Филологические науки/3.Теоретические и методологические проблемы исследования языка

Doctor of philology Olizko N.S.

Chelyabinsk State University, Russia

Approaches to the study of architextuality

The category of architextuality (from. lat. arche – prototype, original) is realized by means of setting in a separate text a great number of exotextual features, reflecting paradigmatic relations of text or its parts with one or another precedent genre (under precedent genre we understand a ready pattern of some genre). Works on the theory of genre (A. Vezhbickaya, St. Gaida, V.V.Dementev, M.N.Kozhina, K.F. Sedov, N.D. Tamarchenko, T.V. Shmeleva) prove that this notion can be explained as codified organizational form of using language, functional-structural type of theme implementation, generalized model of standard text, standardized type of selection and organization of extralingual facts and linguistic means. Differing in details, all of these definitions emphasize the fixedness, codification, standardization of genre frames. This or that particular genre (a work written in the genre) is always focused on the sample, some specific pattern.

In the context of cognitive semiotics an idea of typical models of verbal behavior is connected with the interpretation of discourse as a “semiotic space, containing the verbal and non-verbal signs, oriented to the particular communication spheres, as well as the thesaurus of precedent statements and texts [1. p. 11]. Consideration of a speech genre as a component of discourse corresponds to the division of institutional and non-institutional, status and personality-oriented types of discourse [2]. Herewith genres of speech are not an external condition of communication, which the speaker / writer must abide in his or her speech activity. Speech genres are present in the mind of linguistic identity in the form of frames, affecting the process of the unfolding of thought in a word. “The formation of discourse on the stage of internal planning uses a model of speech production, which corresponds to the specific situation of communication and which is dictated by the genre frame” [3. p. 13].

At first the author selects a specific speech genre in which he is going to lead communication. The selected speech genre provides the communicant a corps of “its” speech acts and some “regulations” regarding their order. Thus, the author selects means not just from a continuum of communicative acts, but from sets of means, stored in the form of specific parameters of a speech genre frame model and united by pragmatic role in the process of discourse of corresponding speech genre organization. A recipient, also appealing to the frame model of a speech genre, establishes the existence of metaphorical connections between a corresponding variant and a certain typified genre invariant, paying a particular attention to the peculiarities of the situation and the communicative purpose.

Communicative purposes or intentions are actions that are similar in content to the functions traditionally allocated in the analysis of functional and stylistic varieties of language. These are functions of information, persuasion, influence, evidence and so forth. The following genre-forming signs are also considered essential:

1) signs associated with the addressee (e.g., the presence or absence of addressing);

2) signs associated with the addresser (e.g., an appeal on his / her behalf or on behalf of the group);

3) signs associated with the peculiarities of the message (abstract or concrete, emotional or unemotional);

4) signs associated with the channel of communication (written / oral form, dialogue / monologue).

The volume of the text, the degree of correctness / incorrectness, the degree of imagery / lack of imagery as well as conditions, circumstances related to the communicative process are also important [4].

T.V. Shmeleva, describing the model of the speech genre, distinguishes such genre-forming features as communicative purpose (informative, imperative, etiquette, evaluative speech genres), author's image and addressee’s image, dictum (event-based content), the factor of the past (initial and “reactive” genres), the factor of the future (the further development of speech events, embodied in the appearance of other speech genres) and linguistic implementation (lexical and grammatical resources of genre) [5].

T.V. Shmeleva’s universal model is complemented by a communicative semiotic model of genres, proposed by N.B. Lebedeva to describe the genres of written speech. This model is constituted by the following facients (the substantial participants and non substantial components): an author (who?); facient of the communicative target (why?); an addressee (who?); an object of communication - a sign (what?), graphic and spatial parameter (how?) tool-means (wherewith?), substrate – material carrier of the sign (on what?), substrate carrier (in what?); environment (where?), time of the perception of the sign (when?); facient “communicative process”; facient “social evaluation” [6. P. 118].

Offered models refer not to the proper genre characteristics, but give a description of schemes that may have different content. In other words, a speech genre can be defined as “a standard model of communication, which is realized in a particular discursive space, assumes actualization of all processes associated with the production, organization, processing, storage, transformation and transmission of messages” [7. P. 46].

In the context of linguo-sinergetic approach a speech genre can be considered as a communicative attractor, organizing architextual relationships in literary discourse. Setting some limits on the interpretation of statements, speech genres reduce the degree of uncertainty of communication and decrease the entropy of the discourse in which conventionality of types and genres of texts determine the distribution of information on a given pattern. “As products of discursive activity, texts are created in specific institutional frameworks which impose some linguistic and stylistic constraints on the structure of statements generated in a particular genre of speech” [7. p. 45]. To be understood, a writer, creating a work, must arrange it according to his / her own knowledge and an intended reader’s knowledge concerning discursive communication forms. One way of achieving this goal is the implementation of the cognitive structures of author’s knowledge of a typical discourse organization, activating metaphorical relationships on similarity with this or that particular genre, and causing the reader certain expectations concerning the genre features of the work. The result of this process detects a direct dependence on the depth of the background knowledge of the recipient. It should be remembered that the basic framework of the “encyclopedic knowledge” (a term by Umberto Eco) is “discrete knowledge, acting as a complex open system in a constant process of restructuring and expansion” [8. P. 124]. As a result semiosphere, within which the interaction of the different discursive constructions realizes, appears as a chaotic dynamic space, the organizing principle of which is genre attractor, specifying a particular orientation to the elements of the discourse. In case of interaction of asymmetrical dynamic systems of the semiosphere there is “some intermediate instance, commensurating systems’ interaction” [9. P. 195]. We are talking about architextual relations, adaptive character of which provides the realization of a new sense self-production mechanism.

To sum up, we note that there are various approaches to the category of architextuality. From the point of view of cognitive synergetics the result of actualization of architextual relations is a mixture of styles and stylistic paradoxes, stylization and parody, the implementation of which is provided by a spiral fractal model of self-organization of literary discourse.

Literature:

1. Sheygal, Е. I. Semiotics of political discourse. М. ; Volgograd : Peremena, 2000. 368 p.

2. Karasik, V. I. The structure of institutional discourse // Problemy rechevoy kommunikatsii : interuniversity collection of scientific papers : Saratov : Saratov University Publishing House, 2000. P. 25-33.

3. Sedov, К. F. The man in the genre space of everyday communication // Corpus of speech genres : everyday communication : monograph / editor-in-chief К. F. Sedova. М. : Labirint, 2007. P. 7-38.

4. Babenko, N. S. Concerning the linguistic sense of differentiation of texts into genres // Leksika i stil : collection of scientific papers : Tver, 1993. P. 9-16.

5. Shmeleva, Т. V. Genre studies? Genristics? Genrology? // Corpus of speech genres : everyday communication : monograph / editor-in-chief К. F. Sedova. М. : Labirint, 2007. P. 62-67.

6. Lebedeva, N. B. Genres of the natural written speech // Corpus of speech genres : everyday communication : monograph / editor-in-chief К. F. Sedova. М. : Labirint, 2007. P. 116-123.

7. Alefirenko, N. F. Speech genre, discourse and culture // Zhanry rechi : collection of scientific articles /editor-in-chief V. V. Dementyev. : Saratov: Nauka, 2007. № 5 : Genre and culture. P. 44-55.

8. Baranov, А. G. «Relevance» and «personal meaning» in the cognitive-cultural genre model // Zhanry rechi : collection of scientific articles / editor-in-chief V. V. Dementyev. Saratov : Nauka, 2007. Number 5 : Genre and culture. P. 123-130.

9. Borbotko, V. G. Principles of discourse formation : Ot psikholingvistiki k sinergetike. М. : KomKniga, 2006. 288 p.