PL EN
PRACA ORYGINALNA
Parameters of Religious Popular Discourse within Theolinguistic Frameworks
 
Więcej
Ukryj
1
The University of Economics and Human Sciences in Warsaw
 
2
Kyiv National Linguistic University
 
Zaznaczeni autorzy mieli równy wkład w przygotowanie tego artykułu
 
 
Data nadesłania: 14-12-2023
 
 
Data ostatniej rewizji: 01-04-2024
 
 
Data akceptacji: 15-04-2024
 
 
Data publikacji: 27-06-2024
 
 
Autor do korespondencji
Yan Kapranov   

The University of Economics and Human Sciences in Warsaw
 
 
JoMS 2024;56(2):239-262
 
SŁOWA KLUCZOWE
DZIEDZINY
STRESZCZENIE
Objectives:
The article aims to explore theolinguistics, a discipline at the intersection of theology and linguistics, with a focus on developing it as a distinct academic field. It examines the conditions that foster conceptual meanings within religious language and delves into analyzing religious discourse (RD) and its variants like religious popular discourse (RPD) in the context of theolinguistics.

Material and methods:
The study utilizes a comparative etymological approach to understand the conceptual-semantic shifts influenced by religious beliefs. The methodology encompasses examining RD through various perspectives, including the analysis of religious texts in communicative scenarios and the interplay of genre, language, and religion. Additionally, the study focuses on the criteria for distinguishing different institutional types of discourse, particularly RD and RPD.

Results:
The article identifies theolinguistics as a field deeply rooted in fideism, emphasizing the importance of reclaiming the original meanings of linguistic units in religious contexts. It exposes the significant transformations in religious terms due to secularization trends and discusses the concept of RD within academic discussions. The study categorizes RD into various forms such as missionary, fideistic, and sermon-like discourses. It also delineates the core and variant parameters in the organization of RPD, highlighting its sociolinguistic nature and its role in status-oriented institutional communication.

Conclusions:
The article concludes that religious discourse constitutes a distinct category of institutional discourse, crucial for disseminating ethical values and religious beliefs. It sets forth criteria for identifying RD as an independent form, emphasizing its unique communicative structure, thematic focus, and methodological aspects.

 
REFERENCJE (36)
1.
Aşik, M. Ö. (2012). Contesting religious educational discourses and institutions in contemporary Egypt. Edited by B. Charlier. Social Compass, 59(1), 84–101. Cambridge: SAGE Publications.
 
2.
Boeve, L. (2003). Linguistica ancilla Theologiae: The Interest of Fundamental Theology in Cognitive Semantics. In K. Feyaerts (Ed.), The Bible through Metaphor and Translation. A Cognitive Semantic Perspective (pp. 15–36). Oxford: Peter Lang.
 
3.
Braun, W. (2000). Guide to the study of religion. London: Continuum.
 
4.
Cherkhava, O. O. (2011). Anglomovne bibliyne prorotsvo yak riznovid fideistichnogo diskursu (na materiali King James Bible): Dis. … kand. filol. nauk: 10.02.04. Odessa.
 
5.
Chidester, D. (1992). Word and Light: Seeing, Hearing, and Religious Discourse. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
 
6.
Crystal, D. (1965). Linguistics, language and religion. London: Burns Oates. Retrieved from https://www.davidcrystal.com/F....
 
7.
Department of Religious Education, Catechization, and Missionary Work at the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Retrieved from http://www.rokim.org.ua/etika/....
 
8.
Dijk, T. A. van (1992). Text and Context. Explorations in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse. London and New York: Longman.
 
9.
Downes, W. (2010). Language and Religion: A Journey Into the Human Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 
10.
El-Sharif, A. (2011). A linguistic study of Islamic religious discourse: Conceptual metaphors in the prophetic tradition [PhD Thesis]. London: Queen Mary University.
 
11.
Foucault, M. (2004). Archeologiia znaniia [Archaeology of knowledge] (M. B. Rakova & A. Y. Serebryannikova, Trans.; A. S. Kolesnikov, Intro.). Saint Petersburg: Humanities Academy; University Book (Series «Au Pura. French Collection»).
 
12.
Furey, M. C. (2011). Body, Society and Subjectivity in Religious Studies. Journal of the American Academy of Religion. Oxford: Oxford Scholarly Editions Online. Retrieved from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org....
 
13.
Grimes, J. (1994). Problems and Perspectives in Religious Discourse: Advaita Vedānta Implications. USA: State University of New York Press.
 
14.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1991). Corpus Studies and Probabilistic Grammar. In K. Aijmer & B. Altenberg (Eds.), English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik (pp. 30–43). London & New York: Longman.
 
15.
Holberg, I. (2002). Religious-sermon style of modern Russian Literal Language thesis: Moral concepts. Moscow: Nauka.
 
16.
Holt, R. A. (2006). Socio-Linguistic Approach to Religious Language. Australian eJournal of Theology, 6. Retrieved from http://aejt.com.au/__data/asse....
 
17.
Jabłońska-Karczmarczyk, K. (2024). Towards Socially Responsible Consumption: Assessing the Role of Prayer in Consumption. Religions, 15(4), 445. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel150....
 
18.
Johnson, G. (2003). The Economies of Grace as Gift and Moral Metaphor Accounting: Insights from Cognitive Linguistics. In K. Feyaerts (Ed.), The Bible through Metaphor and Translation. A Cognitive Semantic Perspective (pp. 84–103). Oxford: Peter Lang.
 
19.
Karaflogka, A. (2007). E-Religion: A Critical Appraisal of Religious Discourse on the World Wide Web. USA: Equinox Publishing.
 
20.
Karasik, V. I. (2000). Religioznyy diskurs. In V. I. Karasik & N. A. Krasavskiy (Eds.), Yazykovaya lichnost’: institutsional’nyy i personal’nyy diskurs (pp. 5–19). Volgograd: Peremena.
 
21.
Kettell, S. (2009). On the public discourse of religion: An analysis of Christianity in the United Kingdom. Politics and Religion, 2(3), 420–443. Cambridge: University of Warwick.
 
22.
Martschukat, J. (2012). The Religious Discourse on Criminal Law in England, 1600–1800: From a Theology of Trial to a Theology of Punishment. In J. Martschukat (Ed.), Religion and Politics in Europe and the United States: Transnational Historical Approaches (pp. 85–99). Washington/Baltimore: Depkat, Volker.
 
23.
Moberg, M. (2022). Religion, Discourse, and Society: Towards a Discursive Sociology of Religion. Routledge. Available from: https://www.routledge.com/Reli....
 
24.
Morgan, D.A. (1997). History and Theory of Popular Religious Images. California: University of California Press.
 
25.
Noppen, J.-P. van (1976). Alter Wein in neuen Schuhen? Ein Beitrag zur empirischen Betrachtung von Kommunikationsproblemen in der Rede von Gott. Linguistica Biblica. Interdisziplinäre Zeitschrift für Theologie und Linguistik.
 
26.
Noppen, J.-P. van (1980). Spatial theography. A study in linguistic expression and communication in contemporary British popular theology [Ph.D. Dissertation]. Université Libre de Bruxelles.
 
27.
Noppen, J.-P. van (1995). Methodist Discourse and Industrial Work Ethic. A Critical Theolinguistic Approach. Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Filologie en Geschiedenis / Moderne Talen en Letterkunde, 73(3), Ghent University.
 
28.
Peregrin, J. (2012). The normative dimension of discourse. In K. Allan & K. Jaszczolt (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 209–225). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 
29.
Pleizier, T. (2024). The Soul in Preaching. Religions, 15(4), 446. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel150....
 
30.
Porter, S.E. (1996). Problems in the Language of the Bible: Misunderstandings that Continue to Plague Biblical Interpretation. In S.E. Porter (Ed.), The Nature of Religious Language: A Colloquium (pp. 20–46). England: Sheffield Academic Press Ltd.
 
31.
Poulos, E. (2023). Three Discourses of Religious Freedom: How and Why Political Talk about Religious Freedom in Australia has Changed. Religions, 14(5), 669. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel140....
 
32.
Reinhold, N. (1935). Interpretation of Christian Ethics. New York: Harper & Brothers.
 
33.
Sheygal, E. I., & Ivanova, Yu. M. (2004). Preelection televised debates as a genre of strategic communication. Vestnik Volgogradskogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta Chelovek v kommunikatsii: Kontsept, zhanr, diskurs / otv. red. E. I. Sheygal, 102–105. Volgograd: VolGU.
 
34.
Wagner, A. (1999). Theolinguistik. Internationale Tendenzen der Syntaktik und Pragmatik, 507–512.
 
35.
Wittgenstein, L. (2010). Philosophical Investigations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
 
36.
Wolterstorff, N. (1995). Divine Discourse: Philosophical Reflections on the Claim that God Speaks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 
eISSN:2391-789X
ISSN:1734-2031
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top