Authors
- Myaksheva Olga Doctor of Philology, Assistant Professor
Annotation
The paper looks at the perception patterns of cultural texts with a particular focus on their perception by young people. The research methods employed include comparative analysis of the authors’ intentions and the recipients’ interpretations as well as linguistic experiment. The empirical analysis focuses on the texts by prominent authors and journalists and their interpretation by students, high schoolers’ creative writing works to analyze cultural texts and experimental texts featuring gaps.
The findings of the analysis into the perception of cultural texts by young people suggest that their perception is impaired as youngsters are unable to comprehend the nation’s history and culture-related semiotic elements. In case of a literary text they need to know the signaling features of a certain historic period or be familiar with the literary text itself.
When dealing with an experimental mediatext the students were challenged with an abstract narrative lacking in images or featuring images which are used figuratively. Mass communication urges authors to address urgent and topical social issues, which suggest an emotional delivery featuring an idiosyncratic mix of bookish (archaic or dialectic) and colloquial (obsolete) lexemes. Recipients of these texts come from different social backgrounds and are less sensitive to the emotional charge of the text focusing merely on the text’s content. While attempting to comprehend the author’s message, they often fail to grasp the author’s intention and appear to be less emotional.
The analysis of the most common flaws and failures in high schoolers’ essays revealed misused speech patterns and grammar- and style-related mistakes. This shows that they are lacking experience in drafting opinion essays. Another problem relates to their limited literary baggage as they are unfamiliar with classical texts and have no experience of analytical reading. Students’ texts often feature clichéd pseudo-scientific and formal stereotypical collocations which they see as markers of sophisticated style.
Syntax-wise they tend to use sequences of words in similar syntactic functions, which, regardless of the author’s intention, make a vivid stylistic tool of gradation and therefore is always emotionally charged. Overall creative essays drafted by students are excessively pathetic.
On top of it, youngsters appear to have no sense of style. More than that, they often turn out to be insufficiently literate, which adds to the problem. The research findings showed an unwelcome trend: lacking in experience of using culture-based words, they turn to jargonisms and obscene words to fill in these semantic lacunae.
How to link insert
Myaksheva, O. . (). PERCEPTION AND INTERPERCEPTION THE CULTURE TEXTS BY THE CONTEMPORERY YOUTH Bulletin of the Moscow City Pedagogical University. Series "Pedagogy and Psychology", ,
References
1.
Arnold I.V. Stilistika decodirovania: Kurs lekcij [Stylistics of decoding: course of lectures]. Leningrad: LGPI, 1974. 86 p.
2.
Bunin I.A. Listopad // Bunin I.A. Polnoe sobranie sochinenij. T. 1. Stikhotvoreniya [Leaf fall // Full collection of essays. Vol. 1. Poems.] Moscow: Khudozhestvennaya literatura, 1987. 678 s.
3.
Zemskaya Yu.N. Teoria teksta: ucheb. posobie / Pod red. A.A. Chuvakina [Theory of texts: text book / Under the editorship of A.A. Chuvakin]. Moscow: Flinta: Nauka, 2010. 224 s.
4.
Kirkinskaya T.I., Wulfowich A.V. Razvitie obshetekstovyh umenij shkol’nikov na urokakh russkogo yazyka v 5–9 klassakh: praktikum [Development of general text skills of school students at the lessons of Russian language, grades 5–9: workshop]. Barnaul: AltGPA, 2011. 83 s.
5.
Lunin V. Chudo-derevo // Celymi dnyami. Sbornik stihov [Wonder tree // All days long. Collection of poems]. Moscow: Nigma, 2016, 32 s.
6.
Lotman Yu.M. Semiosphera [Semiosphere]. St. Petersburg: “Iskusstvo – SPB”, 2000. 704 s.
7.
Myaksheva O.V. Aktivnaya leksika i semanticheskiye lakuny v leksikone sovremennogo shkol’nika [Active vocabulary and semantic lacunae in a contemporary school student’s lexicon]. Problemy rechevoj kommunicacii [Issues of Speech Communcation]. Saratov, 2016. Iss.16. P. 48–56.
8.
Myaksheva O.V. Specifica vospriyatia publicisticheskogo texta (na materiale «experimentalnikh» textov) [Specificity of perception of publicistic texts (on the material of “experimental” texts] // Ecologia yazika i kommunikativnaya praktika: setevoe nauchnoe izdanie [Ecology of language and comminicative practice: network scientific publication]. 2017. № 4. P. 72–85.
9.
Nikolina N.A. Filologicheskij analiz texta [Philological analysis of text]. Moscow: Akademia, 2008. 256 s.
10.
Odoevsky V.F. Kosmorama // Povesti i rasskazy [Cosmorama // Novellas and stories] Moscow: Khudozhestvennaya literatura, 1988. P. 204–205.
11.
Papina A.F. Tekst: ego edinicy i globalnyye kategorii [Text: its units and global categories]. Moscow: Editorial URSS, 2002. 368 s.
12.
Sdobnova A.P. Leksikon shkol’nika kak dinamicheskaya sistema [Lexicon of a contemporary schoolstudent as a dynamic system]. Saratov: Saratov University Publ., 2016. 248 s.
13.
Tekst: teoreticheskie osnovaniya i principi analiza: ucheb. nauch. pos. / pod red. prof. K.A. Rogovoy [Text: theoretical basis and principles of analysis: educational scientific textbook. / under the editorship of professor K.A. Rogova]. St.Petersburg: Zlatoust, 2011. 464 s.
14.
Chernyavskaya V.E. Lingvistika texta. Lingvistika diskursa [Linguistics of text. Linguistics of discourse]. Moscow: LENAND, 2014. 200 s.
15.
Chekhov A.P. Chameleon // Polnoe sobranie sochinenij i pisem: V 30 t. T. 3. [Chameleon // Full collection of essays and letters: In 30 vols. Vol. 3] Rasskazy. Yumoreski. “Drama na okhote” [Stories and humoresques. “Drama on the hunt”], Moscow: Nauka, 1975. P. 52–55.