Engineering Mass Media Discourse: Specifics of Dispositif Modeling
https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2025-14-7-213-233
Abstract
This study presents a linguorhetorical reconstruction of the mechanisms of dispositif modeling in texts aimed at popularizing engineering knowledge within mass media, which constitute the periphery of engineering discourse. It is argued that such media texts, by adhering to rhetorical strategies, are designed to foster a new understanding of advanced engineering practices, reshape the traditional image of engineers in the collective consciousness, and enhance the prestige of engineering education. In the preliminary phase of the research, an initial experiment was conducted to verify the prevailing trend among youth of holding stereotypical and outdated perceptions of engineers and their functions. During the main phase of the study, a linguorhetorical reconstruction was carried out to identify the methods and means of implementing the dispositive strategy of text formation, which determines the structural-compositional organization of the text and its persuasive potential. The macrostructure of media texts on engineering, centered around the headline complex, is described; the model-like nature of this macrostructure and its reproducibility are revealed; observations regarding the topical composition of the macrostructure are made. Three models of argumentation that facilitate a renewed perspective on engineering and engineers are reconstructed: models of demonstrative, narrative, and analogical types.
About the Author
L. A. Morina
Novosibirsk State Technical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Lyudmila A. Morina - PhD in Philology, Associate Professor, Department of Philology, Faculty of Humanities Education
Novosibirsk
References
1. Alekseev, A. P. (2005). Argumentation. In: Effective communication: history, theory, practice: a reference dictionary. Moscow: KRPA Olymp Agency. 448—450. ISBN 5-73901592-8. (In Russ.).
2. Andreeva, S. S. (2021). The problem of teaching communicative tactics of English-language professional discourse. Bulletin of Tambov University. Series: Humanities, 26 (190): 33—41. DOI: 10.20310/1810-0201-2021-26-190- 33-41. (In Russ.).
3. Assuirova, L. V. (2003). Toposes as rhetorical categories and structural and semantic models of utterance generation. Author’s abstract of Doct. Diss. Moscow. 38 p. (In Russ.).
4. Avdeeva, I. B. (2008). Methods of teaching Russian to foreign engineering students in the context of linguodidactics of the 21st century. Bulletin of the RUDN University. Series: Educational issues: languages and specialty, 3: 82—86. (In Russ.).
5. Avdeeva, I. B. (2016). Engineering discourse within the framework of the communicative and cognitive paradigm. Scientific Bulletin of the Voronezh State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering, 2 (21): 142—150. (In Russ.).
6. Bezmenova, N. A. (1991). Essays on the theory and history of rhetoric. Moscow: Nauka Publ. 215 p. ISBN 5-02-011087-6. (In Russ.).
7. Demina, K. (2025). Engineers of Russia: yesterday, today... tomorrow? VTSIOM News: [website]. Available at: https://wciom.ru/analytical-reviews/analiticheskii-obzor/inzhenery-rossii-vchera-segodnja-zavtra (accessed 02.05.2025). (In Russ.).
8. Garrsen, B. (2006). Argumentation schemes. In: The most important concepts of argumentation theory. Saint Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University Publishing House. 99—122. ISBN 5-8465-0396-9. (In Russ.).
9. Golyshkina, L. A. (2020). Decoding Rhetoric: Theoretical and Methodological Substantiation of the Scientific Direction. Nauchnyi dialog, 5: 9—24. https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2020-5-9-24. (In Russ.).
10. Ivanova, L. I. (2010). Electronic network foreign language engineering discourse and its linguistic and didactic capabilities. Izvestiya SFU. Technical sciences, 10 (111): 72— 75. (In Russ.).
11. Kiba, O. A. (2019). Paradigmatics and syntagmatics of engineering discourse: a linguodidactic approach. Philology and Man, 1: 61—73. DOI: 10.14258/filichel(2019)1-05. (In Russ.).
12. Klyuev, E. V. (1999). Rhetoric (Invention. The disposition. Eloquence): studies. handbook for universities. Moscow: PRIOR. 272 p. ISBN 5-7990-0238-5. (In Russ.).
13. Kurganova, N. I. (2019). Associative experiment as a method of studying the meaning of a living word. Questions of psycholinguistics, 3 (41): 24—37. DOI: 10.30982/20775911-2019-41-3-24-37. (In Russ.).
14. Kurkan, N. V., Fadeeva, N. V., Mishankina, N. A. (2020). The discursive specifics of engineering communication in the Russian socio-cultural space. Bulletin of Tomsk State Pedagogical University, 2 (208): 92—102. DOI: 10.23951/1609-624X-2020-2-92102. (In Russ.).
15. Leung, M. (2020). Engineering discourse. In: The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Approaches to Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. 376—393. ISBN 9780367201814.
16. Levina, G. M. (2004). Teaching Russian engineering discourse to foreigners as one of the components of professional education in Russian technical universities. Doct. Diss. Moscow. 451 p. (In Russ.).
17. Mansurov, V. A., Semenova, A. V. (2022). The image of a modern Russian engineer: the experience of content analysis of scientific publications. Sociological research, 3: 83—89. DOI: 10.31857/S013216250014313-7. (In Russ.).
18. Morina (Golyshkina), L. A. (2022). Mental sample text as a guideline for rhetorical decoding. In: Cognitive Language research. Cognition, culture, and communication in modern humanities, 3 (50). Moscow; Tambov; Novosibirsk: NSTU Publishing House. 305—308. ISBN 978-5-7782-4730-7. (In Russ.).
19. Perelman, H. (1987). From the book “New Rhetoric: a Treatise on Argumentation”. In: Language and modeling of social interaction. Moscow: Progress Publ. 207—264. (In Russ.).
20. Popper, K. R. (2002). Objective knowledge. The evolutionary approach. Moscow: URSS Editorial. 384 p. ISBN 5-8360-0327-0. (In Russ.).
21. Prokhorova, K. V. (2012). The header complex in the media text: features of functioning. Bulletin of St. Petersburg State University. Series 9: Philology, Oriental Studies, journalism, 1: 238—246. (In Russ.).
22. Rees, M. A. van. (2006). Interpretation and reconstruction of argumentation. In: The most important concepts of the theory of argumentation. Saint Petersburg: Faculty of Philology, St. Petersburg State University. 198—238. ISBN 5-8465-0396-9. (In Russ.).
23. Snuk, H. F. (2006). Structures of argumentation. In: The most important concepts of the theory of argumentation. Saint Petersburg: Faculty of Philology, St. Petersburg State University. 123—161. ISBN 5-8465-0396-9. (In Russ.).
24. Sokolova, A. G. (2022). Engineering discourse and its role in the formation of modern engineering education. Modern pedagogical education, 5: 210—214. (In Russ.).
25. Ufimtseva, N. V. (2011). Linguistic consciousness: dynamics and variability. Moscow, Kaluga: Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 252 p. ISBN 9785-905697-03-6. (In Russ.).
26. Van Dijk, T. A. (2015). Cognitive models of ethnic situations. In: Language. Cognition. Communication. 2nd ed. Moscow: LENAND Publ. 161—189. ISBN 978-5-9710-1387-7. (In Russ.).
27. Van Yeomeren, F. H. (2006). The current state of argumentation theory. In: The most important concepts of argumentation theory. Saint Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University Publishing House. 14—33. ISBN 5-8465-0396-9. (In Russ.).
28. Van Dijk, T. A., Kinch, V. (2015). Macrostrategies. In: Language. Cognition. Communication. 2nd ed. Moscow: LENAND. 41—67. ISBN 978-5-9710-1387-7. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Morina L.A. Engineering Mass Media Discourse: Specifics of Dispositif Modeling. Nauchnyi dialog. 2025;14(7):213-233. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2025-14-7-213-233
Views:
11
Email this article 