Analogy as a rhetorical device and a linguocognitive phenomenon in a public lecture

Rudneva Ol'ga Viktorovna ORCID: 0000-0001-9113-7659 PhD in Philology Associate Professor, Department of Philological Education and Journalism, Budgetary Institution of Higher Education of Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug - Yugra "Surgut State Pedagogical University 628417, Russia, Khanty-Mansiiskii avtonomnyi okrug, g. Surgut, ul. 50 Let Vlksm, 10/2, of. 408 soulina@inbox.ru

Research in the field of linguopragmatic analysis of the use of stylistic figures is quite in demand. Linguocognitive mechanisms underlying the functioning of stylistic techniques in speech communication have been studied by both foreign (R. Searle, G. P. Grice, T. A. van Dyke) and domestic scientists (N. D. Arutyunova ^[1], Yu. S. Stepanov, N. I. Formanovskaya), genre-functional features are developed in the works on modern stylistics (M. N. Kozhina, E. A. Bazhenova, S. Gaida, V. V. Dementiev), theory of rhetoric (E. N. Zaretskaya, G. A. Kopnina, V. P. Moskvin, T. B. Radbil, A. P. Skovorodnikov, T. G. Khazagerov and L. S. Shirota). The linguistic interpretation of the public lecture is based on special studies of educational and scientific speech (M. P. Kotyurova, T. P. Skorikova, Yu. V. Sorokina ^[2], E. S. Troyanskaya ^[3], T. V. Tyagunova, V. B. Chernik, G. E. Dronova) and studies of this genre (E. I. Golanova, I. Hoffman, E. B. Nagieva ^[4], T. V. Tyagunova).

The purpose of the article is to study the functions of analogy in the structure of a public lecture, its features of use in describing historical events. 

The object of the study was the use of analogy as a way of processing objective information, as a means of interaction with the audience and as a component of the linguistic worldview of the lecturer's personality. The subject of the study was the mechanisms of implementation of the technique, its semantic and stylistic specificity and functional characteristics.

The research methodology is based on general scientific methods of description, interpretation, comparison and classification, and highly specialized methods of component and stylistic analysis are also used within the framework of communicative-pragmatic, functional-semantic and linguocognitive approaches. The material for the analysis was the corpus of public lectures of the lecture hall in the House of the Russian Historical Society and the historical lecture hall in the RGDB, on the history of Surgut teachers of Surgut State Pedagogical University within the framework of the project "Touching history" of the Yugra Intellectual Club, lectures of the project "Golden Lecture" on historical topics, posted on the relevant websites and YuTube channels ^[5-8]. Among 136 lectures at the first stage, 80 lectures with a common thematic field were selected by thematic sampling (on historical topics) ("The formation of the Ancient Russian state", "Significant personalities in history" (Ivan the Terrible, Peter I, Nicholas II), "Russian Revolutions", "World Wars", "Major Milestones stories of Surgut".  At the second stage, components that included "analogy signals", the so-called comparison markers, were identified by the continuous sampling method: just as, imagine, similarly, exactly as ^{[9, p. 18]}. In the course of functional analysis, it was determined in what capacity analogy is used (as a rhetorical device, as a method of constructing a proof). As a result of generalization of the highlighted features of the use of analogy, taking into account such parameters as the individual style of scientific presentation of specific lecturers, taking into account the nature of the audience (wide audience / homogeneous audience (schoolchildren) and the conditions of the event (public place /teacher's office), meaningful conclusions were made.

A public lecture functions at the junction of scientific and journalistic styles and includes as an obligatory component methods of influencing the audience. A logically consistent and objective reflection of facts requires the use of figures of speech characteristic of the scientific style, and direct interaction with the audience, represented by a wide range of social groups, certain requirements for the selection of content and for the features of argumentation ^[10-15]. So, audience accounting involves the choice of replicas that perform a contact-setting function and appeal to the audience's experience. Most researchers note in the lecture discourse different positions between the participants of communication: the lecturer and his audience as knowledgeable speakers and less knowledgeable recipients ("You will be there, I hope....", "Imagine ...", "I think everyone who studied decently at school knows", "According to the course you probably know from school history that they were", "I think you know the name....", "I hope when you grow up ...", "As you know ..."). The lecturer's consideration of the audience's unprofessionalism is also manifested in the constant explanation of terms, which is observed in most public lectures. In lectures, the author's "we" ("The tasks we have set today are grandiose...") is often inferior to the dialogical principle of interaction between the lecturer and the audience (I am you). Distancing is associated not only with the level of education, but also with other extralinguistic factors, for example, territorial ("Not in my Moscow, but in your Petrograd"). 

The features of the construction of a public lecture are a reflection of the lecturer's own ideas about how to submit information in order to convey information about certain phenomena in the most accessible, scientifically sound manner. The selection of material by lecturers presupposes a personal attitude, taking into account the interests of the audience ("I will focus on some issues that are particularly interesting to me and cause a lot of controversy among students, schoolchildren and history lovers)." As a rule, the monological narrative is either problematic (problems are highlighted and points of view on it are consistently described), causal or chronological in nature (indicated by the degree of frequency in the analyzed material). In our opinion, this is due not only to the individual preferences of the lecturer, the communicative task, but also to the degree of generalization of the material, erudition in covering the problem.

The pervasive nature of communication and the influencing potential are connected by the choice of language means, which is also relevant in the era of active interest in public lectures. N. V. Nechaeva notes that a public lecture differs from an academic one by the choice of linguistic means: the use of colloquial everyday vocabulary, metaphors, dialogization techniques (appeals, interrogative sentences, we–you-communication), reliance on precedent phenomena (aphorisms, catch phrases) ^[16]. Oral scientific speech combines a strict presentation of the material and interspersed replicas of a conversational nature ("You guys can't be allies, but I can"; "You can't go north until you get this piece of paper"), which is impossible to imagine in a written scientific text.

The degree of dialogization is related to the peculiarities of the lecturer's linguistic personality, target settings. The dependence on the audience is less obvious, in our opinion, because in the same conditions, lecturers, as a rule, choose different language means. It can be determined that the influencing function of a public lecture is determined by the rhetorical techniques used by the author. Among the studied, only a small number of lecturers (about 20%) have a sufficient arsenal of various means of influencing nature, the suggestive potential of which is determined by full compliance with the peculiarities of the functioning of a public lecture (not only to convey new, problematic information, but also to hold attention, convince).  At the same time, lecturers do not deviate from the principles of scientific, systematic, but bring into speech means of influence that are alien to the written scientific text.

One of the methods of influence is analogy. At the same time, the very mechanisms of analogy that the lecturer uses are, in our opinion, close to metaphorical transfers in similarity, which are basic cognitive processes in the structure of linguistic consciousness. Scientists (A. K. Mikhalskaya, E. N. Zaretskaya, etc.) claim that analogy is one of the most ancient mental operations. Along with induction and deduction, analogy (deduction) is a type of inference, based on which the derivation of similarities in some features between objects occurs on the basis of similarities in other features. The analogy served as the basis for explaining the phenomena of reality in comparison with others at a deep level in the absence of objective information and assuming an assumed similarity with already known phenomena. Hence, the role of analogy in astronomy and physics is very important. A. A. Volkov defines analogy as "a probabilistic inference based on similarity, establishing the similarity of objects in one group of features based on their similarity in another group of features that are presented in both comparable objects" ^{[17, p. 134]}, noting the prevalence of this method in the humanitarian field, especially in historical works. There are not so many examples of using analogy as a method of proof in our sample (only 3). So, Y. Pivovarov in the lecture "Revolution as a premonition. The state and society between hope, despair and reality" deduced the pattern of the cyclical nature of the Russian revolutions of the early XX century by a number of common features (the consequences of world wars and their negative impact, the coincidence of the time of the alteration of communal land).

Analogy is one of the main techniques for popular science discourse, being one of the genre features, as it is a method of popularization of knowledge, correlating the abstract and concrete, abstract and materially expressed ^[18]. This allows us to draw a conclusion about the cyclicity, interdependence of all phenomena and processes, which is also mediated by the cognitive goals of the lecturer as not only a scientist describing phenomena, but also a teacher, allowing to link heterogeneous phenomena with common features. Analogies must meet requirements such as accuracy (matching the basis for comparison) and relevance (matching experience and age). It makes the description visual, visual, sensually approximate and conscious, accessible. However, E. N. Zaretskaya notes that it is fundamentally wrong to draw analogies between the actions of one person with the actions of another person, since there are no objective factors to consider them carriers of the same signs, even if the conditions seem similar. In such a comparison, the essence of analogy as a method of proof will not be respected ^{[19, pp. 150-151]}. The imperfection of this method, which is noted by the lecturers themselves ("It is very difficult to explain such events as the revolution, especially to us. The motives of their behavior, their sense of self, they were different"; "There can be no direct analogies"; "We are not the people who lived here in January 17"). In the educational and pedagogical discourse, analogy acts as a rhetorical figure that allows the teacher to explain complex phenomena in understandable forms close to the horizons of his audience. It is difficult to imagine a modern public lecture without using this form of information presentation, as it allows observing the principles of accessibility, clarity, proximity of the proposed material ^[20-21].

In many ways, the analogy will make it possible to implement the law of saving speech efforts or the mechanism of "qualitative economy of presentation" (E. S. Troyanskaya). Thus, the simplification function is one of the main ones, and the analogy also serves to activate the links between epochs.

Returning to the description of the discursive features of the lecture material, it can be argued that the spheres of comparison may be phenomena close to each person, or there may be phenomena that are far from being understood by a wide range of people. Thus, A. I. Matyashevskaya notes as one of the features of the lecture as a genre "drawing analogies with the everyday experience of a potential addressee" ^{[21, p. 249]}. So, with the experience of modernity, the lecturer correlates historical facts: "A splinter that would seem like a mere trifle now, but in those days when there were no ideas about antiseptics, what clean hands are on the hunt, you can imagine what happened to the new Vasily III, when this splinter began to be removed right on the spot." The linguistic marker of analogy is a component with the meaning of figurative and visual semantics (to represent) the meaning of conditionality, assumptions (it is possible). 

The function of analogy is to ensure the accessibility of understanding by the addressee and to attract his attention. For this purpose, a logical parallel with general cultural knowledge and everyday situations is most often used. In both cases, the subject of speech uses these means based on their communication goals: to inform the audience and/or influence the formation of public thought. Thus, analogy, as a technique aimed at explaining scientific facts, often has an influencing function. The lecturer aims to popularize his scientific activity, form public opinion (or change it). The main thing in the peculiarities of using the analogy technique is the subjective modality, the internal motivation of using the illustration of one sphere of knowledge through another sphere, more understandable to a wide audience.

Analogy in scientific discourse is a way of rational argumentation, the similarity between phenomena has a strictly scientific justification, supported by factual information. Analogy is not only a stylistic figure, but also a method of cognition, its function is heuristic. According to T. M. Matveeva and K. O. Gordeeva, "analogy as one of the universal mechanisms of categorization is the most likely mechanism for choosing a reference point when verbalizing perceptual knowledge" ^{[22, p. 12]}. Analogy, being a cognitive mechanism and stylistic techniques of rhetoric, is implemented in the text in the form of reasoning. Reasoning by analogy is common in both scientific and journalistic discourses. The analogy cannot be attributed only to the rational comprehension of the essence of phenomena, a person appeals to the imaginative thinking of a person ^{[13, 14]}. In the process of communication, analogy is the finding of similarity of properties and qualities of objects, often associated with metaphorical transfer, that is, non-obvious connections between phenomena are actualized: "A new race of people has appeared, just like after the destruction of Athens or Rome." The historical analogy actualizes the similarity of the revolution in the Russian Empire with the death of the Greek civilization and the Roman Empire.

The metaphor contains an analogy in a collapsed form. Metaphorically, the image often underlies a figurative extended analogy. The source of the comparison itself may be distant, unusual, but this creates brightness, imagery. Analogy is one of the means of creating a metaphor, but it has a detailed character, describing the situation in more detail, in many ways. The use of the analogy technique introduces scientific knowledge into the interpretive field of versions that can simplify the view, and sometimes change it. The task of the lecturer is to determine the signs by which these phenomena are similar, if there are fewer such signs of similarity than differences, then the analogy will be incomplete.

At the same time, analogy is one of the most common methods in historical research ^[19], since the perception and analysis of social phenomena and social events in many respects has no clear boundaries, has a large share of forecasting, probability determination becomes one of the components of social cognition ^{[21, p. 44]}. Important for determining the nature of analogy as a technique or method of cognition are quantitative (the number of common features), qualitative (the degree of generality and materiality of features) and relational (the ratio between integral and differential features) parameters.  The problem in historical research is the inability to identify exact coincidences when highlighting the similarity of the studied phenomena, as it can be done in mathematics, chemistry, physics, linguistics, etc. Most analogies in historical research are not strict (weak). However, the analogy method becomes more valid, verified if a number of requirements are met ^{[21, p. 49]}. In the theory and methodology of history, analogy acts as a method of forecasting, comparison and typologization ^{[23, p. 15]}. One of the types of analogy is a metaphorical scientific analogy, which performs not a heuristic, evidentiary function, but an explanatory one.

When studying historical analogies, it is worth noting that the source of the analogy becomes the frame that forms the accents and the very view of the problem. Parallels between modern processes that are currently relevant and the distant past activate the national identity of the people, strengthen the collective memory, but also determine the point of view on events ^[25].

Analogy can be a method of attracting attention by comparing heterogeneous phenomena. But this technique will not be considered a method of cognition, but a method of forming an opinion, the influencing function dominates over the epistemological one, which is considered unacceptable in scientific discourse, but in mass communication it becomes one of the dominant ones, while the persusive function is not obvious for analogy: "Imagine a thirteen-year-old boy. He passed the first death sentence, which struck with its cruelty" (about Ivan the Terrible).

When studying the rhetorical potential of analogy in the discourse of public lectures, it is important to note the consolidation of special connotative meanings associated with the reflection of this event in the cultural and historical assessment of the source area. By finding common properties, the remaining properties are also compared, giving a modal assessment of what is happening, even if it was not part of the author's plan. The event begins to be interpreted in a certain modal plan based on the cognitive mechanisms of perception of the event within a given frame. At the same time, by itself, the ability to establish an associative connection between various phenomena on the basis of the identified features has a psycholinguistic nature, the peculiarities of expressing connections between objects are being completed. It can be said that the metaphorical analogy (associative connection) is pre-scientific, related to the linguistic picture of the world of a native speaker, whereas the scientific analogy imposes stricter requirements on the phenomena being compared and is not related to the peculiarities of the linguistic personality ^[25]. However, the implicitly expressed knowledge contained in the internal plan of the description of a precedent phenomenon affects the interpretative field in the perception of a new phenomenon, it is this knowledge that can become the basis for the emergence of new meanings.

When studying the influencing function of analogy as a stylistic device, it is possible to determine the linguocreative potential associated with a linguistic personality that finds affinity in diverse phenomena: "... neuropsychological features of personality, the ability to perceive, form mental images, study, memorization, etc., that is, categorization depends on the characteristics of the personality that produces it" ^{[25, p. 328-350]}. It is important to understand here that a specialist in the field of history has his own field of associative-verbal reactions to certain phenomena, which is due to his professional activity. It is also important to focus the personality on certain topics, problems, its precedent outlook, in this case we understand by this competence to find more accurate analogies in historical retrospect. So the stability of analogies is noted by the lecturers themselves: "Oprichnaya politics is often associated with terror. <...> A huge number of executions. That is why Ivan the Terrible is so often compared to Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin. The Oprichnic terror of one with the policy of repression of the other."  Here there is an analogy not only of historical personalities, but also of historical phenomena, emphasizing their typological similarity.

The analysis of the corpus of public lectures showed that the genre features of a public lecture are the following: the ideological orientation of the lecture, the presence of a cross-cutting idea, visibility, methods of dialogization. The pragmatic value consists of a number of factors, one of the fundamental is the addressee factor.

A lecture on history as a subtext of a socio-scientific text has modification features associated with their public, open nature (addressing the addressee using dialogization techniques, using expressive means, attracting interesting material of a private nature, quantitative assessments). In public lectures ^[5-8], the features of a socially significant text are manifested: the strengthening of evaluativeness, the subjective modality of statements combined with objective modality, the promotion of the author's "I", a wider range of the use of expressive means. The strengthening of these factors depends largely on the position of the lecturer (following the academic tradition or introducing a new lecture format) and on the level of rhetorical culture of higher school teachers.

The use of analogy depends on the scope of application to a greater extent than on the peculiarities of the speaker's linguistic personality. So, analogies between the described events and modernity are typical. Using the example of the analysis of the corpus of public lectures, it can be concluded that the use of techniques in a public lecture is standardized, and the methods of logical construction of scientific presentation, which are one of the features of the scientific style, are combined with expressiveness and visibility in this genre. The variation of stylistic means depends not only on the goals of communication, the peculiarities of addressing, but also on the specific linguistic personality. The range of ways to attract attention and activate interest in the proposed problem is expanding, which leads to the use of expressive means that are not characteristic of the actual scientific style, realizing the communicative goals of the lecturer (metaphors, dialogism techniques, rhetorical methods of influence).