.png)
Tchernyavskaya Valeria E.,
Doctor of Philology, Professor,
Head of Linguistic Technologies Reseach Centre
Institute of Applied Linguistics
State Politechnical University St. Petersburg
E-mail: tcherniavskaia@rambler.ru
The present article focusses a “medial turn” in linguistic and linguocultural studies. Following the pragmatic turn and the cognitive turn, a new engendered medial paradigm underlines a new subject. That can in the broadest sense be stated as a correlation between cognition and its medium, material form. The notion of mediality is not to reduce to technical means of communication. Mediality is studied as a mode of presentation of knowledge. This idea goes back to the Great Divide Theory, stressing the opposition “literacy vs. orality” [8, 9].
The author points out, that the process of meaning-making is constructed both mentally and materially. Communication is discussed in its semiotic complexity as multimodal phenomena. Nonverbal signs / codes are considered to be involved in an act of meaning-making and reception as its stimuli, what is essential to linguistic analysis. The article points out cases of semiotically complex communication that do not involve language signs as empirical resources for reception.
The conclusion is: “emboded cognition” and “interactive mind” means, that mentality, human thought and culture are not indifferent to specific modi of their realization.
The problem of “emboded mind” has become a subject of detailed studies of correlation between cognition and semiotic modes in European publications in the 1990—2000s. In Russian research it remains rather as marginal notes. The aim of the present article is to put it into the heuristic focus.
Keywords: mediality, mode / modi, multimodality, verbal and nonverbal signs, cognitive linguistics, cognition, interdiscoursivity.
References
1. Arhipov I.K. Polifonija mira, tekst i odinochestvo poznajushhego soznanija // Studia Linguistica. Vyp. XIII. — SPb., 2004.
2. Kozhina M.N. Predmet ritoriki v paradigme rechevedcheskih disciplin (vzgljad so storony stilistiki) // Stereotipnost' i tvorchestvo v tekste. — Perm', 2000. — S. 3—32.
3. Chernjavskaja V.E. Kognitivnaja lingvistika i tekst: neobhodimo li nam novoe opredelenie tekstual'nosti // Voprosy kognitivnoj lingvistiki. — M.; Tambov, 2006.
4. Chernjavskaja V.E. Tekst v medial'nom prostranstve. — M.: URSS Librokom, 2013.
5. Adamzik K. Textlinguistik. — Niemeyer, 2004.
6. Ehlich K. Medium Sprache // Strohner H., Sichelschmidt L., Hielscher M (Hrsg.). Medium Sprache. — F/M, Lang, 1998.
7. Jäger L., Linz E. (Hg.) Medialität und Mentalität. Theoretische und empirische Studien zum Verhältnis von Sprache, Subjektivität und Kognition. München, 2004.
8. Finnegan R. Literacy versus Non-Literacy. The Gread Divide // Finnegan R., Horton R. (ed.) Modes of Thought. — London, 1973.
9. Goody J. Tht Power of Written Tradition. — Washington, London, 2000.
10. Koch P., Krämer S. (Hg.) Schrift, Medien, Kognition. Über die Exteriorität des Geistes. — Tübingen, 1997.
11. Kress G., van Leenwen T. Multimodal Discourse. The modes and media of contemporary communication. — London, 2001.
12. Ong W. Orality and Literacy — London, 1982.
13. Stöckl H. In between modes: language and image in printed media // E. Ventola, C. Charles, M. Kaltenbacher (Hrsg.) Perspectives of multimodality. — Amsterdam, 2004а. — Р. 9—30.
14. Wiener M. Multisensorische Textrezeption. Zum texttheoretischen Potential einer Semiolinguistik des Textes // Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik, 2007, Heft 47.