30 Дек


Номер части:
Выходные данные

Науки и перечень статей вошедших в журнал:

The discursive approach to language which became in the last decades to one of leaders in linguistic researches, nevertheless, wasn’t issued to any certain scientific direction with the object of research and the methodology, i.e. so far there are no strong reasons to speak about some independent paradigm of knowledge. However, as it is possible to notice, questions of a discourse and the discursive analysis of language are among the most actively developed in modern linguistics, and in a sense they define the general tendencies in development of scientific knowledge of language, in its judgment and interpretation, but from it the concept of a discourse didn’t become more certain. On the other hand a discourse as concept and as the word starts being used in such values which were already assigned to other linguistic terms. Nevertheless, linguists meet in interpretation of its formal and language nature, considering that the discourse in actually linguistic sense is that is outside the largest language unit – the offer (see works [2]; [3]; [4]; [5]; [6] etc.). Here, naturally, «scientific inertia», aspiration to pay attention to the phenomena which are going beyond traditional hierarchical system which at the lower level has phonetic units, and affects its top – syntactic. At such approach the aspiration to consider a discourse in the «extending» prospect that led to emergence of such concepts as «a discourse of the language identity of N», «a discourse of sublanguage of X», «Y period discourse», etc. is shown.

However the understanding of language as discursive activity does quite lawful and a bit different approach, namely, research of a discourse, so to speak, in the opposite direction, i.e. to pay attention that discursive processes are shown not only in expansion of «sense» (sense; the text), but also in «folding» of sense in more «compact» structures for the purpose of their use in finished form. Naturally, this thought isn’t original, moreover, in some versions of transformational (generative) grammar it partially was realized in the form of formally operating language device by means of which possible transformations of initial (basic) language structures including transformations on their «folding» were made. It is clear that all similar procedures declared in quality operational and formal actually were carried out on the basis of a language introspection of the researcher, on the basis of his language «competence», i.e. knowledge which allow to distinguish noted statements from the abnormal.

It is known, refusal of postulates of a narrow formalism and their overcoming happened thanks to the appeal to the semantic phenomena defining features of functioning and development of language as led to understanding it as to manifestation of cognitive abilities of human consciousness (see [7]). Formation of a cognitive paradigm of language marked new approach to the discourse considered as one of manifestations or modes of activity of the person. In that case it is necessary to change also a view of a discourse as in it difficult process of a lingvosemiozis at which the creation of meaning occurs along with an express of substantial components, first of all what form cognitive and propositional structures is carried out. Becomes obvious and that the offer and its components can be also considered as products of discursive activity. In that case a question what to consider the lower bound of a discourse (in a conventional attitude it is established usually at the level by the communications and the relations), it is necessary to formulate a little differently: with what discursive activity begins or what to consider discrete (minimum) unit of a discourse? Statement of a similar problem can seem incorrect owing to insufficient definiteness of the concept of a discourse and extreme complexity of all processes connected with mental activity of human thinking and consciousness in general. At the same time becomes obvious that various answers to the decided question depending on interpretation of the nature of a discourse are possible.

Understanding of a discourse as intellectual activity through language formation of the event nature and as intellectual activity through languagea ctivity at which there is an expansion of an event row, reflects actually linguistic (psycholinguistic) nature of this difficult scientific phenomenon. Discursive activity in that case is the current speech process at which speaking constantly makes a choice of language means of verbalization the intellectual activity through language of quanta. This choice is possible thanks to those system communications which exist between levels of language and its units. At generation of a discourse as coherent speech the relations existing between the offer (pro-position) and the pro-positive word, in particular a pro-positive name which is understood as a lexical unit of event semantics (war, the fire, run, meeting, flight, discussion, reading, etc.) are the most important. Their this duality is explained by that, for example, in Russian, along with the lexical and grammatical classes which are traditionally called by parts of speech there are groups of words which formally belong to the class X, but on functional and semantic signs belong to a class Y. Morphological registration, superficial and structural properties, system of word change, grammatical (syntactic) valency at them from a class X, but functional and semantic roles in the semantic organization of the offer — from Y. In them are interfaced the inherent properties of a given system (properties of a class X) and properties inherited from the previous system properties (from a class Y). In group of nouns concrete and subject names are the backbone center. Unlike them pro-positive (event) names possess inherent properties of a given system and inherited from the previous system signs. The semantico-syntactical features caused by the propositional nature of event names as denotate them events and the facts, explicit in a dictum frame of a pro-position act concern to the last. Compatibility of event names and their semantic roles from here not peculiar to concrete and subject names in a discourse. For example, combinations a bag of the athlete and the athlete’s jump which despite the identical formal and grammatical organization and an identical syntactic position of substantive uncoordinated definition receive different reading: the athlete’s bag – value of a possession, the athlete’s jump – action of an agent, i.e. – ‘the athlete jumped’. Besides, at propositional names irrenconciability properties from the predicate word, in particular, they are combined with phase and ‘being’ verbs (He made I (began) a jump).

The propositional word, first of all nominalization, always drew attention of linguists of different generations, however approach to them didn’t go beyond habitual ideas of the word as lexical and grammatical unity of nominative character that led to formation of two known approaches to the analysis of this central unit of language — semasiological and onomasiological. Nevertheless these approaches in principle operate with uniform initial parcels and are based on recognition of two directly corresponding essence: 1) subject (phenomenon) and 2) sign (subject name) or 1) sign (name) and 2) subject (phenomenon). However in discursive activity of similar process of «portraiture» of extra language reality and, on the contrary, search of reality on the basis of a language sign doesn’t happen. The discourse as intellectual process is rather creation new, language («possible», «imaginable») the world, than reflection in language of extra language reality. Similar approach to language and the similar understanding of its ontology which are widely presented in modern linguistics force to pay attention to the phenomena and processes which aren’t considered actually language, but the cornerstone of them. The speech, naturally, goes about the essences of cognitive character, the defining feature of language conceptualization and a categorization of the world and shown in discursive activity.

Unlike a narrow cognitive approach to language allows to explain more precisely difficult processes of verbal communication. Language not only a means of communication, but also a way of judgment of the world in the form of substantial forms special, inherent only in this language (cf. known situation A.A. Potebni that «language is too a thought form, but such which in anything, except language, doesn’t meet»). At discourse activity the substantial forms making cognitive base of language competence of the speaking subject are realized in language forms at the heart of which there are cognitive and propositional structures.

For the last decades as it is possible to notice, in the doctrine about a discourse the general tendency to expansion of its subject domain and to involvement in sight of research interests all of new objects that led to a peculiar diskursivny expansionism is obviously traced. First, this expansion concerned «spatial» parameters of a discourse when start understanding as it not only sequence of the statements connected among themselves, but also, on the one hand, the separate self-sufficient statement of type silently! Without knock not to enter! It is closed!’ etc. pragmatical cliches or, on the other hand, the text of any extent in the form of, for example, multivolume novel. Secondly, the concept of a discourse of researches of the last years ceases to be used only in relation to the live speech, but also extends on any texts, including ancient (change of «temporary» parameters of a discourse). Cf. for example, following remark about it N. F. Alefirenko: «For a linguaculturology – discipline mainly historical – such understanding of a discourse (the exception of concept of a discourse of diachronic aspect means. – V. L.) some kind of «taboo» on its use is. And still definition of a discourse as the coherent text shipped in human life and taken in total linguistic and extralinguistic (event) factors doesn’t allow to refuse it as its linguacultorological potential is too obvious» [1, p. 9]. Nevertheless similar expansion of subject and substantial area of the doctrine about a discourse doesn’t belittle importance of research of linguistic factors of discursive activity at all. Moreover, everything becomes clearer and more obvious relevance of a scientific problem of establishment of its actually linguistic nature that forces to address to initial discursive categories, i.e. to those important constants which are inherent in a discourse of any type and which account makes the indispensable requirement to procedures of the discursive analysis of language. Naturally, the speech has to go first of all about the main categories inherent in a discourse in general as to a language phenomenon (cf. category of predicativity in relation to the main syntactic unit – the offer). Searches of such categories it was often carried out and carried out by means of the analysis not of the most discursive activity, but its results, in particular texts of various nature and various extent. At the heart of a discourse as social activity formations of cognitive and actually linguistic nature in which various manifestations of the language personality and person in general, his knowledge of the world and of language, his sociocultural participation in the space defined historical event, a manner or a way of language representation of the so-called cogitative contents and various subjective and pragmatical intentions of the speaking subject, including his emotions, estimates and communicative installations are fixed and focused lie.

It is also important to note that in a discourse as intellectual activity property of asymmetry inherent in language between meaning and meant which leads not only to various options of interpretation of the statement, but also to possibility of a choice of option of a sign emergence at language implementation of a certain cogitative contents is shown. This choice which is carried out in the course of discursive activity, speaking makes between various representations of cognitive and propositional structures, relying on the knowledge of the world of extra language reality and ideas of it which in consciousness of the speaking are imparted in a form of separate semantic educations – pro-positions. Ability of the statements connected among themselves or its separate components to correspond to extra language and language meanings and makes essence of pro-positivity as most important category of a discourse and discursive activity in general.

Propositivity, however, has no unlike predicative of strictly fixed status in system of all-linguistic categories as this property of language is shown not only at the semantico-syntactical level (at the level of the offer statement), but also at the level of the word lexeme or all text as result of discursive process. Such approach to category of pro-positivity opens interesting prospects in the field of the research of cognitive mechanisms of a recreation of speech and a emergence of meaning which are carried out by means of language and on the basis of language abilities of the person. Introduction to a scientific turn of concept of pro-positivity promotes also specification of a number of provisions of theoretical linguistics, including its such branches, as the theory of communication, the theory of a reference. On the basis of a propositionality there is a reference of language units to not language reality and their predication, i.e. processes of discursive activity for the solution of certain communicative tasks are carried out. The propositionality, thus, is among those fundamental all-linguistic categories which reflect language ontology, its cognitive — discurse nature.

Cognitive approach to language in many respects defining the general tendencies of development of linguistic ideas of the last decades stimulated research and new judgment of a propositionality, intensified searches of all language manifestations of this category as more and more obvious is a close interaction of cognitive and communicative processes and interrelation between them at intellectual activity. Therefore cognitive and propositional structures should be considered and as means of demonstration of the conceptual representations falling within the scope of cognitive abilities of human consciousness and thinking and as a source of all possible representations of the propositional contents in language on the basis of what verbal communication is carried out. It must be kept in mind that the (predicative) form of expression of a pro-position acts as only one of the transmission media of the imaginable contents staticized in the communicative act represented by language. This contents, having received the status conscious and equally perceived speaking and listening semantic education in the form of cognitive and propositional structure, in a discourse it can be presented not in the iconic form, and in various forms of the realization. Language in this regard makes available to the person a significant amount of implementers in the speech act of separate quantum of value of this kind.

Thus, cognitive approach to language allows to explicit the deep, cognitive processes connected with intellectual activity of the person.


  1. Alefirenko N. F. Modern problems of science about language. – M.: Flint, 2005. – 412 pages.
  2. Arutyunova N. D. Diskurs//Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary / Otv. V. I. Yartsev edition. M.: Scientific publishing house «Big Russian encyclopedia», 2002. – Page 136-137.
  3. Kubryakova E.S. About concepts of a discourse and the diskursivny analysis of modern linguistics (Review)//the Discourse, the speech, speech activity: functional and structural aspects: Collection of reviews. — M.: Russian Academy of Sciences INION, 2000. – Page 7-25.
  4. Makarov M. L. Bases of the theory of a discourse. – M.: ITDGK «Gnozis», 2003. – 280 pages.
  5. Marianna V., Jorgensen, Louise Dzh. Phillips. Discourse analysis. The theory and the method/lane with English – Kharkov: Publishing house «Humanitarian Center», 2008. – 352 pages.
  6. Prokhorov YU.E. Deystvitelnos. Text. Discourse. – M.: Flint: Science, 2009.-224 pages.
  7. Boldyrev N. N. Cognitive semantics. Introduction to cognitive linguistics. – Tambov: The TGU publishing house of G.R. Derzhavin, 2014. — 236 pages.
    In article are considered theoretical questions of the modern doctrine of a discourse. Unlike especially formalistic, text approach the discourse is understood as activity at which occurs in consciousness of the event row speaking and listening to expansion. As final cogitative (cognitive) units of this row the pro-positions considered not as categories of logic, and as forms of cognitive activity of the person act.
    Written by: Lee Valentin
    Date Published: 01/10/2017
    Edition: euroasia-science.ru_29-30.12.2015_12(21)
    Available in: Ebook