УДК 811.111’373:34(73)
Янic Саволайнен
(Кам’янець-Подільський національний університет імені Івана Огієнка)
MODERN APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF DISCOURSE
Summary. The article considers the fact that the main differences between the discourse and the text are the idea of the development and conditionality of the extralinguistic factors, and the main difference between the discourse and the speech is a clear social orientation.
Keywords: discourse analysis, formal-structural approach, pragma-linguistic model, systemic-structural paradigm, extralinguistic factors, speech-making process, communication.
In recent decades, the direction, known as “discourse analysis”, developed into a separate linguistic discipline, equal, for example to syntax, phonology, etc. The discourse is an object of linguistic research as well as morpheme (morphology), phrase (syntax), “discourse is even more important central object of linguistics, as it obviously is not a theoretical construct, and there is a point of view that linguistics could get rid of many of its misconceptions, if it had been started from scratch, researching the actual recorded samples of discourse” [1, p. 127].
Nowadays there are different approaches to the definition of discourse in linguistic science. One of them is the formal-structural approach. Discourse in this sense means “the texts in their textual givenness” [3, p. 670]. T. Nikolaeva in the dictionary of terms of text linguistics in the definition of the term “discourse” writes: “Discourse is a multivalued term of text linguistics, which is used by several authors in the nearly homonymous values. The most important of them are: 1) textual unity; 2) oral-spoken form of the text; 3) dialogue; 4) the group of statements associated by meanings; 5) speech work as a written or oral givenness”.
Much later the linguists, who research the discourse in the framework of the formal-structural approach, begin to note that discourse is not just “givenness of the text”, but also “systemic linguistic structures of the whole text” [2, p. 154], and “verbal and cogitative process, leading to the formation of structure” [4, p. 1]. However, it is not beyond the scope of text-formation approach.
The second approach constitutes a functional-structural definition of discourse as any “use of language” [5]. This approach assumes a causality of analysis with the function of discourse, the study of the functions of language in a broad sociocultural context: “the study of discourse is the study of any aspect of language use” [6, p. 65], “the analysis of discourse inevitably involves the analysis of language in use” [5, p. 1]. Within the confines of this approach the interaction of the units with each other and how they complement and change the text, is very important.
The third approach is based on the pragma-linguistic model of discourse, which is built on the concepts of communicative activity and is counters with the structural model of speech activity. When comparing the communicative-pragmatic and systemic-structural paradigms, I. Susov noted two approaches to discourse (which the author understands as communication through the text). Proponents of systemic-structural paradigm believe that the semantic component of language is organically included in the structural component that provides the necessary purpose detalization and conditions of communication to the content of speech acts.
But the communicative-pragmatic paradigm is not simply a reflection of the above levels, it is significantly different in the sense that while analyzing, the personal interactions rather than linguistic meanings represent the starting point. Communication consists not of sentences and words, but of communicative moves and speech acts in the discourse.
Speech act is “purposeful speech behaviour conducted in accordance with the rules, … accepted in a given society. This is the unit of a regulatory socio-verbal behavior within a particular communicative situation” [7, p. 103].
Speech act (statement) is an elementary unit of discourse structure. Speech acts were considered in the works of many authors.
The meaning of the statement in the classic speech and act model breaks down into three components: 1) what they say (locutionary act), 2) what kind of behavioral meaning is expressed (illocution), 3) what is the effect or the result of speech (perlocution). Illocution is the midpoint in the speech act. This is the type of linguistic manipulation, acting as a means to achieve certain goals of a subject of activity.
The fourth approach to the analysis of discourse is a critical analysis. Critical linguistics and critical discourse analysis can best be defined as “a unified perspective in the implementation of linguistic, semiotic or discourse analysis” [8].
The fifth approach constitutes the study of discourse as a special use of language for expressing a special mentality, a particular ideology, which entails the activation of some features of language and, ultimately, a special grammar and special vocabulary rules. Discourse is a particular social givenness, which “exists primarily and mainly in the texts, but in those having a particular grammar, specific vocabulary, specific rules of usage and syntax, with particular semantics in the background, eventually, a special world” [9, p. 776].
Some researchers consider the text as a written form: “the text is the product of a speech-making process with perfection, objectified in the form of a written document, literature treated in accordance with the type of the document, a work consisting of the name (title) and number of special units (superphrasal unities), united with different types of lexical, grammatical, logical, stylistic connection with a certain focus and pragmatic objective” [10, p. 18]. Other researchers when defining the given term do not distinguish between written and oral forms, calling any complete message, expressed in verbal form a text.
Considering the notions “discourse” and “speech”, first of all, it should be noted that the speech can be understood as follows: firstly, as an activity type (in addition to labor, educational, game activity, etc.), secondly, as “language material”, which includes the sum of individual acts of speaking and understanding. Thus, the speech is understood as the process of speaking (speech activity) and its result (the voice works, recorded by a memory or a letter).
The process of speech is characterized by a certain tempo, duration, timbre peculiarities, degree of loudness, articulation clarity, emphasis, etc. Speech can be characterized by specifying the psychological state of the speaker. Individual character is the most important characteristic of speech. Thus, discourse and speech differ in terms of social and individual.
Based on the above we can conclude that the main differences between the discourse and the text are the idea of the development and conditionality of the extralinguistic factors, and the main difference between the discourse and the speech is a clear social orientation.
ЛІТЕРАТУРА
- Кибрик А. А. Когнитивные исследования по дискурсу : вопросы языкознания. 1994. №5. С. 126-139.
- Дейк Т. А. ван, Кинч В. Стратегии понимания связного текста : новое в зарубежной лингвистике. Когнитивные аспекты языка. М. : Прогресс, 1988. Вып. 23. С. 153–212.
- Степанов Ю. С. Между системой и текстом – дискурс. Язык и метод. К современной философии языка. М. : Языки русской культуры, 1998. С. 655-688.
- Борботько В. Г. Общая теория дискурса (принципы формирования и смыслопорождения) : автореф. дис. на получение науч. степени д-ра филол. наук. Краснодар : Изд-во КубГУ, 1998. 48 с.
- Brown G., Yule G. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1983. 288 p.
- Croft W., Cruse A. Cognitive Linguistics. The United Kingdom : Cambridge University Press, 2004. 376 p.
- Караулов Ю. Н. Русский язык и языковая личность. М. : Наука, 1987. 262 с.
- Van Dijk T. A. Principles of critical discourse analysis. 1993. Vol. 4(2). P. 249-283.
- Степанов Ю. С. Между системой и текстом – дискурс. Язык и метод. К современной философии языка. М. : Языки русской культуры, 1998. С. 655-688.
- Гальперин И. Р. Текст как объект лингвистического исследования. М. : Наука, 1987. 137 с.