The world's first example of discourse analysis was formal patterns in the combination of sentences. He was introduced by Zellig Harris in 1952. However, today the term is widely used in other meanings. Consider modern discourse analysis and all its aspects.
Concept
Currently, there are two key meanings of the named term. Under the first one it is necessary to understand the totality of methods of "text layout" in terms of form and product, intersentential structure, consistent relationships and organization. The second meaning involves the discourse analysis of the text and its "arrangement" in relation to the definition of social connections, sequences and structures that act as a product of interaction.
It is interesting to know that in translation studies a rather useful distinction is made between “text” (“genre”), on the one hand, and “discourse”, on the other. In accordance with the general characteristics of the "text" it is advisable to refer to a sequence of sentences that implements the function of a general rhetorical plan (for example, counterargument). "Genre"associated with writing and speaking in certain situations (for example, a letter to the editor). "Discourse" is the material that serves as the basis for the interaction of the topics studied.
It is worth noting that the currently existing methods of discourse analysis are actively used in translation studies regarding the consideration of cross-cultural communication. For example, in the course of one of the studies, which was devoted to the study of such a form of discourse, when two parties communicate with each other through an unprofessional intermediary (translator), it turned out that the perception of the intermediary of his own role depends on the criteria for a satisfactory translation adopted by him (Knapp and Potthoff, 1987).
Modern concept
The concept of discourse analysis implies a set of analytical methods for interpreting various kinds of statements or texts that are products of the speech activity of individuals, implemented under certain cultural and historical conditions and socio-political circumstances. The methodological, thematic and subject specificity of these studies is emphasized by the very concept of discourse, which is interpreted as a system of rationally ordered rules of word usage and interaction of isolated statements in the structure of the speech activity of a person or a group of people, fixed by culture and conditioned by society. It should be added that the above understanding of discourse is consistent with the definition given by T. A. Wang: “Discourse in a broad sense is the most complex unity of formlanguage, action and meaning that could best be characterized by the concept of a communication act or communication event.”
Historical aspect
Discourse analysis, being an independent branch of scientific knowledge, originated in the 1960s as a result of the combination of critical sociology, linguistics and psychoanalysis in France in accordance with the general trends of growing interest in structuralist ideology. The linguistic and speech division proposed by F. de Saussure continued in the works of the founders of this direction, including L. Althusser, E. Benveniste, R. Barth, R. Jacobson, J. Lacan and so on. It is important to add that this separation of language from speech was tried to be combined with the theory of speech acts, cognitive textual pragmatics, linguistics regarding oral speech, and other areas. In formal terms, discourse analysis is the transfer of the concept of discourse analysis to the French context. This term refers to the technique that was used by Z. Harris, the world-famous American linguist, to spread the distributive direction in the study of superphrasal units of the language.
It should be noted that in the future, the type of analysis under consideration sought to form such an interpretive technique that would indicate the socio-cultural (religious, ideological, political, and other) prerequisites for the organization of speech that are present in the texts of various statements and manifest themselves as their explicit or hidden engagement. This acted asa program guideline and a common goal for the development of the studied area in the future. The works of these scientists initiated the emergence of various kinds of research and even a branch of knowledge, today called the “school of discourse analysis.”
More about the school
This school was formed on the theoretical basis of "critical linguistics", which arose in the 1960s. She explained speech activity primarily from the point of view of its significance for society. In accordance with this theory, the discourse analysis of a text is the result of the vigorous activity of communicants (writers and speakers) in a particular social case. The relationship of the subjects of speech, as a rule, reflects different types of social relations (these can be relationships or interdependencies). It should be noted that communication tools at any stage of their functioning are socially conditioned. That is why the correlation of the form and content of the utterance is not considered arbitrary, but is considered as motivated by means of a speech situation. As a result, many researchers now often turn to the concept of discourse, which is defined as a coherent and integral text. In addition, its actualization is determined by various factors of sociocultural significance. At the same time, in order to fully explore the context of social communication, it is necessary to take into account that the discourse reflects not only the forms of statements of linguistic meaning, but also contains evaluative information, social and personal characteristics of communicators, as well as their "hidden" knowledge. Besides,the sociocultural situation is revealed and the intentions of a communication nature are implied.
Analysis features
It is important to note that discourse analysis is primarily focused on a detailed examination of linguistics in the structure of public communication. Previously, it was considered the dominant direction throughout the history of culture and society. Although at the present stage of the life of society, it is increasingly being replaced by a paralinguistic (especially synthetic) communication level, which relies on non-verbal tools for transmitting information, its role is currently quite serious and essential for all known types of interaction in society, since often standards and the norms of the Gutenberg era in the culture of writing are projected onto the situation "after Gutenberg".
Discourse analysis in linguistics makes it possible to designate both significant features of social communication and secondary, formal and meaningful indicators. For example, trends in the formation of statements or the variability of speech formulas. This is the undeniable advantage of the approach under study. Thus, the currently known methods of discourse analysis, the study of its structure as a holistic type of communication unit and the substantiation of the components are actively used by various researchers. For example, M. Holliday forms a discourse model in which three components come into contact:
- Thematic (semantic) field.
- Register (tonality).
- Method of discourse analysis.
It is worth noting that these components are formally expressed in speech. They can serve as an objective basis for highlighting the features of the content of communication, which are primarily due to the social context against the backdrop of relations between the sender and the addressee, which are of an authoritative nature. Often, discourse analysis as a research method is used in various kinds of experiments in the process of studying certain statements of communication agents. The considered type of analysis as a socially determined, integral unit of communication, as well as a full understanding of the relationship between different types of discourse (ideological, scientific, political, and so on) somehow reveals the prospect of forming a general theory of social communication. However, in any case, it should be preceded by the creation of situational models that reflect the level of influence of sociocultural factors on the communication process. Today, this problem is in the focus of the activities of a large number of research groups and scientific structures.
Discourse and discursive analysis: types
Next, it is advisable to consider the varieties of discourse known today. So, the following types of analysis are in the focus of attention of modern researchers:
- Critical discourse analysis. This variety allows you to correlate the analyzed text or expression with other types of discourse. In another way, it is called "a single perspective in the implementation of the discursive,linguistic or semiotic analysis".
- Linguistic discourse analysis. In accordance with this variety, linguistic characteristics are determined in the understanding of both texts and oral speech. In other words, it is the analysis of oral or written information.
- Political discourse analysis. Today, the study of political discourse is relevant due to the development of favorable conditions for modern society, which is considered informational. One of the key problems in the study of political discourse is the lack of a systematic understanding of the phenomenon and methods of its consideration, as well as conceptual unity in terms of the definition of the term. Political discourse analysis is now actively used for public purposes.
It is important to note that the above is not the whole list of types of analysis.
Types of discourses
Currently, there are the following types of discourses:
- Discourses of written and colloquial speech (here it is appropriate to include the discourses of the dispute, the discourses of conversation, the discourses of chat on the Internet, the discourses of business writing, and so on).
- Discourses of professional societies (medical discourse, mathematical discourse, musical discourse, legal discourse, sports discourse, and so on).
- Discourses of worldview reflection (philosophical discourse, mythological discourse, esoteric discourse, theological discourse).
- Institutional discourses (discourses of medical, educational, scientific structures, militarydiscourse, administrative discourse, religious discourse and so on).
- Discourses of subcultural and cross-cultural communication.
- Political discourses (here it is important to highlight the discourses of populism, authoritarianism, parliamentarism, citizenship, racism, and so on).
- Historical discourses (this category includes the discourses of history textbooks, works on history, annals, chronicles, documentation, legends, archaeological material and monuments).
- Media discourses (television discourse, journalistic discourse, advertising discourse and so on).
- Art discourses (it is advisable to include the discourses of literature, architecture, theater, fine arts, and so on).
- Discourses of the environment (discourses of the interior, house, landscape, etc. are distinguished here).
- Discourses of ceremonies and rituals, which are determined by ethno-national character (the discourse of the tea ceremony, the discourse of initiation, and so on).
- Body discourses (body discourse, sexual discourse, bodybuilding discourse, etc.).
- Discourses of altered consciousness (this includes the discourse of dreams, schizophrenic discourse, psychedelic discourse, and so on).
Current paradigms
It must be said that in the period from 1960 to the 1990s, the research direction that we are studying in this article experienced the action of all the paradigms that dominated in different periods of the history of science. Among them, the following should be highlighted:
- The critical paradigm.
- Structuralist (positivist) paradigm.
- Poststructuralist (postmodern) paradigm.
- Interpretive paradigm.
Thus, depending on the operation of the paradigm that prevailed at that time, either textological (linguistic) and statistical methods, or pragmatic and ideological developments came to the fore in the framework of discourse analysis. In addition, the need was proclaimed to limit the entire text to special frames or to “open” it into an interdiscourse (in other words, a sociocultural context).
Perception of analysis today
It is necessary to know that today society perceives discourse analysis as an interdisciplinary approach, which was designed at the intersection of linguoculturology and sociolinguistics. He absorbed the methods and techniques of various humanities, including linguistics, psychology, rhetoric, philosophy, sociology, political science, and so on. That is why it is expedient to single out the relevant approaches as mainstream strategic studies that are implemented within the framework of the type of analysis being studied. For example, psychological (cultural-historical, cognitive), linguistic (textological, grammatical, stylistic), philosophical (post-structuralist, structuralist, deconstructivist), semiotic (syntactic, semantic, pragmatic), logical (analytical, argumentative), rhetorical, information- communication and other approaches.
Traditions in analysis
In terms of regional(in other words, ethno-cultural) preferences in the history of the formation and subsequent development of discourse in theoretical terms, certain traditions and schools, as well as their key representatives, are distinguished:
- Linguistic German School (W. Shewhart, R. Mehringer).
- Structural and Semiological French School (Ts. Todorov, P. Serio, R. Barthes, M. Pesche, A. J. Greimas).
- Cognitive-Pragmatic Dutch School (T. A. van Dijk).
- Logical-analytical English school (J. Searle, J. Austin, W. van O. Quine).
- Sociolinguistic school (M. Mulkay, J. Gilbert).
It should be noted that different traditions, including the schools listed above, one way or another involve the implementation of attempts to model many practical and theoretical aspects of the work of discourse in the processes of public communication. And then the main problem becomes not the development of the maximum objective, accurate and comprehensive methodology for research in relation to the type of analysis being studied, but the coordination of many similar developments with each other.
The key directions of communication modeling of discourse are primarily related to the general idea of the structure of its organization in the conceptual plan. It is advisable to consider it as a mechanism for organizing human knowledge about the world, their systematization and ordering, as well as regulating the behavior of society in specific situations (in the process of recreation, ritual, play, work, and so on), the formation of the public orientation of participantscommunication, as well as the work of the basic components of discourse in the adequate interpretation of information and people's behavior. It is important to note that it is here that the cognitive side of discursive practices is consistent with the pragmatic side, where the determining role is played by the social conditions of contact between communicators, in other words, speaking and writing. Taking into account the presented aspects, various analytical models of discourse were formed, including the “mental model”, which is a general scheme of knowledge regarding the surrounding world (F. Johnson-Laird); the model of "frames" (Ch. Fillmore, M. Minsky), which is a scheme for organizing ideas regarding different ways of behavior in situations of a typical nature, and other analytical models of discourse.
