A.M. Nurbayeva
Senior Lecturer, Doctor of PhD, Abay Kazakh National Pedagogical University, Almaty, Republic of Kazakhstan 
CONCEPTUAL BASES OF RESEARCH COGNITIVE POETICS OF ADVERTISING TEXT
This article dedicated on the conceptual basis of study of the poetics of the promo text. In this article delivered the question of different interpretation of term. Provided meanings of the work of specialists in cognitive poetics which is written in several terms distinct approaches to the study of the text and the science discipline. Many scientist use other terms denoting cognitive poetics. In addition, «follow on its way» — that on the basis of their scientific views and their training, many cognitivists develop and use not only their own terminology and categorical apparatus, but the author’s version of the research methodology. Should investigations the algorithm, developed and realized in work of Tarasova and Semein(Semeyn), who suggested that «cognitive poetics can viewed in studies of language learning as inseparable from the culture, which laid perspective, which arise when the focus our attention falls relation art concept and culture concept».
The author conclusion that science approach are not always compatible and may be different. And these approaches for «10 years of cognitive poetics» a lot. In the russian language sites of their discussion was conducted in the study Lozinskaya. And also in articles Arlauskayte , Tretyakov, Akhapkin too. According Akhapkin «It is extremely difficult to bring all the work to one direction, given their wide variation from traditional ideas of general artistic approach to the history of literary genres». So the results of this analisys can’t be combined with other investigations. And all of the other interpretations supporters, understand what they stand for in terms of «cognitive poetics», «cognitive style», «cognitive semantics», «cognitive linguistics» fatally fall upon us with destroying criticism. Because we used the «wrong», from their point of view, the scientific approach.
Keywords: cognitive poetics, concept, text, cognitive stylistics, cognitive semantics, cognitive linguistics, approach, advertising text.
INTRODUCTION
In modern literary criticism and linguistics, there are several qualitatively different approaches to the study of literary text, such as, for example, anthropocentric, intertextual, cultural studies; the cognitive approach is rapidly developing in recent decades — “it is becoming increasingly common, and the term of cognitive poetics will soon look familiar.”
However, as R. Zur, one of the founders of this term, recently admitted, so far «there is no consensus about what cognitive poetics is» [1, 580].
Indeed, in the works of specialists one can come across several very different interpretations of this concept. So, for example, M. Brun identified at least three completely different approaches, which were conventionally designated as “cognitive science as poetics”, “poetics as cognitive science” and “poetics/ or cognitive science”; in the references are examples on which he considered these approaches.
Even the founders of the “project of cognitive poetics” adhere to very different positions.
R. Tzur, M. Terner, P. Hernadi, E. Spolsky and a number of other English-language authors of the journal Poetics Today, since the 1980s, have created this project as:
— «cognitive-evolutionary theory of literature», «the response to the crisis mainly French poststructuralism»;
— an attempt to «systematize the psycho-physiological effects caused by a work of art»;
— search for answers to the questions: 1) “what is the reason for the demand and vitality of certain forms of knowledge — literary forms?” and 2) “how to explain the specificity of literature in the cultural selection, where other arts participate?”.
The development of literature is considered in their works, first of all, as the history of
“cultural selection” —the evolutionary change of certain “qualities” of literature with the subsequent selection of their “adaptively most successful forms” [2,77-83].
MAIN PART
Another project founder, P. Stockwell, the author of the first textbook “Introduction to cognitive poetics” (after which the collection “Cognitive poetics in practice” came out in 2003), treats cognitive poetics as:
— search for answers to the question: “what do we know when we read?”;
— “a specific way to think cognitively about literature,” in which “the emphasis is not so much on text analysis, but on reading analysis as analyzing relevant contexts (stylistics and literary techniques, knowledge and beliefs, figurativeness of poetic and everyday language)”;
— “a set of cognitive approaches to the study of literature from the point of view of identifying and analyzing parameters that are relevant to finding out what happens with the understanding of the text in the process of reading, immersed in different contexts of knowledge — individual, collective and cultural”; [3, 77-83].
Some authors (for example, Dr. Fil. N. IA Tarasova) view cognitive poetics as some kind of fully accomplished, complete systematic approach to the study of the text — “the philological discipline of the integral type, which considers the cognitive patterns of the production of a literary text and the mechanisms of its reader perception “In the area of competence of cognitive poetics there are various stages in the functioning of a work of art, considered from the angle of mental categories: the author (individual conceptual sphere) — artistic reality (conceptual structure of the text) — reader (cognitive mechanisms of perception), and the interaction between them.” From the point of view of cognitive poetics, it is mental entities that predetermine the specifics of the author’s style — therefore, the main categories of cognitive education are in the center of attention of the researcher ngvistiki — concept, frame, conceptual field, the concept is considered as the basic unit of an individual conceptual sphere, the frame and the field — as a complex cognitive structure of the author’s consciousness. »
However, P. Stockwell himself writes about cognitive poetics as “just a more complex set of approaches,” arguing that “the purpose of analyzing text from the standpoint of cognitive poetics is to rationalize and explain how this reader achieves this understanding in this case. In this perspective, cognitive poetics has no predictive power and does not in itself generate interpretations. Cognitive poetics only offers a systematized language in which a variety of readings can be discussed. It models a process that transforms intuitive understanding into a meaningful expression, and presents it in the same terms in which this very understanding is described and discussed ” [4, 587-598].
Moreover, we note it especially — the author “does not insist that cognitive poetics is the only version of the name for a complex set of approaches”. In his opinion, “variants such as cognitive stylistics and cognitive rhetoric are also possible.”
It must be said that over the decade that has passed since the publication of his textbook, other variants of the “names” of cognitive poetics have appeared: in addition to the cognitive stylistics and cognitive rhetoric mentioned by P. Stokwell. [5, 135-150].Various authors have also used the terms “cognitive semantics”, “cognitive narratology”, “cognitive literary criticism” … finally, “cognitive linguistics”. How do these concepts relate to each other? In the special literature on this issue, as they say, “two authors have three opinions”; their range is very wide. (For example, N. Arlauskaite believes that “the term“ cognitive poetics ”should discipline and mark under one cover or one course what could be more cumbersome called“ cognitive approaches to the study of literature ”).
According to D. Akhapkin, in the terminology “diversity prevails here, if not to say — inconsistency”. In his opinion, this variety arises, mainly, “because of the different ways in which researchers come to cognitive literature. One way is from the empirical literary studies, who found themselves in a deaf siege in an era and trying to restore their positions. Another way is from cognitive linguistics to the study of literature. This approach, originating from the theory of conceptual metaphor, has long become a mainstream trend with many branches. The third way is from the side of analytic aesthetics and the philosophy of consciousness, seeking to adapt new knowledge about man and his consciousness to existing theories and create new theories on this basis. Finally, there is one more way — an attempt to integrate literature into the general picture of human evolution, using the latest scientific data. ” In other words, they write about cognitive poetics in terms of several qualitatively different approaches to the study of text, and various scientific disciplines. Moreover, many scientists do not simply use a number of others instead of the term “cognitive poetics”. In addition to this, “following my own path” — i.e. based on their scientific views and their training, many cognitiveists develop and use not only their own terminology and categorical apparatus, but also the author’s version of the research methodology. [6].
Here, for example, looks like the version of one of the founders of the “project of cognitive poetics” P. Hernadi, who, for his analysis, developed a four-level system that includes relationships:
— “literary types” (thematic, narrative, lyrical and dramatic);
— “verbal ways of solving problems” (by formulating a view, a retrospective assessment, a convincing (concurrent) assessment of what is happening and an exchange of opinions);
— “basic cognitive modalities” (by categorizing experience, its narrativization, monitoring what is happening and the ability to relate (situate) one’s own experience with the diverse positions of other people) [7, 169];
— four additional elements — two “types of memory” (semantic and episodic) and not categorized as “the ability of an individual to either recognize his own beliefs, feelings and desires, or attribute them to another”.
The study of the development of literature with the subsequent selection of their “adaptively most successful forms” turns out to be attached to P. Hernadi to the types of literature and this system “as to a testing ground”. The study of the development of literature with the subsequent selection of their “adaptively most successful forms” turns out to be attached to P. Hernadi to the types of literature and this system “as to a testing ground”.
But the structure of the textbook «Introduction to cognitive poetics» included the following main sections: «Figures and background», «Prototypes and reading», «Cognitive deixis», «Cognitive grammar», «Scripts and schemes», «Discourse» social worlds and mental spaces ”,“ Conceptual metaphor ”,“ Literature as a parable (parable) ”,“ Textual worlds ”,“ Understanding literature ”. However, according to some experts, “since the publication of the textbook of P. Stockwell, which launched the decade of cognitive poetics, a significant path has been traveled, so that this textbook itself already looks in many ways obsolete [8, 333].
But what does the research algorithm look like, developed and implemented in the works of
I. A. Tarasova and L. Yu. Semein, who suggested that “cognitive poetics can also be considered in the linguistic and culturological perspective, which arises when the relation of artistic concept and concept of culture «:
1. consideration of the content of the individual artistic concept against the background of the concept of culture (reconstruction of the figurative-perceptive, conceptual and associative layer according to linguistic dictionaries of various types, including associative thesauri);
2. analysis of linguistic representations of the concept against the background of the general artistic norms and norms of the literary direction (using dictionaries of poetic images, symbols, a selection of representative texts of national fiction) [9, 141];
3. reconstruction of the figurative-tropical and associative-symbolic layer of the national artistic concept;
4. projection of the individual-author’s concept on the concept of culture and the national artistic concept;
5. 5. stage of contrastive analysis. that is, a comparison of the content of concepts belonging to different ethno-linguistic communities (based on Russian and English linguocultures);
6. access to the main categories of mentality, reflected in the structure of the individualauthor and national-artistic concept; a conclusion about the linguocultural conditionality / specificity of the compared concepts.
FINDINGS
We gave these examples to show how scientific approaches to text analysis can be heterogeneous and incompatible. And there are already quite a lot of such approaches in the “decade of cognitive poetics”. In Russian-speaking sources, their discussion was conducted in a study by E.V. Lozinsky. And also in the articles by N. Arlauskaite, V. Tretyakov, D. Akhapkin.
According to the latter, “it is extremely difficult to reduce all submitted works to a single direction, given their wide variation: from the traditional linguistic-stylistic approach to the literary history genres. Those it turns out that if we want to “just use” cognitive poetics as a certain set of methods (methodology) for analyzing any text, then we will face the need to choose from a very wide range of very different, almost incompatible with each other, approaches to research. Therefore, the results of the analysis we can not compare with other studies. And all supporters of other interpretations of the understanding of what they designate in terms of “cognitive poetics”, “cognitive stylistics”, “cognitive semantics”, “cognitive linguistics” will inevitably fall upon us with destructive criticism. Because we used the “wrong”, from their point of view, scientific approach.
Here, in fact, what the phrase written by R. Zur in 2008 means: “there is no consensus about what cognitive poetics is”, with which we began this study. The scientific discussion is actively going on, no one has yet agreed with anyone or anything. Cognitive poetics is still only a project, an unsystematic set of ideas that has not yet been formed into a generally accepted system, into a
“scientific basis of research”.
According to the compilers of the collective monograph “Cognitive Poetics: Goals, Achievements and Lacunae” (2009), it solves two problems: “to find out whether a research field such as cognitive poetics has a right to exist and determine the degree of applicability of cognitive poetics to solving specific problems.
Under these conditions, we have to start our research “from the very beginning” — i.e. with the development and justification of their own vision of its conceptual foundations. And let us begin by studying the prerequisites for the emergence and sources of the “project of cognitive poetics.”
P. Stockwell in his textbook «modestly» writes about himself as a «pioneer and pioneer» who «stolb the territory and throws a preliminary map for future explorers.»
REFERENCES
1 Tsur R. Toward a theory of cognitive poetics. – Amsterdam: Elsevier,1992. – 580 p. 2 Терентьева И.Б. Психологическое воздействие рекламы на человека // Сборник научных трудов: PR и СМИ в Казахстане. – Алматы: БАК менеджментi мен жарнама кафедрасы. Нур, 2003. – С. 77-83.
3 Stockwell P. Cognitive Poetics – An Introduction. – London: Routledge, 2002. – 169 p.
4 Stockwell Р. Cartographies of cognitive poetics // Pragmatics & Cognition. 2008, 16:3. – Р. 587–598.
5 Stockwell P. Texture: Towards a Cognitive Aesthetics of Reading. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press, 2008. Stockwell, P. “Cognitive poetics and literary theory” // Journal of Literary Theory. – 2008,1 (1). – P. 135–152.
6 Ахапкин Д. Когнитивный подход в анализе современных художественных текстов //
НЛО, 2012, № 114. – Электронная версия: http://magazines.russ.ru/nlo/2012/114/a39.html
7 Когнитивная поэтика: проблемы, опыт исследования // под.ред. А.Камаловой. – Olsztyn, 2011. – 169 с.
8 Semino E. and Culpeper, J. (eds).Cognitive Stylistics. – Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2002. – 333 р.
9 Gavins J. and Steen G. (eds). Cognitive Poetics in Practice. – London: Routledge, 2003. – 144 р.
10 Hamilton C. Stylistics or cognitive stylistics? // Bulletin de la Societé de Stylistique Anglaise, 2007.Vol. 28. – P. 55–65.
11 Zunshine L. Why We Read Fiction: Theory of Mind and the Novel. – Columbus, OH:
Ohio State University Press, 2006. – 153 р.
12 Hogan P.C. (ed). Cognitive Science, Literature and the Arts: A Guide for Humanists. – London: Routledge, 2003. – 244 р.
13 Turner M. The Literary Mind: The Origins of Thought and Language. – New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. – 183 р.
14 Turner M. (ed). The Artful Mind: Cognitive Science and the Riddle of Human Creativity. – New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. – 368 р.
15 Сафронова Л.В., Нурбаева А.М. Междисциплинарные аспекты когнитивной поэтики. // Международный научно-популярный журнал «Наука и жизнь Казахстана». – 2015
№ 6 (33). – С. 133–136.
А.М. Нурбаева
Жарнамалық мәтіннің поэтикасын зерттеудің концептуалдық тұжырымдамалык
негіздері
Абай атындағы Қазақ ұлттық педагогикалық университеті,
Алматы қ., Қазақстан Республикасы
Осы мақала концептуалды негіздердің жарнамалық мәтіннің поэтикалық зерттеулеріне арналады. Берілген мақалада аталған терминнің түрлі трактаттарына сұрақ қойылған. Мамандардың жұмыс белсенділігі, когнетивті поэтика, соның ішінде бірнеше терминдердің сапалы, мәтіндердің бір-бірінен айырмашылығы, басқа да ғылыми тәртіп айқын байқалады. Әрі көптеген ғалымдар жай ғана терминнің орнына “когнитивті поэтика” немесе көптеген сөздер қолданылады. Оған қоса “өз жолыңмен жүру” – яғни өзінің ғылыми көзқарастар мен дайындығы, көптеген когнитивисттер жасау мен өзінің терминологиясын, категориялды аппаратты қолдану ғана емес, сонымен қатар авторлық вариант методологиясын зерттеу. И.А.Тарасова мен Л.Ю.Семейн “когнетивті поэтика лингвомәдениетті перспективада қарастырылуы мүмкін,біздің назарымызды фокус аралығына түсіру” – деген алгоритм зерттеулерді қарастырған:
Автор ғылыми көзқарастар мәтін анализіне сәйкес емес деген шешімге келді. Бұндай көзқарастар “когнитивті поэтика” он жыл ішінде көптеп жиналып қалды. Е.В.Лозинскаяның зерттеулерінде орыс тілді тамырларында осы мәселе талқыланған. Сонымен қоса Н.Арлаускайте, В.Третьякова, Д.Ахапкинаның да зерттеулерінде талқыланған. Соңғысының ойы бойынша, осы барлық көрсетілген жұмыстары әр қилы болғандықтан бір бағытқа: дәстүрлі лингвистикалық көзқарастан бастап әдебиеттің тарихи жанрына дейін қосу мүмкін емес. Сондықтан соңғы анализдің қорытындысы бойынша оны басқа зерттеулермен салыстыра алмаймыз. Барлық басқа трактаттарды жақтастары олардың “когнетивті поэтика”, “когнетивті стилистика”, “когнетивті семантика”, “когнетивті ленгвистика” сияқты терминдер бізге жойғыш сын болып төнеді. Сондықтан олардың көзқарастары бойынша “қате” ғылыми көзқарас қолданылған мәтіні.
А.М. Нурбаева
Концептуальные основы исследования поэтики рекламного текста
Казахский национальный педагогический университет им. Абая, г. Алматы, Республика Казахстан
Настоящая статья посвящена концептуальным основам исследования поэтики рекламного текста. В данной статье поставлен вопрос различных трактовок данного термина. Подчеркивается значимость работы специалистов о когнитивной поэтике, которые пишут в терминах нескольких качественно отличных друг от друга подходов к изучению текста, разных научных дисциплин. Причём многие ученые не, просто используют вместо термина «когнитивная поэтика» целый ряд других. Вдобавок к этому, «следуя по своему пути» – т.е. исходя из своих научных взглядов и своей подготовки, многие когнитивисты разрабатывают и используют не только свою собственную терминологию и категориальный аппарат, но и авторский вариант методологии исследования. Показан алгоритм исследования, разработанный и реализованный в работах И. А. Тарасовой и Л. Ю. Семейн, которые предположили, что «когнитивная поэтика может быть рассмотрена и в лингвокультурологической перспективе, которая возникает, когда в фокус нашего внимания попадает соотношение художественного концепта и концепта культуры»:
Автор приходит к выводу, что научные подходы к анализу текста могут быть разнородны и несовместимы. И таких подходов за «десятилетие когнитивной поэтики» уже накопилось довольно много. В русскоязычных источниках их обсуждение было проведено в исследовании Е.В. Лозинской. А также в статьях Н. Арлаускайте, В. Третьякова, Д. Ахапкина. По мнению последнего, «чрезвычайно сложно свести все представленные работы к одному направлению, учитывая их широкий разброс: от традиционного лингвостилистического подхода до истории литературных жанров». Поэтому результаты проведённого анализа не можем сопоставить с другими исследованиями. И все сторонники других трактовок понимания того, что обозначается ими в терминах «когнитивная поэтика», «когнитивная стилистика», «когнитивная семантика», «когнитивная лингвистика» неизбежно обрушатся на нас с уничтожающей критикой. Потому использовали «неправильный», с их точки зрения, научный подход.