XIII Международная студенческая научная конференция Студенческий научный форум - 2021

In recent years, many new aspects of research have emerged in modern linguistics as part of the cognitive direction. One of these aspects is the description of discourse and the analysis of its system-forming features, which allow us to consider it as an independent category of communication.

For the first time, "discourse" was introduced into the scientific theory of text linguistics by the American scientist Z. Harris in 1952 as a linguistic term in the phrase "discourse analysis". Thus, the concept of "discourse", borrowed from structural linguistics, receives an increasingly broad scientific interpretation and terminological ambiguity at the end of the twentieth century [1].

It should be noted that there are many approaches to the definition of discourse. Let's look at some of them.

In most modern works of domestic and foreign scientists (Arutyunova, van Dyck, Karasik, Kibrik, Makarov, etc.), there is a tradition in which the word discourse is understood as an integral speech work in the diversity of its cognitive and communicative functions.

According to T. A. Van Dyck, " discourse is a speech flow, a language in its constant movement, absorbing all the diversity of the historical era, individual and social characteristics of both the communicant and the communicative situation in which communication takes place. The discourse reflects the mentality and culture both national, universal, and individual, private." Considering various interpretations of discourse, Van Dyck notes that this term is used in science in several meanings:

Discourse in a broad sense (as a complex communicative event) can be verbal, written, and have verbal and nonverbal components;

Discourse in the narrow sense (as a text or conversation) is a written or verbal verbal product of a communicative action;

Discourse as a concrete conversation is always associated with some specific objects in a specific setting and in a specific context;

Discourse as a type of conversation associated not with specific communicative actions, but with types of verbal production;

Discourse as a genre (for example: news discourse, political discourse, scientific discourse);

Discourse as a generalized representation of a specific historical period, social community or whole culture [3].

Grigorieva V. S. identifies three main classes of use of this term: 1) linguistic proper, where discourse is thought of as speech inscribed in a communicative situation, as a type of speech communication, as a unit of communication; 2) discourse used in journalism, Dating back to the French structuralists and, above all, to M. Foucault; 3) the discourse used in formal linguistics, which attempts to introduce elements of discursive concepts into the Arsenal of generative grammar (T. Rinehart, H. Kamp).

Borbotko D. A. defines " Discourse - as a text, but one that consists of communicative units of language - sentences and their associations into larger units that are in a continuous internal semantic connection, which allows us to perceive it as a whole formation. Discourses can be considered, for example, the text of a story, article, speech, or poem."

On the basis of works on foreign linguistics, demyankov adds to the previous definitions, including characteristics related to different disciplines-semiotics, communication theory, sociology, modal logic, etc.:

"Discours - a discourse, an arbitrary piece of text consisting of more than one sentence or an independent part of a sentence. Often, but not always concentrates around some reference concept, creates a General context, describing the actors, objects, circumstances, time, actions, etc., being determined not so much by the sequence of sentences, as those common to create a discourse and its interpreter a world that is "built" during the deployment of the discourse is the point of view of "Ethnography of speech"... "the Original structure for a discourse is a sequence of elementary propositions, linked by logical relations of conjunction, disjunction, etc.

Elements of the discourse: the events described, their participants, performative information and "non-events", i.e.: a) the circumstances accompanying the events; b) the background explaining the events; C) the assessment of the participants of the event; d) information relating the discourse to the events." This definition is noted as the most complete in the modern theory of linguistics.

Discourse in this definition is defined as a" quantity " that is inadequate, not synonymous with the text, but much broader [4].

The Linguistic encyclopedia (LES) gives a broader definition, emphasizing the eventfulness and purposefulness of social action in discourse: "discourse is a coherent text in combination with extralinguistic, pragmatic, socio-cultural, psychological and other factors; text taken in the event aspect; speech considered as a purposeful social action, as a component involved in the interaction of people and the mechanisms of their consciousness (cognitive processes). Discourse is speech "immersed in life" [2].

M. Stubbs identifies three main characteristics of discourse: 1) in formal terms, it is a unit of language that exceeds the volume of the sentence, 2) in content terms, the discourse is associated with the use of language in a social context, 3) in its organization, the discourse is interactive, i.e. Dialogic [5].

From the standpoint of sociolinguistics, two main types of discourse can be distinguished: personal (personality-oriented) and

institutional. In the first case, the speaker acts as a person in all the richness of his inner world, in the second case-as a representative of a certain social institution. Personal discourse exists, according to V. and Karasik, in two main varieties: everyday and everyday communication.

Institutional discourse is communication within the given framework of status-role relations. With regard to modern society, it seems that the following types of institutional discourse can be distinguished: political, diplomatic, administrative, legal, military, pedagogical, religious, mystical, medical, business, advertising, sports, scientific, stage and mass information. This list can be changed or expanded, since social institutions differ significantly from each other and cannot be considered as homogeneous phenomena, in addition, they are historically variable, can merge with each other and arise as varieties within one or another type. Institutional discourse is distinguished on the basis of two system-forming features: goals and participants of communication. The purpose of political discourse is to gain and retain power, pedagogical discourse is to socialize a new member of society, medical discourse is to provide qualified assistance to the patient, etc. The main participants in the institutional discourse are the representatives of the institution (agents) and the people who address them (clients). For example, this is a teacher and a student, a doctor and a patient, a politician and a voter, a priest and a parishioner. V. I. Karasik notes that the opposition of personal and institutional discourse is a research technique.

Modeling the institutional discourse, we can distinguish four groups of features: 1) constitutive signs of discourse, 2) signs of institutionality, 3) signs of the type of institutional discourse, 4) neutral signs. Constitutive features include participants, conditions, organization, methods and material of communication, i.e. people in their status-role and situational-communicative roles, the sphere of communication and the communicative environment, motives, goals, strategies, channel, mode, tone, style and genre of communication and, finally, the sign body of communication (texts and/or non-verbal signs). Signs of institutionality fix the role characteristics of agents and clients of institutions, typical chronotopes, symbolic actions, stencil genres and speech cliches. Institutional communication is communication in a kind of masks. It is the cliched nature of communication that fundamentally distinguishes institutional discourse from personal discourse. The specificity of the institutional discourse is revealed in its type, i.e., in the form of a new type of discourse. in the type of social institution, which in the collective language consciousness is designated by a special name, is generalized in the key concept of this institution (political discourse - power, pedagogical-training, religious-faith, legal-law, medical-health, etc.), it is associated with certain functions of people, structures built to perform these functions, social rituals and behavioral stereotypes, mythologems, as well as texts produced in this social education. Neutral signs of institutional discourse include General discursive characteristics typical of any communication, personality-oriented signs, as well as signs of other types of discourse that appear "on foreign territory", i.e. transposed signs (for example, elements of preaching as part of religious discourse in the political, advertising - in the medical, scientific discussion - in the pedagogical) [6].

Lee Jae believes that institutional discourse is not only a linguistic phenomenon, but also a social one. Therefore, the existence and development of discourse, the definition of its communicative mechanisms and a set of means of expression depends on the situation of communication and the requirements of society [1].

According to the sphere of communication, N. N. Mironova also classifies discourses, highlighting pedagogical, political, scientific, critical, ethical, legal, military and parental discourses [8].

Considering the discourse from the point of view of pragmatics, namely communicative action (its motives, intentions of communicants and expectations), Y. Habermas distinguishes:

theoretical discourse that is organized on the basis of cognitive and instrumental mechanisms;

practical discourse, which is associated with moral and practical beliefs and is based on the definition of correctness and norms of action;

discourse in the form of aesthetic criticism, which is evaluative-evolutionary in nature and is built on the basis of correlation with value standards;

discourse in the form of therapeutic criticism, the main characteristic of which is expressiveness, plausibility of expressions;

discourse of self-expression and self-explanation, which is determined by the achievement of clarity of what is expressed and is based on the correctness of the formation of symbolic structures.

Also, A.V. Anisimova uses the purpose of communication as the basis for her classification. Thus, it identifies discourses that serve: to inform, to influence (regulatory function), to Express a state/emotional attitude, to establish and maintain contact.

Another criterion for classifying discourses is the type of speech genre, according to which A. A. Romanov distinguishes informational, etiquette, evaluative and imperative discourses. In the classification of T. V. Shmeleva, there are also information discourses. She also identifies persuasive, epideictic, and call-to-action discourses.

A non-standard criterion for classifying discourses is presented by A. V. Olyanich, who typologizes discourses depending on the need experienced by a person. Thus, the need for material goods is reflected in business discourse; the need for power - in political discourse; the need for faith - in religious and theological discourses; the need for information - in information or mass - information discourse. Moreover, several discourses can provide the same need. Thus, the need for knowledge and information transfer is met at the expense of pedagogical and scientific discourses [7].

REFERENCES

The Discourse in which we live (to the problem of defining "discourse"). [Electronic resource] - access Mode: http://workinggroun.org.ua nuhldzo.shtml.

Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary / GL. ed. V. N. Yartseva, - M.: Sov. enciklopediya, 1990. - 685 p.: Il. [Electronic resource] - access Mode: http://lingvisticheskiy-slovar.ru/description/diskurs/168

Discourse. The types of discourse [Electronic resource]- Mode of access: http://diskursmyblog.ru/tag/diskurs/.

Grigorieva, V. S. Discourse as an element of the communicative process: Pragmalinguistic and cognitive aspects: monograph / V. S. Grigorieva. Tambov: publishing house of Tambov state technical University. UN-TA, 2007. - 288 p.

Karasik V. I. Language circle: personality, concepts, discourse. - Volgograd: Peremena, 2002. - 477 p.

Karasik V. I. On the types of discourse. Research laboratory "Axiological linguistics". [Electronic resource] - access Mode: http://homepages.tversu.ru/~ips/JubKaras.html.

Arakelova, O. G. the Place of advertising discourse in the system of discourses.

[Electronic resource] - access Mode:

http://www.rusnauka.com/6_PNI_2012/Philologia/7_102328.doc.htm

Mironova, N. N. Evaluative discourse: problems of semantic analysis / / Izv. RAS, Ser. lit. and yaz. - N. 4. - vol. 56. - 1997. - P. 52-59.

Код для цитирования: Скопировать