What is discourse analysis? Discourse analysis and an example of discourse analysis An example of discourse analysis using.

Discourse analysis- a comprehensive sociolinguistic approach, the purpose of which is to study discourse.

According to Jonathan Potter, discourse analysis “pays particular attention to the ways in which the versions of the world, society, events, and internal psychological worlds produced in discourse are organized.”

Discourse is the assignment of values. Discourse plays a key role in constructing an image of this world in many ways. The way we talk about things - our phrases, our accents, the things we emphasize - evoke certain feelings in other people. By doing this, we influence the perception and understanding of others, and, thus, their and our reality, the reflection of the social world in the mind (the creation of discourse).

The origins of discourse analysis lie in various fields of humanities (social psychology, linguistics, sociology, philosophy).

In a general sense, discourse analysis is a structural-semiotic study of texts and the listener or reader’s reaction to them. The hidden meanings of the text, the context of its creation, likely interpretations by the reader/listener, and the like are explored.

There is no single version of discourse analysis. It can be applied to both naturally occurring and specially organized forms of conversation and texts.

Words are analyzed. They can be combined, divided into subgroups, divided into semiotic segments, and can be located (organized) in such a way as to enable the researcher to compare, contrast, analyze and search for certain models. In this regard, different interpretations of the text (research material) are possible.

Unlike conversation analysis, discourse analysis places much less emphasis on natural conversation. Discourse analysis can be applied not only to conversation, but to other forms of communication. It can be applied to such forms as texts, for example, company missions and the like. Therefore, it is more flexible than conversion analysis.

Like any sociolinguistic method, discourse analysis does not have clear criteria and measurement procedures. The researcher himself is the main “measuring instrument” in such a study. His work is sometimes compared to the work of a detective, trying to find and explain the hidden (implicit or latent) meaning, and sometimes the open (explicit) meaning.

Discourse analysts resist the idea of coding their practices, and argue that it is generally difficult to implement. Instead, they prefer to view their research style as an “analytical worldview” and as “an artisanal skill, more akin to riding a bicycle or sexing chickens than following a rigid recipe for cooking chicken” (W. Hill).

The researcher's own biases and blind spots (lack of certain knowledge) also matter. Sometimes researchers include in the report a brief description of what they believe their own subjective perspectives brought to a particular study.

Examples of the use of discourse analysis in organizational research and management practice (according to A. Bryman, D. Bell):

Research on the discourse of international business leaders;
Application of computerized monitoring of organizations providing financial services;
Discourse of bank managers when describing their clients;
Identification of the attitude of company employees to corporate culture;
Structuring corporate mission statements;
and etc.

How to analyze discourse? Are there any general, transdisciplinary rules in this regard? What should you focus on? What questions should be asked regarding the text as a subject of research?

When starting the analysis, first of all we must remember that “verbal communication has... general properties that characterize joint activity of any type.” How do we act in practical life, learning a new type of activity or trying to understand the structure of a game if there is no one to explain its rules and conditions? What, for example, do we do when, once abroad, we learn a new everyday practice (at least a way to pay for bus fare)? Do we ask ourselves what it means, what meanings it hides? No, rather, we are figuring out how to behave in order to take part in it, to take one or another adequate position.

The study of discourse, Foucault emphasized, does not involve “digging deep” in search of the essence or deep system of meanings hidden behind the word, but vigilance to that layer of meanings that lies on the surface, in plain sight, but remains invisible - demonstrates itself in the characteristics of the speech form and hides in them. Attention should be focused on the “regularities” that characterize speech or social behavior: a seemingly inconspicuous trifle, for example, the repetition of a word, grammatical structure or intonation contour (in spoken language), can turn out to be a valuable “evidence” or an important symptom for the analyst. It’s as if you notice a barely marked path in an unfamiliar forest and try to follow it, gradually figuring out where it comes from and where it leads, how the surrounding semantic space is structured, who it inhabits, what roles or forms of behavior it allows and what it does not. The questions can be posed in a variety of ways, and that is why discourse analysis is based not on a unity of method, but on a fairly wide range of methods and techniques.

More practically speaking, the procedure of discourse analysis involves close reading of the text (looking at it - and listening) with consistent posing of questions: what actions are carried out, by whom, in relation to whom, for what purpose, within the framework of what conventions and rules? We begin by clarifying the situation - the positions of the speaker (author, narrator, narrator) and the addressee (listener, reader). As the analysis progresses, we delve deeper into the actions of communicative mechanisms, focusing on smaller, subtle structures of the text that ensure these actions, covering, as necessary, its various characteristics, from grammatical (phonological, syntactic, lexical, semantic) to aesthetic (genre-stylistic features , imagery, plots, etc.). At the same time, the text is interesting as a process rather than an object, and not only in its own characteristics, but also in the context or contexts with which it interacts.

To summarize, we can say that the focus of the discourseologist’s attention should be sequentially:

1) participants in the interaction - their status, role and other characteristics;
2) conditions of interaction - environment, implied general knowledge and their prerequisites;
3) orders of interaction - motives, goals, values, strategies that are relevant in a given discursive framework;
4) methods of interaction - style, tone, modality, specific characteristics of the communication channel.

Norman Fairclough (b. 1941) is a British sociolinguist, theorist and practitioner of critical discourse analysis. Main works: “Language and Power” (1989), “Critical Discourse Analysis” (1995), “Language and Globalization” (2006).

“When analyzing texts, the focus of attention must constantly shift so that it alternates between the “text itself” and the types of discourse used in its construction ".

Fairclough suggests talking about three stages that the critical discourse analysis procedure must necessarily include. He advises starting with a consideration of the lexical level (the choice of words, the relationship between them, stylistic coloring, specific expressiveness, the presence of metaphors, etc. are important), then move on to the grammatical level (voice of verbs, the presence of negative constructions, personal or impersonal forms, character personal pronouns, the predominance of certain syntactic structures) and finally explore the most common text structures. At the same time, it is desirable to keep in the zone of attention simultaneously all three components of the discourse, in which traces of ideological influences are manifested in different ways: linguistic forms; the types of speech action and interaction they imply; the social context that embraces both.

Critical discourse analysis is as much a form of objective scientific inquiry as it is a form of responsible social work. This additional, but essential function of discourse analysis can be illustrated by the example of studying a common, unfortunately, and potentially terrible type of power speech, defined by sociolinguists as “hate speech”, “hate speech” ( hate speech).

Case Study

The act of insult involves a sharply negative definition of the identity of another subject: with an offensive, humiliating word, he is placed in an emphatically low place or even deprived of any place at all. An insult word is a clear example of a performative. It’s as if the speaker is just describing his object (“Hey, fat!” or “red-haired,” “black,” etc.), but the word hurts, causes pain, gives rise to a hostile feeling in response - in legal terms, “incites discord.” ". In past times, the resolution of a conflict could have been a challenge to a duel or another, less “orderly” type of retaliatory violence. Nowadays, the dangerous effect of such speech is multiplied by the mass of communications and threatens to become uncontrollable. What are the possible actions to neutralize it? This issue has been and is being raised in disputes over political correctness, that is, the introduction by society of formal prohibitions on words that are potentially offensive to certain socially vulnerable groups of the population. Doubts that the problem can be solved by such means have been expressed more than once - and they are not unfounded. Допустим, мы запрещаем называть человека с черной кожей "ниггером" (в Америке) или выходца с Кавказа - "черным" (в России). Does this in itself contribute to the weakening of socio-psychological tension between ethnic groups? Partly, of course,

yes, but there are no guarantees. The word can open and cleanse the festering wound of hatred or only cover it up, help tighten it or rekindle it.

There is reason to think that the danger of a speech act that carries a negative charge can be truly neutralized not by prohibitions, but by the tactful activity of dialogue. It is - and only - in dialogue that a victim of communicative violence can demonstrate his speech and social competence, and the ability to respond. By responding to an insult with an insult, giving “an eye for an eye,” we only get bogged down even more in hostility - fortunately, speech opens up other possibilities for us (for example, skillful, tactful use of irony can take away the offender’s monopoly on the unambiguous use of a hurtful word, and the word itself should be deprived of its “sting”). The background of social inequality, as a rule, is inequality of access to discourse and participation in communicative situations; it is only aggravated by helpless submission to conventions, the inability to speak except in “other people's words,” social lack of language or tongue-tiedness.

Teun van Dijk (b. 1943) Dutch linguist, one of the creators of discourse analysis, theorist and practitioner of critical discourse analysis. Author of the books “Strategies for Perceiving Discourse” (1983), “News as Discourse” (1988), “Language. Cognition. Communication” (1989), “Discourse and Power” (2013).

"Power groups and their representatives control or have access to an infinitely wide and varied range of discursive roles, genres, conditions and styles. They control formal dialogues with subordinates, business meetings, give instructions and formulate rules, write various types of reports, books, instructions, newspaper materials and produce various mass media discourses.They are not only active participants in most communicative situations, but also act as initiators of verbal discussions or public discourse, establish the “tone” and style of the discourse, determine its topics and decide who will be participants or recipient of their discourses ".

It obviously follows from this that without a critical and creative attitude towards language and its social use, a responsible attitude towards social development is impossible. Living in a motley and, moreover, super-dense information and communication environment, permeated with invisible power lines of (indirectly exercised) power, representing an unprecedented variety of group and individual interests, modern man finds himself more dependent than ever on discursive systems produced by him or in addition to him. This explains the high demand and practical usefulness of discourse analysis today.

Grice G. P. Logic and speech communication // New in foreign linguistics. Vol. 16: Linguistic pragmatics. M.: Progress, 1985. P. 224-225.

The interdisciplinary direction that studies discourse, as well as the corresponding section of linguistics, are called the same - discourse analysis(discourse analysis) or discourse studies (discourse studies). As a scientific direction itself, discourse analysis was formed only in recent decades (1970s of the 20th century). This happened against the backdrop of the dominance of linguistics throughout most of the 20th century. the opposite trend is the struggle to “cleanse” the science of language from the study of speech. F. de Saussure believed that the true object of linguistics is the language system (as opposed to speech), N. Chomsky called on linguists to study linguistic “competence” and abstract from issues of language use. Recently, however, cognitive attitudes in the science of language are beginning to change and the opinion is gaining strength, according to which no linguistic phenomena can be adequately understood and described outside of their use, without taking into account their discursive aspects. Therefore, discourse analysis becomes one of the central sections of linguistics.

Discourse analysis(discourse analysis) - a set of methods and techniques for interpreting various kinds of texts or statements as products of speech activity carried out in specific socio-political circumstances and cultural-historical conditions. HELL. as an independent scientific discipline, or at least an autonomous branch of scientific knowledge, originated in the 1960s in France as a result of the combination of linguistics, Marxism and psychoanalysis within the framework of the general trends in the development of structuralist ideology.

Currently A.D. is perceived as an interdisciplinary approach that took shape at the intersection of sociolinguistics and linguoculturology, but has absorbed the techniques and methods of various humanities sciences: rhetoric, linguistics, philosophy, psychology, political science, sociology, etc. Therefore, it is quite acceptable to highlight the corresponding approaches as main research strategies carried out within the framework of A.D., for example, psychological (cognitive, cultural-historical, etc.), linguistic (grammatical, textual, stylistic, etc.), semiotic (semantic, syntactic, pragmatic), philosophical (structuralist, post-structuralist, deconstructivist), logical (argumentative and analytical), information and communication, rhetorical, etc.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Among the predecessors of discourse analysis as a distinct scientific discipline, at least two research traditions should be mentioned. First, there is a tradition of ethnolinguistic research focused on the recording and analysis of oral texts of different languages; Among the most famous representatives of this tradition is the school of American ethnolinguistics founded by Franz Boas. Secondly, there is the Czech linguistic school created by Vilém Mathesius, which revived interest in concepts such as theme and communicative organization of text.

Discourse analysis is the study of the language used by members of a linguistic community. In the course of such an analysis, both the form of language and its function, both spoken speech and written texts, are considered, and the linguistic features of understanding various texts and types of oral speech are identified. Analysis of written texts may involve the study of theme development and connections between sentences, while analysis of spoken language may focus on these aspects as well as on turn-by-turn interaction practices, opening and closing sequences of social interactions, or narrative structure.

METHODS OF DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

The methods used by different schools of discourse analysis are quite varied. In particular, the analysis of everyday dialogue and Chafe's work rely on natural discursive material. At the same time, in the analysis of everyday dialogue, generalizations are obtained by identifying repeating, dominant patterns, and Chafe gives priority to the method of introspection.

In Tomlin's work, the empirical material consists not of natural, but of experimental data, and the processing of the material includes the standard use of statistical tests for cognitive psychology.

A special range of methodological issues is associated with the transcription of oral discourse. Any attempt at objective written recording (transcription) of an oral language forces one to solve many complex interpretative and technical problems unknown to linguists who study exclusively written texts. Discourse specialists have long understood that when recording oral speech, not only words are important, but also many other circumstances - pauses, prosody, laughter, overlapping lines, unfinished lines, etc. Without these details, a meaningful analysis of oral discourse is simply impossible. However, developing consistent transcription methods and choosing a reasonable level of detail are extremely challenging problems. Therefore, at present, the principles of transcribing oral discourse are the subject of almost an entire scientific direction (the work of the group of E.A. Zemskaya, J. Dubois and his co-authors, J. Gampers, etc.).

The next method of d-sa analysis is the method of conceptual analysis. The objects of CA are concepts (meanings) conveyed by individual words, phrases, individual texts and even entire works. Each concept has a number of conceptual characteristics. For example, the “Telephone” concept has such characteristics as “communication, cost, types of telephones, call center, cellular communications, prestige,” etc. These concept. characteristics are revealed through the meanings of language. units that express (represent) a given concept through dictionary interpretations and speech contexts. Identification of conceptual characteristics through the analysis of language (language works) is called concept analysis or end-analysis.

Let's analyze the content of 2 concepts represented in modern times. English and Russian languages by studying dictionary interpretations and contexts of use of the corresponding language units. We will limit ourselves to the analysis of dictionary definitions presented in only a few dictionaries, and will also analyze the most well-known contexts of use of the corresponding words.

The concept “Culture” is usually associated in people’s minds with the definition. level of development of man and society as a whole. In Russian language this concept is represented by the words “culture, culture” and some. etc., derivatives from them. The synonym is also noted. connection of these words with the words: “civilization, civility, intelligence” and their derivatives.

In English language this K is represented by the words: culture, cultural(ly), cultured, cultivated, cultivated, etc., noted. their synonym. connection with the words civilization, civilize, etc.

Having analyzed the interpretations of these words in English explanatory dictionaries, we can identify the following meaningful features of the concept “Culture” in the English-speaking concept sphere: 1 physical. and spiritual development; 2 socially acquired humanities. knowledge and behavior patterns, including socially established norms of assessments and judgments; 3 this knowledge as a field, subject, form of content (music, literature, other arts); 4 the state of spiritual development of a society or group as their general characteristic; 5 spiritual values developed by a given community, race, etc. (concepts, traditions, art); 6 intellectual and spiritual activity and the results (products) of this activity; 7 education and enlightenment; 8 specials preparation and training; 9 improvement (manners, taste...); 10 something artificially created for some purpose.

Analysis of the semantics and word usage of Russian words allows us to identify national. the specifics of this concept and the priority of certain concepts. signs in Russian society. For example, in Ozhegov’s dictionary the word “culture” is interpreted as “the totality of production, social, spiritual achievements of people” and incl. various spheres of activity, not just intellectual. and spiritual activity, as in English. language By the way, in English language additional is also highlighted. component – “artificially created”. Thus, certain definitions are observed. differences in the content of the same concept in different languages.

The presence of different definitions in different dictionaries indicates that the content of the concept is completely incalculable. Each word represents only part of the conceptual characteristics that are significant for communication. All language. means in their totality give only a general idea of the content of K in the minds of speakers of a particular language. No concept can be fully expressed in speech, because... cognition is individual. The means of representing a concept in speech are also individual. They (mediums) are so numerous that it is almost impossible to record and analyze them all. Thus, K has a complex structure, the content of which can be revealed through the medium of its representation in language. One of the main ways to identify its content is the method of conceptual analysis, i.e. analysis of the content of the concept, identification of its concept. character by analyzing dictionary definitions and contexts of use.

Propositional analysis is considered one of the main. theoretical methods of linguistic analysis. data (d-sa). This method leads to a better understanding of the knowledge underlying a particular d-s. A position is generally understood as a statement or statement about the world (claim). The term “proposition” goes back to the Latin proposition, which means in logic a judgment, and in linguistics a sentence (from the English proposition), that is, some integral unit. A proposition is a genuine statement about the world, or an objective semantic constant. According to J. Searle, prop-I is what is precisely affirmed or stated and passes from person to person in acts of communication. Often a proposition may be accompanied by a subject. a variable expressing the speaker’s attitude to the action, the assessment of what is being communicated by the speaker, the speaker’s emotive attitude to what is being communicated. For example, in statements:

I maintain, but I doubt, that riots have broken out in the city.

I think, I know, I think, no matter how riots start in the city

I deny, I'm afraid, etc.

Predicates “affirm, believe, fear”, etc. express the attitude (attitude) of the speaker. They can be called variable subject. component. Correlating with this variable component is the stable core - “in the city - riots will begin.” This is a stable semantic. kernel (constant) denoting possible or actual. status. To this seven. the core and the term “proposition” is used. That is, this is propos. of this proposal. In linguistics in terms of propositions can be expressed in different ways. ways, namely, in sentences, statements, speeches. acts. Any sentence can be translated into prop, and any text has a prop. basis. In a number of studies, prop-ii are considered as internal units. language (internal content), and the sentence is singular. external language (surface structure). On external level there are not only languages. Wedge of expression prop-y. For example, the same thing internally. the content can be expressed not only by sentences, but also by gestures, a series of pictures, pantomime, dance, etc. Often the prop is the same as the sentence, but the prop is written with an additional marker (< >), indicating that we are dealing with prop. For example, Russia is an interesting country =<Россия –интересная страна >. There are explits. and implic. prop-ii. He's stupid =<Он глуп>(exploit); You have to tell him the same thing 5 times =<Он глуп>(implicit). Props can be true or false. Nr,<Мы живем в России>(true)<Мы живем в Швейцарии>(false). At the heart of a false prop- ition is a false statement about the world. Thus, in order to reveal the deep content of d-sa, the method of propos is used. analysis.

Another important methodological innovation in recent years is the increasingly active use of text corpora in discourse analysis. There are a number of computer corpora around the world containing millions of word occurrences that can be used to test hypotheses. Most of these corpora are related to English, but there are also corpora for some other languages.

Currently, discourse analysis has become fully institutionalized as a special (albeit interdisciplinary) scientific direction. Specialized journals dedicated to discourse analysis are published – “Text” and “Discourse Processes”. The most famous centers of discourse research are located in the USA - the University of California at Santa Barbara (where W. Chafe, S. Thompson, M. Mithun, J. Dubois, P. Clancy, S. Cumming and others work), the University of California at Los Angeles (E. Schegloff, one of the founders of the analysis of everyday dialogue, works there), the University of Oregon in Eugene (T. Givon, R. Tomlin, D. Payne, T. Payne work there), Georgetown University (a long-time center for sociolinguistic research, whose employees include D. Shiffrin). In Europe, we should mention the University of Amsterdam, where the classic of discourse analysis T. van Dijk works.

The term D became in full demand in linguistics around the 70-80s of the 20th century along with the development of science "linguistic pragmatics". Pragmatics – studies the relationship between a linguistic sign and a native speaker. Linguistic pragmatics is a discipline that studies language not “in itself and for itself,” but as a means used by a person in his activities. It is customary to say about natural language that it is the most important means of human communication. However, with the exception of the so-called factual communication, i.e. communication for the sake of communication, we use language in order to solve some other tasks: to report an important event, to encourage the addressee to take certain actions or to stop them, to express one’s feelings or to evaluate someone’s actions. Finally, in a number of cases, the use of language is, if not the only, then the most basic component of an action that radically changes social reality or individual fate (cf. the abolition of serfdom, the conclusion of a truce, a conviction or the award of a state prize). Therefore, it is entirely justified to study language as a tool of action. It is from this angle that linguistic phenomena are considered within the framework of linguistic pragmatics (I. Kobozeva).

In other words, pragmatics studies the relationship between a linguistic sign and a native speaker. This science is interested in the mechanism of speech. She decides questions: 1. Who says, to whom, what and why; 2. How a person constructs a statement and how this is related to the communication situation.

Thus, the development of ling. pragmatics led to the development of discourse analysis and discourse.

The actual linguistic uses of the term “discourse” are themselves very diverse, but in general, behind them there are attempts to clarify and develop the traditional concepts of speech, text and dialogue.

N.D. Arutyunova

D – a coherent text in combination with extralinguistic factors: pragmatic, sociocultural, psychological, etc.

Linguistic pragmatics on a set of issues related to the speaking subject, the addressee, their interaction in communication, and the communication situation.

D – speech “immersed in life”

D – text taken in the event aspect.

G. Widdowson

Discourse is the process of communication through the interaction of communication participants.

Discourse theory has been actively developed in philosophical and linguistic literature in recent decades. The very concept of “discourse” is very ambiguous. It comes from the Latin word "discursus", which literally means "scattering" and has many meanings. Among them, in late Latin there was also the meaning of “conversation”, “conversation”, in medieval Latin - “explanation”, “argument”, “argument” and, finally, “logical reasoning”. In new European languages, this word began to be used to describe scientific reasoning. The even more abstract word discursiveness and the corresponding adjective discursive in the language of philosophers and logicians mean the qualities of not only logical orderliness, but also formal mediation, in contrast to informal immediacy, which is denoted by the counter-concept of intuitiveness.

In modern linguistic and philosophical literature, the use of the term “discourse” is determined by different approaches to the study of language and linguistic activity. In the early stages of discourse analysis, there were two basic meanings of this concept. In one of them, used in the study of linguistic structures beyond the sentence, it was practically identified with the text, and therefore the terms “text linguistics” and “discourse analysis” were practically interchangeable. In another meaning, it was identified with conversational practice, speech activity and communicative activity. It is characteristic that already in the early stages of the development of discourse analysis (50-60s of the 20th century), this term was used more often than the term “text” in studies of the substantive aspects of the functioning and social significance of language. Subsequently, discourse begins to be understood as “a complex communicative phenomenon, not only including the act of creating a specific text, but also reflecting the dependence of a speech work on a significant number of extralinguistic factors of knowledge about the world, opinions, attitudes and specific goals of the speaker as the creator of the text.” Michel Foucault in his work “The Archeology of Knowledge” introduces the concepts of “discursive practices” and “discursive formations”. These constructs are difficult to translate and become understandable only in the context of the philosopher’s entire work. Foucault, using a new conceptual apparatus, explores the relationship between the linguistic layer of culture and the social one. “Discursive practices are rather just some language-like ones, i.e. mechanisms of cognition and culture, similar to language in their structuring ability.”

Gradually, the understanding came that discourse is not only a text, but also a certain system behind it, a complex unity of linguistic form, meaning and action. One of the generalizing definitions of discourse that corresponds to this understanding is given by V.Z. Demyankov: “A discourse is an arbitrary fragment of text consisting of more than one sentence. It often centers around a concept; creates a general context that describes characters, objects, circumstances, times, actions, etc., determined not so much by the sequence of sentences as by the general... world that is “built” as the discourse unfolds... Elements of discourse: stated events, their participants, context, i.e. a) circumstances accompanying the events, b) background explaining the events, c) assessment of the participants in the events, d) information correlating the discourse with the events.” The most important aspects of the content of the category “discourse” are semiotic, activity and sociocultural. Criticism in modern linguistics of theories about meanings that are formed once and for all within a word or expression has grown into the idea of the formation of meanings in historically determined discourse formations.

Discourse analysis in historical research is based on the interpretation of source texts, which includes a number of interrelated stages. As a first step, it is necessary to identify discourses within one source based on determining their common theme, terminology, and place in the semantic field. Then classify groups of statements (discourses) within one text and describe them. Third, explore the relationships between these groups within one text and their connections with discourses in other historical sources within the entire body of documents relating to a particular period or topic. This involves interpreting the relationships between different meanings of discourse and specific symbols in texts, as well as their evolution during a particular historical period. At the same time, the historian must answer the question: “Why did this discourse appear in this particular text?” , and not just to the question: “What, what and how is the text talking about?”

Thus, the method of discourse analysis involves establishing a correlation between the content of a historical source, the results of its analysis and the sociocultural context of human existence, historical events and processes. In a number of works by domestic authors, a methodology for discursive analysis of the text of a historical source is developed and effectively applied.

One of the most promising methods for studying historical sources, allowing us to understand the meanings behind certain cultural texts, is, as noted above, discursive quantification. We are talking about combining the techniques of discursive and quantitative analysis (primarily content analysis) when studying narrative historical sources, i.e. expanded individual texts. This method is practiced in the study of sociocultural processes in cases where it is not necessary to identify a formal system of connections, but to deepen the analysis of documents embodying various discourses and penetrate into their hidden meaning.

Let us give specific examples and descriptions of such studies.

In the work of V.V. Kerova “Content analysis of religious and ethical complexes as modeling a system of semantic conjugation of concepts: “active suffering” in early Old Belief” sets the task of creating such an information model of the works of Archpriest Avvakum that would allow for the interpretation of the text. The author justifies the impossibility of limiting ourselves in this case to the use of quantitative methods by the particular complexity of religious texts, characterized by extreme polysemy and a complex structure of meanings at various levels. This requires “forming a complete understanding of the religious and ethical system of the authors of the source,” because “the completeness and level of homomorphicity of the model depend largely on elucidating not only the presence and formally quantitative intensity of the connection, but also, to a greater extent, on the study of data on its nature.” This determines, according to the author, the need to calculate not the coefficient of paired occurrence of semantic categories, but the coefficient of their semantic conjugacy. “Discursive quantification” in this study is expressed in the following methodology: “Based on an analysis of the context, direct indications of the author in the text or indirect sources, the meaning intended by the author of the source in the indicators he used is clarified. At the same time, not only concepts identified with others are taken into account as conjugate, but also those connected with them using relational components.”

This analysis made it possible to establish that one of the most significant categories in the texts of the famous works of Archpriest Avvakum is “suffering/patience.” While the connection between the concepts of “suffering/patience” and “humility before God” is weakly expressed, the category of “exposing heresy/struggle for faith” correlates with “patience” and even more closely with the concepts of “true faith” and “virtue”. Based on the identified semantic connections V.V. Kerov draws new conclusions about the nature of the religious and ethical complexes of the early Old Belief. He writes, in particular: “While virtue remained passive among the Old Believers, patience acquired an active character. The meaning of the category “suffering/patience” in its actual meaning in the writings of Habakkuk comes closer not so much to humility and meekness, but rather to steadfastness in faith and even resistance to persecutors.” The semantic evolution of the considered biblical concepts, as shown in the study, was determined by the sociocultural and political situation and seriously influenced the further development of the Old Believers.

Another example is the study we conducted: “The mentality of the masses in 1917 - early 1918: revolution, war and peace in the focus of the mass consciousness of workers, peasants and soldiers.” It was carried out using multivariate statistical analysis by identifying, interpreting the content and relationships of semantic units in letters to the central bodies of the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies. The identification of semantic features, and then larger categories, was the result of a preliminary qualitative analysis of the content of the letters in relation to the sociocultural and political context that gave rise to them. The interpretation of the obtained quantitative data involved the procedures of historical synthesis, having pronounced features of discourse analysis.

The study of mass correspondence of workers, soldiers and peasants to the editorial office of the newspaper Izvestia, the Petrograd Council of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the Soviets of the 1st and 2nd convocations made it possible to reconstruct the content of the mass consciousness of these social strata, determine its priorities, structure, basic mental attitudes of the masses, and identify the relationship characteristics in each source of information and their entirety, the system of relationships of each qualitative characteristic with others.

We considered the content analysis of all letters from soldiers, peasants and workers stored in files as a quantitative analysis of a natural sample formed by the random selection method. A content analysis of 330 letters was carried out by identifying semantic units - features or categories that represent the authors' statements on social, political, economic and cultural issues. Its essence is as follows. First, an analysis of the distribution of the set of semantic categories was carried out using the chi-square test, performed using a specialized mathematical package for statistical calculations STATGRAPHICS.

The results of the analysis showed that the set of semantic categories is distributed according to a normal law, which makes it possible to use the linear correlation coefficient as a quantitative characteristic of the relationship between semantic categories. Secondly, a table was compiled, the number of rows in which corresponded to the number of letters (330), and the number of columns corresponded to the number of semantic categories (64). The row numbers in the table corresponded to the letter numbers, and the column numbers corresponded to the feature numbers. In total, the table contained 33064=21120 cells. The cells were filled with numbers corresponding to the number of occurrences of a given semantic category in each letter. If there was no semantic category in the letter, 0 was entered in the cell whose number corresponds to the number of this category. Next, the correlation coefficients of data located in different columns (between the first and second columns, the first and third, etc.) were sequentially calculated. A total of 2016 correlation coefficient values were calculated and used in further analysis.

The correspondence was divided chronologically into three groups: spring, summer, autumn, which reflects, in our opinion, the presence of qualitative features in the development of the revolution at each of these stages. The content of the letters clearly demonstrates the evolution of the priorities of the mass consciousness of the lower classes during the development of the revolution of 1917. To identify the interdependence of individual judgments, ideas, statements (categories), a method of quantitative analysis of the relationships of semantic categories was used based on the calculation of the linear correlation coefficient, which allowed the author to model the structure of mass consciousness, identify its dominant “layers” and the relationships between them.

As a result of the study, it was established that in the structure of the mass consciousness of workers, peasants and soldiers during the development of the revolution, four main layers can be distinguished: traditionalist (40% of letters), democratic (revolutionary-defensive) (47% of letters), radical anti-war (with the predominance of political demands) (51.5% of letters) and socialist (with a predominance of social demands) (23.3% of letters). We also determined the proportion of diffuse consciousness (about half of all letters), and interpreted the presence of a significant proportion of letters containing categories related to more than one layer of consciousness.

In the total body of analyzed correspondence, letters from soldiers accounted for 47.9%, peasants - 23.6%, and workers - 14.9%. The remaining 13.6% are not amenable to precise social identification, but their content and vocabulary suggest that they belong to people from the lower social classes. The most important task of multidimensional statistical analysis of correspondence was to reconstruct the structure of mass consciousness of each of the social groups under consideration, to reconstruct the system of priorities and interrelations of semantic categories in their consciousness. Content analysis of letters with clearly defined social affiliations made it possible to identify significant qualitative differences in the structure of consciousness of different social groups.

Based on the interpretation of data from a multidimensional statistical analysis of mass correspondence of workers, soldiers and peasants to the central bodies of the Soviets, the nature of typical verbal reactions and models of solving pressing social problems during the development of the revolution of 1917, dominant in the mass consciousness and social psychology of various social groups of the people, were determined.

L.P. PROKOSHENKOVA, I.B. GETSKINA

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS AND ITS ROLE IN MODERN

LINGUISTICS

The term “discourse” (from French discours, English discourse, from Latin discursus “running back and forth; movement, circulation; conversation, conversation”, i.e. speech, the process of linguistic activity; way of speaking) has gained wide popularity for the last decades. This may be due to the fact that there is no clear and generally accepted definition of “discourse” that covers all instances of its use. A peculiar parallel to the polysemy of this term is the unsettled stress in the word itself: stress on the second syllable is more common, but stress on the first syllable is also not uncommon.

The term “discourse”, as it is understood in modern linguistics, is close in meaning to the concept of “text”, but emphasizes the dynamic nature of linguistic communication, unfolding over time; in contrast, the text is conceived primarily as a static object, the result of linguistic activity. Sometimes “discourse” is understood as including simultaneously two components: both the dynamic process of linguistic activity, embedded in its social context, and its result (i.e., text); This is the preferred understanding. Sometimes attempts to replace the concept of discourse with the phrase “coherent text” are not very successful, since any normal text is coherent.

The structure of discourse presupposes the presence of two fundamentally opposed roles - the speaker and the addressee. It is for this reason that the process of linguistic communication itself can be viewed from these two perspectives. Modeling the processes of constructing (generating, synthesizing) discourse is not the same as modeling the processes of understanding (analysis) of discourse. In the science of discourse, two different groups of works are distinguished - those that study the construction of discourse (for example, the choice of lexical means when naming some object), and those that study the understanding of discourse by the addressee. In addition, there is a third perspective - consideration of the process of linguistic communication from the perspective of the text itself, arising in the process of discourse.

The interdisciplinary direction that studies discourse, as well as the corresponding section of linguistics, are called the same - discourse analysis (discourse analysis) or discourse studies (discourse studies). As a scientific direction itself, discourse analysis has emerged only in recent decades. This happened against the backdrop of the dominance of linguistics throughout most of the 20th century. the struggle to “cleanse” the science of language from the study of speech. F. de Saussure believed that the true object of linguistics is the language system (as opposed to speech), N. Chomsky called on linguists to study linguistic “competence” and abstract from issues of language use. Recently, however, cognitive attitudes in the science of language are beginning to change, and the opinion is gaining strength according to which no linguistic phenomena can be adequately understood and described outside of their use, without taking into account their discursive aspects.

Therefore, discourse analysis becomes one of the central sections of linguistics.

The purpose of discourse analysis is to identify the social context behind spoken or written language and to explore the relationship between language and social processes. The interpretation of language as discourse includes treating it as a form of social action, directly rooted in the social conditions of its implementation. The formation of this view was influenced by a number of theoretical trends in linguistics, philosophy, anthropology, and sociology. One of the central places among them is occupied by the theory of speech acts, created by J. Austin in the early 1950s of the last century and developed in the works of J. Searle. In this theory, language is viewed not as a set of universal or constantly redefined meanings, but as a field of action through which people in everyday practice influence the behavior, thoughts and emotions of others. At the same time, the close relationship between actions carried out through words and the social context of their use is emphasized.

One of the “ideological sources” of discourse analysis is the theory of speech acts (SPA), which arose in line with analytical philosophy. The core of TPA consists of the ideas presented by the English logician J. Austin in a course of lectures given at Harvard University in 1955 and published in 1962 under the title “Word as Action.” Subsequently, these ideas were developed by the American logician J. Searle in the monograph “Speech Acts” and a number of articles. A characteristic feature of this direction was an interest in language, an attempt to answer questions about what language is, what is its connection with the objects of the world, what is the meaning of a word.

In the development of the theory of discourse, the great merits of the famous English scientist T.A. van Dyck, who believes that “discourse in a broad sense is a communicative event that occurs between a speaker, a listener (observer, etc.) in the process of communicative action in a certain time, space, etc. context” At the same time, he emphasizes that verbal and non-verbal components are acceptable for this communicative action. Discourse, in his opinion, in a narrow sense focuses only on the verbal component and can be defined as follows: “the term “discourse” denotes a completed or ongoing “product” of a communicative action, its written or speech result, which is interpreted by recipients.

In contrast to the Western European tradition of discourse analysis, Russian studies used the term “functional style” (of speech or language), which is presented in the works of V.V. Vinogradov and G.O. Vinokura. According to Yu.S. Stepanov, the reason that with the living term “functional style” another, “discourse” was required, was in the characteristics of national linguistic schools, and not in the subject. While in the Russian tradition, “functional style” meant, first of all, a special type of text-conversational, bureaucratic, newspaper and other genres and the lexical system and its own grammar corresponding to each type.” Yu.S. Ste-

Panov calls discourse “a language within a language,” where special semantics, syntax, and word usage operate; its own rules and its own etiquette.”

Discourse analysis, being a young discipline, is very heterogeneous, and there is no single approach shared by all discourse specialists. However, we can highlight the most popular approaches today.

In the first place we should indicate the direction known as the analysis of everyday dialogue. Other leading areas of discourse analysis are mainly grouped around the research of individual scientists and their immediate followers. It is worth mentioning such schools as the study of information flow by W. Chafe, the study of connections between grammar and interpersonal interaction in dialogue (S. Thompson, B. Fox, S. Ford), the cognitive theory of the connection between discourse and grammar by T. Givon, experimental discourse studies by R. Tomlin, “grammar of discourse” by R. Longacre, “systemic-functional grammar” by M. Halliday, research on comprehension strategies by T. van Dijk and W. Kintsch, general model of discourse structure by L. Polanyi, sociolinguistic approaches by W. Labov and J. Gumpers, the psycholinguistic “structure-building model” of M. Gernsbacker, and, in a somewhat earlier period, also the discursive studies of J. Grimes and J. Hinds. Of course, this list is far from complete - discourse analysis is a conglomerate of disparate (although not antagonistic) directions.

Discourse, like other linguistic entities (morphemes, words, sentences), is organized according to certain rules characteristic of a given language. The fact that language rules and restrictions exist is often demonstrated through negative material - experimental language formations in which rules or restrictions are violated. As an example of a small sample of discourse in which there are such violations, consider D. Kharms’ story “Meeting” from the “Cases” series.

“One day one man went to work, and on the way he met another man who, having bought a Polish loaf, was heading home.

That's all."

The “immersion in life” of this text, which turns it into a kind of discourse, lies in the fact that it is offered to readers in the form of a story; Meanwhile, a number of important principles of story construction, which are usually not realized by native speakers, but which they have a good command of, are violated in this miniature by Kharms (as a special artistic device, of course). First, in a normal story there must be a part called the climax. In Kharms' story there is only a beginning, which is immediately followed by the final phrase (coda). Secondly, the recipient of the story must understand what the communicative purpose of the narrator was, why he told his story (in order to illustrate some truth, or in order to convey interesting information, etc.). None of this is clear from Kharms’ story. Third, the participants in the narrative must usually be mentioned repeatedly and perform some sequence of actions; such participants are called story protagonists. In this case, the story ends as soon as the narrator has managed to introduce the participants.

The principles of story construction violated here are not absolutely rigid - on the contrary, they are soft restrictions. Therefore, when they are violated, the result is not incomprehensible text, but a comic effect. However, it is the presence of a comic effect that shows that there are some deep principles for constructing discourse. Discovering these principles is the goal of discourse analysis.

When studying discourse, like any natural phenomenon, the question of classification arises: what types and varieties of discourse exist. The most important distinction in this area is the contrast between oral and written discourse. This distinction is related to the channel of information transmission: in oral discourse the channel is acoustic, in written discourse it is visual. Despite the fact that for many centuries the written language has enjoyed greater prestige than the oral one, it is clear that oral discourse is the original, fundamental form of existence of language, and written discourse is derived from oral. The difference in the channel of information transmission has fundamentally important consequences for the processes of oral and written discourse (these consequences were studied by W. Chafe). First, in oral discourse production and understanding occur synchronously, but in written discourse they do not. At the same time, the speed of writing is more than 10 times lower than the speed of oral speech, and the speed of reading is slightly higher than the speed of oral speech. As a result, in oral discourse, the phenomenon of fragmentation takes place: speech is generated by impulses, quanta - so-called intonation units, which are separated from each other by pauses, have a relatively complete intonation contour and usually coincide with simple predications, or clauses. In written discourse, predications are integrated into complex sentences and other syntactic constructions and associations. The second fundamental difference associated with the difference in the channel of information transmission is the presence of contact between the speaker and the addressee in time and space: in written discourse there is normally no such contact (that’s why people resort to writing). As a result, in oral discourse, the speaker and addressee are involved in the situation, which is reflected in the use of first and second person pronouns, indications of the mental processes and emotions of the speaker and addressee, the use of gestures and other nonverbal means, etc. In written discourse, on the contrary, there is a removal of the speaker and the addressee from the information described in the discourse, which, in particular, is expressed in the more frequent use of the passive voice. In addition to the two fundamental types of discourse - oral and written - one more should be mentioned: mental. A person can use language without producing either acoustic or graphic traces of linguistic activity. In this case, language is also used communicatively, but the same person is both the speaker and the addressee. Due to the lack of easily observable manifestations, mental discourse has been studied much less than oral and written. One of the most famous studies of mental discourse, or (in traditional terminology) internal speech, belongs to L.S. Vygotsky.

Since the 1970s and especially in the 1980s and 1990s, discourse studies have become an important part of computational linguistics, and currently

any conference on computational linguistics necessarily includes a section on discourse studies. Well-known specialists in this field include B. Gros, K. Seidner, J. Hirschberg, J. Hobbs, E. Hovey, D. Rumelhart, K. McCuin, etc. Some important ideas of discourse analysis were hardly formulated in computational linguistics not earlier than in the theoretical one. Thus, back in the mid-1970s, B. Gros introduced the concept of focusing, which later influenced cognitive research in the field of reference. Since the late 1970s, the study of discursive processes has also been carried out in a number of domestic research centers dealing with the problems of artificial intelligence and automatic natural language processing

Formal linguistics in general has not been very actively interested in problems of discourse. This is partly due to the objective complexity of formalizing discursive processes, partly to the existing postulate of N. Chomsky about the centrality of syntax. However, some formal linguists are trying to introduce elements of discursive concepts into the arsenal of generative grammar (this concerns issues of reference and thematic structure, for example in the works of T. Rinehart). In formal semantics, there are several directions that declare discourse to be their area of interest. In particular, this applies to the theory of discourse representation of the German logician H. Kamp, which primarily studies linguistic quantification and temporal categories.

Currently, discourse analysis has become fully institutionalized as a special (albeit interdisciplinary) scientific direction. Specialized journals dedicated to discourse analysis are published - “Text” and “Discourse Processes”. The most famous centers of discourse research are located in the USA - the University of California at Santa Barbara (where W. Chafe, S. Thompson, M. Mithun, J. Dubois, P. Clancy, S. Cumming and others work), the University of California at Los Angeles (E. Schegloff, one of the founders of the analysis of everyday dialogue, works there), the University of Oregon in Eugene (T. Givon, R. Tomlin, D. Payne, T. Payne work there), Georgetown University (a long-time center for sociolinguistic research, whose employees include D. Shiffrin). In Europe, we should mention the University of Amsterdam, where the classic of discourse analysis T. van Dijk works.

The desire to understand the functioning of language as a means of reflecting thought processes, communicative perspective, and thematic coherence of statements is characteristic of discursive research. Text linguistics played a big role in the development of linguistics in the second half of the 20th century, took it beyond the framework of the sentence, and raised the question of the linguistic picture of the world, which largely determines the use of certain linguistic units. For text linguistics, an important component is the coherence of the text and the linguistic means of its implementation, the theme-rhematic progression in the text. The same questions are in the field of view of discourse analysis, but on a broader basis of understanding the text, both objective and subjective, based on a person’s life and social experience.

Literature

1. Akimova T.G. The theory of functional grammar. Quality. Quantitativeness. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1996. 264 p.

2. Alefirenko N.F. Linguistic and cultural content of the concept of “discourse” in modern cognitive linguistics // Russian word in world culture. 1999. T. 1. P. 9-18.

3. Bayramova L.K. Introduction to contrastive linguistics. Kazan: Kazan University Publishing House, 2004. 112 p.

4. Vereshchagin E.M. Communication tactics as a field of interaction between language and culture // Russian language and modernity. Problems and prospects for the development of Russian studies: Reports of the All-Union Scientific Conference. T. 1. M.: Institute of Russian language. Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1991. pp. 32-43.

5. Vereshchaka M.V. Language and its social power // World of Russian Word. 2002. No. 5. pp. 47-49.

6. Dyck T.A., van. Questions of text pragmatics // New in foreign linguistics: Collection of articles. M.: Progress, 1978. Issue. 8. pp. 259-336.

7. Kamenskaya O.L. Text and communication. M.: Higher School, 1990. 152 p.

8. Makarov M.L. Fundamentals of discourse theory. M.: Gnosis, 2003. P. 50.

9. Mironova N.N. On the study of evaluative discourse in modern linguistics // Linguistics at the end of the 20th century: results and prospects: Abstracts of the international conference. M.: Publishing house Mosk. University, 1995. T.2. pp. 344-345.

10. Austin J. The word as an action // New in foreign linguistics: Collection of articles. M.: Progress, 1986. Issue. 17. pp. 22-29.

PROKOSHENKOVA LYUDMILA PETROVNA was born in 1955. Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor of the Department of Foreign Languages for Economic Specialties, Faculty of Foreign Languages, Chuvash State University.

GETSKINA INNA BORISOVNA was born in 1968. Graduated from the NSPI-IYA named after. ON THE. Dobrolyubova, Associate Professor of the Department of Theory and Practice of Translation, Faculty of Foreign Languages, Chuvash State University.