I myself was guilty of foolishness / did not go to lectures / therefore could not answer // And then there was this bad luck / the ticket got difficult / well, nothing is clear / / Well, then / I will be preparing / otherwise I can fly out of the institute //

The given examples quite clearly show the hierarchy of types of discursive thinking: the representative-iconic type is the most elementary; subject-analytical is the most complex. Therefore, the process of mastering textual forms of thinking looks like a movement from visual to analytical forms. The speech of a child standing on the threshold of school childhood (6-7 years), is largely focused on representative ways of modeling reality. At the same time, it contains a significant substrate of iconic figurativeness: non-verbal components, sound-visual elements, deixis, etc. In his spontaneous story, the first grader seeks not only to transmit information, but to copy the facts of reality with the available communicative means — verbal and nonverbal.

The speech behavior of younger adolescents (10-11 years old) already demonstrates other ways of transmitting information, except for those that the younger student has mastered: in the stories of children of this age one can also find an analytical principle of discourse construction. It should be noted that each new

the communicative strategy of discursive behavior does not replace the previously mastered one. As the language personality of a student develops, the baggage of his speech abilities, ways of speech modeling of reality facts increase. However, remaining in the communicative repertoire, different speech techniques can slightly change their function. For example, the means of iconic representation in the speech of older adolescents (15–16 years old) play an expressive-stylistic, rather than an informative role.

But the main acquisition of adolescence should be considered various subtypes of the narrative strategy of verbal behavior. Here, there is also a certain sequence in mastering the ways of transmitting information: first, schoolchildren master the object-analytical way of transmitting information, which allows generalizing the facts depicted in the story, and only then a clearly expressed assessment appears in their discourses, which serves as a distinctive feature of subject-analytical discourse thinking.

Despite the fact that the revealed tendencies in mastering a language personality by communicative strategies of discursive activity represent a universal pattern of speech development of an intellectually normal urban schoolchild, it should be emphasized that subsequently, different adult language personalities will have different ratios in real speech behavior. In other words, different native speakers in their speech behavior use the learned information transfer methods differently. It can be assumed that the ratio of these strategies in the speech of people may become one of the criteria that is necessary for creating a typology of linguistic personalities of a particular society.

It is worth mentioning that the nature of the evolution of discursive behavior revealed by us can be considered a confirmation of the concept of the origin of language, which is not exactly referred to as “gestural”, which will be discussed below. Looking ahead, we note that modern studies in the field of phylogenesis of language make it possible to see in the representative-iconic communicative strategy relic methods of information transfer, and to interpret the whole path of ontogenetic development of discursive thinking as an illustration of the picture of the mastery of humanity in language forms of communication.