O‘ZBEK VA INGLIZ TA’LIMIY DISKURSIDA KOGNITIV OMILLARNING CHOG‘ISHTIRMA TAHLILI
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.67227/87n7k136Kalit so‘zlar:
ta’limiy diskurs, kognitiv omil, registr aralashuvi, konseptual metafora, dars freymi, slot, murojaat shakli, baholash, chog‘ishtirma tahlil.Abstrak
Maqolada o‘zbek va ingliz ta’limiy diskursining kognitiv omillari uch jihat – registr xususiyatlari, konseptual metafora va dars freymi tahlil qilinadi. Ustoz nutqida akademik va so‘zlashuv registrlarining bir bayon doirasida qo‘shilishi hamda darslik instruksiyasi bilan o‘quv matni o‘rtasidagi uslubiy ziddiyat ikki til materialida ko‘rsatiladi. Dars freymining ochilish, murojaat va baholash slotlarini to‘ldiruvchi lisoniy vositalar qiyoslanib, o‘zbek diskursida masofa, hurmat va yumshatish komponentlari kuchliroq ifodalanishi aniqlanadi.
Yuklashlar
Havolalar
1. Kharkovskaya A. A., Ponomarenko E. V., Radyuk A. V. Minitexts in modern educational discourse: Functions and trends // Training, Language and Culture. – 2017. – Vol. 1, № 1. – P. 62–76. – DOI: 10.29366/2017tlc.1.1.4.
2. Matsevich S., Korenetskaya I., Kuzmichenko A. Conceptual metaphor as means of teaching English speech patterns in higher education // Society. Integration. Education: Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference. – Rezekne: Rezekne Academy of Technologies, 2020. – Vol. 5. – P. 494–504.
3. Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metaphors We Live By. – Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980. – 242 p.
4. Cameron L. Metaphor in Educational Discourse. – London: Continuum, 2003. – 294 p.
5. Fillmore Ch. J. Frame semantics // Linguistics in the Morning Calm / ed. by The Linguistic Society of Korea. – Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co., 1982. – P. 111–137.
6. Van Dijk T. A. Discourse and Context: A Sociocognitive Approach. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. – 267 p.
7. Sinclair J. McH., Coulthard R. M. Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. – London: Oxford University Press, 1975. – 163 p.
8. Walsh S. Exploring Classroom Discourse: Language in Action. – London; New York: Routledge, 2011. – 240 p.
9. Hyland K. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. – London: Continuum, 2005. – 230 p.
10. Карасик В. И. О типах дискурса // Языковая личность: институциональный и персональный дискурс: сб. науч. тр. – Волгоград: Перемена, 2000. – С. 5–20.
11. Tannen D. What’s in a frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectations // Framing in Discourse / ed. by D. Tannen. – New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. – P. 14–56.
12. Hart C. Frames, framing and framing effects in cognitive CDA // Discourse Studies. – 2023. – Vol. 25, № 2. – P. 247–265. – DOI: 10.1177/14614456231155071.
13. Safarov Sh. Pragmalingvistika: monografiya. – Toshkent: O‘zbekiston milliy ensiklopediyasi, 2008. – 318 b.
14. Xursanov N. I. Dramatik diskurs: kognitiv, pragmatik, lingvokulturologik tavsif (ingliz va o‘zbek tillari chog‘ishtiruvida): filol. fan. d-ri (DSc) diss. avtoref. – Farg‘ona: FarDU, 2024. – 76 b.
15. Akoburxanova G. Comparative analysis of cognitive metaphors in English and Uzbek educational discourse // The Lingua Spectrum. – 2026. – Vol. 8, № 1. – P. 30–35. – DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.22274675.
16. Cognitive aspects of educational discourse in English and Uzbek languages // Zenodo. – 2025.
17. Avsar Erumit B., Akerson V. L. Classroom discourse and teacher-student interactions during the enactment of evolution and human genetics units in a rural high school: A case study of a biology teacher // International Journal of Research in Education and Science. – 2023. – Vol. 9, № 4. – P. 850–877.
18. Ismael H. Sh., Mohammed M. H. Classroom discourse analysis of teacher-student interaction in Kurdistan Region EFL settings // Aran Journal for Language and Humanities. – 2025. – Vol. 1, № 1. – P. 155–170. – DOI: 10.24271/ARAN.2025.01-01-12.
19. Mercer N. Words and Minds: How We Use Language to Think Together. – London: Routledge, 2000. – 224 p.
