Discursive method. What is discourse analysis? A Brief History of Discourse Analysis

The content of the article

DISCOURSE(French discours, English discourse, from Latin discursus “running back and forth; movement, circulation; conversation, conversation”), speech, the process of linguistic activity; way of speaking. An ambiguous term for a number of humanities, the subject of which directly or indirectly involves the study of the functioning of language - linguistics, literary criticism, semiotics, sociology, philosophy, ethnology and anthropology.

There is no clear and generally accepted definition of “discourse” that covers all cases of its use, and it is possible that this is precisely what contributed to the wide popularity that this term has acquired over recent decades: different understandings, connected by non-trivial relationships, successfully satisfy different conceptual needs, modifying more traditional ideas about speech, text, dialogue, style and even language. In the introductory article to a collection of works devoted to the French school of discourse analysis, published in Russian in 1999, P. Serio provides an obviously non-exhaustive list of eight different understandings, and this is only within the framework of the French tradition. A peculiar parallel to the polysemy of this term is the still unsettled stress in it: stress on the second syllable is more common, but stress on the first syllable is also not uncommon.

Three main classes of use of the term “discourse” are most clearly distinguished, correlating with different national traditions and the contributions of specific authors.

The first class includes the actual linguistic uses of this term, historically the first of which was its use in the title of an article Discourse analysis American linguist Z. Harris, published in 1952. This term was fully in demand in linguistics after about two decades. 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. The transition from the concept of speech to the concept of discourse is associated with the desire to introduce into the classical opposition of language and speech, belonging to F. de Saussure, a certain third member - something paradoxically “more speech” than speech itself, and at the same time more amenable to study with using traditional linguistic methods, more formal and thus “more linguistic”. On the one hand, discourse is thought of as speech inscribed in a communicative situation and, therefore, as a category with a more clearly expressed social content compared to speech activity individual; according to the aphoristic expression of N.D. Arutyunova, “discourse is speech immersed in life.” On the other side, real practice modern (since the mid-1970s) discourse analysis is associated with the study of patterns of information flow within a communicative situation, carried out primarily through the exchange of remarks; thereby actually describing a certain structure of dialogical interaction, which continues a completely structuralist (although usually not called such) line, the beginning of which was precisely laid by Harris. At the same time, however, the dynamic nature of discourse is emphasized, which is done to distinguish the concept of discourse from the traditional idea of ​​the text as a static structure. The first class of understandings of the term “discourse” is represented mainly in the English-language scientific tradition, to which a number of scientists from continental European countries belong; however, outside the framework of this tradition, the Belgian scientist E. Buissance has long spoken about discourse as the “third member” of the Saussurean opposition, and the French linguist E. Benveniste consistently used the term “discourse” instead of the term “speech” (parole).

The second class of uses of the term “discourse”, which in recent years has gone beyond the scope of science and become popular in journalism, goes back to the French structuralists and post-structuralists, and above all to M. Foucault, although A. Greimas, J. also played an important role in justifying these uses. .Derrida, Y.Kristeva; Later, this understanding was partly modified by M. Pesche and others. Behind this use there is a desire to clarify the traditional concepts of style (in the very broadest sense that is meant when they say “style is a person”) and individual language (cf. traditional expressions Dostoevsky's style, Pushkin's language or language of Bolshevism with more modern-sounding expressions such as modern Russian political discourse or Ronald Reagan's discourse). Understood in this way, the term “discourse” (as well as the derivative and often replacing it term “discursive practices”, also used by Foucault) describes a way of speaking and necessarily has a definition - WHAT or WHOSE discourse, because researchers are not interested in discourse in general, but in its specific varieties, specified by a wide range of parameters: purely linguistic distinctive features(to the extent that they can be clearly identified), stylistic specificity (largely determined by quantitative trends in the use of linguistic means), as well as specific subject matter, belief systems, methods of reasoning, etc. (one could say that discourse in this understanding is stylistic specificity plus the ideology behind it). Moreover, it is assumed that the way of speaking largely predetermines and creates the very subject area of ​​discourse, as well as the social institutions corresponding to it. This kind of understanding is, of course, also strongly sociological. In fact, the definition of WHAT or WHOSE discourse can be considered as an indication of the communicative originality of the subject of social action, and this subject can be specific, group or even abstract: using, for example, the expression discourse of violence, they mean not so much how they talk about violence, but rather how the abstract social agent “violence” manifests itself in communicative forms - which is quite consistent with traditional expressions like language of violence.

Finally, there is a third use of the term “discourse”, associated primarily with the name of the German philosopher and sociologist J. Habermas. It can be considered specific in relation to the previous understanding, but has significant specificity. In this third understanding, “discourse” is a special ideal type of communication, carried out in the greatest possible distance from social reality, traditions, authority, communicative routine, etc. and aimed at critical discussion and justification of the views and actions of communication participants. From the point of view of the second understanding, this can be called the “discourse of rationality”; the very word “discourse” here clearly refers to the fundamental text of scientific rationalism - Discussion about the method R. Descartes (in the original – “Discours de la méthode”, which, if desired, can be translated as “discourse of method”).

All three listed macro-understandings (as well as their varieties) interacted and interact with each other; in particular, the formation of the French school of discourse analysis in the 1970s was significantly influenced by the publication in 1969 of the French translation of the aforementioned work by Z. Harris 1952. This circumstance further complicates the general picture of the use of the term “discourse” in the humanities. In addition, it should be borne in mind that this term can be used not only as a generic term, but also in relation to specific patterns of linguistic interaction, for example: The duration of this discourse is 2 minutes.

The main focus of this article will be on the use of the concept of “discourse” in linguistics.

THE CONCEPT OF DISCOURSE IN LINGUISTICS

As already noted, 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 ( cm. TEXT). Sometimes “discourse” is understood as simultaneously including two components: the dynamic process of linguistic activity inscribed 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.

Extremely close to the concept of discourse is the concept of “dialogue” ( cm. DIALOGUE). Discourse, like any communicative act, presupposes the presence of two fundamental roles - the speaker (author) and the addressee. In this case, the roles of the speaker and the addressee can be alternately redistributed between the persons participating in the discourse; in this case we talk about dialogue. If throughout the discourse (or a significant part of the discourse) the role of the speaker is assigned to the same person, such discourse is called a monologue. It is incorrect to assume that a monologue is a discourse with a single participant: with a monologue, the addressee is also necessary. In essence, a monologue is simply a special case of dialogue, although traditionally dialogue and monologue have been sharply opposed.

Generally speaking, the terms “text” and “dialogue,” as more traditional ones, have acquired a large number of connotations that interfere with their free use. Therefore, the term “discourse” is useful as a generic term that unites all types of language use. Some lines of research thought and some results associated with the more traditional concepts of "text" and "dialogue" are discussed in the corresponding articles. Most of the general and most pressing issues are discussed within the framework of this article.

Since the structure of discourse presupposes the presence of two fundamentally opposed roles - the speaker and the addressee, 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 (for example, the question of how the listener understands reduced lexical devices like pronouns He and correlates them with certain objects). In addition, there is a third perspective - consideration of the process of linguistic communication from the standpoint of the text itself, arising in the process of discourse (for example, pronouns in the text can be considered regardless of the processes of their generation by the speaker and understanding by the addressee, simply as structural entities that are in some relationships with others parts of the text).

The interdisciplinary direction that studies discourse, as well as the corresponding section of linguistics, are called the same - discourse analysis or discourse studies. Although linguistic interaction has been the subject of disciplines such as rhetoric and oratory for centuries, and then stylistics and literary criticism, discourse analysis as a scientific field has only emerged in recent decades. 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 cannot be adequately understood and described without their use, without taking into account their discursive aspects. Therefore, discourse analysis becomes one of the central sections of linguistics.

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 the story of Daniil Kharms Meeting from the series “Cases”.

“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 precisely the presence comic effect shows that there are some deep principles for constructing discourse. Discovering these principles is the goal of discourse analysis.

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. Firstly, this is a tradition of ethnolinguistic research focused on the recording and analysis of oral texts different languages; among the most famous representatives 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.

As already noted, the term discourse analysis was first used in 1952 by Zellig Harris. However, the emergence of discourse analysis as a discipline dates back more to the 1970s. At this time, important works of the European school of text linguistics were published (T. van Dyck, W. Dressler, J. Petofi, etc.) and fundamental American works connecting discursive studies with more traditional linguistic topics (W. Labov, J. Grimes, R. Longacre, T. Givon, W. Chafe). The 1980–1990s saw the appearance of generalizing works, reference books and teaching aids- such as Discourse analysis(J. Brown, J. Yule, 1983), Structures of Social Action: Research in the Analysis of Everyday Dialogue(eds. J. Atkinson and J. Heritage, 1984), four volumes Handbook of Discourse Analysis(edited by T. van Dijk, 1985), Description of discourse(edited by S. Thompson and W. Mann, 1992), Transcription of discourse(J. Dubois et al., 1993), Discourse studies(J. Renkema, 1993), Approaches to Discourse(D. Shiffrin, 1994), Discourse,consciousness and time(W.Chafe, 1994), two-volume work Discourse Studies: An Interdisciplinary Introduction(edited by T. van Dijk, 1997).

Discourse is an object of interdisciplinary study. In addition to theoretical linguistics, the study of discourse is associated with such sciences and research areas as computer linguistics and artificial intelligence, psychology, philosophy and logic, sociology, anthropology and ethnology, literary criticism and semiotics, historiography, theology, jurisprudence, pedagogy, theory and practice of translation, communication studies, political science. Each of these disciplines approaches the study of discourse differently, but some of them have had a significant influence on linguistic discourse analysis. This is especially true for sociology ( cm. below discussion of “analysis of everyday dialogue”).

TYPOLOGY OF DISCOURSE

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. Sometimes the distinction between oral and written forms of language use is equated with the distinction between discourse and text (see above), but such a confusion of two different oppositions is unjustified.

Despite the fact that for many centuries the written language has enjoyed greater prestige than the oral one, it is quite clear that oral discourse is the original, fundamental form of the existence of language, and written discourse is derived from oral. Majority human languages and to this day are unwritten, i.e. exist only in oral form. After linguists in the 19th century. recognized the priority of the oral language, for a long time it was not realized that the written language and the transcription of the oral language are not the same thing. Linguists of the first half of the 20th century. They often thought that they were studying an oral language (in its written form), but in reality they were only analyzing the written form of the language. A real comparison of oral and written discourse as alternative forms of language existence began only in the 1970s.

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, there is an integration of predications 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. For example, when describing a scientific experiment, the author of the article would rather write the phrase This phenomenon was observed only once, and when describing the same experiment orally, he is more likely to say I have only observed this phenomenon once.

Several thousand years ago, the written form of language emerged as a way to bridge the distance between speaker and addressee—a distance both spatial and temporal. Such overcoming became possible only with the help of a special technological invention - the creation of a physical information carrier: a clay tablet, papyrus, birch bark, etc. Further developments in technology have led to the emergence of a more complex repertoire of forms of language and discourse - such as printed discourse, telephone conversation, radio broadcasts, communication using pagers and answering machines, and email correspondence. All these varieties of discourse are distinguished based on the type of information carrier and have their own characteristics. Communication by e-mail is of particular interest as a phenomenon that arose 10–15 years ago, has become extremely widespread during this time and is something between oral and written discourse. Like written discourse, electronic discourse uses a graphical method of recording information, but like oral discourse, it is characterized by evanescence and informality. An even purer example of combining the features of oral and written discourse is communication in Talk (or Chat) mode, in which two interlocutors “talk” through a computer network: on one half of the screen the participant in the dialogue writes his text, and on the other half he can see the text appearing letter by letter your interlocutor. The study of the characteristics of electronic communication is one of the actively developing areas of modern discourse analysis.

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, inner speech belongs to L.S. Vygotsky.

More specific differences between varieties of discourse are described using the concept of genre. This concept was originally used in literary criticism to distinguish between such types literary works, such as a short story, an essay, a story, a novel, etc. M.M. Bakhtin and a number of other researchers proposed a broader understanding of the term “genre”, extending not only to literary but also to other speech works. Currently, the concept of genre is used quite widely in discourse analysis. There is no exhaustive classification of genres, but examples include everyday dialogue (conversation), story (narrative), instructions for using a device, interview, report, report, political speech, sermon, poem, novel. Genres have some fairly stable characteristics. For example, a story, firstly, must have a standard composition (commencement, climax, denouement) and, secondly, has some linguistic features: the story contains a frame of events ordered in time, which are described by the same type of grammatical forms (for example, verbs in the past time) and between which there are connecting elements (such as a union Then). Problems of the linguistic specificity of genres have not yet been sufficiently developed. In a study by the American linguist J. Beiber, it was shown that for many genres it is very difficult to identify stable formal characteristics. Beiber proposed to consider genres as cultural concepts devoid of stable linguistic characteristics, and further distinguish types of discourse based on empirically observable and quantifiable parameters - such as the use of past tense forms, the use of participles, the use of personal pronouns, etc.

DISCOURSE STRUCTURE

The central range of issues examined in discourse analysis are issues of discourse structure. It is necessary to distinguish between different levels of structure - macrostructure, or global structure, and microstructure, or local structure. The macrostructure of discourse is division into large components: episodes in a story, paragraphs in a newspaper article, groups of remarks in oral dialogue, etc. Between large fragments of discourse, boundaries are observed, which are marked by relatively longer pauses (in oral discourse), graphic highlighting (in written discourse), and special lexical means (such function words or phrases as A,So,finally,concerning and so on.). Within large fragments of discourse, there is unity - thematic, referential (i.e., the unity of the participants in the described situations), eventual, temporal, spatial, etc. Various studies related to the macrostructure of discourse were carried out by E.V. Paducheva, T. van Dijk, T. Givon, E. Schegloff, A.N. Baranov and G.E. Kreidlin and others.

A specific understanding of the term “macrostructure” is presented in the works of the famous Dutch discourse researcher (and an outstanding organizer of text linguistics and subsequently discourse analysis as scientific disciplines) T. van Dyck. According to van Dijk, macrostructure is a generalized description of the main content of discourse that the addressee constructs in the process of understanding. Macrostructure is a sequence of macropropositions, i.e. propositions derived from the propositions of the original discourse according to certain rules (the so-called macrorules). Such rules include the rules of reduction (non-essential information), generalization (two or more propositions of the same type) and construction (that is, the combination of several propositions into one). The macrostructure is constructed in such a way as to represent a full-fledged text. Macrorules are applied recursively (repeatedly), so there are several levels of macrostructure according to the degree of generalization. In fact, van Dijk's macrostructure in other terms is called an abstract or summary. By consistently applying macro rules, it is theoretically possible to construct a formal transition from the source text War and Peace to an abstract consisting of several sentences. Macrostructures correspond to the structures of long-term memory - they summarize information that is retained for quite a long time in the memory of people who have heard or read some discourse. The construction of macrostructures by listeners or readers is one of the types of so-called strategies for understanding discourse. The concept of strategy has replaced the idea of ​​strict rules and algorithms and is basic in van Dijk’s concept. A strategy is a way of achieving a goal that is flexible enough to allow multiple strategies to be combined at the same time.

In addition to “macrostructure,” van Dijk also highlights the concept of superstructure—a standard scheme according to which specific discourses are built. Unlike macrostructure, superstructure is associated not with the content of a particular discourse, but with its genre. Thus, narrative discourse, according to U. Labov, is standardly constructed according to the following scheme: summary– orientation – complication – assessment – ​​resolution – code. This type of structure is often called narrative schemas. Other genres of discourse also have characteristic superstructures, but are much less studied.

Van Dijk's numerous publications made the term "macrostructure" extremely popular - but, paradoxically, rather in the sense for which he himself proposed the term "superstructure"; the latter did not receive any widespread distribution.

Another important aspect of the global structure of discourse was noted by the American psychologist F. Bartlett in his 1932 book Memory (Remembering). Bartlett discovered that when verbalizing past experiences, people regularly use stereotypical ideas about reality. Bartlett called such stereotypical background knowledge schemata. For example, a diagram of an apartment includes knowledge about the kitchen, bathroom, hallway, windows, etc. A trip to a dacha typical for Russia may include such components as arriving at the station, buying a train ticket, etc.

The presence of schematic ideas shared by the linguistic community has a decisive influence on the form of the generated discourse. This phenomenon was “rediscovered” in the 1970s, when a number of alternative, but very similar terms appeared. Thus, American experts in the field of artificial intelligence proposed the terms “frame” (M. Minsky) and “script” (R. Schenk and R. Abelson). “Frame” refers more to static structures (such as a model of an apartment), and “script” refers to dynamic ones (such as a trip to the country or a visit to a restaurant), although Minsky himself suggested using the term “frame” for dynamic stereotypical structures. English psychologists A. Sanford and S. Garrod used the concept of “scenario” (scenario), very close in meaning to the term “script”. Very often no distinction is made between the concepts “script” and “scenario”; however, in Russian the second term is usually used.

It should be noted that even before Minsky, the term “frame”, as well as the derivative terms “framing” and “reframing” were used by E. Goffman and his followers in sociology and social psychology to indicate different ways of seeing socially significant problems (for example, nuclear energy can be subsumed under the frames PROGRESS, TECHNOLOGY GRANTED, DEAL WITH THE DEVIL), as well as the means used to support one or another vision. The terms “frame” and “reframing” also have a special meaning in the applied communicative psychological technique known as neuro-linguistic programming (NLP).

In contrast to macrostructure, the microstructure of discourse is the division of discourse into minimal components that make sense to be attributed to the discursive level. In the majority modern approaches such minimal units are considered predications, or clauses SYNTAX; FUNCTIONALISM IN LINGUISTICS). In oral discourse, this idea is confirmed by the proximity of most intonation units to clauses. Discourse, therefore, is a chain of clauses. In psycholinguistic experiments on the reproduction of previously received verbal information, it usually turns out that the distribution of information across clauses is relatively constant, but the combination of clauses into complex sentences is extremely variable. Therefore, the concept of a sentence turns out to be less significant for the structure of discourse than the concept of a clause.

The theory of rhetorical structure (TRS), created in the 1980s by W. Mann and S. Thompson, proposed a unified approach to describing the macro- and microstructure of discourse. TRS is based on the assumption that any unit of discourse is connected with at least one other unit of this discourse through some meaningful connection. Such connections are called rhetorical relationships. The term “rhetorical” has no fundamental meaning, but only indicates that each unit of discourse does not exist on its own, but is added by the speaker to some other to achieve a specific goal. Units of discourse that enter into rhetorical relations can be of very different sizes - from maximum (immediate components of the whole discourse) to minimum (individual clauses). Discourse is organized hierarchically, and the same rhetorical relationships are used for all levels of the hierarchy. The number of rhetorical relations (there are more than two dozen in total) includes such as sequence, reason, condition, concession, conjunction, development, background, goal, alternative, etc. A discursive unit entering into a rhetorical relation can play the role of a core in it or satellite Most relationships are asymmetrical and binary, i.e. contain a core and a satellite. For example, in a pair of clauses Ivan left early,so as not to be late for the meeting there is a rhetorical attitude of purpose; in this case, the first part is the main one and represents the core, and the second is dependent, a satellite. Other relationships, symmetrical and not necessarily binary, connect the two nuclei. This is, for example, the conjunction relation: The walrus is a marine mammal. He lives in the north. The two types of rhetorical relations resemble the contrast between subordination and composition, and the list of rhetorical relations of the core-satellite type is similar to the traditional list of adverbial types subordinate clauses. This is not surprising - in fact, TRS extends the typology of semantic-syntactic relations between clauses to relations in discourse. For TPC, it is not important exactly how this relation is expressed and whether it connects independent sentences or groups of sentences. TRS has developed a formalism that allows discourse to be represented in the form of networks of discursive units and rhetorical relations. The authors of TRS specifically emphasize the possibility of alternative interpretations of the same text. In other words, for the same text more than one graph (representation in the form of point-nodes connected by arc-relations) of a rhetorical structure can be constructed, and this is not considered a defect of this approach. Indeed, attempts to apply TRS to the analysis of real texts demonstrate a multiplicity of solutions. However, this multiplicity is limited. In addition, the fundamental possibility of different interpretations does not contradict the real processes of language use, but, on the contrary, fully corresponds to them.

There is some evidence that TRS largely models reality and represents an important step in understanding how discourse “really” works. Firstly, the authors of TRS themselves provide a procedure for constructing a summary (abstract, short version) of a text based on the rhetorical structure graph. According to certain rules, many satellites in rhetorical pairs can be omitted, and the resulting text remains coherent and quite representative of the original text. Secondly, in B. Fox's work on anaphora in English discourse, it was shown that the choice of a referential device (pronoun/full noun phrase) depends on the rhetorical structure.

In addition to the theory of W. Mann and S. Thompson, there are several more models of discursive rhetorical relations, in particular those belonging to J. Grimes, B. Meyer, R. Ryckman, R. Horowitz, K. McCuin. Similar studies (often in different terminology) were carried out by other researchers, for example S.A. Shuvalova.

Questions about the structure of discourse from a different angle can easily be transformed into questions about its coherence. If some discourse D consists of parts a,b,c..., then something must provide a connection between these parts and, thereby, the unity of the discourse. Similar to global and local structure, it makes sense to distinguish between global and local connectivity. The global coherence of the discourse is ensured by the unity of the topic (sometimes the term “topic” is also used) of the discourse. In contrast to the topic of predication, which is usually associated with a certain noun phrase or the object (referent) designated by it, the topic of discourse is usually understood either as a proposition (a conceptual image of a certain state of affairs) or as a certain conglomerate of information. Topic is usually defined as what is being discussed in a given discourse. Local discourse coherence is the relationship between minimal discourse units and their parts. American linguist T. Givon identifies four types of local coherence (especially characteristic of narrative discourse): referential (identity of participants), spatial, temporal and eventual. Event coherence, in fact, is the subject of research in TRS. However, this theory offers a unified approach to both local and global connectivity.

THE ROLE OF DISCOURSE FACTORS IN LANGUAGE STRUCTURE

In addition to issues of discourse structure, the other main range of issues examined in discourse analysis is the influence of discourse factors on smaller linguistic components - grammatical, lexical and phonetic. For example, the order of words in a clause of a language such as Russian, although it is a grammatical phenomenon, cannot be explained without resorting to discursive factors. Word order is sensitive to the characteristics of the communicative organization of an utterance, which are usually described using the concepts of topic (the starting point of the utterance) and rheme (the information added to the starting point). According to an idea originally proposed by Czech linguists, more thematic elements are located earlier in a sentence than more rhematic elements. The supposed universality of this trend has been questioned by a number of studies, most notably an article by R. Tomlin and R. Rhodes on the Ojibwa Indian language, where the opposite trend was observed: thematic information is located later than non-thematic information. By now, a large amount of evidence has accumulated that the principle of “rhematic information first” (with variations: new first, vague first, important first, urgent first) is very common in the languages ​​of the world. M. Mitun noted that the principle of “rheme first” is supported by intonation factors, since both the rheme and the beginning are prone to intonational emphasis. A number of authors try to give cognitive explanations for both principles of order, but it remains unclear why in some cases one completely explainable principle prevails, and in others, another, equally explainable one. Russian word order has been studied within different theoretical approaches; one of the most detailed studies belongs to the American Russian specialist O. Yokoyama. In the book Discourse and word order Yokoyama proposed a cognitive model based on the states of the knowledge base of the speaker and the addressee and designed to fully explain the word order in Russian utterances.

An example of a lexical phenomenon explained by discourse factors is referential choice, i.e. choice of naming a person or object in discourse: such naming can be done through a full noun phrase (proper noun, for example Pushkin, or descriptions, for example poet), by means of a pronoun (for example, He) or even through the zero form (as in the sentence Pushkin believed,What F [=Pushkin] must call Dantes; The “Zh” law denotes the zero form). This kind of choice can only be explained through a combination of discursive factors - such as the distance to a previous mention of a given participant, the role of that previous mention in its clause, the significance of a given participant for the discourse as a whole, etc. In the cognitive linguistic literature, it is hypothesized that such factors are combined into an integral characteristic of the referent at a given moment in discourse, which can be described as the degree of activation of the referent in the speaker’s working memory. With low activation, a full reference is used, with a high activation, a reduced one (pronoun or zero) is used.

Another important example of lexical means determined by the discourse context is the use of so-called discourse markers, i.e. special words that mark the structure of discourse, the mental processes of the speaker (words like Here,Well,so to speak), control over the mental processes of the addressee (words like understand,you see) etc. The study of discourse markers is one of the most popular areas of discourse analysis and lexicography at present. In relation to the English language, the most famous work on discourse markers is the book by D. Shiffrin (1987). Russian discourse words are being studied within the framework of a long-term Russian-French project coordinated by the French Slavist D. Payard.

Finally, without taking into account discursive factors, many phonetic phenomena cannot be explained - this concerns strong/weak accentuation of words in oral speech, the use of intonation contours, pausing and other types of discursive prosody. The study of discursive prosody is also developing extremely actively. The prosody of the English language is described in the works of such authors as A. Crattenden, J. Pierrehambert and others. Research on the discursive prosody of the Russian language is carried out by S.V. Kodzasov, who distinguishes its following layers: placement of accent, direction of tone in accent, tone interval in accent, articulatory posture, integral prominence, length/shortness in accent, marked phonation. Each layer of prosody, according to S.V. Kodzasov, conveys a certain type of discursive semantics. Thus, the placement of emphasis depends on the category of given/new; the rising tone iconically encodes the expectation of continuation, incompleteness; longitude encodes long distance (physical, temporal or mental), etc.

DIRECTIONS AND APPROACHES IN DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

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, “system-functional grammar” by M. Halliday, research on comprehension strategies by T. van Dyck and W. Kinch, general model of discourse structure by L. Polanyi, sociolinguistic approaches by W. Labov and J. Gampers, the psycholinguistic “model of structure construction” by M. Gernsbacker, and in a slightly 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. Below, only some of the listed approaches to the study of discourse are described in more or less detail.

Analysis of everyday dialogue.

This direction (sometimes also called conversation analysis or conversation analysis) was founded in the early 1970s by a group of American sociologists on the basis of the so-called “ethnomethodology”. Ethnomethodology is a movement that emerged in the 1960s in American sociology under the slogans of abandoning excessive theorizing and a priori schemes and adherence to empirical material. According to the stated goal of ethnomethodology, when analyzing material, the analyst should imitate the procedures performed by ordinary representatives of a cultural-ethnic group and try to understand the procedures of social interaction from the position of such an “ordinary person.” Analysis of everyday dialogue - application of these general principles ethnomethodology to language interaction. One of the key works that laid the foundation for the analysis of everyday dialogue as a clearly defined direction was the article by J. Sachs, E. Schegloff and G. Jefferson The simplest system of alternating remarks in a conversation(1974). Originally developed by sociologists, analysis of everyday dialogue has gained popularity among linguists. Sometimes it is contrasted with discourse analysis, but there are no serious reasons for this, so the analysis of everyday dialogue should be considered one of the areas of discourse analysis.

In works on the analysis of everyday dialogue, attention was paid to a number of issues that have been little studied by linguists. First of all, these are the rules for alternating remarks in a dialogue, or the rules for transferring the “right to speak” from one interlocutor to another. In accordance with such rules, which basically boil down to the question of whether the current speaker “nominates” the next speaker, several types of pauses in dialogue are identified, such as a hesitation, a pause when changing the topic, and significant silence (refusal to speak).

Another phenomenon that has received a lot of attention is adjacency pairs, i.e. typical sequences of remarks, for example, question - answer, greeting - greeting, invitation - acceptance of invitation, etc. Another adjacent pair can be nested inside an adjacent pair, as in the following dialogue: Question 1: Can you tell me,where is the post office? – [Question 2: See that kiosk? – Answer 2: Yes.] – Answer 1: There you need to turn right. This kind of investment can be multi-stage. In adjacent pairs, reactions (i.e., second parts) may or may not be preferred. For example, the preferred response to an invitation is to accept the invitation. Non-preferred reactions, such as declining an invitation, are characterized by the fact that they are usually preceded by a pause-hesitation, and are longer and include a preamble and motivation.

Another phenomenon studied in detail in works on the analysis of everyday dialogue is amendments, or clarifications (repairs), i.e. remarks that correct what was previously said by the speaker or his interlocutor. Also, in the analysis of everyday dialogue, significant attention is paid to the global organization (macrostructure) of dialogue, non-verbal and non-vocal actions (rhythm, laughter, gestures, fixation of gaze on the interlocutor).

The approach presented by the analysis of everyday dialogue is very close to the provisions of the so-called “school of linguistic existence”, which developed in Japan in the 1940–1950s under the influence of the ideas of M. Tokieda. His followers accumulated a huge amount of empirical material, but there was no serious influence on the development of linguistic science outside Japan the “school of linguistic existence” did not provide any assistance.

A number of scientists, primarily the American linguist S. Thompson and her students, tried to apply methods of analysis of everyday dialogue in linguistic research itself. These works explored such traditional problems from a discursive perspective English grammar, as properties of an adjective, dependent predication, predicate names. In the book by S. Ford Grammar in interaction(1993) examine the principles of using adverbial clauses - primarily temporary, conditional and causal - in conversation. Ford contrasts the placement of subordinate clauses before and after the main clause, with the latter distinguishing between continuous and final intonation in the main clause. Based on the methodology of analysis of everyday dialogue, Ford explains the functional differences between these three types. In particular, prepositive (standing before the main) subordinate clauses perform the function of structuring discourse, and postpositive clauses have a narrower scope of action, extending to the main sentence. Ford also offers explanations for the uneven distribution of semantically distinct clauses in positions relative to the main clause. Thus, causal clauses are never in preposition, but conditional clauses are in preposition in more than half of the cases.

Information flow research.

This unconventional name is associated mainly with the name of the American linguist W. Chafe. Back in 1976, Chafe published a widely known article on the categories of given, definite, subject, topic/topic, etc., in which these concepts were rethought in cognitive terms in connection with the structures of human consciousness and memory. In a collective monograph 1980 Stories about pears. Cognitive,cultural and linguistic aspects of narrative production described a study led by Chafe in which elements of theoretical linguistics were incorporated into the methodology psychological experiment. The authors showed subjects a specially filmed short film (about a boy picking pears), and then recorded and transcribed their retellings of the film. The experiment varied with subjects of different ages, with speakers of different languages, and with different time intervals between watching the film and recording the retelling. Analysis of the entire variety of materials obtained allowed us to draw many conclusions about discursive processes, in particular about the dynamics of the speaker’s consciousness over time, about the linguistic correlates of moving “focuses of consciousness,” about cultural differences between speakers of different languages ​​in relation to the selection of relevant information and the construction of discourse, about cognitive motivations syntactic choices - such as the use of pronouns, noun phrases, choice of subject. Chafe's latest book Discourse,consciousness and time. Current and detached conscious experience in speaking and writing summarizes the results of previous studies. Chafe's work is based on a very large empirical material - the corpus of spoken English.

The central phenomenon that controls the use of language is, according to Chafe, consciousness (English consciousness; other researchers use such more technical terms as RAM or active memory, central processing unit, buffer, etc. to designate the same phenomenon). Consciousness, according to Chafe, by its nature is focused at each moment on some fragment of the world, and this focus is constantly moving. The focus of consciousness on some information means that this information is activated. Chafe adheres to a three-fold classification of activation states: active information, semi-active and inactive. Semi-active information is information that has recently left the active state or is in some way related to information that is currently active. On the basis of these concepts, the triple “given - accessible - new” is defined. This three-part opposition has a number of reflections in language. Thus, referents with the status “given” are usually designated by weakly accented pronouns or zero, and those with the status “available” or “new” – by stressed full noun phrases.

Chafe's fundamental empirical observation is that oral discourse is generated not as a smooth flow, but in shocks, quanta. These quanta, most often comparable in volume to one predication, are called intonation units (IU). Each IU reflects the current focus of consciousness, and pauses or other prosodic boundaries between IUs correspond to transitions of the speaker’s consciousness from one focus to another. The average length of IE for English is 4 words. The prototypical IE, coinciding with the clause, thus verbalizes an event or state. Along with prototypical IEs, marginal types of IEs are also quite common - incomplete, erroneous beginnings, overlapping speech of two or more interlocutors, etc.

Chafe's work contains a number of discoveries that shed new light on the structure of human discourse. First, Chafe formulated the “one element” constraint new information in IE." According to this constraint, an IE typically contains no more and no less than one new referent or one event. The cognitive reason for this limitation is the impossibility of activating (transferring from an inactive state to an active state) more than one element of information within one focus of consciousness. This generalization can claim to be one of the most important results obtained in discourse analysis. Another interesting generalization formulated by Chafe concerns the question of which referent the speaker chooses as the subject. Chafe suggests that the so-called “easy” information is selected, which combines the given (in 81% of cases in the text sample used), the accessible (in 16% of cases) and the unimportant new.

Among the initial concepts of Chafe's concept there is no concept of a sentence. Within oral discourse—the primary use of language—the status of this concept is not obvious. The sentence is traditionally considered such a basic phenomenon only due to the exaggerated role of the written form of language in linguistics. In oral language, only such components as discourse and IE are certain, and a sentence is something intermediate. Chafe conjectured that a sentence is, from a cognitive point of view, a “superfocus of consciousness,” i.e. a volume of information that exceeds the usual focus of consciousness (the latter, recall, corresponds to one IE), which is the maximum amount of information available for simultaneous retention in a person’s consciousness, and is not capable of containing more than one new idea. Superfoci of consciousness and sentences arose as a result of the evolutionary development of human mental abilities (in contrast to the usual focus of consciousness, which is determined by the neuropsychological properties of the human brain). In the process of generating discourse, a person mentally views, scans the current superfocus and breaks it down into separate focuses commensurate with the volume of consciousness. The characteristic intonation of the end of a sentence occurs when the process of such scanning ends.

Another important element in Chafe's concept is the concept of topic. A topic according to Chafe (there are other understandings of this term) is a complex of interconnected ideas (referents, events, states) located in semi-active consciousness. Simply put, the topic of discourse includes everything that is said in this discourse, but not all elements of the topic are active at every moment of the discourse. This approach to the concept of topic allows us to explain the phenomenon of discourse integrity. Chafe considers several procedures for developing a topic - mainly dialogical and narrative, as well as truncated and secondary topics. At the linguistic level, topics define fragments of discourse that are significantly larger than IE, namely episodes. Proposals are intermediate components between these two levels.

Cognitive functional grammar.

The phenomena of information flow are also studied in the works of the American cognitive linguist R. Tomlin. Tomlin explores the classic “information” categories, primarily topic (topic) and given/new. He proposes to radically redefine these theoretically obscure concepts in cognitive terms, drawing on evidence independently established in cognitive psychology. In particular, Tomlin proposes to replace the concept of a topic (topic) with focal attention, and the concept of a given with one activated in memory (which is similar to Chafe's hypothesis). By experimentally manipulating the speaker's attention and memory states, it is possible to test how cognitive characteristics are implemented in grammatical structure. In one of Tomlin's papers, he describes a sophisticated experimental technique that was designed to elucidate the cognitive underpinnings of speakers' grammatical choices. Tomlin created a cartoon consisting of a series of episodes, in each of which two fish swim towards each other, and then one of them eats the other. Subjects describing (in English and a number of other languages) the act of eating in real time consistently interpret the fish on which the experimenter focuses their attention as the subject of the sentence they are using, with the voice of the corresponding predicate being active or passive depending on whether it was the fish is an agent or patient in the act of eating (i.e., it ate another fish or was eaten by it). Other work describes the experimental manipulation of the active memory of a speaker constructing discourse on Chinese. Referents that the subject considers activated for the addressee are coded with pronominal noun phrases, and those that are not activated are coded with full noun phrases. In a series of recent papers, Tomlin announced a more extensive research program, which he calls cognitive functional grammar. Its components are a model for representing events and their mapping onto the linguistic structure, a model of the speaker’s cognitive system, and a methodology for experimental verification of causal connections between cognitive and linguistic phenomena.

Discourse studies in Russian studies.

In Russian studies, discursive phenomena (albeit without the use of this terminology) were actively studied in the 1970–1980s within the framework of the project of the Institute of Russian Language of the Academy of Sciences for the study of Russian colloquial speech (E.A. Zemskaya and a group of her co-authors), as well as some others researchers (B.M. Gasparov, O.A. Lapteva, O.B. Sirotinina). A large array of oral dialogues and monologues was recorded and transcribed, which were then subjected to detailed research. In this project, spoken language was considered against the background of a more common language for linguistic analysis. written language(more precisely, codified literary language). Using Russian material, Zemskaya and her co-authors discovered and described many features of colloquial speech, such as its creative nature (including in word formation) and at the same time cliché, connection with constitution, active use of prosody and gestures. For the first time, many fundamentally important phenomena of the spoken Russian language were described - for example, the tendency to place rhematic components at the beginning of the syntagma. E.N. Shiryaev compared oral dialogue and monologue (narrative). O.A. Lapteva pointed out the discrete nature of oral speech, its generation in the form of a sequence of segments, as well as the inapplicability of the standard concept of a sentence to oral speech.

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 oral language forces us to solve many complex interpretive 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.). Another important methodological innovation recent years– 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 cases are associated with English language, but there are also corpora for some other languages.

THE PLACE OF DISCOURSE ANALYSIS IN LINGUISTICS

Since the 1970s and especially in the 1980s and 1990s, discourse research has become an important part of computational linguistics, and nowadays any conference on computational linguistics necessarily includes a section on discourse research. 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 Chomskyan postulate 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.

Andrey Kibrik, Pavel Parshin

Literature:

Ilyin I.P. Glossary of terms of French structuralism. – In: Structuralism: pros and cons. M., 1975
Zemskaya E.A., Kitaigorodskaya M.V., Shiryaev E.N. Russian colloquial speech. M., 1981
Otkupshchikova M.I. Connected text syntax. L., 1982
Van Dijk T.A. Language,cognition,communication. M., 1989
Arutyunova N.D. Discourse. – Linguistic encyclopedic Dictionary. M., 1990
Baranov A.N., Plungyan V.A., Rakhilina E.V., Kodzasov S.V. A Guide to Discursive Words in Russian. M., 1993
Foucault M. Archeology of knowledge. Kyiv, 1996
Kibrik A.A., Plungyan V.A. Functionalism. – In: Fundamental directions of modern American linguistics. Ed. A.A.Kibrik, I.M.Kobozeva and I.A.Sekerina. M., 1997
Discursive words of the Russian language, ed. K. Kiseleva and D. Payara. M., 1998
Quadrature of meaning: French school of discourse analysis. M., 1999



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-language 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. The position is understood in general view 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. Nr, Russia – 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: report important event, to encourage the addressee to take certain actions or 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.

Nelson PHILLIPS
Cynthia HARDY

What is discourse analysis?

Translation by Evgeny KOZHEMYAKIN

Phillips, Nelson; Hardy, Cynthia. (2002) What Is Discourse Analysis? In N. Phillips and C. Hardy Discourse Analysis: Investigating Processes Of Social Construction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. PP. 1-18.

“Her knowledge of me was so deep, her understanding of me was so precise, that it held together the richness of my identities. In order not to go crazy, we choose between different, contradictory descriptions of our Self; and I chose her description. I accepted the name she gave me, her criticism and love, and I called this discourse myself."
Salman Rushdie, The ground beneath her feet. (2000, p.510)

This book is about discourse. More precisely, it is about the ability of incomplete, ambiguous and contradictory discourses to produce a social reality that we perceive as reliable and real. We understand discourse in a radical, constitutive way - in the spirit of Rushdie: the objects that make up the social world, including our identities, are formed in discourse. In other words, what we say and what we are are one and the same. However, we are not inclined to share Rushdie's idea that individuals always have the luxury of choosing their identity, truth and reality. We believe that our experience is largely determined by a multitude of conflicting discourses of which we ourselves are a part. This does not mean that strategically we cannot operate with discourses ourselves. Of course we can. But our ability to act strategically is always limited by the discourses that accompany our actions and the complex processes of social construction that precede them. Our interpretation of discourse can be formulated as follows: without discourse there is no social reality, and without understanding discourse, we cannot understand reality, experience and ourselves.

Recognizing the importance of the role of discourse in Everyday life– this is our starting point. This book is also about the process of studying discourse and the potential of discourse methodology to reveal the processes of social construction that constitute social and organizational life. Discourse analysis offers new opportunities for empirical research that have emerged as part of the linguistic turn of the last 20 years in the social sciences and humanities. While other qualitative methods have well-developed approaches to interpreting social reality and the meanings it contains, discourse analysis goes a little further, embracing the realm of a coherent social constructivist epistemology (Berger and Luckmann, 1967; Gergen, 1999). He draws attention to the processes in which and through which social reality is constructed and maintained. It also embraces the academic project itself: by emphasizing reflexivity, it seems to remind readers that, by using language, producing texts, and constructing discourses, researchers and research groups are part of the constructive effects of discourse.

This book was written for three reasons. First, we find discourse analysis a promising theoretical framework for studying social reality. Our book is an attempt to clarify the contribution that discourse analysis makes to the study of individuals, organizations and society. Secondly, discourse analysis has proven itself to be quite effective method in a number of empirical disciplines that have been actively using it over the past 10 years. We want to interest researchers in applying this approach and hope that our review will contribute to this. Third, we have put a lot of effort over the past 10 years into applying discourse analysis to a variety of research contexts. In this book we would like to warn other researchers against facing the same difficulties that we have encountered. By offering a general framework for understanding various forms of discourse analysis and applying it to the empirical study of organizational, interorganizational, and societal phenomena, we want to caution researchers against “reinventing the wheel.”

1. DEFINITION OF DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

There are a large number of definitions of discourse and discourse analysis in the literature. Thus, van Dijk, in the introduction to the 700-page two-volume work on discourse (1997a, 1997b), argues that the entire work is a “long answer” to the seemingly simple question “What is discourse?” Despite the complexity of the task at hand, we nevertheless need some general idea of ​​what we are addressing using “discourse analysis” and related terms. We must also distinguish between discourse analysis and other quantitative methods that explain the meaning of social phenomena. In this section, we review some of the important concepts associated with discourse analysis. We also consider the status of discourse analysis as a methodology rather than a method - that is, as an epistemology that explains ways of understanding the social world, as well as a system of methods necessary to study it. Thus, we distinguish discourse analysis from other qualitative research methods, such as ethnographic (Erickson & Stull, 1997; Schwartzmann, 1993), ethnomethodological (Coulon, 1995), conversation analysis (Psathas, 1995), narrative analysis (Czarniawska, 1998; Riessmann, 1993).

Definition of basic concepts

In the most general sense, discourse has to do with the actual practices of speaking and writing (Woodilla, 1998). We use the term more specifically: we define discourse as an interrelated set of texts, as well as practices of their production, distribution and reception, that together form objects (Parker, 1992). For example, a set of texts various types, which constituted the discourse of psychiatry, translated the idea of ​​the unconscious into the rank of real objects in the 19th century (Foucault, 1965). In other words, social reality is produced and made real within discourses, and social interactions cannot be fully understood without reference to the discourses in which their meanings are formed. Thus, our task as discourse analysts is to study the relationship between discourse and reality.

Discourses are realized through various texts, although they exist outside of the specific texts that compose them. Texts can thus be seen as discursive “unities” and material embodiments of discourse (Chalaby, 1996). Texts can take many forms, including written texts, spoken words, images, symbols, artifacts, etc. (Grant, Keenoy & Oswick, 1998).

“Texts are places of manifestation of complexes social meanings produced in a specific historical situation, which record fragmentary histories of both the participants in the production of the text and the institutions involved in the game, fragmentary histories of both language and social system, and this fragmentation is associated with the structuring of power relations between participants” (Kress, 1995).

Texts do not have meanings in themselves; they acquire meaning only through interaction with other texts, the discourses with which they are associated, and the ways in which they are produced, disseminated, and consumed. Discourse analysis aims to examine how texts acquire meaning through these processes, as well as their role in the construction of social reality through the process of meaning making (Phillips & pown, 1993).

Thus, discourse analysis aims to study the constructive effects of discourse through a structured and systematic study of texts (Hardy, 2001). However, discursive practices do not occur in a vacuum, and discourses do not “have” meanings. Instead, discourses are collectively shared and social, emerging from the interaction between social groups and the complex societal structures in which discourses are embedded. Accordingly, if we want to understand discourse and its effects, we must also understand the context in which it occurs (Scherzer, 1987; Van Dijk, 1997a).

“Discourse cannot be produced without context and cannot be understood without considering the context... Some discourses are always connected with other, previously produced discourses, as well as with those that are produced at the same moment and those that will be produced later” (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997 , p.277).

Thus, our approach to the study of discourse is “three-pronged” (Fairclough, 1992), in the sense that it aims to analyze texts within discourses, locating them in historical and social context, which requires us to resort to the study of specific actors, relationships and practices that characterize the subject of research.

Let's consider specific example. In order to understand from a discourse analytical point of view why a particular person is a refugee, we must understand how such discourses of asylum, immigration, humanitarianism, sovereignty and others contribute to endowing the concept of “refugee” with certain meanings. To understand how these discourses have evolved over time, we can look at texts such as animated films, newspaper articles, and international conventions. We must also examine the social context - wars, natural disasters, judicial decisions, international agreements, modern government, political events in other countries - in order to determine the degree of their involvement in the discursive events under study. This interaction between text, discourse and context will help us understand not only how a particular person became a refugee, but also how the wider reality of migration policies and refugee status determination procedures is constructed and experienced.

In general, interest in the connection between discourse and social reality obliges us to study specific texts as manifestations of discourses, but we cannot find discourses in the individual texts themselves. Therefore, we must study bodies of texts that integrate and produce discourses (Parker, 1992). We cannot simply focus our attention on one text; on the contrary, we must analyze complexes of texts, since we are talking about the connection between texts, changes in texts, new textual forms, new systems of distribution of texts, which generally constitute discourse over time. Equally, we must consider the social context in which texts exist and discourses are produced. It is the study of the connection between discourses and the social reality they constitute that makes discourse analysis a powerful method for studying social phenomena.

Discourse analysis as a method and methodology

The reason discourse analysts attempt to connect text, discourse and context is due to the fact that discourse analysis is not so much a method as a methodology based on a strong social constructivist perspective on social reality (Gergen, 1999). Discourse analytic approaches share an interest in the constructive effects of language and are reflexive—as well as interpretive—ways of analysis (Parker & Burman, 1993). In this sense, discourse analysis is not simply a set of techniques for the structured qualitative study of texts; it is based on a number of assumptions about the constructive effects of language.

“(Discourse analysis) is not just a method; it represents an approach to the study of the nature of language in relation to central concepts in the social sciences. More precisely, we view discourse analysis as a set of interrelated approaches to the study of discourse—approaches that involve not only the practices of collecting and processing information, but also a set of metatheoretical and theoretical assumptions, as well as a system of principles and methods of research" (Wood & Kroger, 2000, p.H.).

Discourse analysis shares the interest of all qualitative approaches to the processes of meaning in social life (Winch, 1958), but it also aims to explore in more depth the ambiguous status of meaning. Traditional qualitative approaches often take the social world for granted and aim to discover the meaning of that world for participants. Discourse analysis, in turn, is associated with attempts to study how socially produced ideas and objects that make up the social world are created, and how they are maintained and updated in time. While other qualitative methodologies work to understand and interpret social reality as a given, discourse analysis aims to study the ways in which it is produced. This is the main task of discourse analysis: it studies how language constructs phenomena, not how it reflects or reveals them. In other words, in discourse analysis it is customary to consider discourse as a constituent of the social world, and not a path to it, and to proceed from the fact that the world cannot be known independently of the knowledge of discourse.

So, what fundamentally distinguishes discourse analysis is its strong connections with the social constructivist perspective, and the way it is oriented towards studying the connections between text, discourse and context. Although studies vary considerably in the degree to which text and context are combined, discourse analysis assumes that it is impossible to separate discourse from its wider context and has various tools for analyzing texts as expressions of the discourses in which they are embedded. This distinguishes discourse analysis from other types of qualitative research. For example, approaches such as narrative or conversational analysis traditionally study written and oral texts. They take context into account in order to determine meanings, but usually do not consider the relationship to broader discourses or textual complexes that constitute meanings. Although these approaches pay great attention to how narratives and conversations are constructed, they pay less attention to the construction of broader social reality. Equally, ethnographers often aim to uncover the meaning of social reality for participants, but are less interested in how social reality is made possible through the constructive effects of various discourses and associated texts. Ethnomethodology focuses on the generative rules that make social relationships possible, but its focus is on the observation of actions rather than the study of texts. In Example 1.1. We will look at quantitative and qualitative approaches to studying the phenomenon and compare them with how discourse analysts would study it.

Example 1.1. Globalization Analysis

Quantitative studies of globalization are based on collecting information about the degree of evidence of globalization processes in certain situations. Researchers collect statistics on foreign direct investment, the number of strategic alliances with foreign companies, decisions of the World Trade Organization, the use of technology in developing countries, the size and nature of trade flows, and indicators of the dominance of global popular culture. Such studies relate the degree of globalization, expressed in specified quantitative indicators, to specific dimensions such as profitability, poverty, demographic trends etc. This approach takes the concept of globalization for granted and aims to identify connections between specific practices and their results and, as a consequence, formulate conclusions about the dominance or effectiveness of globalization.

Qualitative research on globalization can take many forms. For example, in ethnography, a researcher living in a small village in a developing country might study the meaning and impact of new Internet connections on the villagers; how the presence of multinational companies affects family life; or how global calls to ban child labor affect economic and social well-being. Researchers could also conduct an ethnographic study at an Indian telephone company that would explore how company employees present themselves on the phone to callers around the world and what this means to them. Narrative analysis can be conducted to identify the stories people tell when describing different global practices through devices such as plot, narrator, and characters, to identify, for example, what a new internet café, an international organization, or a sudden change means to them. disappearance of the foreign market. Conversion analysis can also be used to study teenagers in different countries talking about the meaning of MTV to them and what they consider important in clothing style. It may also be possible to conduct interviews with key WTO or UN figures to identify their views on the North-South divide and compare their comments with those of government officials southern countries. Political analysis can be based on unstructured interviews and participant observation and aim to explore the political and cultural dislocation caused by the takeover of a small local firm by a large multinational corporation, and to identify overt and covert actions of unions, organizations, and employees aimed at resistance or change. All of these qualitative approaches, each in its own way, seek to explore the social and political dynamics associated with globalization practices and the meaning that these practices have for the individuals affected by them. “qualitative researchers” are more interested in the meanings rather than the “facts” of globalization; however, they also view globalization as a “given”.

Discourse analysis involves studying how the concept of globalization itself became possible - why today it has independent meaning, but 60 years ago it did not. Researchers can study how the discourse of globalization is conditioned and influenced by other discourses - for example, the discourse of free trade and liberalism, the discourse of new technologies, poverty and democracy, and even the discourse of health and terrorism, and how it is created through various texts - from academic articles to news reports on CNN. One can also explore how the broader discourse of globalization shapes the meanings and meanings of disparate and contradictory patterns of economic, social, geographical and cultural activities. At the local level, researchers can analyze how the discourse of globalization makes certain practices possible or necessary—for example, business transactions in multinational organizations, restrictions on refugees, trade links between countries—and how it creates and disrupts different identities. One can also study how specific actors use globalization discourse to legitimize their positions and actions. Consideration of various texts relevant to globalization and analysis of their connection with the wider economic, social and political contexts and with specific practices allows discourse analysts to draw conclusions about the very concept of globalization, about its conditionality and incompleteness, but at the same time about the interaction of discourses, texts and practices that create a certain reality.

Table 1.1. – Types of data and traditions in discourse analysis

Source: Wetherell, M. (2001) Debates in discourse research. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, and S. J. Yates (Eds.), Discourse theory and practice: A reader (p. 38). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

However, it is important to note that some traditional qualitative approaches can be represented in discourse analysis. For example, conversation analysis and narrative analysis can be used to link “micro-events” to larger discourses and show how narratives and conversations construct social experience(e.g. O'Connor, 1995; Stokoe, 1998; van Dijk, 1993). Likewise, ethnographic methods have always been an important element of discourse analytic research, which identifies the interaction of discourses in specific practices (e.g., Covalevski, Dirsmith, Heian, & Sajay, 1998; Fletcher, 1998). Content analysis, understood not as a mechanical calculation but as a more interpretative form of research, can be used to identify the relationship of text content to broader discursive contexts. For example, Ellingson (1995) conducted a content analytical study of newspaper stories and editorials, identifying themes and rhetorical strategies as they related to addressee and audience; Holmes (1998) conducted a content analysis of women's speech as it related to power and status. Although the philosophy behind discourse analysis distinguishes it from other types of analysis, the boundaries between it and other qualitative methods are often blurred in case study situations. Discourse analysts use a wide range of interpretive techniques, from microanalysis of individual utterances to macroanalysis of a corpus of texts; As Table 1.1 shows, discourse analysis borrows much from traditional qualitative methods.

What makes a research technique discursive is not the method as such, but the use of the method to achieve the goals of interpretive analysis of a certain type of text in terms of understanding discourse and its role in the constitution of social reality. Due to the fact that many qualitative techniques are used in discourse analytic ontology and epistemology, they can be interpreted as discourse methods.

One further characteristic of discourse analysis needs to be mentioned: discourse analytic methods are inevitably reflexive, since the consistent social constructivist epistemology on which they are based also extends to the activities of academic researchers. Academic discourse also constitutes a certain kind of reality, and we are constantly forced to pay attention to our role in constituting the categories and boundaries that produce a certain kind of reality (Marcus, 1994). While other approaches take analytical categories for granted and associate data with them, discourse analysts pay attention to the socially constructed nature of the research categories themselves.

“The goal of discourse analysis is not to apply categories to participants' speech, but rather to identify the ways in which participants themselves actively construct and use categories in their speech. Moreover, any categorization is conditional; analysis involves constant reflection on categorization processes that involve both participants and the analyst.” (Wood & Kroger, 2000. pp. 29-30)

Even grounded theory, which aims to formulate categories based on empirical observations, does not problematize them in the same way that discourse analysis does. She recognizes the need for the researcher to “read” the data (this is necessary for working with research protocols). Discourse analysts, in turn, are focused on co-constructing theoretical categories at different levels, including the level of the researcher, the subject of research, the academic community and even society, and they strive to carry out and present their research in a way that takes into account all these complex relationships (Alvesson & Skoldberg, 2000; Clegg & Hardy, 1996a; Hardy, Phillips & Clegg, 2001).

The need to connect text, context and discourse, and to incorporate highly subjective and reflexive use of methods, poses a key question for researchers: how to “cope” with this complex system? We will never be able to study all aspects of discourse and we are inevitably forced to select a limited set of texts for research purposes. Yet, as discourse analysts, we must refer to larger discourse formations, recognize the presence of certain texts within larger text complexes, and take into account the tripartite nature of our research. We also encounter prospects for method improvement as we apply specific analytical procedures by interpreting and comparing different values. And having done all this within the framework of research, we must justify our work in accordance with the norms of academic publishing. It is this complexity and ambiguity that poses the main challenge to discourse analysis - and is one of the reasons we wrote this book, although at this stage the reader is probably still wondering what discourse analysis is for at all.

REASONS FOR USING DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

In this section we will discuss some reasons for using discourse analysis. If we have an abundance of more developed methodologies, and if we are faced with the difficulties associated with the use of discourse analysis described above, what is the reason for the use of discourse methodology in empirical research? The reasons not to adopt a discourse analytic approach are obvious. First, any new method requires a significant investment of time and energy in its development. Discourse analysis is certainly no exception to the rule in this regard, especially given the relatively limited number of methodological works and established models that can serve as a guide for newcomers to the field of discourse analysis. Second, and more importantly, new methods are by definition not institutionalized. Researchers face significant obstacles when attempting to publish or present work that is unfamiliar to their colleagues and difficult to relate to existing results in a given field. Authors using this method face additional risks when it comes to evaluating their work for tenure or dissertation defense, since the relative rarity of discourse analysis research makes it difficult to evaluate it, and incompetent reviewers cannot comment on its significance. Thirdly, discourse analysis is a labor-intensive and time-consuming method. In academic culture, with its strict deadlines and publish-or-perish ethos, there are easier and faster alternatives to conducting research.

Despite these challenges, we believe that there are a number of compelling reasons why discourse analysis will play an important role in the future of the social sciences. These reasons outweigh the disadvantages of using a new and untested research method and, on a personal level, convinced us to use discourse analysis in our research and to write this book to help those considering using this method.

Next, we look at five reasons why researchers should use discourse analysis. Some of them are specific specifically to discourse theory and discourse analysis, while others reflect objective changes in the research field of interest to us - the theory of organization and management. The changing nature of "organization" has led to an increasing need to find new ways to study old topics, as well as effective ways researching new topics. One small note is worth making here. Although we have written this paper for general purposes and that the problems and their solutions span a variety of disciplines, many of the examples we present are related to organizations. Moreover, although organizational research involves the study of individuals and communities, as well as organizations themselves, the reasons for using discourse analysis in this area are no different from the reasons for conducting discourse analytic research in other areas.

"Linguistic Turn"

The last 30 years have been marked by something of a revolution in the humanities and social sciences. Beginning with the work of such authors in the field of philosophy of language as Wittgenstein (1967) and Winch (1958), the idea that language is much more than just a reflection of reality, and that it is in fact a constituent of social reality, has become generally accepted. These works greatly influenced sociologists such as Berger and Luckmann (1967) and anthropologists such as Geertz (1973), whose work provided the basis for a constructivist approach to social phenomena. This approach has spread widely in the social sciences and become generally accepted, in a context in which many disciplines, in the words of Gergen (1999, p. 16), were “vibrating towards the postmodern” and struggling with crises of representation and legitimation (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994; Rosenau, 1992).

Recognition of the constructive role of language problematizes the very foundations of research, since the objectivity, impartiality, and independence of the researcher are called into question, the principles of determining truth and knowledge are rethought, and the question of how things function (“how things work”) is replaced by the question of what they mean. things (Winch, 1958). Social sciences are not just about counting—defining and measuring variables and the relationships between them—they are also about interpreting what social relationships mean, as evidenced by a strong tradition of qualitative research methods. In the context of the linguistic turn, the demands placed on interpretive research are increasing manifold. As researchers, we are no longer interested simply in answering the question of what the social world means for the subjects who inhabit it; we are interested in answering the question of how and why the social world acquires the meanings that it has. We are also interested in answering the question of how we as researchers are involved in this process (Clegg & Hardy, 1996a; Hardy et al., 2001). Discourse analysis, as a method for studying these highly reflexive processes of social construction, has received increasing attention in this regard (Alvesson & Karreman, 2000a).

As the linguistic turn has affected many disciplines, researchers are turning to discourse analysis to explore the implications of this turn for empirical research. Despite the somewhat late turn to this approach compared to other humanities and social sciences, researchers in the field of organization theory and management are also beginning to emphasize great importance language learning (Alvesson & Karreman, 2000a). The idea that organizations are social constructs and exist primarily in language (in the broad sense) is becoming widespread. As a result, researchers are eager to discover new ways to study these processes. Discourse analysis offers just such a methodology because it is based on an explicit constructivist epistemology, which views language as a constitutive and constructive rather than a reflective and representational phenomenon (Wood & Kroger, 2000).

New and reconceptualized research topics

Profound changes in society have led to the emergence of new research topics, highlighting the role of discourse analysis as a viable and useful methodology. Thus, studies of the natural environment, globalization and culture have relatively recently attracted the attention of representatives of various disciplines who have effectively used discourse analysis. Within broader theories of organization and management, the study of emotions (e.g., Fineman, 1996; Mumby & Putnam, 1992) is one example of relatively new area, in which the use of a discourse approach led to significant results. New research topics pose new challenges for researchers to create new categories and draw attention to how boundaries are constructed and maintained. Traditional qualitative approaches can clarify the meaning of these categories, and quantitative approaches often make general statements about the relationships between categories, but neither explain how these categories emerged nor how their existence is ensured. In fact, traditional methodologies often reify categories and create the illusion of their naturalness and stability over time. Discourse analysis, for its part, offers a way of analyzing the dynamics of social construction, in the process of which these categories are produced and the boundaries between them are maintained.

Many other subjects of study have been reconceptualized and now require approaches that are fundamentally different from those previously used. For example, identity for a long time has been studied in a number of disciplines, but primarily in the context of the researcher's attempts to uncover or understand an individual's “truth” or essential identity (Nkomo & Cox, 1996). More recently, discursive psychology has become firmly established in disciplines such as psychology (Condor & Antaki, 1997; Potter & Wetherell, 1987), gender studies (Tannen, 1994), and organization and management theory (Calas & Smircich, 1991; Mumby & Stohl , 1991) and social movement theory, and this arises precisely from the need to understand how identities are constructed on an ongoing, dialogic and discursive basis.

Resurrection of critical management theories

Another important reason for the increased need for discourse analysis in organization and management theory is due to the renewed interest in critical management theories. Critiques of managerialism have a long tradition in organization and management theory, dating back to early work in Marxism and the most radical readings of Weber (Hardy & Clegg, 1996). It emerges from various theoretical streams such as work theory (Paverman, 1974; Burawoy, 1979; Edwards, 1979), work on power (Clegg, 1975; Hardy, 1985; Lukes, 1974), cultural studies and ideology (Smircich, 1983; Willmott, 1993) and many others. The spread of postmodernism in theories of organization and management has naturally strengthened this line of theorizing (Burrell, 1988; Cooper & Burrell, 1988). Subsequently, the integration of postmodern and poststructuralist perspectives revitalized critical management theories and drew research attention to the resurrected agenda of these theories (Alvesson & Deetz, 2000; Alvesson & Willmott, 1992a, 1992b; Fournier & Gray, 2000).

Most of the renewed research trends have focused on the interaction between critical and postmodern theories (Alvesson & Deetz, 1996; Mumby, 1992) and especially on the relationship between power and meaning—the ways in which knowledge is integrated into power dynamics. Drawing primarily on the work of Foucault, researchers have focused on how processes of social construction lead to the creation of a social reality that is taken for granted and leads to the dominance of some individuals over others (e.g., Clegg, 1989). At the same time, researchers strive to study these political processes while being careful not to fall into the critical trap of “positioning themselves outside” the power relations they study (Hardy & Clegg, 1996). These new challenges to critical management theories have led to the need for new methods that will reveal the processes that influence the distribution of power in organizations and in research.

This new and renewed interest in the problem of power is associated not only with the theory of organization and management. Researchers in such fields as social movement theory, communication theory, psychology, and gender studies also pay attention to power processes. As a result, there are opportunities to apply methods such as critical discourse analysis and critical linguistic analysis (Fairclough, 1992, 1995; Mumby & Stohl, 1991; Parker, 1992) to a variety of research subjects, not just organizations.

Development of post-bureaucratic organizational forms

Another reason for the increased interest in discourse analysis in the theory of organizations and management is the change in organizational and management practices themselves over the past few decades. Reflecting on the state of organization and management theory over the past 30 years, Clegg and Hardy (1996b, p.2) note that in the 1960s, “hierarchies were the norm, personal computers had not yet been invented, and the only means of rapid communication was the telephone. It was simply impossible to imagine the new technologies that would subsequently change the face of organizations.” Today we are witnessing a huge number of new organizational forms; widespread distribution of new information technologies; the increasing globalization of business, work and culture, as well as resistance to them; the growing role of companies whose activities are based on the use of knowledge and symbols.

These changes in practices have led to an increased need to study the more ephemeral aspects of the organization. It becomes increasingly difficult to study organizations as if they were solid and fixed material objects if we are aware of their variability and inconsistency. As a consequence, we are forced to identify stories, narratives and symbols - i.e. discourses – which hold mutually exclusive processes together and make them “real” to us (Chia, 2000). Discourse analysis offers a powerful way to study these elusive, ephemeral phenomena, and therefore seems indispensable if we want to learn about and report on organizational and management practices.

Limitations of Traditional Methods and Theories

Finally, a reason that we think is important has to do with the growing calls for pluralism in the social sciences. The notion of “one best method” is increasingly being questioned and replaced by the idea that research benefits from the use of a variety of methods and theories (Clegg & Hardy, 1996b). Many researchers find traditional approaches too limited and monotonous. Rather than using the same method to intensively study the same phenomenon, it seems more productive to use a different, different method (Alvesson & Deetz, 2000). The use of an unconventional method facilitates the discovery of phenomena hidden by the repeated use of traditional methods - ways of seeing are also ways of not seeing. The use of a discourse analytical approach allows researchers to build and fill other theoretical complexes with content, offering new ideas, concepts and challenges. It is also worth noting the fact that exploring the world of organizations in non-traditional ways is simply much more interesting. These modalities are by definition non-institutionalized, allowing researchers to be creative and innovative in their research and interpretation.

So we see that discourse analysis makes an important contribution to the development of pluralism in research, and also represents a way of integrating the effects of the linguistic turn, studying new phenomena and practices, and updating the agenda of critical theories. It may pose new problems and challenge old truths, but as Clegg and Hardy (1996b, p.8) note, “we learn through encounter.” different approaches, diversity and uncertainty of meaning, rather than through the recitation of proposed standards, consensus and agreement, which imply unconditional acceptance."

Bibliography

1. Alvesson, M. & Deetz, S. (1996). Critical theory and postmodern approaches in organizational studies. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds). Handbook of organization studies (pp. 191-217). London: Sage.
2. Alvesson, M. & Deetz, S. (2000). Doing critical management research. London: Sage.
3. Alvesson, M. & Karreman, D. (2000a). Taking the linguistic turn in organizational research: Challenges, responses, consequences. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. Nb. 136-158.
4. Alvesson, M. & Karreman, D. (2000b). Varieties of discourse: On the study of organizations through discourse analysis. Human Relations, .53, 1125-1149.
5. Alvesson, M.. & Skoldberg, K. (2000). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. London: Sage.
6. Alvesson, M. & Willmott, N. (1992a). On the idea of ​​emancipation in management and organization studies. Academy of Management Review. 17.432-164.
7. Alvesson, M.. & Willmott, N. (1992b). Critical management studies. London: Sage.
8. Berger, R L. & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise on the sociology of. knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor.
9. Braverman, N. (1974). Labor and monopoly cannot New York: Monthly Review Press.
10. Burawoy, M. (1979). Manufacturing consent. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11. Burrell, G. (1988). Modernism. postmodernism and organizational analysis: The contribution of Michel Foucault. Organization Studies. Ch. 221-235.
12. Calas, M. V. & Smircich, L. (1991). Using the “F”-word: Feminist theories and the social consequences of organizational research. In A. Mills & R. Tancred (Eds), Gendering organizational analysis (pp. 222 - 274). London: Sage.
13. Chalaby, J. C. (1996). Beyond the prison-house oh! language: Discourse as a sociological concept pitish Journal of Sociology, 47. 684-698.
14. Chia, R. (2000). Discourse analysis as organizational analysis. Organization, 7, 513-518.
15. Clegg, S. R. (1975). Power, rule and domination. London Routledge.
16. Clegg, S. R. (1989) Frameworks of power. London: Sage.
17. Clegg, S. R. & Hardy, S. (1996a). Representations. In S. R. Clegg, S. Hardy & W. R. Nord (Eds.). Handbook of organization studies (pp. 676-708). London: Sage.
18. Condor, S. & Antaki, S. (1997). Social cognition und discourse. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed), Discourse as structure and process: Volume 2 (pp. 676-708). London: Sage.
19. Cooper, R. & Bergell, G. (1988). Modernism, postmodernism and organizational analysis: An introduction. Organization Studies. 9.91-112.
20. Coulon, A. (1995). Ethnomethodology. Thousand Oaks. SA: Sage.
21. Covaleski, M. A., Dirsmith, M. W., Heian, J. W., & Sajay, S. (1998). The calculated and the avowed: Techniques of discipline and struggles over identity in the Big Six public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly. 43. 293-327.
22. Czarniawska, W. (1998). A narrative approach to organization studies. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.
23. Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage.
24. Edwards, R. (1979). Contested terrain. New York: Basic Books.
25. Ellingson, S. (1995). Understanding dialectic of discourse and collective action: Public debate and rioting in antebellum Cincinnati. American Journal of Sociology. 101. 100-144.
26. Erikson, K. & Stull, D. (1997). Doing team ethnography. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.
27. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change.. Campidge. UK: Polity Press.
28. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Longman.
29. Fairclough, N. & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction: Volume 1 (pp. 258-284). Sage: London.
30. Fineman, S. (1996). Emotion and organizing. In S. R. Clegg, S. Hardy & W. R. Nord (eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 543–564). London: Sage.
31. Fletcher, J. C. (1998). Relational practice. A feminist reconstruction of work. Journal of Management Inquiry. 7, 163-186.
32. Foucault, M. (1965). Madness and civilization: A history of insanity in the age of reason. New York: Vintage.
33. Foucault, M. (1972). The archeology of knowledge. London: Routledge.
34. Fournier, V. & Gray, C. (2000). Аt the critical moment: Conditions and prospects for critical management studies. Human Relations. 53, 7-32.
35. Geertz, S. (1973). The interpretation of culture. New York: Basic Books.
36. Gergen, K. (1991). The saturated self. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
37. Gergen, K. (1999). An invitation to social construction. London: Sage.
38. Grant, D., Keenow, T., & Oswick, C. (1998). Organizational discourse: Of diversity, dichotomy and multi-disciplinarity. In D. Grant, T. Keenoy, & C. Oswick (Eds.), Discourse and organization (pp. 1-14). London: Sage.
39. Hardy, C. (1985). The nature of unobtrusive power. Journal of Management Studies. 22.384-З99.
40. Hardy, C. (2001). Researching organizational discourse. International Studies in Management and Organization. 71(Z). 25-17.
41. Hardy, C. & Clegg, S. R. (1996). Some dare call it power. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy. & W. R. Nord (Eds.). Handbook of organization studies (pp. 622-641). London: Sage.
42. Hardy, C., Phillips, N., & Clegg, S. R. (2001). Reflexivity in organization and management studies: A study of the production of the research “subject”. Human Relations. 54, 3-32.
43. Holmes, J. (1998). Women’s talk: the question of sociolinguistic universals. In J. Coates (ed.), Language and gender: A reader (pp.461-483). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
44. Kress, G. (1995). The social production of language: History and structures of dominance. In P. Freis & M. Gregory (Eds.), Discourse in society: Systemic functional perspectives (pp. 169-191). Norwood, LJ: Ablex
45. Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A radical view. London: Macmillan.
46. Marcus, G. H. (1994). What comes (just) after “post”? The case of ethnography. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 563–574). London: Sage.
47. Mumby, D. (1992). Two discourses on communication. power, and the subject: Jurgen Habermas and Michel Foucault. In G. Levine (Ed.). Construction of the self (pp. 81-104). New punswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
48. Mumby, D., & Putnam, L. L. (1992). The politics of emotion: Afeminist reading of bounded rationality. Academy of. Management Review, 17. 465.486.
49. Mumby, D. & Stohl, C. (1991). Power and discourse in organization studies: Absence and the dialectic of control. Discourse and Society 2. 313-322.
50. Nkomo, S. & Cox. T (1996). Diverse identities in organizations. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 338–356). London: Sage.
51. O'Connor, E. S. (1995). Paradoxes of participation: Tactual analysis and organizational change. Organization Studies. 16, 769-503.
52. Parker, I. (1992). Discourse dynamics. London: Routledge.
53. Parker, I. & Burman, E. (1993). Against discursive imperialism. empiricism and constructionism: Thirty-two problems with discourse analysts. In E. Burman & I. Parker (Eds.), Discourse analytic research (pp. 155–172). London: Routledge.
54. Phillips, N. & pown. J. (1993). Analyzing communication in and around organizations: A critical hermeneutic approach. Academy of Management Journal. 36. 1547-1576.
55. Potter, J. & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behavior. London: Sage.
56. Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
57. Riessman, C. K. (1993). Narrative analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
58. Rosenau, P.M. (1992). Post-modernism and the .social .sciences: Insights. inroads. and intrusions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
59. Rushdie, S. (2000). The ground beneath her feet. New York: Picador.
60. Sherzer, J. (1987). A discourse-centred approach to language and culture. American Anthropologist. 89, 295-309.
61. Smircich, L (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 339-358.
62. Stokoe, E. H. (1998). Talking about gender: The conversational construction of gender categories in academic discourse. Discourse and Society. 9. 217-240.
63. Tannen, D. (1994). Gender and discourse. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
64. van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, 8. 5-6.
65. van Dijk. T. A. (1996). Discourse, power and access. In C. R. Callas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Texts and practices (pp. 84-104). London: Routledge.
66. van Dijk. T. A. (1997a). Discourse as structure and process: Volume 1. London: Sage.
67. van Dijk, T A. (1997b). Discourse as social interaction: Volume 2. London: Sage.
68. Willmott, H. (1993). Strength is ignorance, slavery is freedom: Managing culture in modern organizations. Journal of management studies, 30. 515 – 552.
69. Winch. R. (1958). The idea of ​​a social science. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
70. Wittgenstein, L. (1967). Philosophical investigations. Oxford. UK: Blackwell.
71. Woodilla, J. (1998). Workplace communications: The text of organizing. In D. Grant, T. Keenoy & S. Oswick (Eds.). Discourse and organization (pp. 31-50). London: Sage.
72. Wood, L.A. & Kroger, R.O. (2000). Doing discourse analysis: Methods for studying action in text and talk. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Translation by E. Kozhemyakin.

Exploratory discourse. Discourse (from Latin discursus ‘running back and forth, movement, circulation, conversation, conversation’) is a linguistic unit of the largest, potentially unlimited volume. Thus, “discourse” is the name of a natural phenomenon, and “discourse analysis” is the name of the discipline that studies it. (In contrast to terms such as “morphology” or “syntax,” which can mean both.) Discourse analysis is also called discourse analysis, discourse analysis, discourse analysis; the expression "text linguistics" was also previously used. Discourse analysis is part of the paradigm of linguistic disciplines, based on an increase in the volume of studied components: phonetics/phonology - morphology - syntax - discourse.

Discourse analysis is a relatively young science. Some of the ideas that ultimately led to the formation of discourse analysis were formulated in the 19th century. - first half of the 20th century. ( W. von Humboldt , A.A.Potebnya , F. Boas , V.Ya.Propp, V. Mathesius, S. Bally and etc.). Discourse analysis (or linguistic analysis of text) was declared as a separate direction in the middle of the 20th century. (I.A. Figurovsky, Z. Harris, K. Pike, P. Hartmann, etc.). In the 1970-80s. discourse analysis has really become a level branch of linguistics (W. Dressler, T. van Dyck, E. Schegloff, R. Longacre, T. Givon, W. Chafe, etc.).

Discourse is the unity of two entities: communication (the dynamic process of linguistic interaction between people) and text (that is, the product of communication). This duality allows us to study discourse both as a process and as an object. The term “discourse” is close in meaning to the terms “dialogue” and “speech”, but differs favorably from them in that it does not include various traditional and optional connotations. When studying discourse, two essential aspects play a fundamental role - social and cognitive. On the one hand, discourse is social phenomenon. Speaker and listener - social roles, on which the processes of generating and understanding discourse are based. On the other hand, all processing of discursive information occurs in the individual brain and is based on such general cognitive processes, How memory , attention, consciousness, categorization, etc. To a large extent, discourse is the exchange of knowledge between participants communications. Part of this knowledge is made explicit through linguistic form, the other part remains hidden; the discipline that focuses on the study of implicit knowledge is known as pragmatics.

Discourse analysis examines three main groups of questions:

1. discourse structure
2. discourse taxonomy
3. connection with smaller language levels.

In the area of ​​discourse structure, a distinction can be made between two polar levels—global and local structure. Global structure is the structure of the largest components of discourse, for example, chapters of a book, paragraphs of a newspaper article, or groups of lines in a dialogue. Local structure is a structure consisting of minimal units that make sense to be classified as strictly discursive. Such minimal quanta are called elementary discourse units. In oral discourse, elementary discourse units are identified on the basis of a set of prosodic criteria. Elementary discourse units are highly correlated with such a semantic-grammatical entity as clause (predication). A sentence is a secondary entity, generally including several elementary discourse units.

The global and local structure are not strictly separated; on the contrary, they can be presented as two polar levels of a single hierarchical structure of discourse. One of the most advanced concepts of the hierarchical structure of discourse, which allows us to describe global and local structure in a unified way, is the theory of rhetorical structure by W. Mann and S. Thompson.

Taxonomy of discourse is based on several autonomous parameters. The largest of them is the difference in mode, or information channel. The most studied modes are oral and written. In the oral mode, the sound/auditory channel is used, in the written mode, the graphic/visual channel is used. The oral mode is basic, and the most essential properties of discourse and language in general should be studied specifically on oral material. The written mode arose relatively recently in the history of mankind and became possible thanks to such a technological invention as the graphic recording of verbal material on an external medium (clay tablet, paper, computer screen). The written mode differs from the oral mode in a number of significant ways, such as a lower speed of signal creation and the absence of face-to-face contact. These differences have important consequences in the area of ​​language structure, including greater syntactic complexity and less reliance on deictic coordinates.

Another important classification distinction between types of discourse is that of genre. Each genre represents a type of discourse based on one or another socially recognized communicative purpose. Such genres as stories, interviews, business letter. Each genre is characterized by a certain genre scheme, or superstructure - a sequence of components that must be presented in any discourse of a given genre. The components of a genre schema can often be defined in terms of so-called types of presentation, or discourse modes. The main types of presentation include narrative, description, explanation, instruction, and persuasion. Each type of presentation is characterized by certain grammatical and lexical features.

In addition to modes and genres, other important parameters for the classification of discourses are functional style, degree of formality, and a number of others. The taxonomy of discourse is extremely complex, which is not surprising - the forms of discourse are as diverse as the forms of human life itself.

The level of discourse is connected by numerous connections with smaller levels of language - syntax, morphology, phonetics. Many phenomena at these linguistic levels can only be understood by taking into account the underlying discursive factors. For example, semantic types of adverbial clauses are special cases of discursive relations (such as purpose, reason, condition, time, contrast, etc.) that can connect discursive units of different volumes. A syntactic phenomenon such as the order of words (components) is discursively motivated - it depends, for example, on the degree of discursive novelty of information. The syntactic status of the subject is a grammaticalization of the discursive status "starting point". The phenomenon of lexical referential choice (full noun phrase vs. anaphoric pronoun) can only be described by appealing to discursive factors - such as the distance to the antecedent among predications, the presence/absence of discursive boundaries between a given point of discourse and the antecedent, etc. Natural discourse contains a large number of words and phrases that mark the discursive structure or process of speech generation - these are the so-called discourse markers (for example, that's it, that means and so on.). Many prosodic phenomena (emphasis, tones in accents, tempo, etc.) are entirely discursively motivated.

Discourse analysis is an interdisciplinary field in which linguists collaborate with psychologists, computer scientists, sociologists, philosophers, literary scholars and representatives of other sciences. Many of the key concepts of discourse analysis have been formulated by scholars from these neighboring fields. Currently, the range of linguistic discourse analysis itself is expanding. In addition to traditional verbal material, prosody is included in the discourse form, as well as non-vocal elements, including gestures and other aspects of “body language.” Communication is multimodal in nature and all of these components must be examined in their unity.

Discourse analysis uses the main general scientific research methods - observation, experiment and modeling. A common type of observation in modern research- so-called corpus method, in which a large volume of natural discourse is observed, annotated in terms of certain characteristics.