Interdisciplinary Approach to Understanding Literary Texts

APA 6th edition
In-text: (Dossanova, Ismakova, Tapanova, Ayupova & Kaltayeva, 2016)
Your Bibliography: Dossanova, A.Z., Ismakova, B.S., Tapanova, S.E., Ayupova, G.K. & Kaltayeva, V.V.G.a.G.K. (2016). Interdisciplinary Approach to Understanding Literary Texts. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(10), 3615-3629.

Harvard
In-text: (Dossanova, Ismakova, Tapanova, Ayupova and Kaltayeva, 2016)
Your Bibliography: Dossanova, A., Ismakova, B., Tapanova, S., Ayupova, G. and Kaltayeva, V. (2016). Interdisciplinary Approach to Understanding Literary Texts. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(10), pp. 3615-3629.

Chicago 16th edition
In-text: (Dossanova, Ismakova, Tapanova, Ayupova and Kaltayeva 2016)
Your Bibliography: Dossanova, Altynay Zh., Bibissara S. Ismakova, Saule E. Tapanova, Gulbagira K. Ayupova and Valentina V. Gotting and Gulnar K. Kaltayeva (2016). "Interdisciplinary Approach to Understanding Literary Texts". International Journal of Environmental and Science Education 11 (10):3615-3629.

Abstract

The primary purpose is the implementation of the interdisciplinary approach to understanding and the construction of integrative models of understanding literary texts. The interdisciplinary methodological paradigm of studying text understanding, based on the principles of various sciences facilitating the identification of the text understanding essence (cognitive, anthropocentric, dialogue, interdisciplinary principles) is rationalized and described. Methods of various sciences are used in complex: the hermeneutic method (hermeneutic philosophy, hermeneutic psychology), the pragmatic understanding method (pragmatics), the cognitive analysis, the inference method (cognitive linguistics), the discourse analysis method (discourse linguistics) and the modelling method. A literary text understanding integrative model is offered which can be applied during the analysis of various types of texts and their interpretation. The research proves that the interdisciplinary approach facilitates the development of an integrative multilevel model of text understanding, on each level of which, knowledge required to ensure understanding is characterized and disciplines are indicated.

Keywords: Interdisciplinary approach, literary text analysis, pre-knowledge, inter-linguistic and extra-linguistic presuppositions, in-depth text sense

References

Antos, G. (1997). Text als Konstitutionsformen von Wissen. In G. Antos & H. Tietz (Eds.). Die Zukwnft der Text linguistic. Tubingen: Niemeyer, 253 p.

Auezov, M. O. (1965). The Path of Abai. Moscow: Fiction, 366 p.

Barkhaev, B. P. (2009). Pedagogical psychology. Saint Petersburg: Piter, 362 p.

Boldyrev, N. N. (2012). Problems of conceptual interaction in the process of verbal communication. In Language cognitive researches: Cognitive linguistics international congress on 10-12 October 2012. Moscow, Tambov: G.R. Derzhavin TSU publishing house, 39-45.

Brudnyi, A. A. (1998). Psychological hermeneutics. Moscow: Labirint, 263 p.

Burukina, O. A. (2011). Connotation – social intelligence. Cognitive linguistics issues, 2, 125-130.

Chernyavskaya, V. E. (2014). Text linguistics. Discourse linguistics. Moscow: Flinta-Nauka, 352 p.

Cowley, S. J. (2011). Distributed language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 368 p.

Doblaev, L. P. (1982). Semantic structure of the educational text and problems of its understanding. Moscow: Pedagogy, 274 p.

Dubrovskaya, O. G. (2014). Sociocultural context of the discourse activity subject’s knowledge. In E.I. Golovanova (Ed.), Language cognitive researcher: Language, understanding, culture. Moscow: Institute of Linguistic, RAS, 68-71.

Gadamer, N. S. (1967). Kleine schriften. Tubingen: Mohr, 256 p.

Gasparyan, G. G. & Chernyavskaya, V. E. (2014). Text as a discourse event. Cognitive linguistics issues, 4, 44-51.

Gunina, N. A. (2012). Revisiting the issue of the necessity for the context development method. In Language cognitive researches: Cognitive linguistics international congress on 10-12 October 2012. Moscow, Tambov: G.R. Derzhavin TSU publishing house, 255-258.

Harder, P. (2010). Meaning in Mind and Society: A Functional Contribution to the Social Turn in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 263 p.

Jackendoff, R. (2011). What is the human language faculty? Language, 87(3), 586-624.

Kubriakova, E. S. (1994). Text and its understanding. Russian text: the Russian-American journal on the Russian philology, 2, 18-25.

Kubriakova, E. S. (2012). On the “discourse” term and the knowledge structure behind it. In E. S. Kubriakova (Eds.), Searching for the essence of language: Cognitive researches. Moscow: Sign, 54-63

Lixin, Zh. (2012). The Inter-subjective model of conceptual blending and its interpretation of humor. In Language cognitive researches: Cognitive linguistics international congress on 10-12 October 2012. Moscow, Tambov: G.R. Derzhavin TSU publishing house, 154-155.

Luria, A. R. (2004). Lectures on general psychology. St. Petersburg: Piter: 262 p.

Minskiy, M. (1979). Frames for knowledge representation. Moscow: Energy, 142 p.

Musrepov, G. (1982). Ulpan is Her Name. Novel. Alma-Ata: Zhazushy, 167 p.

Sanbaev, S. (2009). Seasons of Our Life. Astana: Agroizdat, 275 p.

Sergaliev, M. (1987). My Peers. Almaty: Zhazushy, 262 p.

Spitzmuller, J. & Warnke, I. (2011). Diskurs linguistic. Eine Einfuhrung in Theorien und methoden der transtextuellen sprachanalyse. Berlin: W. Gruyter, 264 p.

Zappuvigna, M. (2012). Discourse of Twitter and Social Media: How we use language to create affiliation on the web. New York: Continuum International publishing group, 364 p.