How the Bachelors of Psychology Reflect on Professional Speech: The State of Discursive Reflexivity Development

Keywords: reflection, professional speech, speech control, awareness, objectification.

Abstract

The article deals with one of the problems of reflexive psycholinguistics; namely: reflections of speakers – future psychotherapists and psycho-counselors – on professional speech, its awareness and control over its generation.

The purpose of the article is to describe the results of the theoretical and empirical study of spontaneous and reflexive speech processes in Bachelors of Psychology, who have entered the Master’s program in the speciality 053 Psychology (specialization – “psychotherapy” and “psychological counseling”). The article presents conceptual approaches, criteria indicators, methods and techniques that contributed to the study of reflection on professional speech, which facilitated the study of how the Bachelors of Psychology reflect on professional speech and if it is refined, what reflection is it: spontaneous or arbitrary?; Conscious or unconscious is the control over the generative process?; How they objectify the language of their profession: whether it is “transparent” in them or has become an object of perception?; What is the extent to which they reflect on professional speech?.

Methods & Techniques. Using a set of methods (discourse analysis of transcribed psychotherapeutic discourses, produced by respondents, content analysis, observation of professionally centered speech, analysis of informants’ judgments about their speech and their individual language, analysis of the done by them self-analysis of audio recordings of their psychotherapeutic discourses) and techniques (tests of achievement with closed and open tasks, tests with one radical; diagnostics of an individual measure of expression the properties of speech reflectivity) there were identified two levels of reflectiveness development in professional speech.

Results. Identified two levels of reflectiveness development in professional speech: 1) low level, which is characterized by such qualitative characteristics, as spontaneous reflection on professional speech at the level of unconsciousness, complete absence of objectification of the language of specialty and control over the speech, dominance of interpsychic spontaneous (situationally revealed) reflection on professionally directed speech, lack of situational, retrospective and perspective reflection; 2) the average level when in respondents is observed manifestation of spontaneous reflection on professional speech at the level of unconscious control, the lack of objectification of the language of their specialty, the dominance of interpsychic reflection on speech, the presence of spontaneous situational reflection in the absence of retrospective and perspective professional speech reflexivity. The respondents which can be referred to the high level of reflexivity development were not revealed.

Conclusions. It is established that empirically the reflection on professional speech in students is not formed enough. Purposeful psycholinguistic-didactic influences are required for ensuring the success of the professional speech of the Bachelors of Psychology.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bernshtejn, N.A. (1947). O postroenii dvizhenij [About Building Movements]. Moscow: Medgiz [in Russian].

Bibler, V., Axutin, A., & Berlyand, I. (2009). Rossijskaya politicheskaya enciklopediya [Russian Political Encyclopedia]. Moscow: ROSSPEN[in Russian].

Boduen de Kurtene, І.A. (1960). Vystuplenie v preniyax po dokladu L.V. Shherbi «O sluchajnom i samostoyatelnom znachenii grammatiki kak uchebnogo predmeta»[Speech in debate on the report of L.V. Shcherba “On the random and independent significance of grammar as a subject”]. In L.S. Latuxin (Ed.), Hrestomatija – Chrestomathy. Moscow [in Russian].

Bozhovich, E.D. (1997). Razvitie yazykovoj kompetencii shkolnikov: problemy i podxody [The development of students’ language competence: problems and approaches]. Voprosy psixologii – Psychology Issues, 1, 33–44 [in Russian].

Vasilyuk, F.E. (2003). Metodologicheskij analiz v psixologii [Methodological analysis in Psychology]. Moscow: MGPPU; Smysl [in Russian].

Vygotskij, L.S. (1956). Izbrannye psixologicheskie issledovaniya [Selected Psychological Researches]. Moscow: Izdatelctvo Akademii pedagogicheskix nauk RSFSR [in Russian].

Vygotskij, L.S. (2000). Mysl i slovo [Thought and Word]. Moscow: Izd-vo EKSMO-Press [in Russian].

Galpern, P.Ya. (1977). Yazykovoe soznanie i nekotorye voprosy vzaimootnosheniya yazyka i myshleniya [Linguistic consciousness and some issues of the relationship between language and thinking]. Voprosy filosofii – Philosophy Issues, 4, 95–101 [in Russian].

Ginzburg, M.R. (1994). Psixologicheskoe soderzhanye lichnostnogo samoopredeleniya [Psychological content of personal self-determination]. Voprosy psixologii – Psychology Issues, 3, 43–53 [in Russian].

Zalevskaja, A.A. (1996). Voprosy teorii ovladeniya vtorim yazykom v psixolingvisticheskom aspekte [Questions of the theory of mastering a second language in the psycholinguistic aspect]. Tver: Tversk. gos. un-t [in Russian].

Zalevskaja, A.A. (2007). Vvedenie v psixolingvistiku [Introduction into Psycholinguistics] (2nd ed.). Moscow: Ros. gos. gumanit. un-t [in Russian].

Znakov, V.V. (2000). Ponimanie v poznanii i obshhenii [Understanding in cognition and Communication]. Samara: SamGP [in Russian].

Karpov, A.B., & Skityaeva, I.M. (2002). Psixologiya refleksii [Psychology of Reflection]. Moscow: IP RAN [in Russian].

Karpov, A.V. (2003). Refleksivnost kak psihologicheskoe svojstvo i metodika ejo diagnostiki [Reflexivity as a Mental Property and Methodology for its Diagnosis]. Psixologicheskij zhurnal – Psychological Journal, 24(5), 45–57 [in Russian].

Kornilova, T.V., & Smirnov, S.D. (2006). Metodologicheskie osnovy psixologii [Methodological Foundations of Psychology]. St. Petersburg: Piter [in Russian].

Lektorskij, V.A. (1980). Sub"ekt. Ob"ekt. Poznanie [Subject. Object. Cognition]. Moscow: Nauka [in Russian].

Leontev, A.A. (1974). Psixolingvisticheskie problemy massovoj kommunikacii [Psycholinguistic Problems of Mass Communication]. Moscow: Nauka [in Russian].

Leontev, A.A. (1997). Psixologiya obshheniya [Communication Psychology] (2nd ed.). Moscow: Smysl [in Russian].

Leontev, A.A. (2003). Osnovy psiholingvistiki [Fundamentals of Psycholinguistics] (3rd ed.). Moscow: Smysl. St. Peterburg: Lan [in Russian].

Leontev, A.N. (1947). Psixologicheskie voprosy soznatelnosti ucheniya [Psychological Issues of Conscious Learning]. Voprosy psixologicheskogo ponimaniya – Psychological Understanding Issues, 7, 3–40 [in Russian].

Ovsyaniko-Kulikovskij, D.N. (1912). Sintaksis russkogo yazyka [Russian Syntax]. (2nd ed.). St. Petersburg: Izdanie I.L. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovskoj [in Russian].

Ladenko, I.S. (Ed). (1989). Refleksiya v nauke i obuchenii: sbornik nauchnyx trudov [Reflection in Science and Education]. Novosibirsk: IIF-FSO [in Russian].

Rommetvejt, R. (1972). Slova, znacheniya i soobshheniya [Words, Meanings and Messages]. Psixolingvistika za rubezhom – Psycholinguistics abroad (pp. 53–87). Moscow: Nauka [in Russian].

Solovova, E.N. (2004). Avtonomiya uchashhixsya kak osnova razvitiya sovremennogo nepreryvnogo obrazovaniya lichnosti [Autonomy of Students as the Basis for the Development of Modern Continuing Education of the Individual]. Inostrannye yazyki v shkole – Foreign languages at School, 2, 11–17 [in Russian].

Solovova, E.N. (2004). Avtonomiya uchashhixsya kak osnova razvitiya sovremennogo nepreryvnogo obrazovaniya lichnosti [Autonomy of Students as the Basis for the Development of Modern Continuing Education of the Individual]. Inostrannye yazyki v shkole – Foreign languages at School, 3, 41–44 [in Russian].

Xolodnaya, M.A. (1997). Psixologiya intellekta: paradoksy issledovaniya [Psychology of Intelligence: Research Paradoxes]. St. Petersburg: Piter [in Russian].

Shhedroviczkij, G.P. (2004). Psixologiya i metodologiya. Obsuzhdenie «situacii i uslovij vozniknoveniya koncepcii poe`tapnogo formirovaniya umstvenny`x dejstvij» [Psychology and methodology. Discussion on “The situation and conditions for the emergence of the concept of phased mental actions formation”]. Doklady na Komissii po logike i metodologii myshleniya v Institute obshhej i pedagogicheskoj psixologii APN SSSR – Reports to the Commission on Logic and Methodology of Thinking at the Institute of General and Educational Psychology Academy of Sciences of the USSR (Vol. 2, Iss. 1). Moscow [in Russian].

Shhedroviczkij, G.P. (2005). Myshlenie. Ponimanie. Refleksiya [Thinking. Understanding. Reflection]. Moscow: Nasledie MMK [in Russian].

Yakubinskij, L.P. (1986). Izbrannye raboty. Yazyk i ego funkcionirovanie [Selected Works. Language and its Functioning]. Moscow: Prosveshhenie [in Russian].

Anderson, J.B. (1983). The Architecture of Cognition. Cambridge (Mass.).

Ballard, K.J, Maas, E., & Robin, D.A. (2007). Treating Control of Voicing in Apraxia of Speech with Variable Practice. Aphasiology, 21(12), 1195–1217. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687030601047858

Boas, F. (Ed.). (1911). Handbook of American Indian languages. Washington: Government Print Office (Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology).

Dufva, H., & Lahteenmaki, M. (1996). What People Know About Language: A Dialogical View. Zeitschrift fuer Fremdsprachenforschung, 7(2), 121–136.

Gombert, J.E. (1992). Metalinguistic Development. New York.

Hawkins, E. (1984). Awareness of language: An Introduction. Cambridge.

Kranich, S. (2010). Grammaticalization, Subjectification and Objectification. In K. Stathi, E. Gehweiler, & E. Konig (Eds.). (Vol. 119, pp. 101–121). Freie Univ Berlin, German.

Morgan, A.T., Liegeois, F., Liederkerke, C., Vogel, A., Hayward, R., Harkness, W., Chong, K., & Vargha-Khadem, F. (2011). Role of Cerebellum in Fine Speech Control in Childhood: Persistent Dysarthria after Surgical Treatment for Posterior Fossa Tumour. Brain and language, 117(2), 69–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2011.01.002

Perkell, J.S (2013). Five Decades of Research in Speech Motor Control: What Have We Learned, and Where Should We Go From Here? Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 6(56), 1857–1874. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2013/12-0382)

Reagan, T. (2009). Language matters: reflections on educational linguistics. Charlotte, NC; Information Age Publishing.

Sapir, E., & Irvine, J.P. (1994). The Psychology of Culture: Of Course of Lectures. Berlin; New York: M de Gruyter.

Savchenko O. (2019). Psychosemantic Tools of Self-Assessing Individual Reflectivity. East European Journal of Psycholinguistics, 6(2), 98–106. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3637765

Saygin, V.V. (2019). Language Objectification of the Conceptual Field “Grekh” (“Sin”) in the Models of Russian Non-Usual Word-Formation. Nauchnyi Dialog – Scientific Dialogue, 2, 65–79. https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2019-2-65-79

Ullmann, S. (2019). Epistemic stancetaking and speaker objectification in a spatio-cognitive discourse world a critical contrastive analysis of political discourse. Journal of Language and Politics, 18(3), 393–419. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.17038.ull


Abstract views: 83
PDF Downloads: 74
Published
2020-04-16
How to Cite
Kalmykov , H. (2020). How the Bachelors of Psychology Reflect on Professional Speech: The State of Discursive Reflexivity Development. PSYCHOLINGUISTICS, 27(1), 139-163. https://doi.org/10.31470/2309-1797-2020-27-1-139-163