Authors
- Yurchenko Margarita A. PhD in Education
Annotation
In the era of intense polarization of the political agenda, the demand for the formation of an active civic position of young adults — university students in the Russian Federation — becomes urgent. Active citizenship is impossible without mastery of the agenda, the ability to detect and interpret discourse in an abundant information
space. Teaching the basics of critical discourse analysis in in high school is a challenge for the pedagogical community; there is an obvious gap in the field of didacticization of practices that are familiar to researchers, but not to students. This study aims to create a model for teaching critical discourse analysis at a university, based on the methodological basis of the triad of sciences (pedagogy – linguistics – political science) due to the interdisciplinary nature of the “discourse” phenomenon. The key approach to this study is the Vienna School approach to critical discourse analysis. The leading research method is the method of pedagogical modeling, which makes it possible to ensure the practical significance of the research — the creation of a methodical brochure on teaching the basics of critical discourse analysis to students of different levels and areas of training. Using a set of theoretical and empirical methods, the article consistently reveals the principles of critical discourse analysis as a paradigm, identifies the specifics of political discourse, substantiates the relevance of critical discourse analysis didactization, and proposes a model for teaching critical discourse analysis to university students. The author gives recommendations on the implementation of critical discourse analysis model at a university. The article provides the methodically valuable abstract of the brochure on the fundamentals of critical discourse analysis designed for the students, with its help colleagues referring
to different fields of science may teach critical discourse analysis, using their own case sets or the methodical kit, previously suggested by the author. The author concludes that critical discourse analysis is a tool to increase consciousness and involvement of the learners thanks to its orientational and clarifying functions, forming critical thinking and the habit to find out the gist and developing the learners’ autonomy by means of text materials of different genres and historical periods, especially by means of modern media. The critical discourse analysis model was designed by the author during multistage research aimed at the creation of didactic conception of the formation of national identity and civism.
How to link insert
Yurchenko, M. A. (2024). FUNDAMENTALS OF CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF DISCOURSE IN HIGH SCHOOL Bulletin of the Moscow City Pedagogical University. Series "Pedagogy and Psychology", 18 (4), 94. https://doi.org/10.24412/2076-9121-2024-4-94-109
References
1.
1. Detinko, Y. I., & Kulikova, L. V. (2017). Political communication: the experience of multimodal and critical discourse analysis. Monograph. Krasnoyarsk: Sib. feder. un-t. (In Russ.).
2.
2. Ryabova, A. V. (2019). Teaching critical discourse analysis on publicistic materials of political orientation. Issues of teaching methods at universities, 30, 39–46. (In Russ.).
3.
3. Grishina, N. Y. (2021). Development of a methodology for analysing political discourse in English: practical results and discussion. International Relations and Society, 1, 42–48. (In Russ.).
4.
4. Gural, S. K., Golovko, O. S., & Petrova, G. I. (2018). The use of critical discourse-analysis in foreign language teaching at a non-language university. Language
and Culture, 44, 167–181. (In Russ.).
5.
5. Destut, de T., A. (2013). Foundations of ideology. Ideology in the proper sense of the word. Per. s fr. D. A. Lanin. Moscow: Academic Project. (In Russ.).
6.
6. Munday, J. (2007). Translation and Ideology. The Translator, 13(2), 195–217.
7.
7. Van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. Ideology, 1–384.
8.
8. Lefevere, A., & Bassnet, S. (1998). Constructing Cultures: Essays on Literary Translation. Multilinguals Matters, 41–56.
9.
9. Lauer, A., Gerzymisch-Arbogast, H., Haller, J., & Steiner, E. (1996). Uebersetzungs Wissenschafr im Umbruch: Festschrift für Wolfram Wills zum 70. Geburtstag. Guenter Narr verlang.
10.
10. Venuti, L. (2002). The Scandals of Translation: Towards an ethics of difference. Routledge.
11.
11. Yang, W. X., Sun, Y. (2010). Interpretation of “discourse” from different perspectives: A tentative reclassification and exploration of discourse analysis. The International Journal of Language, Society and Culture, 31, 127–138.
12.
12. Paltridge, B. (1997). Genre, frames and writing in research settings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
13.
13. Ogden, C. K., & Richards, A. (1923). The meaning of meaning: A study of the influence of thought and of the science of symbolism. New York: Harcourt Brace and World.
14.
14. Bauman, R. (1975). Verbal art as performance. American Anthtropologist, 77(2), 290–311.
15.
15. Hymes, D. (2004). In vain I tried to tell you: Essays in native American ethnopoetics. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
16.
16. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: the University of Chicago Press.
17.
17. Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H. (2013). An introduction to cognitive linguistics. Routledge.
18.
18. Foucault, M. (1971). Orders of discourse. Social science information, 10(2), 7–30.
19.
19. Kopytko, R. (2001). The great dissolution a la Michel Foucault and non-Cartesian pragmatics: A reply to W. Koyama. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(10), 1637–1642.
20.
20. Seale, C., & Tonkiss, F. (2018). Content and text analysis. Researching society and culture, 403–428.
21.
21. Dogan, A. (2017). Discourse analysis focused on oral and written translation. Ankara: Siyasal Kitapevi. 399 p. (In Tur.).
22.
22. Çelik, H., & Ekşi, H. (2013). Discourse analysis. Marmara University Atatürk Faculty of Education Journal of Educational Sciences, 27(27), 99–117. (In Tur.).
23.
23. Van Dijk, T. A. (2015). Critical discourse analysis. The handbook of discourse analysis, 466–485.
24.
24. Vraga, E. K., & Tully, M. (2018). News literacy, social media behaviors, and skepticism toward information on social media. Inform. Commun. Soc, 24, 150–166.
25.
25. Yurchenko, M. A. (2022). Level approach to the formation of intercultural competence in students of humanitarian directions of training. MCU Journal of Pedagogy and Psychology, 16(4), 67–89. (In Russ.).
26.
26. Yurchenko, M. A., & Boyko, E. N. (2024). From media literacy to individual information security of higher school students. Bulletin of Altai Pedagogical University, 2(59), 42–49. (In Russ.).