ON THE PROBLEM OF ONTOLOGY AND TERMINOLOGY OF STATUSORIENTED TYPES OF DISCOURSE IN MODERN LINGUISTIC DISCOUROLOGY
The article raises the problems of the status-oriented discourse typology. The essence of them lies in the fact that there exist several terminological nominations of such general type of the discourse, namely “institutional discourse”, “business discourse”, “expert discourse”, “specialized discours...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
I. V. Chekulai [verfasserIn] O. N. Prokhorova [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch ; Russisch |
| Erschienen: |
2019 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
In: Дискурс профессиональной коммуникации - MGIMO University Press, 2020, 1(2019), 1, Seite 21-35 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:1 ; year:2019 ; number:1 ; pages:21-35 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.24833/2687-0126-2019-1-1-21-35 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
DOAJ004500687 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | DOAJ004500687 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20240414123544.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 230225s2019 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.24833/2687-0126-2019-1-1-21-35 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)DOAJ004500687 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)DOAJbcd55dd429064d37a6b0c0a2e1181ccf | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng |a rus | ||
| 050 | 0 | |a LB5-3640 | |
| 050 | 0 | |a P1-1091 | |
| 100 | 0 | |a I. V. Chekulai |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a ON THE PROBLEM OF ONTOLOGY AND TERMINOLOGY OF STATUSORIENTED TYPES OF DISCOURSE IN MODERN LINGUISTIC DISCOUROLOGY |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2019 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a The article raises the problems of the status-oriented discourse typology. The essence of them lies in the fact that there exist several terminological nominations of such general type of the discourse, namely “institutional discourse”, “business discourse”, “expert discourse”, “specialized discourse”, “professional discourse”. These terminological nominations often overlap giving the effect of vagueness of a certain term. The genre versatility of the texts pertaining to some discourse cluster of a specialized (i.e. involving certain special knowledge at least from the part of one of the discourse participants) character is such a case. More than that, we often meet the same authors using different terms from the list above. Still, the authors of the article consider these terms to denote different essences differentiating not only from the nominative point of view, but ontologically as well. First, they are sure to denote hierarchically different levels of the status-oriented discourse. Second, they are sure to present peculiar to a certain types of a discourse categorical status of the communicants. Third, the coordination of oral and written discourse genres is bound to be peculiar to a certain kind of the discourse. All these considerations predetermine the common efforts of linguists to conduct systemic research of the problem. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a status-oriented discourse | |
| 650 | 4 | |a institutional discourse | |
| 650 | 4 | |a business discourse | |
| 650 | 4 | |a expert discourse | |
| 650 | 4 | |a special discourse | |
| 650 | 4 | |a professional discourse | |
| 653 | 0 | |a Theory and practice of education | |
| 653 | 0 | |a Philology. Linguistics | |
| 700 | 0 | |a O. N. Prokhorova |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i In |t Дискурс профессиональной коммуникации |d MGIMO University Press, 2020 |g 1(2019), 1, Seite 21-35 |w (DE-627)1760643483 |x 26870126 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:1 |g year:2019 |g number:1 |g pages:21-35 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.24833/2687-0126-2019-1-1-21-35 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doaj.org/article/bcd55dd429064d37a6b0c0a2e1181ccf |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://www.pdc-journal.com/jour/article/view/5 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://doaj.org/toc/2687-0126 |y Journal toc |z kostenfrei |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_DOAJ | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 1 |j 2019 |e 1 |h 21-35 | ||
| author_variant |
i v c ivc o n p onp |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:26870126:2019----::nhpolmfnooyntriooyfttsretdyeodsoreno |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2019 |
| callnumber-subject-code |
LB |
| publishDate |
2019 |
| allfields |
10.24833/2687-0126-2019-1-1-21-35 doi (DE-627)DOAJ004500687 (DE-599)DOAJbcd55dd429064d37a6b0c0a2e1181ccf DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng rus LB5-3640 P1-1091 I. V. Chekulai verfasserin aut ON THE PROBLEM OF ONTOLOGY AND TERMINOLOGY OF STATUSORIENTED TYPES OF DISCOURSE IN MODERN LINGUISTIC DISCOUROLOGY 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier The article raises the problems of the status-oriented discourse typology. The essence of them lies in the fact that there exist several terminological nominations of such general type of the discourse, namely “institutional discourse”, “business discourse”, “expert discourse”, “specialized discourse”, “professional discourse”. These terminological nominations often overlap giving the effect of vagueness of a certain term. The genre versatility of the texts pertaining to some discourse cluster of a specialized (i.e. involving certain special knowledge at least from the part of one of the discourse participants) character is such a case. More than that, we often meet the same authors using different terms from the list above. Still, the authors of the article consider these terms to denote different essences differentiating not only from the nominative point of view, but ontologically as well. First, they are sure to denote hierarchically different levels of the status-oriented discourse. Second, they are sure to present peculiar to a certain types of a discourse categorical status of the communicants. Third, the coordination of oral and written discourse genres is bound to be peculiar to a certain kind of the discourse. All these considerations predetermine the common efforts of linguists to conduct systemic research of the problem. status-oriented discourse institutional discourse business discourse expert discourse special discourse professional discourse Theory and practice of education Philology. Linguistics O. N. Prokhorova verfasserin aut In Дискурс профессиональной коммуникации MGIMO University Press, 2020 1(2019), 1, Seite 21-35 (DE-627)1760643483 26870126 nnns volume:1 year:2019 number:1 pages:21-35 https://doi.org/10.24833/2687-0126-2019-1-1-21-35 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/bcd55dd429064d37a6b0c0a2e1181ccf kostenfrei https://www.pdc-journal.com/jour/article/view/5 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2687-0126 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 1 2019 1 21-35 |
| spelling |
10.24833/2687-0126-2019-1-1-21-35 doi (DE-627)DOAJ004500687 (DE-599)DOAJbcd55dd429064d37a6b0c0a2e1181ccf DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng rus LB5-3640 P1-1091 I. V. Chekulai verfasserin aut ON THE PROBLEM OF ONTOLOGY AND TERMINOLOGY OF STATUSORIENTED TYPES OF DISCOURSE IN MODERN LINGUISTIC DISCOUROLOGY 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier The article raises the problems of the status-oriented discourse typology. The essence of them lies in the fact that there exist several terminological nominations of such general type of the discourse, namely “institutional discourse”, “business discourse”, “expert discourse”, “specialized discourse”, “professional discourse”. These terminological nominations often overlap giving the effect of vagueness of a certain term. The genre versatility of the texts pertaining to some discourse cluster of a specialized (i.e. involving certain special knowledge at least from the part of one of the discourse participants) character is such a case. More than that, we often meet the same authors using different terms from the list above. Still, the authors of the article consider these terms to denote different essences differentiating not only from the nominative point of view, but ontologically as well. First, they are sure to denote hierarchically different levels of the status-oriented discourse. Second, they are sure to present peculiar to a certain types of a discourse categorical status of the communicants. Third, the coordination of oral and written discourse genres is bound to be peculiar to a certain kind of the discourse. All these considerations predetermine the common efforts of linguists to conduct systemic research of the problem. status-oriented discourse institutional discourse business discourse expert discourse special discourse professional discourse Theory and practice of education Philology. Linguistics O. N. Prokhorova verfasserin aut In Дискурс профессиональной коммуникации MGIMO University Press, 2020 1(2019), 1, Seite 21-35 (DE-627)1760643483 26870126 nnns volume:1 year:2019 number:1 pages:21-35 https://doi.org/10.24833/2687-0126-2019-1-1-21-35 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/bcd55dd429064d37a6b0c0a2e1181ccf kostenfrei https://www.pdc-journal.com/jour/article/view/5 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2687-0126 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 1 2019 1 21-35 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.24833/2687-0126-2019-1-1-21-35 doi (DE-627)DOAJ004500687 (DE-599)DOAJbcd55dd429064d37a6b0c0a2e1181ccf DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng rus LB5-3640 P1-1091 I. V. Chekulai verfasserin aut ON THE PROBLEM OF ONTOLOGY AND TERMINOLOGY OF STATUSORIENTED TYPES OF DISCOURSE IN MODERN LINGUISTIC DISCOUROLOGY 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier The article raises the problems of the status-oriented discourse typology. The essence of them lies in the fact that there exist several terminological nominations of such general type of the discourse, namely “institutional discourse”, “business discourse”, “expert discourse”, “specialized discourse”, “professional discourse”. These terminological nominations often overlap giving the effect of vagueness of a certain term. The genre versatility of the texts pertaining to some discourse cluster of a specialized (i.e. involving certain special knowledge at least from the part of one of the discourse participants) character is such a case. More than that, we often meet the same authors using different terms from the list above. Still, the authors of the article consider these terms to denote different essences differentiating not only from the nominative point of view, but ontologically as well. First, they are sure to denote hierarchically different levels of the status-oriented discourse. Second, they are sure to present peculiar to a certain types of a discourse categorical status of the communicants. Third, the coordination of oral and written discourse genres is bound to be peculiar to a certain kind of the discourse. All these considerations predetermine the common efforts of linguists to conduct systemic research of the problem. status-oriented discourse institutional discourse business discourse expert discourse special discourse professional discourse Theory and practice of education Philology. Linguistics O. N. Prokhorova verfasserin aut In Дискурс профессиональной коммуникации MGIMO University Press, 2020 1(2019), 1, Seite 21-35 (DE-627)1760643483 26870126 nnns volume:1 year:2019 number:1 pages:21-35 https://doi.org/10.24833/2687-0126-2019-1-1-21-35 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/bcd55dd429064d37a6b0c0a2e1181ccf kostenfrei https://www.pdc-journal.com/jour/article/view/5 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2687-0126 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 1 2019 1 21-35 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.24833/2687-0126-2019-1-1-21-35 doi (DE-627)DOAJ004500687 (DE-599)DOAJbcd55dd429064d37a6b0c0a2e1181ccf DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng rus LB5-3640 P1-1091 I. V. Chekulai verfasserin aut ON THE PROBLEM OF ONTOLOGY AND TERMINOLOGY OF STATUSORIENTED TYPES OF DISCOURSE IN MODERN LINGUISTIC DISCOUROLOGY 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier The article raises the problems of the status-oriented discourse typology. The essence of them lies in the fact that there exist several terminological nominations of such general type of the discourse, namely “institutional discourse”, “business discourse”, “expert discourse”, “specialized discourse”, “professional discourse”. These terminological nominations often overlap giving the effect of vagueness of a certain term. The genre versatility of the texts pertaining to some discourse cluster of a specialized (i.e. involving certain special knowledge at least from the part of one of the discourse participants) character is such a case. More than that, we often meet the same authors using different terms from the list above. Still, the authors of the article consider these terms to denote different essences differentiating not only from the nominative point of view, but ontologically as well. First, they are sure to denote hierarchically different levels of the status-oriented discourse. Second, they are sure to present peculiar to a certain types of a discourse categorical status of the communicants. Third, the coordination of oral and written discourse genres is bound to be peculiar to a certain kind of the discourse. All these considerations predetermine the common efforts of linguists to conduct systemic research of the problem. status-oriented discourse institutional discourse business discourse expert discourse special discourse professional discourse Theory and practice of education Philology. Linguistics O. N. Prokhorova verfasserin aut In Дискурс профессиональной коммуникации MGIMO University Press, 2020 1(2019), 1, Seite 21-35 (DE-627)1760643483 26870126 nnns volume:1 year:2019 number:1 pages:21-35 https://doi.org/10.24833/2687-0126-2019-1-1-21-35 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/bcd55dd429064d37a6b0c0a2e1181ccf kostenfrei https://www.pdc-journal.com/jour/article/view/5 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2687-0126 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 1 2019 1 21-35 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.24833/2687-0126-2019-1-1-21-35 doi (DE-627)DOAJ004500687 (DE-599)DOAJbcd55dd429064d37a6b0c0a2e1181ccf DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng rus LB5-3640 P1-1091 I. V. Chekulai verfasserin aut ON THE PROBLEM OF ONTOLOGY AND TERMINOLOGY OF STATUSORIENTED TYPES OF DISCOURSE IN MODERN LINGUISTIC DISCOUROLOGY 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier The article raises the problems of the status-oriented discourse typology. The essence of them lies in the fact that there exist several terminological nominations of such general type of the discourse, namely “institutional discourse”, “business discourse”, “expert discourse”, “specialized discourse”, “professional discourse”. These terminological nominations often overlap giving the effect of vagueness of a certain term. The genre versatility of the texts pertaining to some discourse cluster of a specialized (i.e. involving certain special knowledge at least from the part of one of the discourse participants) character is such a case. More than that, we often meet the same authors using different terms from the list above. Still, the authors of the article consider these terms to denote different essences differentiating not only from the nominative point of view, but ontologically as well. First, they are sure to denote hierarchically different levels of the status-oriented discourse. Second, they are sure to present peculiar to a certain types of a discourse categorical status of the communicants. Third, the coordination of oral and written discourse genres is bound to be peculiar to a certain kind of the discourse. All these considerations predetermine the common efforts of linguists to conduct systemic research of the problem. status-oriented discourse institutional discourse business discourse expert discourse special discourse professional discourse Theory and practice of education Philology. Linguistics O. N. Prokhorova verfasserin aut In Дискурс профессиональной коммуникации MGIMO University Press, 2020 1(2019), 1, Seite 21-35 (DE-627)1760643483 26870126 nnns volume:1 year:2019 number:1 pages:21-35 https://doi.org/10.24833/2687-0126-2019-1-1-21-35 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/bcd55dd429064d37a6b0c0a2e1181ccf kostenfrei https://www.pdc-journal.com/jour/article/view/5 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2687-0126 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 1 2019 1 21-35 |
| language |
English Russian |
| source |
In Дискурс профессиональной коммуникации 1(2019), 1, Seite 21-35 volume:1 year:2019 number:1 pages:21-35 |
| sourceStr |
In Дискурс профессиональной коммуникации 1(2019), 1, Seite 21-35 volume:1 year:2019 number:1 pages:21-35 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
status-oriented discourse institutional discourse business discourse expert discourse special discourse professional discourse Theory and practice of education Philology. Linguistics |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
true |
| container_title |
Дискурс профессиональной коммуникации |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
I. V. Chekulai @@aut@@ O. N. Prokhorova @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2019-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
1760643483 |
| id |
DOAJ004500687 |
| language_de |
englisch russisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ004500687</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240414123544.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230225s2019 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.24833/2687-0126-2019-1-1-21-35</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ004500687</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJbcd55dd429064d37a6b0c0a2e1181ccf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield><subfield code="a">rus</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">LB5-3640</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">P1-1091</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">I. V. Chekulai</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">ON THE PROBLEM OF ONTOLOGY AND TERMINOLOGY OF STATUSORIENTED TYPES OF DISCOURSE IN MODERN LINGUISTIC DISCOUROLOGY</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">The article raises the problems of the status-oriented discourse typology. The essence of them lies in the fact that there exist several terminological nominations of such general type of the discourse, namely “institutional discourse”, “business discourse”, “expert discourse”, “specialized discourse”, “professional discourse”. These terminological nominations often overlap giving the effect of vagueness of a certain term. The genre versatility of the texts pertaining to some discourse cluster of a specialized (i.e. involving certain special knowledge at least from the part of one of the discourse participants) character is such a case. More than that, we often meet the same authors using different terms from the list above. Still, the authors of the article consider these terms to denote different essences differentiating not only from the nominative point of view, but ontologically as well. First, they are sure to denote hierarchically different levels of the status-oriented discourse. Second, they are sure to present peculiar to a certain types of a discourse categorical status of the communicants. Third, the coordination of oral and written discourse genres is bound to be peculiar to a certain kind of the discourse. All these considerations predetermine the common efforts of linguists to conduct systemic research of the problem.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">status-oriented discourse</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">institutional discourse</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">business discourse</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">expert discourse</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">special discourse</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">professional discourse</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Theory and practice of education</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Philology. Linguistics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">O. N. Prokhorova</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Дискурс профессиональной коммуникации</subfield><subfield code="d">MGIMO University Press, 2020</subfield><subfield code="g">1(2019), 1, Seite 21-35</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)1760643483</subfield><subfield code="x">26870126</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:1</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2019</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:21-35</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.24833/2687-0126-2019-1-1-21-35</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/bcd55dd429064d37a6b0c0a2e1181ccf</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.pdc-journal.com/jour/article/view/5</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2687-0126</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">1</subfield><subfield code="j">2019</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">21-35</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| callnumber-first |
L - Education |
| author |
I. V. Chekulai |
| spellingShingle |
I. V. Chekulai misc LB5-3640 misc P1-1091 misc status-oriented discourse misc institutional discourse misc business discourse misc expert discourse misc special discourse misc professional discourse misc Theory and practice of education misc Philology. Linguistics ON THE PROBLEM OF ONTOLOGY AND TERMINOLOGY OF STATUSORIENTED TYPES OF DISCOURSE IN MODERN LINGUISTIC DISCOUROLOGY |
| authorStr |
I. V. Chekulai |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)1760643483 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut |
| collection |
DOAJ |
| remote_str |
true |
| callnumber-label |
LB5-3640 |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
26870126 |
| topic_title |
LB5-3640 P1-1091 ON THE PROBLEM OF ONTOLOGY AND TERMINOLOGY OF STATUSORIENTED TYPES OF DISCOURSE IN MODERN LINGUISTIC DISCOUROLOGY status-oriented discourse institutional discourse business discourse expert discourse special discourse professional discourse |
| topic |
misc LB5-3640 misc P1-1091 misc status-oriented discourse misc institutional discourse misc business discourse misc expert discourse misc special discourse misc professional discourse misc Theory and practice of education misc Philology. Linguistics |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc LB5-3640 misc P1-1091 misc status-oriented discourse misc institutional discourse misc business discourse misc expert discourse misc special discourse misc professional discourse misc Theory and practice of education misc Philology. Linguistics |
| topic_browse |
misc LB5-3640 misc P1-1091 misc status-oriented discourse misc institutional discourse misc business discourse misc expert discourse misc special discourse misc professional discourse misc Theory and practice of education misc Philology. Linguistics |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Дискурс профессиональной коммуникации |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
1760643483 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Дискурс профессиональной коммуникации |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
true |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)1760643483 |
| title |
ON THE PROBLEM OF ONTOLOGY AND TERMINOLOGY OF STATUSORIENTED TYPES OF DISCOURSE IN MODERN LINGUISTIC DISCOUROLOGY |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)DOAJ004500687 (DE-599)DOAJbcd55dd429064d37a6b0c0a2e1181ccf |
| title_full |
ON THE PROBLEM OF ONTOLOGY AND TERMINOLOGY OF STATUSORIENTED TYPES OF DISCOURSE IN MODERN LINGUISTIC DISCOUROLOGY |
| author_sort |
I. V. Chekulai |
| journal |
Дискурс профессиональной коммуникации |
| journalStr |
Дискурс профессиональной коммуникации |
| callnumber-first-code |
L |
| lang_code |
eng rus |
| isOA_bool |
true |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2019 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
21 |
| author_browse |
I. V. Chekulai O. N. Prokhorova |
| container_volume |
1 |
| class |
LB5-3640 P1-1091 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
I. V. Chekulai |
| doi_str_mv |
10.24833/2687-0126-2019-1-1-21-35 |
| author2-role |
verfasserin |
| title_sort |
on the problem of ontology and terminology of statusoriented types of discourse in modern linguistic discourology |
| callnumber |
LB5-3640 |
| title_auth |
ON THE PROBLEM OF ONTOLOGY AND TERMINOLOGY OF STATUSORIENTED TYPES OF DISCOURSE IN MODERN LINGUISTIC DISCOUROLOGY |
| abstract |
The article raises the problems of the status-oriented discourse typology. The essence of them lies in the fact that there exist several terminological nominations of such general type of the discourse, namely “institutional discourse”, “business discourse”, “expert discourse”, “specialized discourse”, “professional discourse”. These terminological nominations often overlap giving the effect of vagueness of a certain term. The genre versatility of the texts pertaining to some discourse cluster of a specialized (i.e. involving certain special knowledge at least from the part of one of the discourse participants) character is such a case. More than that, we often meet the same authors using different terms from the list above. Still, the authors of the article consider these terms to denote different essences differentiating not only from the nominative point of view, but ontologically as well. First, they are sure to denote hierarchically different levels of the status-oriented discourse. Second, they are sure to present peculiar to a certain types of a discourse categorical status of the communicants. Third, the coordination of oral and written discourse genres is bound to be peculiar to a certain kind of the discourse. All these considerations predetermine the common efforts of linguists to conduct systemic research of the problem. |
| abstractGer |
The article raises the problems of the status-oriented discourse typology. The essence of them lies in the fact that there exist several terminological nominations of such general type of the discourse, namely “institutional discourse”, “business discourse”, “expert discourse”, “specialized discourse”, “professional discourse”. These terminological nominations often overlap giving the effect of vagueness of a certain term. The genre versatility of the texts pertaining to some discourse cluster of a specialized (i.e. involving certain special knowledge at least from the part of one of the discourse participants) character is such a case. More than that, we often meet the same authors using different terms from the list above. Still, the authors of the article consider these terms to denote different essences differentiating not only from the nominative point of view, but ontologically as well. First, they are sure to denote hierarchically different levels of the status-oriented discourse. Second, they are sure to present peculiar to a certain types of a discourse categorical status of the communicants. Third, the coordination of oral and written discourse genres is bound to be peculiar to a certain kind of the discourse. All these considerations predetermine the common efforts of linguists to conduct systemic research of the problem. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
The article raises the problems of the status-oriented discourse typology. The essence of them lies in the fact that there exist several terminological nominations of such general type of the discourse, namely “institutional discourse”, “business discourse”, “expert discourse”, “specialized discourse”, “professional discourse”. These terminological nominations often overlap giving the effect of vagueness of a certain term. The genre versatility of the texts pertaining to some discourse cluster of a specialized (i.e. involving certain special knowledge at least from the part of one of the discourse participants) character is such a case. More than that, we often meet the same authors using different terms from the list above. Still, the authors of the article consider these terms to denote different essences differentiating not only from the nominative point of view, but ontologically as well. First, they are sure to denote hierarchically different levels of the status-oriented discourse. Second, they are sure to present peculiar to a certain types of a discourse categorical status of the communicants. Third, the coordination of oral and written discourse genres is bound to be peculiar to a certain kind of the discourse. All these considerations predetermine the common efforts of linguists to conduct systemic research of the problem. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ |
| container_issue |
1 |
| title_short |
ON THE PROBLEM OF ONTOLOGY AND TERMINOLOGY OF STATUSORIENTED TYPES OF DISCOURSE IN MODERN LINGUISTIC DISCOUROLOGY |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.24833/2687-0126-2019-1-1-21-35 https://doaj.org/article/bcd55dd429064d37a6b0c0a2e1181ccf https://www.pdc-journal.com/jour/article/view/5 https://doaj.org/toc/2687-0126 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
O. N. Prokhorova |
| author2Str |
O. N. Prokhorova |
| ppnlink |
1760643483 |
| callnumber-subject |
LB - Theory and Practice of Education |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
true |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.24833/2687-0126-2019-1-1-21-35 |
| callnumber-a |
LB5-3640 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T23:59:26.362Z |
| _version_ |
1803604371821297664 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ004500687</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240414123544.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230225s2019 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.24833/2687-0126-2019-1-1-21-35</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ004500687</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJbcd55dd429064d37a6b0c0a2e1181ccf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield><subfield code="a">rus</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">LB5-3640</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">P1-1091</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">I. V. Chekulai</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">ON THE PROBLEM OF ONTOLOGY AND TERMINOLOGY OF STATUSORIENTED TYPES OF DISCOURSE IN MODERN LINGUISTIC DISCOUROLOGY</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">The article raises the problems of the status-oriented discourse typology. The essence of them lies in the fact that there exist several terminological nominations of such general type of the discourse, namely “institutional discourse”, “business discourse”, “expert discourse”, “specialized discourse”, “professional discourse”. These terminological nominations often overlap giving the effect of vagueness of a certain term. The genre versatility of the texts pertaining to some discourse cluster of a specialized (i.e. involving certain special knowledge at least from the part of one of the discourse participants) character is such a case. More than that, we often meet the same authors using different terms from the list above. Still, the authors of the article consider these terms to denote different essences differentiating not only from the nominative point of view, but ontologically as well. First, they are sure to denote hierarchically different levels of the status-oriented discourse. Second, they are sure to present peculiar to a certain types of a discourse categorical status of the communicants. Third, the coordination of oral and written discourse genres is bound to be peculiar to a certain kind of the discourse. All these considerations predetermine the common efforts of linguists to conduct systemic research of the problem.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">status-oriented discourse</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">institutional discourse</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">business discourse</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">expert discourse</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">special discourse</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">professional discourse</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Theory and practice of education</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Philology. Linguistics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">O. N. Prokhorova</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Дискурс профессиональной коммуникации</subfield><subfield code="d">MGIMO University Press, 2020</subfield><subfield code="g">1(2019), 1, Seite 21-35</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)1760643483</subfield><subfield code="x">26870126</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:1</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2019</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:21-35</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.24833/2687-0126-2019-1-1-21-35</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/bcd55dd429064d37a6b0c0a2e1181ccf</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.pdc-journal.com/jour/article/view/5</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2687-0126</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">1</subfield><subfield code="j">2019</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">21-35</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.397464 |