Учебное пособие 1703

predominance of the nucleus-satellite structure of the text;

the functional hierarchy as a basis for the organization of linguistic units;

the communicative role of the text structure.

Thus, discourse-analysis is a formal method of text segmentation based on the equivalent position of language units. This method allows to include in the scope of study various aspects of language units functioning in speech: the level of the language system, the level of semantics and the level of communication. Except for researching the hierarchy of functions of language units, discourse-analysis explains how a coherent text, which adequately conveys the semantic content from the addresser to the addressee, is constructed. One of the model variants for analyzing the structure of relations between discursive elements is considered to be Rhetorical structure theory.

Results of the research. Structural models of discourse.

There are various definitions of discourse in the scientific literature. This is due to different approaches to the discourse research. D. Shiffrin identifies three ways to interpret this phenomenon. The first approach, implemented from the standpoint of formally oriented linguistics, defines discourse as "a language above the level of a sentence or phrase" [4, p. 23]. It means that several sentences forming a single semantic unity can be defined as a discourse. The next approach to the discourse study is related to the consideration of the functions that the language units perform during people`s social interaction. In this case, discourse is understood as a way to talk about the reality and to interpret the information about it. Finally, discourse can be represented as a statement that is studied in terms of the conditions that influenced the text generation. Such an understanding of discourse indicates the holistic and contextual nature of this phenomenon.

M. Jorgensen and L. Phillips hold a view on discourse as a form of functioning of linguistic units in the society. They interpret discourse "as a special way to talk about the world (or about a fact) and understand it" [5, p.1]. Therefore, the analysis of discourse means to consider the models of language structures (patterns) used by people in different spheres of the social life. Discourse is presented as a structure which consists of organized models, describing the relation between the facts of reality and the speaker and listener` attitude to them.

Some researchers suggest a three-part model of the discourse structure. According to N. Fairclough, the structural model of discourse should include the dialectical interdependence of such elements as: 1) text; 2) discursive practice (production and perception of texts); 3) social practice [6, p.73]. The proposed three-element model is an analytical basis for the empirical study of communication in society.

B.J. Grosz also characterizes discourse as a three-component entity, but her description of the discourse model differs from N. Fairclough`s. B. J. Grosz thinks that discourse includes three separate but interrelated components: the linguistic structure (the structure of the utterance sequences), the intentional structure (structure of objectives) and the state of focus (the focus on the attention state) [7, p. 176]. At the same time, the intention belongs to the field of pragmatics, and the attention – to the field of psychology. In other words, the discourse model of B.J. Grosz takes into account the psychological and pragmatic aspects of producing and understanding utterances.

It should be noted that the activity of consciousness in the course of perception and processing of the received information is an important component in the analysis of speech. According to I. A. Zimnyaya, speech should be defined as a way of forming and formulating thoughts through language [8, p. 27]. All thoughts are objectified in the products of this activity ˗ statements (texts). The statement consists of the foreground (the world of objects of detonates listed in the text and, then, finding its reflection in it) and the plan of "subject reference", i.e. the plan expressed in the form of language and formal-logical units [9, p. 62].

84

The concentration and selectivity inherent in human consciousness are determined by the needs of the individual due to his satisfaction of the cognitive motives on the basis of which orientation in the surrounding world occurs. Intentions are reflected in the structure of the utterance and its content, as well as in the communicative functions of the utterance. P. F. Stroson defines the functions, performed by speech acts in the communication process, as illocutionary forces. The scientist notes that "in its essence, the illocative force of an utterance is something that, according to the intention, should be understood. And in all cases, understanding the power of the utterance includes the recognition of what, in a broad sense, can be called an intention directed at the listener, and realizing it as completely open, as intended for recognition" [10, p.149]. Illocutionary force is also a part of the implementation of the speech act. And in this role, the illocutionary force is aimed at informing the addressee about the nature of the impact that the addresser seeks to implement.

Thus, the above-mentioned definitions of discourse emphasize the structural character of the use of linguistic signs in speech. Moreover, the models presented above describe discourse as a macrostructural entity, while the model of discourse-analysis, developed by W. Mann and S. Thompson is aimed at description of both the macrostructure and microstructure of discourse. Rhetorical structure theory (RST) is based on such key text-forming categories as coherence and cohesion.

Rhetorical structure theory.

W. Mann and S. Thompson based their theory on the principles of structuralism. F. de Saussure was the first to propose the idea that language should be understood as a system "that obeys only its own order" [11, p. 30]. This order is based on relations which build up a structure.

A language unit gets its meaning only in the system connections and structural oppositions to other units within the system that dominates them. E. Benveniste emphasizes that "the structure is revealed due to the fact that language always contains only a small number of basic elements, but these elements, themselves are few, can enter into a large number of combinations" [12, p.23]. On the one hand, language units can be identified directly through these combinations. On the other hand, the restrictions in communication are removed, since a speaker and a listener have the same sign system at their disposal, which allows them to code and decode an infinite number of utterances.

W. Mann and S. Thompson suggested that one discourse unit is tend to be related in meaning to another discourse unit. It is the semantic connection that holds the units together and helps to understand the content of the utterance. Such semantic connections are called rhetorical relations. The term "rhetorical" is nominal, since it indicates the semantic integration and ordering of separate units of discourse. This is due to the pragmatic interdependence of discourse units, which are added by the addresser to the context in order to achieve a communicative objective. As a result, in some cases, rhetorical relations are interpreted as coherent, discursive or conjunctive [13, p. 245].

Coherence is one of the leading text generation categories that characterize a text as a linguistic object. This category is closely related to the process of interpretation of the utterance. I. R. Galperin notes that any text is perceived as a semantic unity of its components in the course of its understanding, analytical consideration of the types of correlation among its parts [14, p. 51]. Text segmentation makes it possible to go beyond the linear plan of text perception. Such a division implements the pragmatic basis for splitting the text into segments with a temporal, spatial, imaginative and logical character of the connection. Consequently, the units of discourse that enter into rhetorical relations can be of a very different volume – from the maximum (large elements of the discourse) to the minimum (separate clauses). Thus, the analysis of the text rhetorical structure means the identification of the discourse elements (segments) and a number of semantic relations among them.

85

W. Mann and S. Thompson present the rhetorical relations in the text as a tree diagram. The scientists state that this approach to discourse segmentation is the basis for correlating the meaning of conjunctions, studying the ways to construct a complex sentence (parataxis), describing the textual category of cohesion, and studying the relationship between propositions [15, p. 3]. Propositions are inferred knowledge that is embedded in the structure of the text and occur in the process of interpreting the text. W. Mann and S. Thompson point out that text cohesion partly depends on the relationship between propositions.

RST as a functional model allows to either generate a text or compress the text content. The components of RST are relations, schemas, schema application and structure. The interaction of these elements is characterized by W. Mann and S. Thompson as follows: "Relations are indicative and referred to the relations that keep the two parts of the text. Based on these relations, schemas are built that describe patterns for analyzing one text segment with consideration for the other text segments. The conditions for applying schemes indicate how they are implemented. The concept of the structure of the whole text is derived according to the composition of the schema applications" [15, p. 3-4]. The diagrams of the text structure are tree-like graphs. A graph is a continuous linear interval of the text.

Nucleus-satellite model of discourse.

Hierarchy and nuclearity are considered as the two basic principles of RST. The phenomenon of nuclearity has an important functional significance in the production and interpretation of texts. The nuclear nature, as well as the focus, makes it possible to direct the semantic perception of information in the process of the interpersonal interaction. O.K. Iriskhanova emphasizes the importance of the concepts of "figure" and "background" for cognitive linguistics, since they are used to analyze the semantics of various linguistic phenomena. O.K. Iriskhanova says that "the figure and background can be called the most "psychological" linguistic terms, since they were transferred to cognitive linguistics directly from Gestalt psychology, which is based on the idea of the integrity and incongruity of perception of objects" [16, p.33]. Segmentation implies the presence of a background (perception) and a focus (apperception), while nuclearity implies a nucleus and a satellite.

W. Mann and S. Thompson note that in the perceptual and cognitive development of a message, the addressee (the reader) imposes the semantic structure of the text on linear sequences of linguistic signs. Since the nucleus and the satellite are usually adjacent, the addresser (the writer) can use the nuclearity to assign them different roles. W. Mann and S. Thompson write: "As for memory, it concerns the direct function of the nucleus and the satellite in the perception of the text: the satellite acquires its meaning through the nucleus, so that the writer can that the nucleus is more worthy of a response, including attention, reflection and reaction" [15, p. 37]. The nuclear organization of an utterance emphasizes the distinction between essential and non-essential information. By centralizing the nucleus as the structural stem of the text, the addresser seeks recognition of this distinction by the addressee.

So, the relations that hold or connect two intervals in the text are called the nucleus and the satellite. Nuclei are considered the most important parts of the text, because they contain essential information. Satellites are considered as secondary units, since they contain explanatory, additive information.

The relations between the nucleus and the satellite or among nuclei must be represented as a diagram. In the diagram, each horizontal line corresponds to a separate discursive unit. The number below the horizontal line indicates the order of the discursive unit in the text. The vertical line denotes the nucleus above which the numbers of discursive units involved in a particular rhetorical relation are placed. We provide the example that M. Taboada and W. Mann use to describe the rhetorical relations of Concession and Contrast [13, p. 427]. The arrow, going out the satellite and going into the nucleus, indicates the "nucleus – satellite" relation (look at the diagram on the left). The example of the "nucleus – satellite" relationship demonstrates the rhetorical relation of Concession (Fig. 1). The straight lines (look at the diagram on the right)

86

represent the "nucleus – nucleus" relation. The example of the "nucleus – nucleus" relation demonstrates the rhetorical relation of Contrast (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. The examples of rhetorical relations of Concession and Contrast between the nucleus and the satellite.

Mononuclear relations exist between two intervals and reflect a situation in which one interval, the nucleus, is more significant for the discourse structure, while the other interval, the satellite, is auxiliary information. Multinuclear relations take place among two or more intervals that have the same semantic and pragmatic significance for the discourse structure. W. Mann and S. Thompson propose the example of a multinuclear structure of rhetorical relations of Sequence, shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Multinuclear rhetorical relations of Sequence.

The arrangement of the nucleus elements of discourse, marked by the numbers 1-5 above the vertical lines and below the horizontal lines in Figure 2, demonstrates the semantic equivalence of the intervals in the text and explains what rhetorical relations and in what order connect the nucleus elements.

To prove that the nucleus-satellite model can be successfully applied in practice, we analyzed several paragraphs of English scientific and technical texts. As an example of a mononuclear model of the relationship between the nucleus and the satellite, we present the analysis of the asymmetric rhetorical relation of Condition.

________________________________________________________________________

relation name: Condition constraints on nucleus (N): none

constraints on satellite (S): S presents a real situation in present 87

constraints on the N + S combination: realization of the situation presented in N directly depends on the realization of the situation described in S

the effect: the reader (R) recognizes how the realization of the situation presented in N depends on the realization of the situation described in S

locus of the effect: N and S__________________________________________________

1.The situation is worsened considerably,

2.if pedestrians are walking in two directions [1*, P. 17]

We illustrate the essence of the asymmetric rhetorical relation of Condition with the help of Figure 3.

Figure 3. The diagram of the asymmetric mononuclear rhetorical relation of Condition.

The diagram of the asymmetric rhetorical relationship Condition, presented in Figure 3 describes the semantic dependence of the satellite marked with 2 below the horizontal line on the right from the nucleus, marked with 1 below the horizontal line on the left. The course of the interpretation of the writer's/author's idea is indicated by the direction of the arrow – from the satellite to the nucleus. Above the arrow there is a name of the asymmetric rhetorical relation of Condition which holds together two structural units of discourse. The numbers 1 and 2 above the vertical line indicate the number of discursive units in the formed semantic communicative unity.

As an example of the multinuclear model for structural relations, we present the analysis of the symmetric rhetorical relation of Conjunction.

________________________________________________________________________

relation name: Conjunction

constraints on the nucleus (N): multi-nuclear

constraints on the combination of nuclei (N): the relation of Conjunction (the logical multiplication of mononuclear discursive elements) between the situations is presented in the nuclei

the effect: the reader (R) recognizes the relations of Conjunction among the nuclei

locus of the effect: multiple nuclei____________________________________________

1.Iron oxide imparts clay the following properties:

2.Gives red colour on burning.

3.Improves impermeability and durability.

4.Tends to lower the fusion point of the clay.

88

5. Gives strength and hardness [2*, P. 15].

Figure 4 shows the schematic description of the rhetorical relation of Conjunction, which forms a multinuclear model of the discourse structure.

Figure 4. The diagram of the symmetric multinuclear rhetorical relation of Conjunction.

The diagram of the symmetric multinuclear rhetorical relation of Conjunction, shown in Figure 4, demonstrates a nucleus structural model of discursive units. The numbers from 1 to 5 above the vertical lines and below the horizontal lines indicate the number of nuclear elements in the semantic unity. An equivalent semantic nuclear function in discourse is indicated by arrows that connect the nuclei, but which do not show the direction of cognitive operations during the perception and understanding of this semantic unity. The example of the symmetric multinuclear rhetorical relation of Conjunction is a manifestation of the proportional distribution of the utterance effect on the reader/listener.

Thus, the nucleus-satellite model of discourse structure analysis clearly shows how semantic relations, which hold different discursive elements in a single unity, are ordered. When the text segmentation is concerned, the important points become the effect, which the nucleus and the satellite produce on the reader, and locus of the persuasion effect. The effect and locus of the effect characterize the cognitive operations due to which the reader/listener recognizes and interprets the presented information.

Typology of rhetorical relations.

Most relationships in discourse contain a nucleus and a satellite. Such relations are defined as asymmetric and binary. The discourse relations that connect the nuclei are termed as symmetric. W. Mann, C. Matthiessen, and S. Thompson proposed a classification that includes 24 types of asymmetric and symmetric rhetorical relations [17, p. 52], based on the nucleussatellite distinction (Table 1).

Table 1 Taxonomy of rhetorical relations based on nucleus-satellite segmentation

4.Motivation

5.Volitional result

6.Condition

7.Evaluation

8.Antithesis

9.Solutionhood

10.Means

11.Non-volitional cause

12.Purpose

13.Interpretation

14.Summary

15.Justify

16.Circumstance

17.Background

18.Volitional cause

19.Non-volitional result

20.Otherwise

21.Restatement

The data, presented in Table 1, allows to conclude that asymmetric relations prevail over symmetric ones. Consequently, the binary way to organize the discourse content seems to be more preferable for coding information.

However, rhetorical relations can be classified according to subject matter and presentation relations. W. Mann and S. Thompson distinguish 23 types of subject matter and presentation relations [15, p. 18]. This classification is based on the intended effect: in subject matter relations, the addresser of the text seeks to ensure that the addressee recognizes this relation; in presentation relations, the intended effect is to increase the addressee`s acceptance, trust, approval, or attention to the presented information (Table 2).

Table 2 Taxonomy of rhetorical relations based on the intended effect

As it can be seen from the data provided in Tables 1 and 2, rhetorical relations are classified due to different approaches to the description of the relations between discursive units. Moreover, the authors of RST emphasize that the problem connected with the number of identified rhetorical relations has not been solved yet, i.e. the proposed taxonomies are not finite and unchangeable.

It should be noted that rhetorical relations are applied recursively to the text, until all units in the text are included in the rhetorical relations. Therefore, the text is a hierarchy of dependencies in the form of independent clauses. As a result, each clause is a structural unit of the text that has a specific role in the text coherence. If we recognize the functional role of each discursive unit, then we recognize the existence of a hierarchical organization of the text as a product of discourse.

The nucleus-satellite model serves as a model for generating a coherent text that makes it possible to successfully code and decode the addresser's implicit and explicit communicative intentions. The organization of discursive units on the principle of the "nucleus – satellite" and "nucleus – nucleus" relations allows the addresser to focus the addresser's attention in the process of information exchange and produce the desired effect when processing the data.

Conclusion.

As a result, discourse can be presented as a set of nuclei (symmetric) and nucleus-satellite (asymmetric) relations that represent the structure of facts in the world view and express the addresser's attitude to the facts in the objective reality.

Rhetorical structure theory, developed by W. Mann and S. Thompson, has a two-way orientation. On the one hand, RST is characterized as a method of analyzing the linguistic forms used in speech, in order to identify their functions in interpersonal communication and the significance of their impact or effect on the recipient. On the other hand, RST is a functional model for the generation and interpretation of coherent texts aimed at solving specific communication tasks.

The nucleus-satellite form of the discourse organization is a necessary condition for retaining information in human memory. The nucleus contains the information that deserves attention, consideration and response. It is the nucleus that triggers the mechanism for reproducing the information contained in the satellite in human memory. Moreover, the nuclearity explains how the separate parts of the text are connected.

References

[1]Harris, Z.S. Discourse Analysis. – Language, 1952. – Vol. 28, № 1. – P. 1-30.

[2]Brown, G., Yule, G. Discourse analysis. – Cambridge University Press, 1983. – 283

p.

[3]Serio, P. Kak chitayut teksty vo Francii // Kvadratura smysla: Francuzskaya shkola analiza diskursa: Per. s fr. i portug. / Obshch. red. i vstup. st. P. Serio; predisl. Y.S. Stepanova.

–M.: Progress, 1999. – S. 12-53.

[4]Schiffrin, D. Discourse markers. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. –

364p.

[5]Jorgensen, M., Phillips, L. Discourse analysis as theory and method. – London.: SAGE Publications, 2002. – 229 p.

[6]Fairclough, N. Discourse and Social Change. – Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992. – 259

p.

[7]Grosz, B.J. Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse // Computational Linguistics, 1986. – Vol. 12 (3) – P. 175-204.

[8]Zimnyaya, I.A. Psihologicheskie aspekty obucheniya govoreniyu na inostrannom yazyke. 2-e izd. – M.: Prosveshchenie, 1985. – 160 s.

91

[9]Zimnyaya, I.A. Predmetnyj analiz teksta kak produkta govoreniya // Smyslovoe vospriyatie rechevogo soobshcheniya. – M.: Nauka, 1976. – 153 s.

[10]Stroson, P.F. Namerenie i konvenciya v rechevyh aktah // Novoe v zarubezhnoj lingvistike: teoriya rechevyh aktov / P.F. Stroson; sost. i vstup. st. I.M. Kobozevoj, V.Z. Dem'yankova; obshch. red. B.YU. Gorodeckogo. – M.: Progress, 1986. – № 17. – S. 131 – 150.

[11]Sossyur, F. de. Kurs obshchej lingvistiki / Redakciya SH. Balli i A. Seshe; Per. s franc. A. Suhotina. De Mauro T. Biograficheskie i kriticheskie zametki o F. de Sossyure; Primechaniya / Per. s franc. S. V. CHistyakovoj. Pod obshch. red. M. E. Rut. – Ekaterinburg: Izd-vo Ural. Un-ta, 1999. – 432 s.

[12]Benvenist, E. Obshchaya lingvistika / Pod red., s vstup. stat'ej i kommentariem Y.S. Stepanova. – M.: Progress, 1974. - 445 s.

[13]Taboada, M., Mann, W.C. Rhetorical structure theory: looking back and moving ahead / M. Taboada, W.C. Mann // Discourse studies. – London: SAGE Publications Inc, 2006.–Vol. 8 (3). – P. 423459.

[14]Gal'perin, I.R. Tekst kak ob"ekt lingvisticheskogo issledovaniya. – M.: KomKniga, 2007. – 144 s.

[15]Mann, W.C., Thompson, S.A. Rhetorical structure theory: a theory of text organization. – University of Southern California, 1987. – 92 p.

[16]Iriskhanova, O.K. Igry fokusa v yazyke. Semantika, sintaksis i pragmatika defokusirovaniya. – M.: Yazyki slavyanskoj kul'tury, 2014. – 320 s.

[17]Mann, W.C., Matthiessen, C.M.I.M., Thompson, S.A. Rhetorical structure theory

and text analysis // Discourse description: Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising. – PA: John Benjamins, 1992. – P. 39-78.

Analyzed sources

[ 1*] Bonnett, C.F. Practical railway engineering. – Imperial College Press, 1996. – 207

p.

[ 2*] Duggal, S.K. Building materials. – 3rd ed. – ND: New age international publishers, 2008. – 525 p.

92

DOI 10.36622/MLMDR.2020.30.3.009

UDC 159.942

THE CONCEPT OF EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IN DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

V.P. Boldakova

____________________________________________________________________________

Russian international academy for tourism

senior lecturer of the Department of foreign languages and country studies

Vera Petrovna Boldakova e-mail: Vasyaya_b_p@mail.ru

____________________________________________________________________________

Statement of the problem. The article describes approaches to the study of emotional intelligence in domestic and foreign studies. The theory of emotional intelligence has not yet acquired a holistic conceptual form, as there is still no solid empirical and methodological basis. However, the multitude of extensive theoretical and practical findings allows us to assert popularization and relevance of scientific research in this field of knowledge. The author touches upon the existing controversial issues relating to the content and terminology of emotional intelligence theory and briefly indicates some possible cutting-edge ways for systematization of available data.

Results. The author outlines further prospects for research in the field of emotional intelligence. The interest of further surveys can go back to the study of negative aspects of this phenomenon: manipulative ability, false ability as well as any ability leading to asocial behavior. It is impossible to deny or ignore the flip side of emotional intelligence and all processes associated with it since the bipolar coverage of this phenomenon can lead to serious arguments or evidence of the facts, acting as an additional scientific information resource. Understanding emotions and ability to manage them are important factors in building interpersonal, social and industrial relations. Intelligence is expressed in labor activity in such abilities as competence, initiative, creativity and self-organization. Emotional intelligence, being one of the varieties of human intelligence, has now earned the status of “mainstream” - an urgent and promising trend in psychological and pedagogical practice. Emotional competence contributes to a more effective implementation of professional activities and building harmonious social contacts.

Conclusion. Sum it up, it is necessary to note the ambiguity of interpretations to substantiate the essence of "emotional intelligence". The abundance of scientific views testifies to the relevance and recognition of EI as a scientific field with a “great future” in numerous international studies, which gives this phenomenon a special status in modern scientific thought. The absence of a solid empirical and methodological context presents an opportunity for future investigation of emotional intelligence through determinism, prognosticism and recognition of its great potential.

Key words: emotions; emotional intelligence; concepts of emotional intelligence; history of EI, structure of EI; emotional competence, development of EI, negative aspects of EI, questionnaires for EI.

For citation: Boldakova V.P. The concept of emotional intelligence in domestic and foreign scientific research / V.P. Boldakova // Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-didactic Researches”. – 2020. - № 3 (30). – P. 93-102.

Introduction.

For mankind the XX century was the apogee of scientific thought and the boundary of reevaluation of existing achievements in various areas of human activities. It is a time when traditional approaches to describing current technical, economic, social and other advancements have ceased to be reliable and convincing and the scientists have rushed to search for new, original and alternative methods of displaying scientific data. It is obvious that the era of anthropocentrism is characterized by special interest to explore a human himself, his brain, its structure, functions and potential.

______________________

© Boldakova V.P., 2020

93