Дискурсологія. Конспект лекцій

8. Манаенко Г. Н. Координаты понятия „дискурс” / Г. Н. Манаенко // Дискурс, концепт, жанр : коллективная монография / отв. ред. М. Ю. Олешков. – Нижний Тагил : РТГСПА, 2009. – С. 15–35.

9. Степанов Ю. С. Методы и принципы современной лингвистики / Юрий Сергеевич Степанов. – 2-е изд. – М. : Едиториал УРСС, 2001. – 312 с.

LECTURE 3

SCHOOLS OF DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Anglo-American tradition of discourse analysis. French school of discourse analysis. Michel Foucault. German school of discourse analysis.

Structuralist and poststructuralist approaches share a common interest for the rules of social knowledge, truth and power structures, they vary with respect to the conceptualization of discursive structures:

•Structuralist positions predominantly aim to depict regularities in the patterns of thinking, acting and language production on the supra-individual level. These works often refer as their theoretical reference to the “early Foucault” (1971, 1973), who analyzed historic formations of knowledge and truth. However, these writings tend to remain static in the sense that they blank out the question, by which dynamics and inconsistencies discourses are characterized.

•In contrast, poststructuralist positions are focused precisely on discovering fissures and contradictions within discourses. They argue that discursive structures can never ultimately be fixed and accordingly, the rules of meaning production within society can never be deterministic (Lacan 1973; Laclau 2005; Laclau and Mouffe 1985). Rather those points within discursive structures, at which meaning is not clearly definable, are especially interesting for the analysis, since they show the limits of discursive (power-)structures and since at these points of indecisiveness possibilities for resistance against existing structures exist (Bhabha1994; Hall 1994). The central tenet – the hermeneutic interpretation of meaning to shift the analytical focus from a positive concern with objective facts to the discoursetheoretical concern with the conditions of meaning and identity. This focus on the condition of possibility for our perception and speech acts has distant roots in the classical transcendentalism of I. Kant.

Michel Foucault – a philosopher, social scientist and historian. In the work

‘L’archéologie du savoir’ (1969), he referred to the institutionalised patterns of knowledge and power that become apparent in discourses. Foucault focusses his analysis on the ‘énoncé’ or ‘statement’ and contends that each statement yields from a network of rules establishing what is meaningful. The whole of regular statements (written and spoken) which produce discourses (discursive formation) can be perceived as a body of anonymous, historical rules, determined in the time and space of a given period, and for a given social, economic, geographical, or linguistic area. The body of rules limits the conditions of discourse’s existence in

11

the sense that it provides context and a normative value system (rules on what is

‘proper’ and ‘improper’).

“(…) discourse [is] a group of statements in so far as they belong to the same discursive formation; it does not form a rhetorical or formal unity, endlessly repeatable, whose appearance or use in history might be indicated (and, if necessary, explained); it is made up of a limited number of statements for which a group of conditions of existence can be defined.”

To reveal the body of rules which limit the conditions of discourse’s existence,

Foucault uses an ‘archaeological’ approach. This method seeks to describe discourses in the conditions of their emergence, existence and evolvement rather than in their hidden meaning, propositional or logical content, or their expression of a phycology. The archaeological analysis examines discursive formation only at its level of positive existence, and does not perceive discourses to be traces of something outside themselves.

Five elements are of primary importance in Foucault’s archaeological method:

(a)the analysis of the description of discursive formations,

(b)the analysis of positivities,

(c)the discoveringof the archive,

(d)the mapping of enunciative field,

(e)the detecting of discontinuities.

Description of discursive formations is understood as the totality of statements, relations, regularities and transformations.

At any moment in time, certain orders of knowledge determine the social ‘truth’, which is reflected by a multiplicity of discursive elements which are arranged in various strategies. These strategies can be understood as means to control, select, organize and canalize discourse, they are:

Exclusion;

Internal procedures; Limiting access.

French School of Discourse Analysis, which was developed in French linguistics. This approach combines lexicometric methods that analyze the characteristics of large text corpora with the help of quantitative, statistical procedures with techniques that address the micro-level of linguistic structures. The particular strength of this form of analysis is the concentration on the factual and observable features of texts and the attempt to approach the object of investigation without pre-existing hypotheses (Angermüller 2007; Dzudzek et al. 2009;

Mattissek 2008, 2009; Williams 1999).

References:

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

12

2.Квадратура смысла : Французская школа анализа дискурса : пер. с фр.

ипортуг. / [общ. ред. и вступ. ст. П. Серио ; предисл. Ю. С. Степанова]. – М. : ОАО ИГ «Прогресс», 1999. – 416 с.

3.Кравченко Н. К. Интерактивное, жанровое и концептуальное моделирование международно-правового дискурса / Н. К. Кравченко. – К. : Реферат, 2006. – 320 с.

4.Кузнецов В. Г. Исследование дискурса в Женевской лингвистической школе / В. Г. Кузнецов // Вопросы когнитивной лингвистики. – 2010. – № 1. –

С. 30–36.

5.Макаров М. Л. Основы теории дискурса / М. Л. Макаров. – М. : Гнозис, 2003. – 277 с.

6.Потапенко С. І. Мовна особистість у просторі медійного дискурсу (досвід лінгвокогнітивного аналізу) : монографія / С. І. Потапенко. – К. : ВЦ КНЛУ, 2004. – 360 с.

7.Серио П. Анализ дискурса во Французской школе (Дискурс и интердискурс) / П. Серио // Семиотика : антология. – М. : Академический проект ; Екатеринбург : Деловая книга, 2001. – С. 549–562.

8.Чернявская В.Е. Лингвистика текста: Поликодовость, интертекстуальность, интердискурсивность /В.Е.Чернявская. – М.: Книжный дом «ЛИБРОКОМ», 2009. – С. 136 – 143.

LECTURE 4

INTERACTIVE DETERMINATION OF DISCOURSE

Verbal communication. The factor of addressee. Mutual coordination of communicants’ activity. “Coordination circles”. Components of speech activity and the nature of discourse. Discourse as a control. Communication and worlds of communicants. Communication and linguistic personality. Typology of communicants.

Psychologists describe speech-reflective behaviour as: a peculiar sort of activity - speech activity: specific form of human activity, its independent sort, single-minded, motivational active process of receiving and (or) transferring the message.., through forming and formulating the thought in communication (I.A. Zimnaja).

In the basis of discourse realization is interaction between communicants. And text is a kind of mediator between them. This principle of communication is viewed in the focus of interactive and dialogical character of discourse. Interactivity is considered to be socially and ethnoculturaly determined process.

13

The interchange of ideas, emotions, aims, reasons in certain sociocultural area, considering interpersonal relationships, provide effective interaction between communicants.

Basis of interactivity

•Psychological – a need to understand and to be understood, supplemented with mutual experiences, feelings and emotions.

•Cognitive – a set of consciousness areas (discursive consciousness, communicants’ thesaurus, mechanisms of association).

•Linguistic – a speech system by means of which the communication is realized.

Subcategories of interactivity

•Intentionality – intent of a sender towards certain or possible receiver.

•Strategity – intention and design of its implementation aimed at discourse effectiveness embedded in the text. Discourse strategy is connected with receiver interpretant, in other words, with his aiming at the text perception and discourse interaction.

•Interpretant – provides text recognition, identification of its genre, texteme, etc. Multilayer structure of discourse in receiver personality causes composite structure of interpretants.

•Effectiveness – the communicants reach communicative cooperation and mutual understanding.

Effectiveness

J.P. Grice (1975) proposed 4 basic conversational ‘rules’ [maxims] as criteria for successful conversation: quantity [don’t say too much or too little]; relevance

[keep to the point]; manner [speak in a clear, coherent and orderly way]; quality [be truthful].

Verbal communicative situation

•understanding of discourse as speech immersed in life (N. Arutunova) is bound up with the notion of communicative situation.

•in the most general aspect verbal communicative situation may be determined as a real-life by speech-reflective behaviour of communicants.

Discourse activity is a speech-reflective activity of communicants, connected with speaker's knowledge, comprehension and world outlook on the one hand and

14

comprehension, reconstruction of the language picture of the producent`s world by a recipient in the resulting communicative situation on other.

Discourse participants

•In the process of interaction a speaker and a listener realise different motives, aims and intentions, which can be represented as oppositely aimed vectors.

•Discourse cannot be created by one character and defined from one side or as a situation of comprehension/incomprehension; that is the result of the common discursive.

Discursive purpose

•The speaker pursues his/her most general object to be understood, which is co-ordinated with the discursive purpose of the recipient to understand what has been said.

•The result achieving of these aims is a communicative situation, which can be assessed as a successful one.

Speech manipulation

•our secret weapon when the speaker wants to induce the listener to make definite conclusions, to change his point of view or to perform definite actions

•the speaker acts in his own interests and tries to manipulate the listener. Nobody likes being manipulated; therefore manipulation is not done openly.

Lidiya Volkova: manipulation is our secret weapon when we want the person we are talking with to act as we like or to say something we need. However, if we want to save face, we cannot do it too obviously - the listener should not be aware of it. The best way for the speaker to do it is by using small and invisible function words (discourse markers).

T.A. van Dijk offers a triangulated approach to manipulation as a form of social power abuse, сognitive mind сontrol and discursive interaction. Socially, manipulation is defined as illegitimate domination сonfirming social inequality. Cognitively, manipulation as mind сontrol involves the interference with processes of understanding, the formation of biased mental models and social representations such as knowledge and ideologies. Discursively, manipulation generally involves the usual forms and formats of ideological discourse, such as emphasizing Our good things, and emphasizing Their bad things.

Discourse markers

•possess a wide range of implicit meanings that are revealed only in the process of a detailed analysis. In this respect, function words can be called "Discourse Mafia" as the role they play in natural communication is, on the one hand, invisible and, on the other hand, pretty significant.

M.Makarov (2003):

15

Communicative roles – more or less stereotyped ways of behaviour and interaction in recurrent situations.

The notion is understood not through discourse itself but through anthropocentric reference of linguistic personality

V. Karasik (2000): Status-role line

Situational and communicative role

States the presence of such lines only in institutional discourse

Discourse role – discourse genre

Roles are realised within that or other genre but cannot be reduced to varieties of individual bahaviour in the psychological sense of the word.

E.g. 1) one and the same person:

genre of friendly chat - emancipated and ringleader genre of bureaucratic talk – strict formalist and pedant

2)Discourse roles of wife and husband: pain in the neck: wife - in the evening, husband - in the morning

Language games

Discourse roles correlate with language games (L.Wittgenstein) and discourse genres (M.Bakhtin).

Language game – stable connection of genre practices and discourse roles as two interacting and rather independent outsets of discourse or actually it is the trajectory of a subject playing a certain discourse role which penetrates through genre practices.

Communicant – personality with his/her structure of discourse abilities predicting:

-the way of organisation,

-production,

-perception,

-understanding,

-and interpretation of discourse.

Aspects of personality characteristics

1. Deals with abstract modeling of conscious and unconscious components

activated in the process of text production and text perception; 2. Deals with the typology of communicants.

Personality:

•Physical;

•Social;

16

•Intellectual;

•Psychological;

•Speaking and thinking.

Linguistic personality

Personal thesaurus (Ю.Н.Караулов) – ability to create texts based on the individual knowledge of the world that

•is fixed in words meanings and their associative complexes;

•corresponds to national psychological structure of mind;

•reflects personal concern in the interpretation of facts

Structure of linguistic personality

•Zero level: verbal and semantic

•First level: thesaural

•Second level: motivational and pragmatic (Yu.N.Karaulov)

Approaches to communicants’ typology

Approach based on the role: 1. Social role:

a)status (class, gender, faith, ethnos),

b)positional (position in the society) (Bell, 1980).

2. Situational role (friend, customer, insulter) (Aznaurova, 1988).

(Pocheptsov, 1989)

•Social and situational roles are factors of communicative status of communicants defined as their communicative rights and duties

Factors of communicative status of communicants:

•Fixed;

•Mobile.

Approach based on the lingual mentality

Communicants are determined proceeding from I.Pavlov’s classification of types of nervous activity:

1.Logical type (logically well structured speech, e.g. scientist, teacher);

2.Artistic type (figurative speech, e.g. writer, poet);

3.Psychological type (reflecting informational models of conscious and subconscious levels that can characterize psychological peculiarities of ethnical groups, e.g. japanese – intuitive introverts, americans – thinking extraverts).

References:

1.Kress G. Ideological structures in discourse / G. Kress // Handbook of discourse analysis. – L.,1985. – Vol. 4. – P. 27–42.

17

2.Бехта І. А. Дискурс наратора в англомовній прозі / І. А. Бехта. – К. : Грамота, 2004. – 304 с.

3.Бурбело В. Б. Художній дискурс в історії французької мови та культури 9-18 ст. : автореф. дис. на здобуття наук. ступеня докт. філол. наук : спец. 10.02.05 «Романські мови» / Бурбело Валентина Броніславівна. –

К., 1999. – 36 с.

4.Макаров М. Л. Основы теории дискурса / М. Л. Макаров. – М. :

Гнозис, 2003. – 277 с.

5.Олешков М. Ю. Метакоммуникативная основа дискурсивной рефлексии / М. Ю. Олешков // Семиозис и культура. Философия и

антропология разрыва (текст, сознание, код) : сб. науч. ст. / под ред. И. Е. Фадеевой, В. А. Сулимова. – Сыктывкар : Коми пединститут, 2010. –

С. 83–86.

6.Селиванова Е. А. Основы лингвистической теории текста и коммуникации : монограф. учеб. пособие / Е. А. Селиванова. – К. : ЦУЛ : Фитосоциоцентр, 2002. – 336 с.

7.Сидоров Е. В. Онтология дискурса / Е. В. Сидоров. – Изд. 2-е. – М. : Книжный дом «ЛИБРОКОМ», 2009. – 232 с.

LECTURE 5

CHARACTERISTICS OF DISCOURSE CONSTITUENTS

Communicative situation stratification. Communicants. Communicative strategies. Global discourse context. Communicative noise. Effectiveness of discourse harmonization.

Approaches to defining discourse components

In spite of the diversity of discourse types researchers have been attempting to discover general stratification of communicative situation proceeding from the systematic character of discourse

Attempts to discover components of the communicative situation are reflected in the development of the communicative models

2. Component stratification

communicants;

non-linguistic context i.e. our knowledge of the world outside the language used for its interpretation (Cook, 1990);

physical, social and cultural parameters of the situation; paralinguistic factors;

intertext (Cook 1994); discourse genre;

themes and aims of communication.

Discourse context

Discourse manifests or expresses, and at the same time shapes, many relevant properties of the sociocultural situation we call its context.

Aspects of context:

identity of the speaker/writer; identity of the hearer/reader; time of the utterance;

place of utterance;

genre (the type of discourse – monologue, narrative etc.); channel (spoken or written);

code (standard or dialect);

previous discourse (what has been said or written previously); background knowledge (our knowledge of the world).

Communicative strategy is an optimal implementation of the speaker’s intentions concerning the achievement of a specific communicative goal, i.e. control and choice of effective tools of communication and their flexible modification in a particular situation (F.S. Batsevych). Communicative strategies are flexible and depend on pragmatic factors (age of communicants, their gender, social roles, etc.).

Communicative strategy is goal-directed action programme (van Dijk).

The term 'strategy', as defined by Martin Reisigl and Ruth Wodak (2001), describes 'a more or less intentional plan of practices (including discourse practices) adopted to achieve a particularsocial, political, psychological or linguistic aim'. A number of such strategies and various typologies for them have been proposed (see Chilton 2004; Chilton and Schäffner 1997; Hart 2010; Reisigl

19

andWodak 2001; Wodak 2001). In racist discourse, these include reference, predication, argumentation, perspectivation, and intensification or mitigation (Reisigl and Wodak, 2001). Referential (or nomination) strategies are strategies by means of which speakers classify socialactors (see van Leeuwen, 1996). In predicational strategies speakers assign to social actors evaluative - positive or negative - attributes. In argumentation strategies, predications functionas topoi to justify discrimination and/or exclusion. In perspectivation strategies speakers express their own point of view by appraising the propositions they are communicating. In intensification ormitigation strategies speakers strengthen or weaken the epistemic status of propositions.

Communicative strategies are realized by a set of communicative tactics. The communicative tactic is a definite line of behavior at a certain stage of communicative interaction, aimed at obtaining the desired effect or preventing undesirable effect; speech techniques that enable achieving of communicative goals (F.S. Batsevych).

Communicative Noise is the interference that keeps a message from being understood or accurately interpreted:

External noise: Comes from environment. i.e. loud music, hot sun, babies...

Internal noise: Occurs in the minds of the sender or receiver when their thoughts and feelings are focused on something other than the communication at hand.

Semantic: Caused by people's emotional reaction to words.

References:

1.Маджихингаде Л. Н. Презентация диктума как основа информационной динамики дискурса / Л. Н. Маджихингаде // Язык, сознание, коммуникация : сб. ст. / отв. ред.: В. В. Красных, А. И. Изотов. – М. : МАКС Пресс, 2001. – Вып. 18. – C. 81–85.

2.Методы анализа текста и дискурса : пер. с англ. / Титчер С., Мейер М., Водак Р., Веттер Е. – Х. : Гуманитарный центр, 2009. – 356 с.

3.Селиванова Е. А. Основы лингвистической теории текста и коммуникации : монограф. учеб. пособие / Е. А. Селиванова. – К. : ЦУЛ : Фитосоциоцентр, 2002. – 336 с.

LECTURE 6

PARAMETERS OF DISCOURSE TYPOLOGY

Theoretical and practical value of discourse typology elaboration. Various criteria of discourse classification. Typology of discourses based on the constituents of the R. Jacobson’s communication model.

20