Facilitation of the understanding of novels by senior pupils as a problem of psycholinguistics

Senior pupils, unlike the translator, are more relevant to subordinate dialogism, which, however, involves taking into account the personality of the author of the novel, adoption of his/her position, thoughts, views. This is quite evidence, for example, if we look at the translation done by Olga K.: «live by the foma*» (Vonnegut, 2009: 9) - «живи як фома». This phrase A. Nemirova translated as «живи безпечно» (Vonnegut, 2016: 9). In another example we have the translation having been done by Galyna V: «[it] was about the end of the world in the year 2000 ...» (Vonnegut, 2009: 23) - «[це] було про кінець світу в 2000 році ...»; this phrase A. Nemirova translated as «роман описував кінець світу в 2000 році» (Vonnegut, 2016: 25).

Thus, the infinite multiplicity of meanings of a novel is conditioned by the total symbolic textual nature. The task of the reader, first and foremost, is to get into the whole semantic structure of the novel, to begin the process of providing the text with its subjective meaning. Of course, it is important to explore ways of meaning-making in the global intertextual space. This does not imply finding only one common sense, even one of all possible meanings. The main purpose of the reader should be a creative thinking process, a process of constructive imagination, which allows to grasp the multiple meanings of the text, the openness of the processes of providing meanings into the multicultural space of world civilization.

student reading english literature

References

1. Aleksandrov, A.A., Memetova, K.S., & Stankevich, L.N. (2020). Referent's Lexical Frequency Predicts Mismatch Negativity Responses to New Words Following Semantic Training. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 49, 187-198.

2. Athanasopoulos, P., Bylund, E., Montero-Melis, G., et al. (2015). Two languages, two minds. Psychological Science, 26(4), 518-526.

3. Bakhtin, М.М. (1975). Problemy soderzhanija, materiala i formy v slovesnom hudozhestvennom tvorchestve. Voprosy literatury i jestetiki [The problems of content, material and form in verbal art. Questions of literature and aesthetics]. Moscow: Science [in Russian].

4. Bondarenko, Yu.I. (2016). Metody navchannia v konteksti zahalno dydaktychnoi ta metodyko-literaturnoi struktury uroku [Teaching methods in the context of general didactic and methodological and literary structure of the lesson]. Naukovi zapysky NDU im. M.Hoholia. Psykholoho-pedahohichni nauky - Scientific notes of NDU named after M. Gogol. Psychological and Pedagogical sciences, 4, 5863 [in Ukrainian].

5. Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought? English and Mandarin speakers' conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43, 1-22

6. Boroditsky, L. (2011). How languages construct time. In S. Dehaene & E. Brannon (Eds.), Space, time and number in the brain: Searching for the foundations of mathematical thought (pp. 333-342). London: Academic Press.

7. Bowerman, M., & Levinson, S. (2001). Language acquisition and conceptual development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

8. Brudnyi, А.А. (1975). Ponimanie kak komponent psihologii chtenija [Understanding as a component of the Psychology of Reading]. Problemy sociologii i psihologii chtenija - Problems of Sociology and Psychology of Reading (pp. 162-172). Moscow: Book [in Russian].

9. Delong, K.A., Troyer, M., & Kutas, M. (2014). Pre-processing in sentence

10. comprehension: Sensitivity to likely upcoming meaning and structure. Language and Linguistics Compass, 8(12), 631-645.

11. Dickens, Ch. (1991). The Adventures of Oliver Twist. London. Random House.

12. Elahi Shirvan, M., Khajavy, G.H., & MacIntyre, P.D. (2019). A Meta-analysis of L2 Willingness to Communicate and Its Three High-Evidence Correlates. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 48, 1241-1267.

13. Feinmann, D. (2020). Language and Thought in the Motion Domain: Methodological Considerations and New Empirical Evidence. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 49, 1-29.

14. Fodor, J.A. (1975). The language of thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

15. Fuhrman, O., & Boroditsky, L. (2010). Cross-cultural differences in mental

16. representations of time: Evidence from an implicit nonlinguistic task. Cognitive Science, 34(8), 1430-1451.

17. Gennari, S.P., Sloman, S.A., Malt, B.C., & Fitch, T.W. (2002). Motion events in language and cognition. Cognition, 83, 49-79.

18. Gleitman, L., & Papafragou, A. (2005). Language and thought. In K.J. Holyoak & B. Morrison (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 63-89). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

19. Hu, Z., & Liu, H. (2019). The Affective Meaning of Words is Constrained by the Conceptual Meaning. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 48, 1377-1390.

20. Hugo, V (2003). Sobor Parizhskoj Bogomateri [Notre-Dame de Paris] (Trans. French). Moscow: NF «Pushkin Library», LLC «Publishing House AST» [in Russian].

21. Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

22. Jiang, M., Jong, M., & Tse, C. (2020). Examining the Effect of Semantic Relatedness on the Acquisition of English Collocations. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 49, 199-222.

23. Kalmykova, L.A., & Kalmykov, G.V. (2015). Konceptualnye podhody k sovershenstvovaniju psihologicheskoj podgotovki budushhih pedagogov [Conceptual approaches of improving the psychological training of future teachers]. Materialy konferencii «Pedagogika i psihologija kak resurs razvitija sovremennogo obshhestva: problemy setevogo vzaimodejstvija v inkljuzivnom obrazovanii» - The issues of the conference «Pedagogy and Psychology as a Resource of the Development of Contemporary Society: Problems of Network Interaction in Inclusive Education» (Ryazan, October 8-10th, 2015) (pp. 238243). Ryazan [in Russian].

24. Kalmykova, L.O. (2016). Rozvytok komunikatyvnoi osobystosti v umovakh smyslovoi vzaiemodii [The development of Communicative Person in conditions of semantic interaction]. Pereyaslav-Khmelnitskyi: Publishing House «A Word» [in Ukrainian].

25. Karpenko, Z.S. (2009). Aksiolohichna psykholohiia osobystosti [Axiological Psychology of the Person]. Ivano-Frankivsk: Lily - NV [in Ukrainian].

26. Kesebir, S. (2017). Word order denotes relevance differences: The case of conjoined phrases with lexical gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(2), 262-279.

27. Kukharenko, V.A. (2004). Interpretatsiia tekstu [Text's interpretation]. Vinnytsia: A NEW BOOK [in Ukrainian].

28. Kuperberg, G.R., & Jaeger, T.F. (2015). What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(1), 32-59. https:// doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1102299

29. Lucy, J. (1996). The scope of linguistic relativity: An analysis and review of empirical research. In J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 37-69). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

30. Lucy, J. (2010). Language structure, lexical meaning and cognition: Whorf and Vygotsky revisited. In B.C. Malt & P. Wolff (Eds.), Words and the mind: How words capture human experience (pp. 266-286). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

31. Myachykov, A., Garrod, S., & Scheepers, C. (2012). Determinants of structural choice in visually situated sentence production. Acta Psychologica, 141(3), 304-315.

32. Papafragou, A., Hulbert, J. & Trueswell, J. (2008). Does language guide event perception? Evidence from eye movements. Cognition, 108, 155-184.

33. Rubskyi, VM. (2019). Communication levels of the individuals. Topical issues of philosophical anthropology, 16, 24-32.

34. Shtyrov, Y., Kirsanov, A., & Shcherbakova, O. (2019). Explicitly slow, implicitly fast, or the other way around? Brain mechanisms for word acquisition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 13, 116.

35. Stutterheim, von C., & Nuse, R. (2003). Processes of conceptualization in language production: Language-specific perspectives and event construal. Linguistics, 41, 851-881.

36. Vonnegut, K. (2009). Cat's Cradle. New-York: Random House Publishing Group.

37. Vonnegut, К. (2016). Kolyska dlia kishky [Cat's Cradle]. (Trans. English by A. Nemirova). Kharkiv: CSD [in Ukrainian].

38. Voronkova, N. (2020). Mozhlyvosti zastosuvannia riznykh vydiv interpretatsii khudozhnoho tekstu pry navchanni inozemnii movi [The possibilities of using different types of interpretation of a novel in teaching a foreign language]. Naukovi zapysky. Seriia: filolohichni nauky - Proceedings. Series: Philological Sciences, 89(2), 274-279 [in Ukrainian].

39. Wallentin, M., Rocca, R., & Stroustrup, S. (2019). Grammar, Gender and Demonstratives in Lateralized Imagery for Sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 48, 843-858.

40. Wolff, P., & Holmes, K.J. (2011). Linguistic relativity. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2, 253-265.

41. Khmil, VV, & Popovych, I.S. (2019). Philosophical and psychological dimensions of social expectations of personality. Anthropological measurements of Philosophical Research, 16, 55-56.

Размещено на Allbest.ru