COMMUNICATIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF ENGLISH EDUCATIONAL VIDEO DISCOURSE
Abstract
The article focuses on delineating the communicative characteristics of English educational video discourse. The discourse analysis based on a pragmatic approach allows the description of the main features of educational communication. At the core of the concept of “English educational video discourse” lie such terms as “discourse”, “institutional discourse”, and “educational discourse”. English educational video discourse belongs to the institutional type of discourses. Educational communication is embodied in video format. The main parameters for analysis include the characteristics of communicants, goals, communicative situation, chronotope, and turntaking. Educational video discourse involves interaction between teachers and students. The teacher’s speech is directed towards shaping knowledge and skills in a specific field. Students are subject to persuasive influence on their mind and will. Ritualization of communication is manifested through stereotypical behavior patterns, the structure of turn-taking, and cliché. Turntaking in educational interaction is a crucial element that aids in organizing dialogue in real-time. The presence of status-unequal participants leads to the instructive nature of communication, where the teacher exerts imperative influence on students to form knowledge and beliefs. The key characteristic of this discourse is multimodality of communication. Interaction occurs through the combination of signs from different semiotic systems, such as verbal (oral speech, notes on the board, textbooks) and non-verbal (gestures, facial expressions, diagrams, images). We define English educational video discourse as a complex socially conditioned multimodal phenomenon that includes a set of speech acts of communicants within status-role relations, determined by the purpose and objectives of the educational process and the specific educational situation.
References
2. Габідулліна А.Р. Навчально-педагогічний дискурс як лінгвістичний феномен. Мовознавство. 2009. № 6. С. 70–78.
3. Кухта М.І. Педагогічний дискурс як засіб мотивації навчальної діяльності. Актуальні питання гуманітарних наук. 2016. Вип. 16. С. 342–346.
4. Лавріненко І.М. Стратегії і тактики зміни комунікативних ролей у сучасному англомовному кінодискурсі : автореф. дис. … канд. філол. наук : 10.02.04. Харків, 2011. 21 с.
5. Мартинюк А.П. Словник основних термінів когнітивно-дискурсивної лінгвістики. Харків : ХНУ імені В.Н. Каразіна, 2012. С. 11–13.
6. Мельник Т.В. Навчально-педагогічний дискурс як типізована соціально-культурна взаємодія. Науковий вісник Донбасу. 2013. № 2. URL: http://nbuv.gov.ua/j-pdf/nvd_2013_2_30.pdf.
7. Фуко М. Археологія знання / пер. із фр. В. Шовкун. Київ : Основи, 2003. 326 с.
8. Шевченко І.С. Когнітивно-прагматичні дослідження дискурсу. Дискурс як когнітивно-комунікативний феномен. Харків : Константа, 2005. С. 105–117.
9. Dijk T.A. van. Studies in the Pragmatics of Discourse. Mouton : Hague, 1981. XII. 331 p.
10. Jowett G.S. Propaganda and Persuasion. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage, 2012. 432 p.
11. Krysanova T. Emergent meaning-making in multimodal discourse: A case for sadness in The Horse Whisperer. Cognition, communication, discourse. 2022. (24). P. 37–52. https://doi.org/10.26565/2218-2926-2022-24-03.
12. Krysanova T., Herezhun O. Multimodal meaning-making of aggression in English song narrative: A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Cognition, Communication, Discourse. 2023. № 26. P. 83–108. https://doi.org/10.26565/2218-2926-2023-26-05.
13. O’Keefe D.J. Persuasion: Theory and Research. Thousand Oaks : Sage Publications, Inc., 2002. 365 p.
14. Ryle G. The Concept of Mind. Chicago : the University of Chicago Press, 2002. 335 p.
15. Sinclair J., Coulthard M. Towards an analysis of discourse. Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis. Routledge, 1992. P. 1–34.
16. Schmidt H.-J. Generalizing the apparently ungeneralizable. Basic ingredients of a cognitive pragmatic approach to the construal of meaning-in-context. Cognitive pragmatics. Handbooks of pragmatics / H.-J. Schmid (Ed.). Berlin : Mouton de Gruyter, 2012. P. 3–22.
17. Shevchenko I., Gutorov V. A cognitive-pragmatic perspective on apologies in English and Ukrainian discourse. Lege artis. Language yesterday, today, tomorrow : the journal of University of SS Cyril and Methodius in Trnava. Trnava : University of SS Cyril and Methodius in Trnava, 2019. IV (2). P. 301–342.
18. Thornborrow J. Power Talk: Language and Interaction in Institutional Discourse. Longman, 2002. 146 p.
ISSN 
.png)
