UDK 8 11.111
A.87.
Theme:
Theory of a discourse
Asankhodjayeva Irsay
Farkhatovna
Аймақтық –
Әлеументтік – Иннавациондық Университеті, Шымкент,
Қазақстан.
Түйін:
Бұл мақалада
дискурсия теориясы туралы жалпы түсінік, дискурсия анализі және оның
маңыздылықтары бойынша мәліметтер жазылды.
Резюме:
В этой статье рассматривается теория дискурса, анализ дискурса, а также
преимущества и недостатки дискурс анализа.
Discourse (Latin: discursus, “running
to and from”) denotes written and spoken communications such as:
·
In semantics and discourse analysis: A generalization of the concept of conversation within all modalities and contexts.
·
The
totality of codified language (vocabulary) used in a given field of
intellectual enquiry and of social practice, such as legal discourse, medical
discourse, religious discourse, et cetera.
·
In the
work of Michel Foucault, and that of the social theoreticians he inspired: discourse
describes “an entity of sequences, of signs, in that they are enouncements (énoncés)”.
The theory of
discourse arose earlier, than "text linguistics", but she was fated
to embody in reality plans of the last.
The linguistics of the text develops in several directions: structural, communicative and
culture-
linguistical. The main problem of semiotics of the test is definition of that such
fiction and as it functions in the semiotics world of the person. The main
problem of this direction is opening of ways, with which interpreter
"forces the text corresponds to the world".
Studying of the
problems connected with super phrase unities, difficult syntactic whole, led to
emergence of grammar text that became one of powerful sources development
integrated theory of a discourse.
One of important
problems still has a text and discourse ratio. Some researchers differentiate
these two concepts on opposition the written text, an oral discourse. Such
distinction is very characteristic for a number of formalistic approaches to
language and speech research. On the basis of this dichotomy some researchers
are inclined to differentiate a discourse analysis (which object, in their opinion,
there has to be only oral speech) and linguistics (written) text: "there
is a tendency... to make a hard-and-fast distinction between discourse (spoken)
and text (written). This is reflected even in two of the names discipline (s)
of we study – discourse analysis and text linguistics" (Now there is a
tendency to rigid differentiation between a discourse (oral) and the text
(written). It is also reflected in two names of studied discipline – a
discourse analysis and text linguistics) though such dichotomy is represented
not quite working as, for example, the report can be considered at the same
time and as written text and as a public statement.
Distinction between
the text and a discourse also is carried out by means of inclusion to this
couple of category "situation" where the discourse is thought in a situational context, and the
text – out of such situation. The account situational and a context is aimed,
thus, at an explication of that is said, and that means, i.e. locution and
illocutions. Therefore, discourse interpretation – is, actually, pragmatical
and pragmalinguistical research where
are considered all cultural, socially and psychologically significant
circumstances of any communication.
In functional
approach to the analysis discourse it is accepted to oppose the text and a
discourse on a number of appositive criteria: "functionality – a structural, process – a
product, dynamically character and relevance – virtual. Respectively,
differ the structural text as product and functional discourse as
process".
Interesting the
text and discourse differentiation executed by Teun Van Dyck is represented:
"The discourse – actually said text, and "text" is an abstract
grammatical structure said. The discourse is the concept concerning speech,
actual speech action whereas "text" is concept concerning system of
language or formal linguistic knowledge, linguistic competence".
So, the discourse
is difficult phenomenon of an intermediate order between dialogue, the speech,
communication, on the one hand, and the fixed text with another.
By the present
moment researchers allocate six main directions in development of a discourse:
theory of speech acts, conversation sociolinguistics, ethnography
of communication, pragmatist, conversational analysis and variation analysis.
Development and deepening of this concept is conducted by such disciplines as
linguistics (and many independent linguistic branches, as pragma-, psycho - social, a
culture-linguistical), sociology, anthropology, philosophy, the communication
theory, social psychology and artificial intelligence. Undoubtedly, such
abundance though adjacent, but different sciences, left a mark and on actually
understanding of that such a discourse. As "the concept
"discourse" became broader than the concept "language".
So, the discourse
appears in form the text shipped in real communication, having multilayered and
various measurements. The discourse, as a rule, emphasizes the dynamic
character which was developed in time of any phenomenon, text is thought mainly
as static object, result of this phenomenon. Sometimes the discourse is
understood as including at same time two components: and the dynamic process
entered in a context, and its result (i.e. the text). In our opinion, such idea
of a discourse is preferable as the discourse in such understanding is
considered and as something complete, full and coherent on the one hand and as
something proceeding in time, dynamic, changing. Such look is peculiar to
dialectic idea of any object of reality. This thought can be expressed Humboldt language of
antinomy, for example, antinomy language as activity and as activity product
where the same subject has dualistic character presented in two planes of the existential world.
Discourse analysis
The objects of discourse analysis—discourse, writing,
conversation, communicative event—are variously defined in
terms of coherent sequences of sentences, propositions, speech, or turns-at-talk. Contrary to much of
traditional linguistics, discourse analysts not only study language use 'beyond
the sentence boundary', but also prefer to analyze 'naturally occurring'
language use, and not invented examples. Text linguistics is related. The
essential difference between discourse analysis and text linguistics is that it
aims at revealing socio-psychological characteristics of a person/persons
rather than text structure.[1]
Discourse analysis has been taken up in a variety of social science disciplines, including linguistics, education, sociology, anthropology, social work, cognitive psychology, social psychology, area studies, cultural studies, international relations, human geography, communication studies, and translation studies, each of which is subject to
its own assumptions, dimensions of analysis, and methodologies.
Discourse Analysis
and critical thinking is applicable to every situation and every subject. The
new perspective provided by discourse analysis allows personal growth and a
high level of creative fulfillment. No technology or funds are necessary and
authoritative discourse analysis can lead to fundamental changes in the
practices of an institution, the profession, and society as a whole. However,
Discourse Analysis does not provide definite answers; it is not a
"hard" science, but an insight/knowledge based on continuous debate
and argumentation.
In other words,
Discourse Analysis will enable to reveal the hidden motivations behind a text
or behind the choice of a particular method of research to interpret that
text. Expressed in today's more trendy vocabulary, Critical or Discourse
Analysis is nothing more than a deconstructive reading and interpretation of a
problem or text (while keeping in mind that postmodern theories conceive of
every interpretation of reality and, therefore, of reality itself as a text. Every
text is conditioned and inscribes itself within a given discourse, thus the
term Discourse Analysis).
Bibliography:
1.
A. McHoul
& W. Grace (1993). A
Foucault primer: Discourse, power, and the subject. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
ISBN 0-8147-5480-5.
2.
J. Sunderland (2004). Gendered discourses.
New York: PalgraveMacmillan.
3. Jump up Sommers, Aaron. Discourse
and Difference "University of New Hampshire Cosmology Seminar"
4. D.
Howarth (2000). Discourse. Philadelphia, Pa.: Open University Press.
ISBN 0-335-20070-2.
5. D.
Howarth (2000). Discourse. Philadelphia, Pa.: Open University Press.
p. 17. ISBN 0-335-20070-2.