The communicative aspect of the linguocognitive approach to foreign language teaching

Importance. The modern state of foreign language teaching methods evokes the issue of optimizing and transforming such teaching in accordance with the requirements of the time, the changing society and new scientific paradigms, especially those affecting the issues of cognitive and communicative human activity. Under these conditions, advances and the results of modern areas of cognitive linguistics as well as the wide range of closely related cognitive sciences gain significant importance, demonstrating potential for their integration into the educational process. The purpose of the research is to isolate the communication and communicative activity interpretation key features from the cognitive sciences’ standpoint and their inclusion in the structure of communicative foreign language teaching through the linguocognitive approach perspective.

Materials and Methods. The materials of the research include the scientific works of domestic and foreign researchers-cognitologists and specialists in the field of foreign language teaching methods. The research methods involve the analysis of scientific literature on the research problem, synthesis, generalization, systematization and classification.

Results and Discussion. The current views on communication as part of teaching foreign languages are affected by a number of trends in cognitive linguistics and cognitive sciences in general, relevant for modern communicative foreign language education are studied. The research singles out the main components of communication from the standpoint of the cognitive sciences as well as identifies significant factors that determine effective communicative interaction in social and educational contexts. The key provisions of the linguocognitive approach to foreign language teaching are formulated, reflecting the essential side of communication in the target language within the framework of the lesson and situations of real communicative interaction. The research specifically focuses on the importance of taking into account the technological side of communication in modern society and educational environment.

Conclusion. Communication as a meaningful interaction phenomenon in a foreign language class remains a foreign language education’s key element. Changes in the communicative interaction’s essence and content understanding under the cognitive sciences and the modern society digital transformation developments’ influence predetermine the significance of the linguocognitive approach as a promising approach to foreign language teaching in the modern educational context.

1. Savignon S.J. (2002). Interpreting Communicative Language Teaching: Contexts and Concerns in Teacher Education. New Haven, Yale University Press, 256 p. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1npsh9

2. Savignon S.J. (1991). Communicative Language Teaching: State of the Art. TESOL Quarterly, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 261-277. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587463, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3587463

3. Miller S., Bruce D. (2017). Welcome to the 21st Century: New Literacies Stances to Support Student Learning with Digital Video Composing. The English Journal, vol. 106, no. 3, pp. 14-18. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26359280

4. Motov S.V. (2021). Peculiarities of foreign language teaching on a linguocognitive basis in modern educational reality (by the example of negation in English). Vestnik Tambovskogo universiteta. Seriya: Gumanitarnye nauki = Tambov University Review. Series: Humanities, vol. 26, no. 195, pp. 50-59. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20310/1810-0201-2021-26-195-50-59, https://elibrary.ru/crahqo

5. Brandt P.A. (2019). Cognitive Semiotics: Signs, Mind and Meaning. London, Bloomsbury Academic Publ., 241 p. http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781350143333

6. Isac D., Reiss C. (2008). I-Language. An Introduction to Linguistics as Cognitive Science. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 318 p.

7. Rigotti E., Greco S. (2009). Communication: Semiotic Approaches. Concise Encyclopeida of Philosophy of Language and Linguistics. Oxford, Elsevier Publ., pp. 57-64.

8. Kastel’s M. (2016). Vlast’ kommunikatsii [The Power of Communication]. Moscow, Higher School of Economics Publishing House, 568 p. (In Russ.)

9. Jakobson R. (1987). Language in Literature. Cambridge, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 548 p.

10. Kravchenko A.V. (2013). Ot yazykovogo mifa k biologicheskoi real’nosti: pereosmyslyaya poznavatel’nye ustanovki yazykoznaniya [From Linguistic Myth to Biological Reality: Rethinking the Cognitive Attitudes of Linguistics]. Moscow, 388 p. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/raogwz

11. Petrilli S., Ponzio A. (2015). Language as Primary Modeling and Natural Languages: A Biosemiotic Perspective. Biosemiotic Perspectives on Language and Linguistics. Heidelberg, Springer Publ., pp. 47-76. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20663-9

12. Cowley S.J. (2015). Verbal Patterns: Taming Cognitive Biology. Biosemiotic Perspectives on Language and Linguistics. Heidelberg, Springer Publ., pp. 123-148. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20663-9

13. Ter-Minasova S.G. (2000). Yazyk i mezhkul’turnaya kommunikatsiya [Language and Intercultural Communication]. Moscow, Slovo Publ., 264 p. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/yqozjo

14. Gardner H. (1987). The Mind’s New Science: A History of the Cognitive Revolution. New York, Basic Books Publ., 448 p.

15. Robbins P., Aydede M. (2008). The Cambridge Handbook of Situated Cognition. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 520 p. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816826

16. Shul’ts O.E., Pervova G.M., Motov S.V. (2022). Teaching English on a linguocognitive basis: an extralinguistic aspect. Vestnik Tambovskogo universiteta. Seriya: Gumanitarnye nauki = Tambov University Review. Series: Humanities, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 1172-1183. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20310/1810-0201-2022-27-5-1172-1183, https://elibrary.ru/evqfgg

17. Smart P., Heersmink R., Clowes R.W. (2017). The Cognitive Ecology of the Internet. Cognition Beyond the Brain: Computation, Interactivity and Human Artifice. 2nd ed. London, Springer Publ., pp. 251-282. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49115-8

18. Gallagher S. (2005). How the Body Shapes the Mind. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 230 p. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199271941.001.0001

19. Wachsmuth I., Lenzen M., Knoblich G. (2008). Introduction to embodied communication: why communication needs body. Embodied Communication in Humans and Machines. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199231751.003.0001

20. Barresi J. (2008). Some boundary conditions on embodied agents sharing a common world. Embodied Communication in Humans and Machines. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 29-52. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199231751.003.0002

21. Gallagher S. (2020). Action and Interaction. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 320 p.

22. Shapiro L. (2019). Embodied Cognition. 2nd ed. London, Routledge Publ., 304 p. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315180380

23. Pacherie E. (2007). The sense of control and the sense of agency. Psyche: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Consciousness, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1-30. https://philpapers.org/rec/PACTSO-2

24. Searle J.R. (1979). The intentionality of intention and action. Inquiry: An Inderdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, vol. 22, no. 1-4, pp. 253-280 https://doi.org/10.1080/00201747908601876, https://philpapers.org/rec/SEATIO

25. Goldin-Meadow S. (2003). Hearing Gesture. How Our Hands Help Us Think. Cambridge, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 304 p. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1w9m9ds, https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1w9m9ds

26. McNeill D. (2000). Language and Gesture. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 409 p. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620850

27. Maturana H.R., Varela F.J. (1987). The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding. Boston, London, Shambhala Publications, Inc., 272 p.

28. Belyaev B.V. (1967). O primenenii printsipa soznatel’nosti v obuchenii inostrannomu yazyku [On the application of the principle of consciousness in teaching a foreign language]. Psikhologiya v obuchenii inostrannomu yazyku [Psychology in Teaching a Foreign Language]. Moscow, Prosveshchenie Publ., pp. 5-17. (In Russ.)

29. Passov E.I., Kuzovleva N.E. (2010). Osnovy kommunikativnoi teorii i tekhnologii inoyazychnogo obrazovaniya [Fundamentals of Communicative Theory and Technology of Foreign Language Education]. Moscow, Russian language. Courses Publ., 568 р. (In Russ.)

30. Chun D., Kern R., Smith B. (2016). Technology in Language Use, Language Teaching, and Language Learning. The Modern Language Journal, vol. 100, no. 51, pp. 64-80. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12302, https://www.jstor.org/stable/44134996

31. Sysoev P.V. (2019). Informatsionnye i kommunikatsionnye tekhnologii v lingvisticheskom obrazovani [Information and Communication Technologies in Linguistic Education]. Moscow, Librokom Publ., 264 p. (In Russ.)

32. Motov S.V. (2022). Cognitive linguistics in foreign language teaching: problems and prospects (by the example of teaching English at a language university). Vestnik Tambovskogo universiteta. Seriya: Gumanitarnye nauki = Tambov University Review. Series: Humanities, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 923-938. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20310/1810-0201-2022-27-4-923-938, https://elibrary.ru/vjdkdg

33. Motov S.V. (2019). Teaching English grammar on linguocognitive basis. Vestnik Tambovskogo universiteta. Seriya: Gumanitarnye nauki = Tambov University Review. Series: Humanities, vol. 24, no. 179, pp. 32-39. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20310/1810-0201-2019-24-179-32-39, https://elibrary.ru/yzesdz

34. Kravchenko A.V., Payunena M.V. (2018). Practice held hostage to theory: why it is so hard to learn a foreign language at school. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filologiya = Tomsk State University Journal of Philology, no. 56, pp. 65-91. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17223/19986645/56/5, https://elibrary.ru/ywgpsh5