Дискурсологія. Конспект лекцій

МІНІСТЕРСТВО ОСВІТИ І НАУКИ УКРАЇНИ НАЦІОНАЛЬНИЙ УНІВЕРСИТЕТ «ЛЬВІВСЬКА ПОЛІТЕХНІКА»

М. П. Ділай

PERSPECTIVES ON DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

КОНСПЕКТ ЛЕКЦІЙ

із дисципліни «Актуальні питання дискурсології» для студентів освітньо-кваліфікаційного рівня магістр спеціальності 8.02030303 «Прикладна лінгвістика»

Затверджено на засіданні кафедри прикладної лінгвістики.

Протокол № 9 від 12 травня 2014 р.

Львів – 2014

1

Ділай М.П. Perspectives on Discourse Analysis: Конспект лекцій із дисципліни «Актуальні питання дискурсології» для студентів освітньокваліфікаційного рівня магістр спеціальності 8.02030303 «Прикладна лінгвістика» / М.П. Ділай. – Львів : Видавництво Львівської політехніки,

2014. – 50 с.

Висвітлено засадничі поняття дискурсології, розглянуто особливості моделювання дискурсу як ситуації інформаційного обміну і впливу. Подано характеристику складових дискурсу та текстово-дискурсивних категорій. Визначено поняття когнітивної карти дискурсу. Розкрито принципи застосування різних методів аналізу дискурсу.

Відповідальний за випуск: Левченко О.П., д. філол. наук, проф.

Рецензенти: Романишин Н.І, к.філол.наук, доц. Гураль О.Ю., к.філол.наук, доц.

2

INTRODUCTION

This manual has been written as an introduction to discourse analysis for future linguistic field workers. The main aim of this course of lectures is to provide the students with the basic theoretical knowledge and empirical tools of some of the most relevant approaches to the analysis of discourse, as well as its main issues or concerns. It has been mainly conceived of as a general (university) course on Discourse Analysis, but it can also be beneficial for any person or group whose main concern is to acquire the basic necessary knowledge and skills for analyzing any type of discourse.

The basic discourse notions are invaluable in all aspects of a language curriculum. Those aspects range from language learning to lexical, semantic, and morphosyntactic analysis, right on through to linguistic applications such as education and literature production, where clear communication is of fundamental importance.

The following are the general objectives that the student/reader is expected to reach after reading and studying the material in this book:

to define the place of discourse analysis within the modern anthropocentric paradigm of linguistics;

to identify different theories and approaches to the analysis discussed; to reveal the parameters of discourse typology;

to analyze text discourse categories.

A desirable and anticipated effect of the study of discourse is also the development of an open and tolerant mind which will eventually lead to a better understanding of the varied manifestations of language, culture and communication in human society.

This work doesn’t present a complete picture of all possible aspects of, and approaches to Discourse Analysis. The discipline is a broad one, and consequently it would be impossible to review all related studies in a work of limited scope like the present book. Nor would it be possible to do justice even to the approaches discussed here. Nevertheless, several perspectives that are especially relevant (because of their remarkable influence) have been chosen and discussed in a pedagogical way, considering the main aim of the book. Although the aim is introductory rather than comprehensive, we do provide references to further reading on the topics discussed.

4

LECTURE 1

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS IN THE MODERN ANTHROPOCENTRIC PARADIGM OF LINGUISTICS

The place and status of discourse studies in linguistics. Discourse studies and other branches of modern anthropocentric linguistics. Discourse as a specific way of communication and understanding of the world.

In the twentieth century the following new disciplines emerged within the field of Linguistics:

Functionalism (functional grammars);

Cognitive Linguistics;

Sociolinguistics;

Pragmatics;

Text Linguistics;

Discourse Analysis.

All these fields are interrelated and have common tenets. Bernárdez (1999) explains the basic tenets of these disciplines, which are summarized here as follows:

Language only exists in use and communication. It always fulfils certain functions in human interaction.

Language use is necessarily social.

Language is not autonomous. It shares some characteristics with other social and cognitive phenomena.

The description of language must account for the real facts of language. It should not postulate hidden entities only motivated by the needs of the formal system utilized.

Linguistic structures should be closely linked to the conditions of language

use.

Language is natural and necessarily vague and inaccurate; therefore any prediction can only be probabilistic.

Antropocentricity:

•language is the exceptional privilege of human, and human is a central figure in the picture of world, drawn by a language;

•semantic system of language is based upon the antropocentricity;

•a man with his or her individual conception plays a central part in discourse.

Subcategories of antropocentricity:

•The category of addressor results from the personality of the author him or herself, transformed in into the author-function. Author-function may be implicit or explicit (representing the author, the narrator or the main hero of the narration).

5

• The category of addressee a) real (empirical) reader; b) supposed reader, model, based upon author’s knowledge about his/her relevant readership; c) text reader, realized by specific narrative modus of belles-lettres.

Text Linguistic studies are more concerned with the text-internal factors

(i.e. cohesion and coherence), while Discourse Analysis focuses its attention more on the text-external factors, without disregarding the text-internal ones. The history of these disciplines shows that research has evolved, in many cases, from the narrower scope of Text Grammar (and later, Text Linguistics) into the broader discipline of Discourse Analysis, and therefore both disciplines have merged. For this reason and for clarifying and practical purposes, we shall consider DA as a macro-discipline that includes several sub-approaches, among which the ‘purely’ text-linguistic ones can also be found.

The terms text and discourse have been –and still are– used ambiguously, and they are defined in different ways by different researchers. In this book we are going to use the term text to refer to the ‘purely’ linguistic material, and we are going to consider discourse in a broader sense, defining it as language in use, composed of text and context.

The current aim now in DA is to describe language where it was originally found, i.e. in the context of human interaction. In this respect, it is important to point out that this interaction often involves other media besides language. Examples of these other semiotic systems may be gesture, dance, song, photography or clothing, and it is also the discourse analyst’s job to explain the connection between these systems and language.

Discourse analysts are interested in the actual patterns of use in naturally occurring texts. These natural texts, once transcribed and annotated, are known as the corpus, which constitutes the basis for analysis. Thus, discourse analysts necessarily take a corpus-based approach to their research.

References:

1.Андрейчук Н.І. Антропоцентрична парадигма сучасної лінгвістики: ідеологія і програми досліджень//Лінгвістичні студії: Зб.наук. праць. Випуск 17/Укл.: Анатолій Загнітко (наук.ред.) та ін. – Донецьк: ДонНУ, 2008. –

с.273-278.

2.Бацевич Ф. С. Нариси з комунікативної лінгвістики : монографія / Ф. С. Бацевич. – Львів : ВЦ ЛНУ ім. І. Франка, 2003. – 281 с.

3.Касавин И. Т. Текст. Дискурс. Контекст. Введение в социальную эпистемологию языка / И. Т. Касавин. – М. : «Канон+» РООИ «Реабилитация», 2008. – 544 с.

6

4.Макаров М. Л. Речевая коммуникация в группе: дискурсивное конструирование социальной идентичности / М. Л. Макаров // Эссе о социальной власти языка / под. общ. ред. Л. И. Гришаевой. – Воронеж : Воронежский гос. ун-т, 2001. – С. 30–36.

5.Почепцов Г. Г. Теорія комунікації / Г. Г. Почепцов. – 2-ге вид., допов. – К. : ВЦ „Київський університет”, 1999. – 308 с.

6.Alba-Juez L. Perspectives on Discourse Analysis: Theory and Practice / L. Alba-Juez – Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2009. – 393 p.

LECTURE 2

THE SUBJECT OF DISCOURSE STUDIES:

A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

Definitions and approaches to the study of discourse. Discourse in the system of communication categories. Two global approaches to discourse definition. Discourse as an object of interdisciplinary research.

Communication – modus of existence of speech code means. Categories of communication:

1.Discourse; 2.Speech act;

3. Speech genre.

Discourse associates with

•all means of communication in society (verbal, non verbal; silence etc.);

•communication within certain channels (visual, sound, tactile);

•rules of communication, kinds of realisation and presentation of speaker‘s pragmatic goals (etiquette, didactic, prescriptive);

• transferring of different types of information in communication:

-rational (оbjective, subjective, truth, lie);

-spiritual (sacral, religious, philosophical, mythological etc.);

•subject of different sciences studies (sociological, politological, philological

etc.);

•representation of cultural communication (discourse of culture, modernism, postmodernism);

•ethnocultural peculiarities of communication (cross-cultural,

‘ukrainianness’, ethnocultural);

•cultural and historical peculiarities of communication (discourse of Middle Ages, classical, new European).

Discourse is also defined as

7

•Functional style, type of speech (oral, written, scientific, publicistic, bellettre, business);

•Variety of functional style, its realization in different spheres of communication (law, court, newspaper, TV discourse, ritual, advertisement etc.);

•Genre of literature (prose, lyrical, drama, theatrical).

The notion of discourse in linguistic sources

1.Equivalent of “speech” in Saussurian sense, that is any concrete utterance.

2.Any unit exceeding phrase, utterance in a wide sense. What is studied by text grammar.

3.“Talk” viewed as the main type of utterance.

4.What is named the impact of utterance on the addressee.

5.E.Benvenist: speech as opposed to “story”, which is told without explicit participation of the subject of utterance.

6.In opposition of “language” and “ discourse”

7.System of limitations imposed on the unlimited number of utterances with respect to social or ideological position.

8.Traditional discourse analysis studies its object of research opposing utterance and discourse where utterance is a string of phrases between two semantic spaces and discourse is the utterance viewed from the point of dicourse mechanism controlling it (Domenic Mengeno, see Serio 1999)

History of the notion formation

Discourse – lat. talk of scientists, fr., eng. – dialogue. Dictionary of brothers Grimm (1860р.):

1.Dialogue, talk. 2. Speech, lecture.

Authors such as G.Leech (1983) and D.Schiffrin (1994) distinguish between two main approaches: 1) the formal approach, where discourse is defined as a unit of language beyond the sentence, and 2) the functional approach, which defines discourse as language use.

As a linguistic term discourse was first introduced by Z.Harris in 1952 in the terminological combination “discourse analysis”. Z.Harris was a formalist: he viewed discourse as the next level in a hierarchy of morphemes, clauses and sentences. He made an attempt to extrapolate distributional analysis from the sentence to the coherent text and apply social and cultural situation to its description.

Functionalists give much importance to the purposes and functions of language. Discourse is an all-embracing concept which includes not only the propositional content, but also the social, cultural and contextual contents.

8

As explained above, D.Schiffrin (1994) proposes a more balanced approach to discourse, in which both the formal and the functional paradigms are integrated.

She views discourse as “utterances”, i.e. “units of linguistic production (whether spoken or written) which are inherently contextualized” (1994). From this perspective, the aims for DA are not only sequential or syntactic, but also semantic and pragmatic.

Linguistic studies of the notion

•N.Bahtin

•V.Voloshinov

Ideas:

Abstract language forms are opposed to dynamic speech products,

Sense of the word is fully determined by its context, social in the first

place,

The word as a partner-oriented unit is filled with social connotations and is a product of speaker – hearer relations.

R. Jakobson advocates the idea of subjectivity in the language:

The utterance is viewed as speech activation by means of individual act of its usage

The word ‘discourse’ gets a new terminological sense, namely “speech acquired by the speaker”

Discourse is opposed to objectivised story about something, subjectivity and connection with the internal world of the speaker are emphasised

Foundations of the pragmatic treatment of discourse are laid

Middle of 50s - 60s

Discourse analysis and text linguistics are not discriminated, term discourse is often used as the synonym of text.

Dictionary of terms by T.Nikolayeva:

Discourse is a polysemantic term of text linguistics. Primary meanings:

1)coherent text;

2)oral-conversational form of the text,

3)dialogue,

4)group of utterances connected by sense,

5)speech product – written or oral

End of 70s – beginning of 80s

• Notions text and discourse are discriminated, text is started to be understood as a static object and discourse as a way to actualise it under certain mental and pragmatic conditions.

9

• Elements of discourse are ‘happenings’, their participants, performative information and ‘no-happenings’ that is:

a)Circumstances of ‘happenings’,

b)Background explaining ‘happenings’,

c)Evaluation of the participants of ‘happenings’,

d)Information that correlates discourse with ‘happenings’, [Demiankov 1982,с.7]

Modern understanding: two global approaches

1.Discourse as “text immersed in life” with all corresponding forms of life [Arutiunova, 1990, с.137], language reality imposed on social coordinates [Pocheptsov, 1999, с.99, French school of discourse analysis],

2.Discourse as “discoursive practices”, interactive cognitive-speech phenomenon, “live” communication.

References:

1.Discourse across languages and Cultures / Ed. by Carol Lynn Moder, Aida Martinovic-Zic. – Amsterdam, Philadelphia : John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2004. – 366 p. – (Studies in Language Companion Series ; vol. 68).

2.Malabou C. An Eye at the Edge of Discourse / Malabou C. //Communication theory : An Official Journal of the International Communication Association. – 2007. – Vol. 17, № 1. – P. 16–25.

3.Silverstein M. The natural History of discourse [Електронний ресурс] /

Michael Silverstein, Greg Urban // Natural Histories of discourse / Edited by M. Silverstein & G. Urban. – Chicago : The University of Chicago Press, 1996. –

P.1–17. – Режим доступу: http://bank.rug.ac.be/da/refs.htm

4.Бацевич Ф. С. Нариси з комунікативної лінгвістики : монографія / Ф. С. Бацевич. – Львів : ВЦ ЛНУ ім. І. Франка, 2003. – 281 с.

5.Бенвенист Э. Общая лингвистика / Э. Бенвенист ; [ред., вступ. ст. и коммент. Ю. С. Степанова]. – М. : Прогресс, 1974. – 446 с.

6.Ильин И. П. Дискурс / И. П. Ильин // Терминология современного зарубежного литературоведения (страны зарубежной Европы и США) : справочник / ИНИОН РАН. – М., 1992. – Вып. 1 : «Новая критика», структурализм, рецептивная эстетика, нарратология, деконструктивизм. – С. 49–50.

7.Квадратура смысла : Французская школа анализа дискурса : пер. с фр. и португ. / [общ. ред. и вступ. ст. П. Серио ; предисл. Ю. С. Степанова]. – М. : ОАО ИГ «Прогресс», 1999. – 416 с.

10