The role of linguistic influence in pedagogical influence

Introduction. Pedagogical activity always implies influences on people aiming to help the student internalize the basic meanings of culture. One cannot make a person understand these basic cultural meanings, transmit culture without a language. The absence of research on the verbal side of pedagogical activity explains a contradiction between the increased requirements for the professional competence of teachers and the lack of effective tools for creating and analyzing the teacher’s speech. The paper suggests to solve this problem from the positions of pedagogical semiology and cognitive linguistics. The purpose of this paper is to consider the theoretical foundations of verbal pedagogical influence in a transdisciplinary perspective.

Materials and Methods. The comparative analysis, the content analysis, the method of interpretation and contextual analysis. Results. The major function of education is to translate knowledge about the world where people live and function. It became possible in the pedagogical communication due to the unique role of language. The totality of values, personality norms, knowledge, views, etc. is initially formed as a result of the language influence on people. The realization of language influence is possible due to the biological predisposition of a person to acquire the language. Then the pedagogical influence can be presented as a complex of the language influence and receptivity, readiness to exercise this influence. In addition education is possible due to the human ability to imitate.

Discussion and Conclusions. Understanding the purpose of education as the translation of basic cultural meanings, and language as the main means for their realization, we consider language influence as one of the main influences that makes a person a bearer of human qualities proper. The essence of pedagogical influence is that the teacher conveys to students the basic meanings of culture by language influence, and make them rooted in culture with the help of the inherent imitation. Thus, as a result of the presented research, we managed for the first time to develop an understanding of verbal pedagogical influence and its essence. The whole educational process is based on verbal influence and imitation. The presented paper is the part of semiological research on the understanding that the source of the content of education and upbringing is culture; the teacher is a carrier of cultural values and meanings, which are transmitted by means of language; the teacher has a key role in ensuring the students' entry into the world of culture.

1. Bandura A. Theory of social learning. St. Petersburg, EVRAZIYA Publ., 2000. 320 p. (In Russ.)

2. Baranov A. N. Linguistic examination of the text. Theoretical foundations and practice. Moscow, Flinta Publ., 2023. 592 p. (In Russ.)

3. Vygotskij L. S. Collected Works: in 6 volumes. Vol. 2: Problems of General Psychology. Thinking and Speech. Moscow, Pedagogika Publ., 1982. 504 p. (In Russ.)

4. Goperhoeva T. T. Methods and spheres of speech influence. Vestnik nauki, 2021, vol. 4, no. 4 (37), pp. 12-15. (In Russ.)

5. Desyaeva N. D., Ajbyatova E. V. Means, forms and functions of pedagogical speech influence. Vestnik GUU, 2013, no. 18. Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/sredstva-formy-ifunktsii-pedagogicheskogo-rechevogo-vozdeystviya (accessed: 15.04.2024). (In Russ.)

6. Dobrova V. V. The concept of "pedagogical influence" in interdisciplinary and pedagogical discourse. The World of Academia: Culture, Education, 2023, no. 3, pp. 38-44, doi: 10.18522/2658-6983-2023-3-38-44. (In Russ.)

7. ZHdanova E. V. Interaction of speech strategies and psycholinguistic type of communicants: dissertation of candidate of philological sciences. Pyatigorsk, 2008. 190 p. (In Russ.)

8. ZHeltuhina M. R. Specificity of speech impact of tropes in the language of the media: abstract of dissertation of doctor of philological sciences. Moscow, In-t yazykoznaniya RAN Publ.; Volgograd, Izd-vo VF MUPK Publ., 2004. 44 p. (In Russ.)

9. Zajceva A. V. Speech impact as the main component of modern communication. Novye gorizonty rusistiki, 2021, no. 13, pp. 34-39. (In Russ.)

10. Zimnyaya I. A., Mazaeva I. A., Lapteva M. D. Communicative competence speech activity verbal communication. Moscow, Aspekt Press Publ., 2020. 400 p. (In Russ.)

11. Ionesov V. I. Culture as an organized world order: symbolic forms and metaphors of transformation. Vestnik CHelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Filosofiya. Sociologiya. Kul'turologiya, 2014, no. 25 (354), is. 35, pp. 7-13. (In Russ.)

12. Issers O. S. Communicative strategies and tactics of Russian speech. Moscow, Editorial URSS Publ., 2003. 284 p. (In Russ.)

13. Kan-Kalik V. A. To the teacher about pedagogical communication. Moscow, Prosveshchenie Publ., 1987. 180 p. (In Russ.)

14. Kotov A. A. Description of speech impact in a linguistic model. Komp'yuternaya lingvistika i intellektual'nye tekhnologii: trudy mezhdunarodnoj konferencii «Dialog–2003». Moscow, 2003. Available at: http://www.harpia.ru/theory.html (accessed: 10.01.2024). (In Russ.)

15. Leont'ev A. N. Activity. Consciousness. Personality. Moscow, Smysl, Akademiya Publ., 2004. 362 p. (In Russ.)

16. Lukackij M. A. Pedagogy in Search of Oneself: A Collection of Scientific Articles. Moscow, Maska Publ., 2020. 500 p. (In Russ.)

17. Pedagogical Speech Science: A Dictionary and Reference Book / edited by T. A. Ladyzhenskaya and A. K. Mikhalskaya. Moscow, Flinta: Nauka Publ., 1998. 312 p. (In Russ.)

18. Parshin P. B. Speech impact: main forms and varieties. Reklamnyj tekst: semiotika i lingvistika / YU. K. Pirogova, A. N. Baranov, P. B. Parshin i dr. Moscow, ID Grebennikova Publ., 2000. 270 p. (In Russ.)

19. Popper K. R. Assumptions and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge. Moscow, Ermak Publ., 2004. 638 p. (In Russ.)

20. Porshnev B. F. Social psychology and history. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1979. 232 p. (In Russ.)

21. Sternin I. A. Fundamentals of speech impact. Voronezh, Istoki, 2012. 178 p. (In Russ.)

22. Tarasov E. F. On the problem of language functioning. Voprosy psiholingvistiki, 2020, no. 3 (45), pp. 126-136. (In Russ.)

23. Tard G. Laws of Imitation. Moscow, 2011. 304 p. (In Russ.)

24. Technology of Pedagogical Influence / E. S. Ilyushina, K. S. Gordeev, A. A. Zhidkov [et al.]. Tribuna uchenogo, 2020, no. 12, pp. 1083-1087. (In Russ.)

25. Habermas YU. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. St. Petersburg, Nauka Publ., 2000. 378 p. (In Russ.)

26. SHelestyuk E. V. Speech Impact: Ontology and Research Methodology: Monograph. Moscow, Flinta: Nauka Publ., 2014. 344 p. (In Russ.)

27. Apresyan V. Resolving Scope Ambiguity: Lexicon, Pragmatics, Information Structure. Voprosy yazykoznaniya, 2020, no. 2, pp. 7-30, doi: 10.31857/S0373658X0008774-0. (In Russ.)

28. Apresyan V. Resolving Scope Ambiguity: Lexicon, pragmatics, information structure. Voprosy yazykoznaniya, 2020, no. 2, pp. 7-30, doi: 10.31857/S0373658X0008774-0.

29. Bishop M. E., Lerch B. A. The influence of language on the evolution of cooperation. Evolution and Human Behavior, 2023, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 349-358, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2023.04.003.

30. Chomsky N. Syntactic Structures. Novoe v zarubezhnoj lingvistike. Vyp. 2. Moscow, Москва: Publishing house of foreign literature, 1962. Pp. 412-527.

31. Christensen L.Th. Organizational Communication in an Age of Globalization: Issues, Reflections, Practices. Waveland Press, 2003.

32. Cummins J. Language, Power and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Bristol, Blue Ridge Summit, Multilingual Matters, 2000. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853596773.

33. Eemeren F. H. v., Grootendorst R. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The pragmadialectical approach. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2004.

34. Fogg B. J. Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change. What We Think and Do (The Morgan Kaufmann Series in Interactive Technologies). San Francisco, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 2003.

35. Forbes K., Evans M., Fisher L., Gayton A., Liu Y., Rutgers D. Developing a multilingual identity in the languages classroom: the influence of an identity-based pedagogical intervention. The Language Learning Journal, 2021, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 433-451, https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2021.1906733.

36. Gee G. P. An introduction to discourse analysis: theory and method. Routledge, 2011. 225 p.

37. Girard R. Les origines de la culture. Paris, Desclée De Brouwer, 2004. 280 p.

38. Hadley E. B., Dickinson D. K. Measuring young children’s word knowledge: a conceptual review. Journal of Early Childhood Literature, 2020, vol. 20, pp. 223-251, https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798417753713.

39. Lin T. J., Chen J., Lu M., Sun J., Purtell K., Ansari A., Justice L. The influence of classroom language contexts on dual language learners’ language development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2023, vol. 115 (6), pp. 877-890, https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000804.

40. Nasution M. Power of language in education. Ecobisma, 2019, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 66-83, doi: 10.36987/ECOBI.V5I1.76.

41. Ning S., Hayakawa S., Bartolotti G., Marian V. On language and thought: Bilingual experience influences semantic associations. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 2020, vol. 56, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2020.100932.

42. Patterson K. Crucial Confrontations. McGraw-Hill, 2004.

43. Petrenko V. F. The Problem of Psychology of Consciousness. International Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Stadies, 2019, vol. 5, no. 7, pp. 13-27.

44. Sardeshpande M. Role of Language in Education. Journal of critical reviews, 2020, vol. 7, no. 8.

45. Schank R. C., Abelson R. P. Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: an inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1977.

46. Soh Y. C., Del Carpio X. V., Wang L. C. The impact of language of instruction in schools on student achievement: Evidence from Malaysia using the synthetic control method. World Bank Group, 2011. Available at: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/