Эволюционные причинно-следственные связи текста и дискурса


филологические науки

Текст и дискурс — популярные термины, характерные для лингвистики и литературы, и до сих пор ведется много споров о том, могут ли эти концепции заменять друг друга. Некоторые лингвисты рассматривают анализ этих двух факторов как единый процесс, в то время как другие используют два термина для определения разных понятий. Короче говоря, текст — это любой письменный источник, который можно прочитать. В начале 1970-х годов были предприняты попытки провести различие между категориями текста и дискурса. Тогда дискурс интерпретировался как «текст + ситуация», а текст — как «дискурс-ситуация» соответственно. По сей день вопрос о взаимозависимости текста и дискурса в современной лингвистике остается дискуссионным. Очевидно, что текст и дискурс — взаимосвязанные понятия. Одна ветвь лингвистики, которая является пересечением различных дисциплин, считается анализом дискурса или исследованиями дискурса. На протяжении веков межъязыковые отношения были предметом исследований в таких областях, как риторика, публичные выступления, стилистика и литература. В двадцатом веке так называемый дискурс-анализ сформировался как самостоятельная область науки, чтобы отличать речь от языка. Хотя не все дисциплины полностью признают, что анализ дискурса действует как независимый раздел лингвистики, хотя весьма вероятно, что это произойдет в ближайшем будущем. В этой статье обсуждается история, типы и различия между дискурсом и критическим анализом дискурса.

Похожие материалы

It should be noted that originally, according to the traditions of French linguistics, the term “discourse” meant speech and was used synonymously with the term “text”. However, with the development of communication theory, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, the formation of the cognitive paradigm, the content of these concepts gradually began to express different meaning. Discourse is a social phenomenon related to language. There are different definitions for the term discourse; in particular, it is initially interpreted as a connection that occurs between the speaker and the listener. According to I.Z.Galperin, the completeness of the text, its automatic connection with written speech, its pragmatic approach, its conformity to the norms and requirements of literary language, its structure with mandatory elements, its lexical / grammatical / logical / stylistic means stand to be considered (Galperin, 2007). No matter how detailed I.Z.Galperin’s description for the text is, the text is given only in written way. The text has a static structure, but not all the elements in it must have a verbal expression, they can be constructed in full or in part non-verbally. The text was once a discourse, for example, the revelations were written and the Qur'an was revealed. The text becomes a discourse with the help of speech when the person’s eyes fall on the text and the mind is activated. In this case, the discourse serves as a means and unit of communication, and it is a form in which communication takes place. E.S.Kubryakova was right saying that the contradiction between text and discourse should not be denied at all, because although these two concepts are considered to be mutually exclusive, they are linked by “genetic” ties (Kubryakova, 2001, pp.72-81). In other words, the discourse activity is based on the text, and speech automatically is expressed in the construction of any text. It is clear from the reviews of the scientific literature that most definitions of discourse are given through the text: Discourse is text. According to tradition, in linguistics, the term "discourse" is understood not only as a text written in one way or another, but also as a "product of speech" of any size created by a person (Vasilyev, 2012). In the 1950s E.Benvenist developed the theory of speech (utterance) and first he used the term discourse as "speech expressed by the speaker". There are more than a dozen different and sometimes contradictory definitions for the term "discourse" (derived from the French words "discourse", English "discourse", Latin "discursus"). Professor T.A.Van Dijk gives a broader definition for discourse as a communicative phenomenon between the speaker and the listener that occurs in a particular space and time. This communicative action can consist of verbal or written, and sometimes verbal or nonverbal content. Everyday conversations with friends and siblings, conversations between doctor and patient are just a few examples representing discourse (van Dijk, 1998). In the narrow sense, discourse is understood as a continuous / completed, verbal / written product of communicative behavior, notably, it is a written or oral product of communicative behavior.

N.D.Aryutunova defines discourse as follows: “Discourse is a conceptual text that means "speech" in French, combined with extralinguistic, pragmatic, socio-cultural, psychological and other factors, and is considered as a purposeful social movement, speech product of conscious mechanisms”. It is a speech that is in turn absorbed into life. Therefore, the term “discourse” does not apply to texts that are not related to real life, unlike the term “text” (Aryutunova, 1990, p.136-137). Among the features that allow discourse to be spoken as a specific high-level unit of language hierarchy are the following (Stepanov, 1991): 1. In terms of its structure, discourse differs from other units of language; 2. Discourse has the ability to be repeated as a whole and regular basis in a particular language; 3. The discourse of one language is translated into another language as a whole unit. 4. Discourse has linguistic and ethnolinguistic features in the rhythm of poetic works and their rhyming organization. The connection between the text and discourse is sufficiently described by A.Yu.Popov in his book "The main differences between the text and the discourse" (Popov, 2000, pp.41-44). The observations of this researcher are very interesting: “Discourse is born, lives, but dies when the subject under discussion loses its relevance ...” The text is eternal (manuscripts do not burn), it is realized in writing or orally as a product of speech activity, it is fixed and complete message. More precisely, the spontaneity of the discourse can be contrasted with the canonical order of the text. Any discourse can be text, but not all the text is discourse. Summarizing the different approaches to discourse, V.E.Chernyavskaya emphasizes two features of discourse: 1. It is a specific communicative phenomenon that is covered in written and oral texts, which in turn constitutes cognitive and typological space; 2. A collection of thematically interconnected texts (Chernyavskaya, 2002, pp.230-232).

Distinguishing between the concepts of discourse and text, T.A. Van Dijk defines “discourse is actually oral text and the text is the grammatical structure of oral speech”. Discourse is a concept related to real speech activity, and text is a concept related to the language system, which is an abstract theoretical product implemented in discourse. A.I.Varshavskaya interprets discourse as a process of linguistic thinking, and the text as a result or product of this process, and suggests accepting text as discourse (Varshavskaya 1984, p.50). V.V.Bogdanov describes speech and text as an integral part of discourse: “Not any speech can be coded as a text, and not any text in itself can be reflected in speech” (Bogdanov, 1993, p. 29). From these descriptions, discourse can be accepted as the product of speech activity, which in turn can be considered as linguistic material reflected in oral and written forms. According to J.Leech, "discourse is a process of linguistic communication, which in turn is an agreement between the speaker and the listener" (Leech, 1983). J.Hawthorne distinguishes between the concepts of discourse and text and concludes: “Text is seen as a linguistic communication in oral and written form, or as a coded message sent to a specific group of audience. There are many cases in which a text can be written and a discourse can be presented orally” (Hawthorne, 1992, p.189).

Discourse is a speech immersed in real life. Among the features that allow discourse to accept as a specific unit of higher-level of a language hierarchy are: 1.Discourse differs from all other units of language in its structure; 2. Discourse in a particular language is able to form and work as a whole (in whole or in part); 3. Discourse in one language is translated into another language as a whole unit. 4. Discourse has a unique complex matrix structure in any language acting as a model of a particular event or situation. Research in the field of discourse linguistics has not lost its relevance for 70 years, in particular, I.Yu.Abeleva's investigation “Speech about speech, the communicative system of people”, E.V.Zhdanova's "Personality and communication", D.N.Ushakov's “A brief introduction to the science of language”, “Introduction to Linguistics” by A.Ya.Shaykevich, manuals entitled “Methodological problems of teaching discourse practice, "Speech act" by E.A.Kojemyakin and E.A.Krotkova; O.V.Akimova's “Professional types of discourse”, N.S.Ryabinskaya's research “Speech as a social movement: basic concepts of discourse analysis”.

The lack of dissertation research in Russian linguo-folklore discourse, such as Yu.A.Emer's “The world model in modern folk songs: cognitive-discourse analysis”, A.V.Kolistratova's “Development of folklore discourse in the British-English context” indicates that this direction is one of the youngest today. There is not enough research on Uzbek folklore discourse yet. However, these days, the PhD dissertation by N.T.Khalmurzaeva “Communicative category “respect” in Japanese business discourse (pragmatic aspect)” (2018), M.R.Ergashev's PhD thesis “Functional-semantic study of link verbs used in political discourse” (2020), Dissertation of D.A.Kiselyov doctoral thesis “Discursive-pragmatic aspects of the representative function of independent part of speech in French” (2019), N.Z.Normurodova's dissertation on “Linguistic representation of anthropocentrism in the English literary discourse” doctorate dissertation (2020), G.K.Adilova's dissertation on “Theory and practice of linguocultural interpretation of private discourses (on the example of gluttonic discourse)” doctoral dissertation research (2020) contributed for the development of Uzbek discourse linguistics.

The term “discourse analysis” was first introduced in 1952 by Zellig Harris in a paradoxical way (it was this scientist who gave the idea to N.Chomsky on the syntactic analysis of compositional devices). However, discourse analysis was only formed as a science by the 1970s, it was at this stage that the representatives of the European School of Text Linguistics T.A.van Dijk, W.Dressler, J.S.Petofi, T.M.Nikolaeva, W.Labov, J.Grimes, R.Langacker, T.Givón, W.Chafe and others carried out their own investigation. In the 1980s and 1990s, generalized co-authorship research became the norm, including T.Brown and George's Discourse Analysis (1983), J.M.Atkinson and J.Herritage's “The Structure of Social Behavior: An Analysis of Dialogues in Everyday Life” (1984), T.van Dyke's four-volume “Handbook of Discourse Analysis” (1985), W.Mann and S.Thompson's “Description of Discourse” (1992), J.Dubois and S.Cumming's “Discourse Transcription” (1993), J.Renkema's “Discourse Studies” (1993), D.Schifrin's “Approaches to Discourse” (1994), W.Tchef's “Discourse, Thinking and Time” (1994), T.van Dijk's two-volume “Discourse Studies: Introduction to Science”(1997). A number of monographs appeared on textual linguistics in Russia in the 1980s (I.R.Galperin (1981), E.A.Referovskaya (1983), Z.Ya.Turaeva (1986), M.I.Otkupshchikova (1982), T.M.Nikolayeva (1978), V.Z.Demyankov (1995), but these discourse studies generally lag behind Western, American studies.

Discourse is an object of interdisciplinary research, where discourse analysis is perceived as a field of young scientific rich field through different forms of approaches. Discourse analysis is inextricably linked with other fields such as psychology, computer linguistics, artificial intelligence, philosophy and logic, sociology, anthropology and ethnology, literature and semiotics, history, theology, jurisprudence, pedagogy, translation theory and practice, communicative research, political science. Each of these disciplines has a unique approach to the study of speech, some of which have a significant impact on the analysis of linguistic discourse. There are different methods of discourse analysis, for example, the Conversation analysis approach, originally based on the study of everyday dialogues by a group of American sociologists and ethnomethodologists, published in the work “Simple Taxonomy of Replication Continuity” by H.Sachs, E.Sheglof, G.Jefferson the early 70's. The peculiarity of this type of analysis is that it is not limited to making corrections and explanations to the replicas in the dialogue. Dialogues are also enriched with nonverbal and nevolocal (silent actions — rhythm, laughter, gestures, look) behaviors.

The concepts that shape discourse are concepts; they are conceptosphere of folklore discourse. Love, labor, family is the basic concepts of folklore discourse, and their content is limited. Artifacts such as natural facts, sea, and coast, home are nondiscursive concepts that influence mutual discourse concepts. In conclusion, we can say that folklore discourse is a type of speech activity that is historically formed in our minds, is constantly updated and is called folk art. Folklore discourse consists of a collection of folklore texts. It has both oral and written forms.

Список литературы

  1. Aryutunova, N.D. (1990). Discourse // LES. Moscow. 136–137.
  2. Bogdanov, V.V. (1993). Text and text communication. SPb. 5-30.
  3. Borbotko, V.G. (1981). Elements of the theory of discourse. Grozny, 113.
  4. Chernyavskaya,V.E. (2002). From text analysis to discourse analysis // Text and discourse: traditional and cognitive-functional aspects of research: collection of articles/ Scientific. tr. Ryazan.- 230–232.
  5. Dijk, T.A.van. (1998). Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach / Dijk van Teun. — London: Sage.
  6. Galperin, I.R. (2007). Text as an object of linguistic research. Moscow: Kom Kniga, 144.
  7. Hawthorn, J.A. (1992). Concise Glossary of Contemporary Literary Theory/J.Hawthorn. London: E. Arnold. 288.
  8. Kubryakova, E.S. (2001). About the text and the criteria for its definition // Text. Structure and semantics. Moscow, Luctch, 72-81.
  9. Leech, G.N. (1983) Principles of Pragmatics / G.N. Leech. London ; New-York: Longman, 257.
  10. Popov, A.Yu. (2000). Forms of economic texts and discourses // Text and discourse. Problems of economic discourse: collection of scientific articles. SPb.: Publishing house of SPbGUEF. 41-44.
  11. Stepanov, Yu.S. (1991). "Law" and "Antinomy" in the Humanities; From Descartes to Florensky and Losev // A.F. Losev and the culture of the XX century. Losev readings. Moscow.
  12. Varshavskaya, A.I. (1984). Semantic relations in the structure of language: (based on the material of modern English) / A. I. Varshavskaya. Leningrad: Leningrad State University, 135.
  13. Vasilyev, L.M. (2012). General problems of linguistics: theory and methods: textbook / L.M. Vasiliev. Ufa: RITs BashGU, 206.