DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS STUDIES IN MAGISTRACY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17770/sie2020vol4.4896Keywords:
big data, cognitive linguistics research, corpus-driven studies, digitization, higher education, linguistic experiment, master’s degreeAbstract
The field of higher education in Russia is undergoing significant changes that require reviewing past practices and professional activities. This article aims to study the potential of using modern digital technologies in linguistic experiments in cognitive linguistics regarding writing master’s degree theses.
The analysis of recent cognitive studies has shown that the area for this research is diverse and includes investigating aspects of cognitive semantics, translation techniques, concordance, phrase variability, and others. Research results show that cognitive science widely uses empirical data received through digital technologies such as Google. This digital tool can be accessible and suitable for linguistic experiments and the author demonstrates its application.
The paper presents a model of the linguistic experiment on studying the variability of the structure of a conceptual binominal phrase in Russian and English. According to the obtained results, Russian users of the Internet feature a higher tendency for changing the order the binomial concepts than the English-speaking ones. These data provide language material for conclusions and further considerations from a cognitive perspective. The framework of this experiment can be a motivating factor for those who want to master their research and language skills in the magistracy.
Downloads
References
Blanchard, D., Tetreault, J., Higgins, D., Cahill, A., & Chodorow, M. (2013). TOEFL11: A corpus of non‐native English. ETS Research Report Series, 2013(2), 1-15.
Bubnys, R. (2019). Future educators’ learning trends at the university: how important and significant the learner’s experience is? Society, integration, education: Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference, 1, 89-98. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17770/sie2019vol1.3855
Conroy, M. A. (2010). Internet tools for language learning: University students taking control of their writing. Australasian Journal of educational technology, 26(6), 861-882.
Chevrot, J.-P., Drager, K., Foulkes, P. (2018). Editors’ Introduction and Review: Sociolinguistic Variation and Cognitive Science. Topics in cognitive science, 10(4), 679-695.
Dapeng, W. (2014). The Role of Cognitive Linguistics in Promoting Language Research. 2014 Conference on Informatisation in Education, Management and Business (IEMB-14), 364-366.
Erixon, P.-O., Frånberg G.-M., & Kallós D. (2001). The role of graduate and postgraduate studies and research in teacher education reform policies in the European Union. Umeå: Umeå Universitet.
Fattakhova, N. N., Yusupova, Z. F., & Fedorova. N. I. (2016). A New Model of Pedagogical Magistracy in the Direction of "Linguistic Education" at Kazan Federal University. The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences EpSBS: IFTE 2, 26-29.
Furs L. A. (2007). Cognitive modeling of syntax, Issues of cognitive linguistics, 4, 81-85.
Guocai, Z. (2015). Dialogic syntax: A new research trend in cognitive linguistics. Modern Foreign Languages, 38(6), 842-848.
Hamidullina, L.A., (2017). On continuous professional development of modern specialists. Priority directions of development of education and science: Proceedings of the III International scientific and practical conference, 191-193.
Katashinskih, V.S. (2012). Sociological analysis of the students’ orientation concerning graduate school studies, Izvestia Ural Federal university journal. Series 1: Issues in education, science and culture, 4(107), 135-139.
Kvashina, S.Y. (2017). Master’s degree as a requirement for the professional growth of teachers. Actual problems of social and humanitarian sciences: a collection of scientific works on the materials of the International scientific and practical conference, 48-50
Petrova I.M. (2019). The potential of Google search for studies in cognitive corpus linguistics, Theoretical and applied linguistics, 5(3), 127-142.
Pleyer, M., & Winters, J. (2014). Integrating cognitive linguistics and language evolution research. Theoria et Historia Scientiarum, 11, 19-44.
Robb, T. (2003). Google as a quick and dirty corpus tool. TESL-EJ, 7(2). Retrieved from: http://www.tesl-ej.org/ej26/int.html.
Suleimanova, О.А. (2019). Semantic experiment: new approaches via Big-data, Cognitive Studies of Language, 36, 427-432.
Sha, G. (2010). Using Google as a super corpus to drive written language learning: a comparison with the British National Corpus. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(5), 377-393.
Sorokovyh, G.V., Kappusheva, H.H., Gerasimova, N.I., Olejnikova, E.A., Korotkova, I.P., Baranova, E.A., & Nadzhafov, I.A. (2013). Interactive technologies in foreign language education: research of strategies and experience of the application. Moscow: OOO Perspectiva.
Spring, R. (2018). Teaching phrasal verbs more efficiently: using corpus studies and cognitive linguistics to create a particle list. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 9(5), 121-135.
Zethsen, K. K. (2008). Corpus-based cognitive semantics: Extended units of meaning and their implications for Translation Studies. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series–Themes in Translation Studies, 7, 249-262.
