Учебное пособие 1703

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 3 (30), 2020 ISSN 2587-8093

The growing interest in communication problems can be referred to more complex public relations and connections, which accordingly imply the complexity and greater diversity of communication itself, which is natural, because more and more events can be happening in modern society only as long as the communication is performed efficiently [2, p. 5]. In recent years, both linguistic and literary studies have increasingly focused on the addressee factor. When tackling the problem of linguistic reconstruction of the addressee, the researchers pay attention to the linguistic means by which the text transmits the relationship between the speaker and the reader (those can be lexical, grammatical, syntactic), as well as the means that contribute to the semantic and structural integrity of the text, approach the problems from the perspective of various discourses and also study the markers of the addressee [3; 4; 5].

Research methodology.

The subject of the research is the means of forming the image of the addressee in Kate Fox’s anthropological study “Watching the English” where the author dissects the English society. This work is of particular interest from a linguistic perspective, since it has not been previously studied in terms of the cognitive-pragmatic approach. It is worth pointing out that the problem of the Other related to the addressee factor is represented in a popular scientific book in an unconventional way. The polyphony manifestation at different levels of discursive interaction in an artistic and non-artistic work is achieved by different means of representation. Being an intersection of artistic and unartistic, Kate Fox’s book “Watching the English” shows a peculiar ambivalence in the ways of forming the image of the addressee.

The object of the study is the image of the addressee and the pragmatic aspect of the author’s language associated with it. The study is aimed at the theoretical analysis of the image of the addressee and a comprehensive analysis of the features that form this image.

During the study, various methods were applied. Discourse analysis was used to identify the relationship between the language and social processes. In a broad sense, discourse is a communicative event that occurs between the speaker and the listener (observer, etc.) in the process of communicative action in a certain temporal, spatial and other contexts [6; 7, p. 48]. With the increasing anthropocentric focus in linguistics, discourse analysis seems to be the most relevant way to estimate the efficiency of the communication between participants, since it allows to get an understanding of the speech behavior models typical of this kind of communication. In addition, an integrated approach was applied as it allows to study the image of the addressee as a holistic manifestation of communication processes in the text. A structural approach was used to define the features that form this image. The integrated approach gave us an opportunity to consider the communicative act as a whole that consists of individual elements (particularly of deictic words).

The English contexts with communication strategies and tactics from K. Fox’s book “Watching the English” were the study material. In the course of the work, the main purpose was to identify and analyze the pronoun deixis, one of such strategies. Deixis is usually defined as an indication of the value or function of a linguistic unit, expressed by lexical and grammatical means [1 ** s. 128]. Deixis is what makes the components of the speech situation and denotative utterance actual. The starting point (depending on the type of deixis) can be the speaker himself, a certain place where he is at the moment of the speech and even the social status of the speaker. In all types of deixis, the pronoun is the main means of coding. When categorizing pronouns, one first takes into account the general nature of their semantics. The pronouns do not name the object or its properties but point out at them, hence being deictic words [8, p. 6].

The material was selected in two ways. First, the book was put through the Tropes computer program. This tool allowed to determine the level of the author’s involvement in the narrative and the style of the narration and to obtain the data on how frequently verbs and pronouns occur in the text. In this study, Tropes helped to identify how frequently personal and demonstrative pronouns were used. The text was sequentially analyzed in a computer program allowing to quickly distinguish the contexts with the keywords that could be

74

used in the further work. Along with the information on the numerical distribution of parts of speech in the text, the program also shows the linguistic environment of the studied words. This programme has proved itself to be extremely instrumental as it gave the chance not only to avoid the manual selection of the material but and also to see the "evolution" of the addressee through the switch of personal pronouns in explored passages. The traditional search would be much more timeand effort-consuming. In addition, the software allows to determine the text style and its markers which can be very helpful when determining the Other. For instance, Tropes determined the text style of the studied book as argumentative which was proved by such words as also, particularly, highly, entirely etc. The results of the computer-aided analysis also feature the author’s involvement in the storytelling.

Unfortunately, in certain situations, using Tropes appeared to be impossible. For example, the program was unable to recognize contexts in which the demonstrative pronoun that would be used as a conjunction or as part of that is construction. In this case, the search of these pronouns in the text was first performed manually and then separately analyzed.

Research results.

Linguistic signs are the result of different individuals’ experience assimilation. This is the way common meanings (universal for members of a given society) are formed. These meanings are in fact independent of any individual experience. Their content depends on the situation, since they correspond with their designatum in the process of communication (i.e. not in the language, but in the speech). In other words, it is happening through a speech act.

By nature, our impressions about the world are subjective, and our knowledge is mediated by the signs that we use to describe this world [9, p. 10]. While communicating, participants feel the need to objectify subjective impressions, translate them into a symbolic form, which each communicator will be able to understand. The role of deictic words, and primarily personal pronouns, appears to be crucial for this purpose. They serve as a starting point for the personal experience coordination which makes it possible to carry out the communication in the end.

Deixis can often be expressed not only via pronouns but also via other language and textual means of reaching out to the addressee. These include metatext elements, appeals to the reader (e.g. reader), implicit appeals (e.g. let’s, everyone ), evaluativity etc.

The spatial deixis deals with demonstrative pronouns and particles (this – that, here – there). These language means reflect basic spatial concepts and indicate the spatial localization of the participants in the communicative act.

Chronotopic deixis is expressed by adverbs (here, now). It should be noted that both chronotopic and spatial deixis are egocentric by nature. The speaker forms the deictic field on his own, since he is actually the reference point in space and time for himself.

The subject of this study - role deixis - indicates the participants of the speech act (the speaker and the addressee) via various pronouns. These pronouns form the deictic space in dialogical speech and denote the speaker and the listener.

In “Watching the English”, the author narrates in the first person and, accordingly, she herself acts as an addresser. For this reason, the author’s speech is accompanied by both first person singulars and plurals. Personal pronouns I and we regain the central position providing the subjective orientation of the narrative:

In my case, the difficulties of the participant element are somewhat reduced, as I have chosen to study the complexities of my own native culture [1*, p. 3].

While constructing a dialogical space in the book, the author first of all relies on her personal experience. She writes about the events that she has witnessed or participated in herself. This results in a discursive space created in accordance with her own vision of certain events in

75

her life that took place in a specific place over a specific period of time. In the dialogue, the author often broadcasts her I over the whole nation and uses the pronoun we:

My claim is only that these rules are 'normal and usual' enough to be helpful in understanding and defining our national character [1*, p. 6].

Thus, in the dialogue between the speaker and the addressee, the first one takes on the function of a representative of the English nation and talks about the culture based on her own sociocultural experience.

When communicating, the speaker expresses her ideas about something by linguistic means and actualizes certain part of her worldimage. The addressee correlates the message of the addresser with his picture of the world and then agrees or disagrees with the information presented to him.

When dealing with deixis, we observe a change of roles between the participants in communication - this is a compulsory condition. When having a dialogue, the addresser of the message becomes an addressee and then vice versa. In case of oral communication, this will be a change of roles between the speaker and the listener. In a written text, the author in a certain way invites the addressee to share his opinion on the author’s statements. Due to the fact that the addresser and addressee are distanced from each other in time and space, this does not happen while the author’s speech is structured according to this very principle.

The title of the book “Watching the English” implicitly sets the reader in a position that the observer is an outsider, not local. When reading the name, the recipient has two versions. The first one is that he will observe the English nation himself through the prism of the author’s vision (and, of course, with her help). The second version is that if the addressee is himself a representative of English culture, then he gets the impression that a certain study was conducted, while someone was watching the English and their behavior, and now the reader has the opportunity to see the results of this study. In practice, these two impressions are correct, but being polar opposites, they pose an ambitious task for the author - to support as one as another statement along the narrative. Given the duality of the addressee (namely, that he can be a representative of both English and another culture), the author “juggles” pronouns when it comes to designating her nation. With this technique, the author achieves her goal – to include the addressee in the story, regardless of what culture he belongs to.

For example, when speaking of the British class system, the author uses the possessive second person pronoun, thus indicating that the objects of English life belong to the personal sphere of the addressee:

But we judge social class in much more subtle and complex ways: precisely how you arrange, furnish and decorate your terraced house; <...> how you spend your free time [1*, p. 7].

The same page features an example of the third person possessive pronouns in plural:

Ethnic minorities in Britain are if anything increasingly keen to maintain their distinctive cultural identities, and the English are becoming ever more fretful about their own cultural 'identity crisis' [1*, p. 7].

Here, we can see that the author denotes ethnic minorities in Britain as they, and we can assume that by doing this she distances herself and the native English from them. But further down the text we can see that the English are also designated as they. Accordingly, the author moves away from the situation and looks at it through the eyes of an onlooker who does not belong to the English culture.

76

own personality. Partly for this reason, the author opts for the second person plural pronouns when sharing with the naive reader, unfamiliar with the English reality, facts about local life and customs. First of all, the pronoun we reinforces the author’s assertion that this is a common pattern of behavior that is typical of many representatives in a given culture. Secondly, it increases the weight of the author’s opinion as of a person who comes from this culture. The ambivalent nature of the first person singular is very clearly visible in this situation: the same forms (of the first person plural) can express different relations between the speaker and the listener (addresser and addressee) in different speech styles [9, p. 28].

The dialogue with the reader almost never stops along the narrative. The ways in which the author presents her position explain the dual nature of the. In other words, Kate Fox's work traces the connection of pronouns in deictic function with the I of the author-narrator. This affects the methods of the addressees reconstruction, namely, it actualizes the “inclusion” of the reader in the story in particular and the English culture as a whole, both as a foreigner and a representative of the local population.

The author also repeatedly resorted to various speech strategies. The most relevant one is making the addressee one of the characters. This tactic is aimed at dialogization of the monologue and involving the reader in communication by imitating oral colloquial speech. This tactic minimizes the distance between the author and the reader. This can be achieved, in particular, through question-answer constructions [10, p. 159].

Studying the image of the addressee through the questions, we can find a confirmation of the previously stated fact: the recipient has a dual nature, and the author tries to recognize his ambivalence in the dialogue. Have a look at the following question:

How clean and shiny - or dirty and scruffy - is your car? [1*, p. 61]

The second person pronoun you is used in this question. Given the dual nature of the addressee, we realize that you can mean both the English and non-English. One of these recipients will be expressed explicitly in this case while the other will be expressed implicitly.

Since the author bases her theory of class on the answer to this question (cleanliness of the car determines a certain social layer) and further classifies car owners on the basis of their answers, it would be logical to assume that here the addressee is a person who lives in England and either has a personal vehicle, or has repeatedly observed his compatriots in the situations described and, therefore, can attribute the author’s subject matter to his own experience.

However, the choice of the second person pronoun you is not random and at the same time solves the important task of involving the addressee who is not an English culture-bearer in the narrative. The author paints a picture of English life for the “naive” reader, in which the reader can put himself in the place of the native Englishman and achieve an understanding of the author’s idea to an even greater degree.

While narrating, the author resorts to another tactic. She invites the reader to reflect on something together and does it via such a phrase as let’s. By incorporating motivational constructions into the text, the author manages to achieve the effect of a joint action:

But let's be charitable and politically correct and just say that we are 'socially challenged' [ *, p. 96].

<...> even cities such as Melbourne and Sydney see themselves as having radically different characters - and let's not start on Edinburgh and Glasgow [1*, p. 10].

77

The author uses incentive constructions not only to call the recipient for joint action. By using the let’s not forget construction, she reminds the addressee about specific past events:

<...> let's not forget that we are also responsible for Benny Hill and the Carry On films, which differ from bog-standard sexual Euro-slapstick (and its American, Australian and Japanese equivalents) only in their excessive reliance on bad puns, double -entendres and innuendo - a measure of the English love of words, I suppose, but otherwise not much to our credit [1*, p. 79].

Thus, the author achieves the inclusion of the potential Other into her discursive space . This implicit construction (and others of such type, for example, inclusive we) invites the reader to a dialogue. It expresses a proposal to unite and the author’s willingness to cooperate [4, p. 545]

Let us turn to other deictic words that help to understand which principles underlie the communication between the author and the addressee. The demonstrative pronouns this and that act as the correlates of the speaker, i.e. the first person pronoun, while the listener may be included in this space or excluded from it.

Along the texts, the author primarily uses this as an indicative pronoun, while pronoun that mostly acts as a conjunction. Thus, the author implicitly conveys her coordinate system to the reader and his place in it. For the addressee, this literally means the following: as an Englishman, the addressee can associate himself with England and name it “his” country in the same way as the author does; another addressee who does not belong to English culture can thus draw a contrast for himself with his own country and therefore to perceive English culture as an alien:

Immigrants can, of course, choose to 'go native', and some in this country become 'more English than the English' [1*, p. 8].

These examples are chosen by chance from the entire array of phrases that feature the demonstrative pronoun this. They are taken from the same part of the narrative from which we previously took the example about ethnic minorities. It is noteworthy that the demonstrative pronoun used for both the representatives of ethnic minorities and for the English themselves is expressed via the third-person plural pronoun, while the indicative pronoun is expressed via this. Explicitly, the author refers to different types of addressee (personal pronouns vary along the text), while implicitly she draws the line between English and non-English readers.

So, I see no reason to be put off my attempt to understand Englishness by global warnings about the imminent extinction of this or any other culture [1*, p. 7].

However, it would not be entirely fair to say that the author uses only this as a demonstrative pronoun. The proportion of demonstrative pronouns in the text is not the same (this prevails over that), but there are several typical situations when that is used to express the correlation with particular object. First of all, these are references to previously discussed topics and phenomena:

It's that self-delusion thing again [1*, p. 92].

This is excruciatingly English: over-formality is embarrassing, but so is an inappropriate degree of informality (that problem with extremes again) [1*, p. 15].

78

Here the author and the addressee are united by the common experience. The text to which the author refers was written by her, and the addressee, accordingly, read it. Thus, the reader becomes involved in the author’s experience and creates a new common reality with her. The deictic pronoun that is aimed precisely at this reality. Taken out of the context, the phrase that self - delusion thing will not be clear to an individual who is not familiar with the previous part of the story. When using this pronoun, the author conducts a dialogue with the reader based on the already existing common reality.

The following type of situations is characterized by the ironic attitude of the author towards her own nation:

Bar staff do their best to ensure that everyone is served in proper turn, but it is still necessary to attract their attention and make them aware that one is waiting to be served. This rule is not merely designed to make life easier for bar staff, or to avoid that English pet hate 'fuss' [1*, p. 35].

We are at our best when we are 'in uniform' but rebelling just slightly against it, refusing to take ourselves too seriously, indulging that peculiarly English talent for selfdeprecating humor [1*, p. 131].

It is quite interesting that when speaking of the English character traits that can cause irritation both in foreigners and in compatriots, the author seems to deliberately distance herself from them. Kate Fox uses the pronoun this to emphasize that the indicated behavior is strange, and sometimes even ridiculous. At the same time, the author adds an element of irony to her statements by using personal pronoun we along with the demonstrative pronoun that:

And her postbag indicates that our main concern is indeed about 'fitting in', being acceptably dressed and, above all, that perennial English preoccupation: avoiding embarrassment [1*, p. 100].

The author gives a hint to her English readers that she is aware of the fact that they are prone to this behavior, no matter how hard they try to hide it from others. As for representatives of a different culture, for them the author sets the parameters of “right” and “wrong” behavior (although in fact such behavior is considered normal due to its frequency).

The desire to separate oneself from the nation with which one wants to avoid associations is reflected in the text. For example, the following statement sort of waives responsibility from the English for their inherent excessive care of their own health and shifts the responsibility for its appearance in the national character to the Americans:

The long, lavish, boozy 'business lunch' is nowadays somewhat frowned upon (more of that American-inspired puritanical health-correctness), which is a great shame, as it was based on very sound anthropological and psychological principles [1*, p. 113].

Another type of situation described by the author with a pronoun that refers to the events that occurred in the past.

The book is done; I've left my notebook at home (I'm writing this on a napkin). But look: in that taxi earlier I couldn't help scribbling on the back of my hand something the driver said [1*, p. 151].

By including events from the past in the narrative, the author creates a common reality for herself and the addressee. Given the peculiarity of written communication, the author is re-

79

sponsible for the creation of this reality, while the addressee acts as a silent observer. As the addressee does not have an opportunity to ask questions along the narrative, the author takes on an explanatory function and in each case gives small explanations to the reader when referring to the past events. This is supposed to help him better understand the context. The author proceeds from the assumption that the addressee is not familiar neither with the facts about which she is narrating, nor with her biography. Here is an example of a detailed explanation that is given to the prejudice against fish knives that exists in English society:

... the outright taboo seems to date from the publication of John Betjeman's 'How to Get On in Society', in which he lampoons the affectations and pretensions of a lower-middle- class housewife preparing for a dinner party. The poem begins:

Phone for the fish knives, Norman For cook is a little unnerved

You kiddies have crumpled the serviettes And I must have things daintily served

Fish knives, possibly always a bit suspect, were from that moment irrevocably associated with people who say 'pardon' and 'serviette' and 'toilet' - and use napkin rings

[1*, p. 117].

Conclusion.

The perception of the English society is closely related to the class system. When using the pronoun we, the author can mean both we as the English in general, and we as the author and other representatives of a certain class. The author obviously refers herself to the middle class, as evidenced by the use of the first person plural pronoun while narrating about the habits and lifestyle characteristic of this social stratum. At the same time, the author denotes the social distance between the English nation and representatives of another culture by using we to designate typically English features.

Accordingly, the addressee appears in two images in the text: as a representative of either the author’s native culture or another culture. The author manages to achieve distinction between the two types of recipients by using first person plural pronouns when referring to compatriots and third person pronouns when associating with a foreign reader.

The use of demonstrative pronouns resembles the use of personal pronouns in many ways. In most contexts, the author uses the pronoun this, while that acts mostly as a conjunction. This functions in the text in accordance with the same principles as the first person pronouns – it implicitly sets the author’s origin for the reader. The use of the pronoun that is less frequent but more engaging. This indicative pronoun acts as a way of enhancing the evaluativity in the text. In situations characterized by the ironic attitude of the author towards her own nation, she resorts to using the pronoun that as if separating herself from the English at that moment.

We conclude that to present her position, the author uses a variety of techniques, thus achieving the maximum involvement of the addressee in the narrative.

References

[1] Vikulova L.G. Osnovy teorii komunikatsii: praktikum / L.G. Vikulova, A.I. Sharunov// M.: AST: Moskva: Vostok – Zapad. – 2008. – 316 s.

[2]Pocheptsov G.G. Teoriya komunikatsii / G.G. Pocheptsov // M.: Vakler; K.: Refl-buk.

–2001. – 651 s.

[3]Suleymanova O.A. Akademicheskij diskurs kak nepreryvnyj dialog s drugim / O.A. Suleymanova // Diskurs kak universalnaya matritsa verbalnogo vzaimodeystviya. – M.: Lenand, 2018. – S. 180-198.

80

[4]Suleymanova O.A. Dialog s drugim v akademicheskom diskurse / O.A. Suleymanova

//Dialog kultur. Kultura dialoga: v poiskah peredovykh sotsiogumanitarnykh praktik. – M.: OOO «Yazyki Narodov Mira», 2016. – S.539-547.

[5]Fomina M.A. Markery adresanta v nauchnom dialoge / M.A. Fomina // Lingvokulturnoe obrazovanie v sisteme vuzovskoj podgotovki spetsialista. – Brest: UO "Brestskij gosudarstvennyj universitet im. A.S. Pushkina", 2017. – S. 96-103.

[6]Vishnevskaya E.M. Tekst i diskurs / E.M. Vishnevskaya // Problemy professionalnoj podgotovki sovremennogo uchitelya inostrannogo yazika. – M.: MGPI, 2006. – S.51-54.

[7]Zaytsev E.B. T.A. van Deyk o roli kriticheskogo diskurs-analiza v izuchenii SMI / E.B. Zaytsev // Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. – ser. 10. Zhurnalistika. № 2. – 2006. – S. 5665.

[8]Strenaduk E.B. Problema mestoimennosti v tekste (na material sovremennogo nemetskogo yazika): monografiya / E.B. Strenaduk // Orenburg: OGU. – 2013. – 160 s.

[9] Uspenskyj B.A. Ego Loquens: Yazik I kommunikatsionnoe prostranstvo / B.A. Uspenskyj // M.: RGGU. – 2011. – 344 s.

[10] Kaminskaya T.L. Obraz adresata v tekstakh massovoj kommunikatsii: semantikopragmaticheskoe issledovanie: dis. dokt. filol. nauk / T.L. Kaminskaya // Sankt-Peterburg. – 2009. – 283 s.

Analyzed sources

[1*] Fox K. Watching the English. The Hidden Rules of English Behaviour / K. Fox // Hodder and Stoughton Ltd. – 2004. – 157 p.

Dictionaries used

[1**] Yazikoznanie. Bolshoj entsiklopedicheskyj slovar’ / Gl. red. V.N. Yartseva. 2-e izd // M.: Bolshaya Ross. Entsiklopedia. – 2000. – 128 s.

81

DOI 10.36622/MLMDR.2020.30.3.008

UDC 81.367.5; 81.42

NUCLEUS-SATELLITE MODEL OF DISCOURSE

IN RHETORICAL STRUCTURE THEORY

O.S. Filicheva

____________________________________________________________________________

Russian University of Transport

Senior teacher of the Chair of «Linguistics» Oksana Sergeevna Filicheva

e-mail: okslet1@mail.ru

____________________________________________________________________________

Statement of the problem. The article gives an explanation of the text generation and interpretation according to the Rhetorical structure theory (RST), developed by W. Mann and S. Thompson. This theory is based on structural and functional approaches in linguistics, which present the relations between the form and the content of a language unit as the structure of dependencies. The dependency of one language unit on another in the newly formed unity is understood as a function performed by the language unit in speech or discourse. RST provides as a model for analyzing semantic relations between nucleus (main) and satellite (dependent) discursive units that form the coherence of the text.

Results. Different approaches to defining discourse and its structural components are described. The nucleussatellite model of the discourse structure proposed by W. Mann and S. Thompson is analyzed. The authors of RST emphasize that the coherence of the text is based on rhetorical relations that connect the units of discourse and contribute to the adequate coding and decoding of information. The nucleus-satellite organization of discursive units distributes the addressee`s focus of text perception. The principles of graphic representation of rhetorical relations are revealed, as well as the principles of classification of asymmetrical and symmetrical, mononucleus and multinucleus rhetorical relations.

Conclusion. Nuclearity and hierarchy are recognized as the leading ways of discourse structural organization in RST. Hierarchy can be traced not only in the semantic and intentional allocation of the nucleus, but also in the structural organization of rhetorical relations among discursive units. Thus, a nucleus-satellite model of discourse serves as an effective functional principle to generate and interpret texts, which used to solve various communication tasks.

Key words: discourse-analysis, discursive units, coherence, text generation, rhetorical relations, Rhetorical structure theory, nucleus-satellite model.

For citation: Filicheva O.S. Nucleus-satellite model of discourse in rhetorical structure theory / O.S. Filicheva //

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-didactic Researches”. – 2020. - № 3 (30). – P. 82-92.

Introduction.

Modern linguists are particularly interested in functioning of language units in discourse. The meaning of language units depends mostly on their structure. The adequate interpretation of linguistic signs is also impossible to carry out without taking into account extra-linguistic factors. The generation and the usage of utterances during the social interaction of individuals are understood as discourse. This research is the result of generalization of theoretical knowledge about discourse as a structural entity.

The objective of the research is to identify patterns in the discourse structure that express the peculiarities of the relationship between the speaker/author and the listener/reader.

To achieve this goal, we used the nucleus-satellite model of W. Mann and S. Thompson, since this model presents discourse-analysis as a structure of dependent language units, among which there is one or more key semantic elements (nuclei), and there is one or more elements

____________________

© Filicheva O.S., 2020

82

(satellites) that add the meaning in the content of nuclear elements. This model of information presentation encourages the addressee to focus on the main facts, to process them efficiently and to store them in memory. The composition of a nucleus and a satellite has a special mean- ing-distinguishing function. Moreover, by emphasizing the priority of the nucleus semantic element, the addresser gets the opportunity to implement his pragmatic intention and to coordinate the addressee`s interpretation of the information.

Research methodology.

The object and the subject of the research. The object of the research is the general principles of a discourse structure. The subject of the research becomes the functional features of semantic relations between discursive units, which form the semantic and communicative structure of discourse and guide the processes of information coding and decoding during the interpersonal interaction.

Research material. The study of structural and functional discourse patterns as sematic elements, that provide the communication between a speaker/author and a listener/reader, is based on the scientific works of foreign and Russian linguists, which contain theoretical data of a discourse structure, the category of coherence, generation and interpretation of texts and speech acts. However, to confirm the applicability of W. Mann and S. Thompson` s Rhetorical structure theory (RST), several examples of discourse structure analysis with the help of the nucleus-satellite model are demonstrated. English scientific and technical texts were used as an empirical material.

Methods of research. When working with theoretical information concerning the general laws of discourse structuring, the inductive method was used. The methods of observation, interpretation and semantic analysis of rhetorical relations were used in the analysis of texts.

The method of discourse-analysis should be separately explained. The study of such a complex object as discourse required the development of a special method. Z.S. Harris presented such a formal method – discourse-analysis. The essence of this method is to divide the text based on the allocation of equivalent classes of linguistic units: "We divide the text into consecutive segments so that each segment represents a configuration of the same consecutive classes" [1, p. 12]. The scientist explains the process of division into classes as follows: "If our classes are P and W, and we have several P W sequences, then we try to divide them into segments containing one class P and one class W" [1, p.12]. Referring a unit to a class is always based on its relation to its environment, i.e. its position in the text. The identification of the units, that make up a particular class, is recognized as one of the limitations of membership.

Discourse-analysis is the analysis of the language in use. Therefore, discourse-analysis cannot be limited to describing language forms in isolation from the purposes and functions for which these forms are produced. According to G. Brown and G. Yule, language is intended to perform two main functions: transactional (to express the content of the reported information) and interactive (to express social relations and personal relationships) [2, p.1]. These functions are implemented at the analysis levels of discursive units, in other words, the peculiarities of structural relations in discourse can be studied at the level of content (semantics) and at the level of a communicative situation (pragmatics).

P. Serio says that discourse-analysis is, first of all, the analysis of the text, so the subject of the research is an utterance "produced within an institutional framework that imposes strong restrictions on the speech acts; and also endowed with a historical, social, intellectual orientation" [3, p. 27]. The main objective of discourse-analysis is to bring various separate texts into a positional unity. This is due to the fact that the corpus of texts is considered as one of the parts of a recognized social institution that determines the conditions of utterance production.

W. Mann and S. Thompson developed Rhetorical structure theory (RST), which provides an explanation of the processes of generation and interpretation of different text types and methods of coherence of discourse units. This theory allows us to prove the following theses:

83