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