Дискурсологія. Конспект лекцій

Genres are abstract, socially recognized ways of using language. Genre analysis is based on two central assumptions: that the features of a similar group of texts depend on the social context of their creation and use, and that those features can be described in a way that relates a text to others like it and to the choices and constraints acting on text producers (Hyland, 2002).

A genre comprises a class of communicative events the members of which share some set of communicative purposes. These purposes are recognized by the expert members of the parent discourse community, and thereby constitute the rationale for the genre. This rationale shapes the schematic structure of the discourse and influences and constrains choice of content and style. … Exemplars of a genre exhibit various patterns of similarity in terms of structure, style, content and intended audience. If all high probability expectations are realized, the exemplar will be viewed as prototypical by the parent discourse community" (Swales, 1990).

M.M. Bakhtin in The Problem of Speech Genres claims that there are diverse spheres of communication, and the generally stable utterances within each sphere constitute speech genres.

Primary vs secondary genres.

All utterances display individual style, but some genres are more conducive to reflecting individuality than others; a creative writing passage certainly conveys a greater sense of individual style than a brief military command.

Utterance is what makes speech communication exist.

At the most fundamental level of M.M. Bahkitn’s belief is that all language is interconnected with history, is universal, and exists specifically to interact with the past and future. Without this quality, interaction on a speech basis would be nearly impossible.

Broad categories of genre

According to M.M. Bakhtin (1986:80) genre is culture-specific, and each language and culture will have a bewildering variety of specific genres which are distinctive to it. Hence, any list of universal genres must be more general. A very broad level of genre categories is presented by Longacre 1996. Not surprisingly, these general categories lack many of the characteristic properties associated with specific genres; they do, however, retain useful distinctives. Longacre’s broad categorization makes use of plus and minus values for a set of four features. Two of these features—contingent temporal succession and agent orientation—can be taken as primary, and serve to identify the four broadest categories.

CONTINGENT TEMPORAL SUCCESSION refers to a framework “in which some (often most) of the events or doings are contingent on previous events or doings”. Thus, Little Red Riding Hood’s arrival at her grandmother’s house is

31

contingent on her setting out through the woods, and the putting of a cake in the oven (in a recipe) is contingent on having first mixed the proper ingredients. The second primary feature, AGENT ORIENTATION, refers to whether the discourse type deals with “events or doings” which are controlled by an agent (one who performs an action), “with at least a partial identity of agent reference running through the discourse”. Again, Little Red Riding Hood and the wolf are agents in that story; the hearer is a (potential) agent in an exhortation, etc. The four categories of genre resulting from these two features are presented in:

Broad categories of genre (Longacre, 1996)

That is, NARRATIVE discourse (e.g., stories) is + agent orientation, + contingent succession, for the reasons discussed above. PROCEDURAL discourse

(“how to do it, how it was done, how it takes place”) is + contingent succession but

– agent orientation, since “attention is on what is done or made, not on who does it”

(loc. cit.). BEHAVIORAL discourse (exhortation, eulogy, some speeches of political candidates, etc.) is – contingent succession but + agent orientation, since

“it deals with how people did or should behave” (loc.cit.), and EXPOSITORY discourse (budgets, scientific articles, etc.) is – in regard to both features. Besides these two primary features, Longacre discusses two further ones: projection and tension. PROJECTION in its + value “has to do with a situation or action which is contemplated, enjoined, or anticipated, but not realized”; prophecy is + projection narrative, stories are – projection, and so forth. TENSION “has to do with whether a discourse reflects a struggle or polarization of some sort”. Narrative can be + or – tension, as can scientific articles (depending on how polemic they are), etc. For beginning discourse analysis, narrative texts with + tension and two or three main participants are recommended. Longacre’s classification of broad genres is based primarily on content. More specific genres often involve other textual properties. Drama, for example, may be a narrative according to broad genre, but one which is presented in the form of dialogue and is typically written for live presentation. Letters are written discourses and may be of any one of several genres. Jokes are typically oral narratives with a particular goal (humor) and a specific register of speech, and so forth.

References:

32

1.Berkenkotter C. Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication : Cognition. Culture. Power / Berkenkotter C., Huckin T. – Hillsdale, New Jersey ; Hove, UK : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1995. – 164 р.

2.Freedman A. Locating genre studies: Antecedents and prospects // Genre and the New Rhetoric / Ed. by A. Freedman, P. Medway. – London : Taylor and Francis, 1994. – P. 1–20.

3.Miller C. R. Genre as social action / C. R. Miller // Quaterly Journal of Speech. – 1984. – Vol. 70. – P. 151–167.

4.Todorov Tz. The origin of genres / Tz. Todorov // New Literary History. – 1976. – Vol.8. – № 1. – Р.25-37.

5.Бахтин М. Проблема речевых жанров / М. М. Бахтин // Эстетика словесного творчества. – М. : Искусство, 1979. – С. 237–280.

6. Бахтін М. Висловлювання як одиниця мовленнєвого спілкування / М. Бахтін // Антологія світової літературно-критичної думки ХХ ст. / за ред. М. Зубрицької. – 2-ге вид., допов. – Львів : Літопис, 2001. – С. 406–415.

7. Бацевич Ф. С. Вступ до лінгвістичної генології : навч. посіб. / Ф. С. Бацевич. – К. : ВЦ «Академія», 2006. – 248 с. – (Альма-матер).

8.Дементьев В. В. Теория речевых жанров / В. В. Дементьев. – М. : Знак, 2010. – 600 с.

9.Тырыгина В. А. Понятия „дискурс”, „дискурсивный анализ” и их соотношение с понятиями „лингвистика текста”, „функциональный стиль”, „жанр” / В. А. Тырыгина // Актуальные проблемы английской лингвистики и лингводидактики : сб. науч. тр. – М. : Прометей, 2002. – Вып. 1. – С. 162–166.

10.Хомутова Т. Н. Жанр как объект лингвистического исследования / Т. Н. Хомутова // Вопросы лингвистики и методики преподавания языков в вузе : сб. науч. тр. / под ред. Е. Н. Ярославовой. – Челябинск : Изд-во ЮУрГУ,

2002. – С. 65–76.

11.Яхонтова Т. В. Лінгвістична генологія наукової комунікації : монографія. – Львів : ВЦ ЛНУ ім. І. Франка, 2009. – 420 с.

LECTURE 12

DISCOURSE MODELLING

Communicative situation modelling: the K. Bühler’s model, the R. Jakobson’s model, the informative models, the semiotic models, the pragmatic models, the dialogical model.

“In the broadest sense, a model is a systematic representation of an object or event in idealized and abstract form. Models are somewhat arbitrary by their nature. The act of abstracting eliminates certain details to focus on essential factors. . . .

33

The key to the usefulness of a model is the degree to which it conforms--in point- by-point correspondence--to the underlying determinants of communicative behavior” (C.D. Mortensen,1972). Models of communication refers to the conceptual model used to explain the human communication process.

The linear model views communication as a one-way or linear process in which the speaker speaks and the listener listens.

The Laswell’s linear model, 1948:

The interactive model introduced by Schramm (1955) saw the receiver or listener providing feedback to the sender or speaker. Both the speaker and the listener take turns to speak and listen to each other.

The Schramm’s Interactive Model, 1954:

The transactional model shows that the elements in communication are interdependent. Each person in the communication act is both a speaker and a listener, and can be simultaneously sending and receiving messages. Figure shows a transactional model of communication that takes into account “noise” or

34

interference in communication as well as the time factor. The outer lines of the model indicate that communication happens within systems that both communicators share (e.g., a common campus, hometown, and culture) or personal systems (e.g., family, religion, friends, etc). It also takes into account changes that happen in the communicators’ fields of personal and common experiences. The model also labels each communicator as both sender as well as receiver simultaneously.

The Organon model, formulated by K. Bühler, defined the communication functions according to which linguistic communication can be described.

Bühler's work influenced Roman Jakobson for his Communication Model.

The R. Jakobson’s model of communication:

35

The semiotic model. Communication is performed with signs and depends on the behavioral co-ordination of communicating parties.

The U. Eco's Model of Communication:

The pragmatic model emphasizes the creative and motivational characteristics of human interaction.

References:

36

1.Varela F. J. The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience / F. J.Varela, E. Thomson, E. Rosch. – Cambridge, Mass.; London: The MIT press, 1991. – 308 p.

2.Дейк Т. А. ван. Язык. Познание. Коммуникация : пер. с англ. / Т. А. ван Дейк ; [сост. В. В. Петрова ; под. ред. В. И. Герасимова ; вступ. ст. Ю. Н. Караулова, В. В. Петрова]. – М. : Прогресс, 1989. – 312 с.

3.Красных В. В. Структура коммуникации в свете лингвокогнитивного подхода (коммуникативный акт, дискурс, текст) : автореф. дис. на соиск. учен. степени докт. филол. наук : спец. 10.02.19 «Общее языкознание, социолингвистика, психолингвистика» / Красных Виктория Владимировна. –

М., 1999. – 72 с.

4.Методы анализа текста и дискурса : пер. с англ. / Титчер С., Мейер М., Водак Р., Веттер Е. – Х. : Гуманитарный центр, 2009. – 356 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. Попова И. В. Проблемы дискурса: формирование реальности / И. В. Попова // Внутренний мир и бытие языка: процессы и формы : материалы ІІ Межвуз. науч. конф. по актуальным проблемам теории языка и

Т. Ю. Сазонова // Теории языка и межкультурная коммуникация : межвуз. сб. науч. тр. / под. ред. Т. Ю. Сазоновой. – Курск : Курск. гос. ун-т, 2008. – С. 77– 86.

LECTURE 13

COGNITIVE MAPPING OF DISCOURSE

Principles of cognitive modelling of discourse. Constituents of discourse cognitive map. Implicit factors of discourse cognitive map formation.

The impressive advances in psychology and artificial intelligence of the past decade in the field of discourse processing have, among many other findings, resulted in the important recognition that understanding discourse not only presupposes knowledge of the language, but also knowledge of the world. The understanding and cognitive representation of social situations in particular are a crucial component of the processes of discourse production and comprehension. There seems to be an emerging consensus among many researchers that the construction of models in memory, linking situation representations to discourse processing, promises to be the most fruitful approach to this issue. Yet we still know very little about the nature and the uses of such memory models.

37

Cognitive models of social situations are related to the production of discourse. Establishing an explicit relationship between social situations, cognition, and discourse requires an interdisciplinary approach. Notions from cognitive and social psychology, microsociology, and discourse analysis are needed. In particular, the theoretical background include the following research areas:

(1)a cognitive theory of strategic information processing, which emphasizes the strategic nature of discourse production and comprehension as a flexible, multiple-level, and on-line process (van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983);

(2)a sociocognitive theory of discourse, which extends this strategic processing model toward an account of the role of beliefs and attitudes in discourse processing (van Dijk, 1982);

(3)social cognition and the theory of social situations, which provides the general framework for our discussion about the cognitive dimension of such social situations (Argyle, Furnham, & Graham, 1981; Forgas, 1979, 1981; Furnham & Argyle, 1982); and finally, current research about

(4)ethnic stereotypes in cognition and conversation (Hamilton, 1981a; Tajfel, 1981, 1982).

Recent developments in psycholinguistics and in cognitive theories of discourse processing have proposed that semantic models in memory play an important role in understanding (Johnson-Laird, 1983; van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983). This assumption has been influenced by the notion of a model in formal linguistics and logic, which constitutes the basis of interpretation rules. Such formal models are, so to speak, representations of fragments of the world with respect to which expressions are meaningful, or may be assigned a truth value. The psychological correlate of this notion are models in episodic memory (therefore also called episodic models). They function as partial, subjective, and relevant cognitive mappings of the real world, and hence also of social situations. We therefore also call such models situation models. Instead of real world fragments or situations, the cognitive models provide the referential basis for the interpretation of discourse. Their localization in episodic memory suggests that models are integrated structures of previous experiences of individuals. They represent the personal knowledge and beliefs of people about concrete events and situations. They act as the personal, experiential basis for the formation of frames, scripts, or attitudes. Models embody the knowledge and beliefs of language users, which underlie their understanding and production of discourse. They are the starting point for the production of discourse, and thus provide the information that may be used (or must remain implicit) in the generation of the semantic text base of a discourse. Strategies are used for the search, retrieval, and selection of information from situation models. Evidence from various sources has been considered about the structural organization of situation models. This structure is hierarchical and categorical, and features such elements as Setting, Circumstances, Participants, and Event or Action. The process of model formation and use is monitored by the

38

Control System, which among other central information contains macropropositions (topics), and a Context Model, representing the major dimensions of the communicative context.

References:

1.Селиванова Е. А. Основы лингвистической теории текста и коммуникации : монограф. учеб. пособие / Е. А. Селиванова. – К. : ЦУЛ : Фитосоциоцентр, 2002. – С.240-260.

2.Бороботько В.Г. Принципы формирования дискурса: От психолингвистики к лингвосинергетике / В.Г.Борботько. – Изд. 2-е, стереотипное. – М.:

КомКнига, 2007. – 288с.

3.Алимурадов О. А. К вопросу о природе глобального смысла, возможностях моделирования его структуры и закономерностях его актуализации в дискурсе / О. А. Алимурадов // Дискурс, концепт, жанр : коллективная монография / отв. ред. М. Ю. Олешков. – Нижний Тагил : РТГСПА, 2009. –

С. 36–49.

4.Олешков М. Ю. Лингвоконцептуальный анализ дискурса (теоретический аспект) / М. Ю. Олешков // Дискурс, концепт, жанр : коллективная монография / отв. ред. М. Ю. Олешков. – Нижний Тагил : РТГСПА, 2009. –

С. 68–85.

5.van Dijk T. A. Strategies of discourse comprehension / T.A.van Dijk, W.Kintsch.

– New York: Academic Press, 1983.

LECTURE 14

METHODS ANALYZING DISCOURSE

The map of methods and theories. Content analysis. Grounded theory. Ethnography. The analysis of the ways of participation categorization. Conversation analysis. Narrative semiotics. Functional pragmatics.

Different approaches to DA, after Eggins (1997)

•Attention to the sequential organization of talk, turn-taking and topic management.

Conversation analysts focus on how people make and interpret meanings by exploiting the orderly structure of conversation, especially its sequential structure.

Conversation Analysis' (CA) has its roots in a branch of sociology founded by a scholar named Harold Garfinkle called ethnomethodology. Perhaps the best way to describe ethnomethodology is that it is the study of how people act normal – in other words, how people use shared commonsense knowledge and reasoning to conduct their everyday affairs. Understanding how people 'do being normal' is an important basis for understanding how and why social interaction works (or does not work). Like ethnomethodology, the goal of CA is to determine the unspoken, shared understandings and methods of commonsense reasoning that guide and orient participants' actions in a given context. Its focus however is much narrower, emphasizing in particular the mechanics or procedural rules of everyday conversation.

Developed collaboratively by Harvey Sacks, Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson, CA starts from the premise that conversation is not random, but has an underlying order. In fact, conversation analysts believe that the people use the rules of conversation to jointly construct an orderly world.

The main principles of CA are as follows:

Conversation is a kind of activity with which people bring order to the world.

This activity is made up of a sequence of orderly actions (utterances are

‘doings’ in which certain things are accomplished like greeting, asking, leavetaking, etc.).

These actions are governed by rules or sets of expectations which people share with one another.

These rules determine things like how we begin and end conversations, who gets to talk about what and when, and how we know when it is our turn to talk and when it is not.

The core of conversation analysis is the exploration of the sequential structures of social action which shape the world, turn by turn. According to Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson social interaction is basically arranged in pairs of utterances – what one person says basically determines what the next person can say.

But conversation analysts are not just interested in adjacency pairs. They are also interested in other aspects of the mechanics of conversation. One of the difficult problems is understanding how people manage to successfully start conversations and how they manage to successfully end them.

The Ethnography of Communication

•Communication as a matter of cultural competence

•Focus on things like setting, participants, mood, and other kinds of behavioral rules

40