Discursive strategies in the Graecophilian discourse as a linguo-philosophical phenomenon in hermeneutic practices

The purpose of the article is about identifying some characteristic aspects within discursive strategies refracting the Graecophilian practice. Firstly, discourse analysis is now becoming a more influential area for research within a number of humanitarian disciplines that can include sociology, sociolinguistics, psychology, anthropology, linguistics, linguo-philosophy, and communicative activity considered as a linguistic phenomenon. Secondly, the communicative approach to studying as well as teaching language oriented towards practical communicative activity has led to the need to analyze specific examples of how linguistic means are used (in written and oral forms) in order to improve the effectiveness of methods for language learners, as well as to attract more necessary linguistic material, one of whose inexhaustible sources is currently the global Internet. Notably, the Bible covertly speaks to man for God and greatly affected mankind’s fate since it decided the course of thought models for ages. Our study focuses mainly on the aspect of this influence which is linguo-philosophical. This view is seen via Graecophilian practice’s lens. The monograph considers the issue about interlingual and interdiscursive interaction through translations of the Bible. Above all, it points out that the internal form for language does not exist “in itself” because an individual with his own comprehension of the world expressed in language communicates at the very centre of speech. The medieval Graecophile linguo-philosophical tradition, based on the awareness of the inherent essence within the word, language, and grammar, bears a significant relationship to textual translation. This connection stems from its close alignment with what is termed “language ideology”, which encompasses beliefs about the nature of language, its manifestation in diverse contexts, the governing principles for constructing written and oral discourse, and the fundamental tenets of translation – specifically, the purpose and means by which meaning is cultivated, articulated, and preserved.

1. Bibikhin VV. Internal form of a word. St. Petersburg: Nauka; 2008:410 (in Russian).

2. Avtonomova NS. Cognition and translation: Essays in the Philosophy of Language. Moscow: Rosspen; 2008:704 (in Russian).

3. Gukhman MM. Gothic Language. Moscow: Publishing House of Literature in Foreign Languages; 1958:291 (in Russian).

4. Khalipov SG. Brief Grammar of the Irish Language. St. Petersburg: Nota Bene; 1997:145 (in Russian).

5. Bouchard G. Michel Foucault: unité ou dispersion de l’œuvre? In: Laval Théologique et Philosophique. Paris: Minuit; 2003:59(3):485-502 (in French).

6. Henry A, Roseberry RL. Using a small corpus to obtain data for teaching a genre. In: Small Corpus Studies and ELT: Theory and Practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 2001:93-133 (in English).

7. Flowerdew J. Academic Discourse. London: Pearson Education; 2002:264 (in English).

8. Gaskell D, Cobb T. Can learners use concordance feedback for writing errors? System; 2004:301-319 (in English).

9. Hyland K. Teaching and researching writing. London: Pearson Education; 2002:324 (in English).

10. Carter-Thomas Sh, Rowley-Jolivet E. Syntactic differences in oral and written scientific discourse: the role of information structure. Asp: La revue du GERAS. 2019:37-42 (in English).

11. Resche C. Décryptage d’un genre particulier: les communiqués de presse de la Banque Centrale américaine. Asp: La revue du GERAS. 2003:21-35 (in French).

12. Laffont H. Un ingénieur est-il bien an engineer? Asp: La revue du GERAS. 2006:9-21 (in French).

13. Percebois J. Les économistes universitaires français et leurs homologues anglais et américains: aspects institutionnels, culturels et linguistiques. Asp: La revue du GERAS. 2006:79-91 (in French).

14. Sinclair J. McH. How to use corpora in language teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 2004:317 (in English).

15. Johns T. Data-driven Learning page. In: Language learning as discourse analysis: Implications for the LSP learning environment. Asp: La revue du GERAS. 2007;(51-52):35-51 (in English).

16. O’Sullivan Í. Learners’ writing skills in French: Corpus consultation and learner evaluation. In: Journal of Second Language Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006;(15):49-68 (in English).