The verbal process as reflected in reading and writing

This article deals with practices of writing and reading, which demonstrate notable features of the natural verbal process. In comparison with “language”, communicative action — the main feature of natural speaking — appears to be a more effective theoretical frame for explaining the production of m...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Andrey Vdovichenko
Format: Article
Language:Russian
Published: St. Tikhon's University 2017-12-01
Series:Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Svâto-Tihonovskogo Gumanitarnogo Universiteta: Seriâ III. Filologiâ
Subjects:
Online Access:http://periodical.pstgu.ru/ru/pdf/article/5816
_version_ 1818648672588529664
author Andrey Vdovichenko
author_facet Andrey Vdovichenko
author_sort Andrey Vdovichenko
collection DOAJ
description This article deals with practices of writing and reading, which demonstrate notable features of the natural verbal process. In comparison with “language”, communicative action — the main feature of natural speaking — appears to be a more effective theoretical frame for explaining the production of meaning, the source of which in verbal and nonverbal semiotic acts is individual consciousness. The widespread explanation of writing and reading allows too little space to the communicative production of meaning and too large to the correlation between the sound and a grapheme. Chinese hieroglyphs cannot be explained by such a simplistic model, as well as European phonological orthography. This article shows that between the Chinese and the Europeans there exists a fundamental similarity of writing and reading processes, which allows us to give a non-contradictory explanation of what happens in any case of the graphic recording of verbal (and non-verbal) data. Both the Chinese and the Europeans are able to write and read due to the aprioristic possession of communicative typology (including forms of oral communication), rather than due to the “exact and strict correlation between the sound and the written character”. “Signs” represent hints on already known forms of acts of communication, making these acts recognisable. Members of linguocultural communities do not speak with hieroglyphs or letters. By means of hieroglyphs or letters they only depict (force to retrieve from memory) the “corporal” part of communicative syntagmas. Due to this part, their initial cognitive integrity (the desired integrated act of communication) can be potentially recreated and then interpreted as a semiotic act. The alphabetic or hieroglyphic way of recording becomes a formality and comes down to a question of which of them is more effective and more convenient in certain conditions of communication. The separation of signs from a personal semiotic act (making them a special system, or “language”) disorients the theory of communication (including the verbal communication) because it depicts the communication process as a simplified scheme “sign-meaning”
first_indexed 2024-12-17T01:22:09Z
format Article
id doaj.art-825c05955e9d40ae85d494dc1f6ab182
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1991-6485
2409-4897
language Russian
last_indexed 2024-12-17T01:22:09Z
publishDate 2017-12-01
publisher St. Tikhon's University
record_format Article
series Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Svâto-Tihonovskogo Gumanitarnogo Universiteta: Seriâ III. Filologiâ
spelling doaj.art-825c05955e9d40ae85d494dc1f6ab1822022-12-21T22:08:48ZrusSt. Tikhon's UniversityVestnik Pravoslavnogo Svâto-Tihonovskogo Gumanitarnogo Universiteta: Seriâ III. Filologiâ1991-64852409-48972017-12-0152526275http://dx.doi.org/10.15382/sturIII201752.62-757The verbal process as reflected in reading and writingAndrey Vdovichenko0ведущий научный сотрудник, профессорThis article deals with practices of writing and reading, which demonstrate notable features of the natural verbal process. In comparison with “language”, communicative action — the main feature of natural speaking — appears to be a more effective theoretical frame for explaining the production of meaning, the source of which in verbal and nonverbal semiotic acts is individual consciousness. The widespread explanation of writing and reading allows too little space to the communicative production of meaning and too large to the correlation between the sound and a grapheme. Chinese hieroglyphs cannot be explained by such a simplistic model, as well as European phonological orthography. This article shows that between the Chinese and the Europeans there exists a fundamental similarity of writing and reading processes, which allows us to give a non-contradictory explanation of what happens in any case of the graphic recording of verbal (and non-verbal) data. Both the Chinese and the Europeans are able to write and read due to the aprioristic possession of communicative typology (including forms of oral communication), rather than due to the “exact and strict correlation between the sound and the written character”. “Signs” represent hints on already known forms of acts of communication, making these acts recognisable. Members of linguocultural communities do not speak with hieroglyphs or letters. By means of hieroglyphs or letters they only depict (force to retrieve from memory) the “corporal” part of communicative syntagmas. Due to this part, their initial cognitive integrity (the desired integrated act of communication) can be potentially recreated and then interpreted as a semiotic act. The alphabetic or hieroglyphic way of recording becomes a formality and comes down to a question of which of them is more effective and more convenient in certain conditions of communication. The separation of signs from a personal semiotic act (making them a special system, or “language”) disorients the theory of communication (including the verbal communication) because it depicts the communication process as a simplified scheme “sign-meaning”http://periodical.pstgu.ru/ru/pdf/article/5816reading and writing communicative action language semiotic act letter hieroglyph Chinese and European reading or writing process communicative typology
spellingShingle Andrey Vdovichenko
The verbal process as reflected in reading and writing
Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Svâto-Tihonovskogo Gumanitarnogo Universiteta: Seriâ III. Filologiâ
reading and writing
communicative action
language
semiotic act
letter
hieroglyph
Chinese and European reading or writing process
communicative typology
title The verbal process as reflected in reading and writing
title_full The verbal process as reflected in reading and writing
title_fullStr The verbal process as reflected in reading and writing
title_full_unstemmed The verbal process as reflected in reading and writing
title_short The verbal process as reflected in reading and writing
title_sort verbal process as reflected in reading and writing
topic reading and writing
communicative action
language
semiotic act
letter
hieroglyph
Chinese and European reading or writing process
communicative typology
url http://periodical.pstgu.ru/ru/pdf/article/5816
work_keys_str_mv AT andreyvdovichenko theverbalprocessasreflectedinreadingandwriting
AT andreyvdovichenko verbalprocessasreflectedinreadingandwriting