Gavrylova
Alla Ôèëîëîãèÿ.
Interpretation of
discourse in modern linguistic science
Theory of
discourse as pragmatic forms of text takes
the beginning in conceptions of
E. Benvenist. E. Benvenist understands
discourse as “every utterance, which
predetermines the presence of
communicants: an addressee, a recipient,
and intentions of the sender definitely
to influence the interlocutor” [1;45].
Discourse is the term, which is used in many theoretical discussions in
literary studies and social sciences, but which is unfortunately often not
explicitly defined. Since there are several definitions of the term, it is
important to try to analyze which meaning of the term is being used. In English
there are general definitions of the term which mean “to speak about” or “to
hold forth on” a topic. Within linguistics, discourse is used to refer to
language and linguistic structures above the level of the sentence. In
discourse analysis, discourse is used to refer to those elements which are seen
to be rule-governed and systematic but which do not occur at the level of the
word or the phrase. For example, in discourse analysis it is possible to analyze
opening moves or closing moves in a conversation – these may consist of several
sentences, and constitute a larger unit of analysis than the sentence. The term
discourse is also used when linguists wish to refer to a piece of extended text
or conversation, which has some form of internal coherence. Many linguists and
literary theorists use a slightly simplified definition of discourse to refer
to a group of statements, which are concerned with a particular subject area;
for example, a discourse of femininity, or a discourse of racism.
In critical or literary theory, drawing largely on the work of the
French theorist Michel Foucault, discourse has a number of complex meanings.
Foucault himself draws attention to the range of meanings, which he has given
the term: “Instead of gradually reducing the rather fluctuating meaning of the
word ‘discourse’ I believe I have in fact added to its meanings: treating it as
sometimes the general domain of all statements, sometimes as an
individualisable group of statements, and sometimes as a regulated practice
that accounts for a number of statements” [3;56].
If we look at this quotation in a little more detail, it is possible to
isolate some of the main usages of the term discourse within the field of
literary and critical theory. The first meaning “the general domain of all
statements” suggests that discourse can refer to all utterances and texts which
have meaning and which have some effects in the real world. In this sense, it
is slightly more restricted than the term “language” which refers to all
possible statements. This meaning of the term is quite current in literary
studies where discourse is used to refer to all of the non-literary and
literary texts within a particular period, which seem to be treating a certain
subject in similar ways. This first definition could be seen to be about
“discourse” in general, whilst the two other definitions in the quotation are
to do with “discourses”. The second definition “an individualisable group of
statements” refers to groups of statements which seem to be regulated in some
way and which seem to have a coherence and force in common. Thus, we might
refer to a discourse of imperialism, that is, all of the statements which have
been made about imperialism and which seem to example.
R. Carter made an attempt to give a glance on
discourse from the point
of view of the cognitive structures, which lie
in basis of linguistic jurisdiction. The text is “elementary
unit of discourse” -
phenomenon not only linguistic,
but also extra-linguistic. A text
possesses a formally-contextual structure, which helps to differentiate
it in discourse. A text
is a product of both speaking and thinking, a product, which first
appears in a moment of generation by his author and can experience next regenerations
at perception by its recipient [2;98].
Discourse
is interpreted as a difficult communicative phenomenon, which includes in
itself social context, information about the participants of communication, knowledge
of process production and perception of texts. Discourse after Van Dijk–
is a difficult communicative event of socio-cultural co-operation,
characteristic lines of which are interests, aims and styles [9;78]. B. Johnstone determines
discourse as “combining text in an aggregate
with extra-linguistic, socio-cultural,
pragmatic, psychological factors; it is a text, taken in the aspect of
events; communication which is examined as the purposeful social
phenomenon, action, as component which
takes part in co-operation between people and mechanisms
of their consciousness. Discourse
is a communication, which is submerged in life.” [5;56].
Consequently,
analyzing all aforesaid, we can draw the following conclusion: although the
theory of discourse already long time enough is worked over and explored by scientists-linguists, confessed
approach and universal determination of
a concept of “discourse” yet does not exist until now. This concept is examined
from a point of view of the most
various aspects: as a communicative process, as a text, as a system, and as a
communicative event. But, in spite of the fact that all
these approaches are based on
various lines and
characteristics, they do not eliminate each other. That is why, on the
basis of the above-mentioned information
we consider for expedient to make
an attempt to give the general
definition of discourse.
Discourse is a communicative event, which is stipulated by the
intercommunication between the speaker and
listener and is foreseen by the speaking conduct of the lasts.
Literature
1. Áåíâåíèñò Ý. Îáùàÿ
ëèíãâèñòèêà./Ïåð. ñ ôð.-Ì.:
Ïðîãðåññ,1975.-447 ñ.
2. Carter. R. Investigating English
Discourse.- London: Routledge, 1997.-123 p.
2.
Jaworski. A., Coupland. N. The Discourse Reader.- London: Routledge,1999.-98p.
3.
Johnstone. B. Discourse Analysis.- Oxford: Blackwell,2002.-103p.
4.
Teun A. Van Dijk. Discourse Studies.- London: Sage,1997.-245p.