Article.
Zhanna Krasnobayeva-Chorna УДК 811.111 DISCOURSE AND CONCEPT: RAGULARITY AND CORRELATION The paper identifies the basic laws of the scientific
paradigm “discourse – concept”. Such ratios of the terms “discourse” and
“concept”, like discourse as a concept, discourse as a combination of concepts,
creation discourse around basic concept, have been highlighted and
characterized. Classific parameters of concept in the discourse have been
processed. Keywords: discourse, discoursology, concept,
conceptology.
The purpose of the paper is to identify patterns of the
scientific paradigm “discourse
– concept” and
to set the value of the terms “discourse” and “concept”.Conceptology
and discourse are two of the most popular trends in the modern linguistics.
Their basic terms – the concept and the discourse – have been widely
interpreted by the linguistics and terminological ambiquity. Various versions
of discursive practices and techniques of conceptual analysis has been widely
used by foreign (J. Humperts and D. Haymz, V. Dem'yankov, V. Karasyk, V. Maslov, Y. Prokhorov, G. Slyshkin, P. Serio, O. Sirotinina, Y. Stepanoff, B. Fox, S. Ford, M. Foucault, Y. Shiryaev et al.) and Ukrainian
(F. Batsevych, A. Zahnitko, V. Ivaschenko, О. Selivanovа, M. Skab, V. Uzhchenko, etc.) linguistics for
a long time. Today the question of regularity and value of discourse and
concept, which determines the relevance
of the article, could be one of the most pressing issues of discourse and
conceptology. The tasks of the paper are: 1) to set the
systematic characteristics of concepts in linguistics; 2) to make the systematic
scheme of concepts in discourse and to describe its main stages. Analysis of the scientific
literature of middle of XXth century – beginning of XXth
century can clearly distinguish three types of relationships between discourse
and concept: 1) discourse as a concept; 2) discourse as a combination of
concepts; 3) discourse created around the
basic concept. According to G. Slyshkin, the concept can occur
as a discourse, because “like any other cultural artifact, any unit of language or
speech can serve as the basis for the formation of the collective consciousness
of the concept. This applies to the discourse… The discourse will be the object, and the
concept – the instrument of analysis” [Слышкин 2000: 38-39]. In this way “the discourse may be regarded
as the totality of appeals to conceptual and as the concept, which exists in
consciousness of native speaker at the same time” [Карасик, Слышкин 2001: 79]. V. Dem'yankov
thinks that “discourse is a random piece of a
text that consists of more than one sentence or it is independent from
sentences. Mainly, but not always, concentration around the reference concept
creates a common context, describing actors, objects, circumstances, time,
actions...” (quoted in [Степанов 1995: 37]). By V. Karasуk,
the key or the central concepts, which form the basis of public institutions,
are endowed with a large generative force that is concentrated around this
large semantic region. O. Selivanova considers the concept as a component of
discourse [Селиванова 2004: 251]. The researcher
introduces the concept of cognitive maps of discourse, an information model,
which leads to its implementation in terms of dialogic interactional modules of
the communicative situation and its component – the cognitive maps of text,
which are integrated with its concept – as an idea that there is a set of
positions that reflects the basic nature of the semantic text array. Conceptual
space of the text (cultural (good, evil, truth, love), ideological (patriotism,
victory), anthropocentric concepts, concept artifacts (man-made objects which
are recorded as an art piece), concept archetypes (world, darkness,
regeneration)) can be represented in any type of discourse. Concepts are
modeled according to the verbal text and code knowledge of an addressee, his
work and so on. The author equates to the concept of mental complex – units of
consciousness that are organized in a certain way, including verbal and
nonverbal knowledge about the object and its evaluation, correlated with
images, feelings, sensations, intuition, transcendence and the collective
unconscious. Modeling of conceptual space of a text is based on the identifying
the hierarchical relationships of a concept-idea, a genre (scientific article,
abstract, official note, for the literary text the genre discourse model is
specified by the method, the literary genre, the style, the functional
specificity) and interactive (design, intention communicants, interactive
strategies, and psychological characteristics of communicants, their background
and encyclopedic knowledge) model of discourse, a framed text content. The last
ones provide a local telephony deployment of a text continuum within its topic.
Thematically integrated frames appear as core mental complexes. Most of the
frames are only the cognitive map of the text as a text. You can find them in
the generation and in the perception only when they are presented in the
database thesaurus of the participants of communication. Thus, the
cognitive map of discourse consists of three parts: 1) a model of discourse
genre that correlates with a module of the semiotic universe, and 2)
interactive model of discourse, which correlates with modules of being the
recipient and sender, and 3) cognitive maps of a text, which presents the result
of interaction of all modules of discourse and text, presented in the module. F. Batsevych notes that discourse
is the result of different speech genres formation [Бацевич 2005: 14]. Within
linguistic theory of genres S. Plotnikova and after this F. Batsevych
distinguish a genre concept (conceptual standard of genre) by which is meant
invariant concept that is starting point of any single text of some genre.
These linguists note the concept is the idea of a standard structure of one or
another genre ingrained in the consciousness of native speakers. The conceptual
standard of genre in the minds of speakers confirms the intuitive knowledge of
it based on the cognitive unconscious. Getting a large array of similar texts
makes a reader to be a “naive literary critic”, which can clearly define the
genres. Thus, the conceptual standard of concept appears in the anomalous art
world. It is binding, as if “hanging” over the contents of all the works of
this type, this is a basis for their stories [Бацевич 2005: 48]. It seems well reasoned opinion
about the concept as a component of discourse. According to this fact, two
types of concepts operate in discourse: basic concept, which is common to all
in any discourse (e.g. basic concept of religious discourse – the concept of
faith, political discourse – the concept of the power of scientific discourse –
the concept of knowledge, the legal discourse – the concept of law) and
concepts or complex concepts of a particular manifestation of discourse. The
basic concept can be attributed to the constitutive features of discourse
(along with the participants of communication, the goal and objectives of the
discourse, strategy and tactics, etc.), since it is the main burden informative
discourse. The
study of concepts of the specific discourse occurs at the cognitive level during
discourse analysis, allowing more full
and more objective describing an explicit and implicit
discourse information. This approach
provides the flow of communicational
processes. During its implementation
a huge reservoir of knowledge and experience of people as well as significant achievements
of various cultures were used. To
describe the concepts of discourse, we would like to suggest the classification
scheme of concepts in discourse, considering their options and attaining
taxonomic. Nowadays,
there is no established conceptology and exhaustive classification of concepts.
Scientists have isolated a variety of concepts under one criterion [Вежбицкая
1999; Маслова 2004; Степанов 2001; Ужченко
2003, and others]. However, any concept of time is the subject for the
classification, according to several parameters, since it is characterized by
multidimensionality [Краснобаєва-Чорна 2009].
Thus, S. Askoldov distinguishes two types of concepts – the
cognitive and the artistic, and focuses on the mobility of the boundaries
between them: cognitive concepts are schematic, with conceptual nature, used in
a field of elaborate events by one opinion, art concepts are dialogical, and
characterized by a significant number of both views. Concepts of this type are
characterized by uncertainty and capabilities and they are the subject for a
special kind of pragmatism – the Art associativity, so they are figurative and
symbolic. These concepts are the subject for a kind of deformation during the
perception. Y.
Stepanoff divides all concepts on frame ones and concepts with strong care at
that frame concepts are the concepts which ideal content forms a sui generis
framework. It can be imposed on certain events. However, these effects may
coincide with the boundaries of the frame, rise to it, and vice versa cannot
match it. Thus, we have concepts that are directly related to the process of
social evaluation under the summing norm concepts (concepts of intelligence,
civilization) with a strong core. These are culturally important concepts in
its entirety, in all complex traits, and use one of the signs as a frame
concept is possible only as an artificial logical procedure (concepts of love,
faith) [Степанов 2001: 76-78]. V. Uzhchenko
notes that concepts are classified into general-cultural and ethno-cultural:
the general-cultural concepts are concepts that reflect human values and
entered in cultural and global context (concepts of life, death, will),
ethno-cultural concepts are the verbalized phenomena of ethno-cultural
component, inscribed in cultural-national (cultural-areal) context (for
Ukrainians, there are concepts of a cartful ‘віз’, a house ‘хата’ , a towel
‘рушник’, for Donetsk area – a mines ‘шахта’, a
benches ‘лава’). A. Vezhbytska
introduces the terms of the concept-minimum, the concept-maximum and the
encyclopedic appendix: the concept-minimum characterizes a partial possession
of word meaning inherent in ordinary native speaker who know the realia, but it
is kind of peripheral thing for his practical life; the concept-maximum covers
a “full” possession of word sense inherent in an native speaker who knew the
realia in full; the encyclopedic appendix extends the concept-maximum with
professional knowledge. In [КСКТ
1996: 90-91] two groups of concepts are singled out the primary and the
secondary concepts, simple and complex: primary concepts – the initial
concepts, the essence of which cannot be subject of analysis, secondary
concepts – the concepts of derivatives, formed from primary ones, that are
subject of further refinement and modification, simple concepts – the concepts,
represented in a word in the language world, complex concepts – the concepts,
presented phrases and sentences. According
to the analysis of existing classifications of concepts in linguistics, the
study of concepts is not considered a historic setting of classification,
chronological limits of certain time intervals (concepts of Antiquity, the
Middle Ages concepts, concepts of the Renaissance, the Enlightenment concepts,
concepts of modern times, etc.). It is the undeniable fact that the concept is
directly related to the culture. Traditionally, culture is divided into global
and national. Therefore, we consider it appropriate to apply the terms “global
concepts” and “local concepts”. Global concepts are the concepts that arise as a
result of the synthesis of the best achievements of all cultures. National
concepts are the concepts that are the synthesis of a culture and its various
classes and social groups. The
classification scheme of concept is processed in the discourse analysis and
consists of several steps (see Table 1): Table 1. Classification parameters of the
concept of discourse
The basic concept of
discourse
|
Concepts of a specific discourse
|
Historic-cultural parameter
|
· global concept
|
· national concept
(concepts of a primitive age, concepts of the ancient world, ancient concepts of
states, concepts of the ancient
Slavs, medieval concepts,
concepts of the Renaissance, the Enlightenment concepts, concepts of the newest Time)
|
national concept
|
ethno-cultural concept
|
Valuable-sociologic parameter
|
· material concept;
· spiritual concept
(cognitive, intellectual, moral, philosophical, legal,
religious, mythological, ritual concept);
· political, environmental or economic concept.
|
Cognitive parameter
|
Structural variant
|
· macroconcept
|
· microconcept
|
Semantic variant
|
· concept-minimum;
· concept-maximum;
· encyclopedic application.
|
Genetic variant
|
· original concept;
· secondary concept.
|
Sociolinguistic parameter
|
· ethno-cultural concept;
· sociocultural concept;
· individually-cultural concept.
|
Lingua-cultural parameter
|
· frame concept;
· the
concept of a
strong core.
|
Aesthetic parameter
|
· scientific concept;
· art concept.
|
In the first stage we
classify the concept for historical-cultural setting to the global or national
concept. Among the national we distinguish concepts, the concepts primitive
age, the concepts of an ancient world, ancient concepts of states, the concepts
of the ancient Slavs, the medieval concepts, the concepts of the Renaissance,
the Enlightenment concepts, newer concepts of time. Each of these concepts can
obtain the status of a national or ethno-cultural. However, we must remember
that the “concept
always has an ethno-cultural component that can occur with varying degrees of
severity, be differently explicated, but clearly clarified by comparing with
the corresponding concepts of other languages or dialects of the same language” [Ужченко 2003: 238]. In the second stage, we find out
a concept belonging to one of three groups according to the valuable-sociologic parameters: 1) material, 2) mental
(cognitive, intellectual, moral, philosophical, legal, religious, mythological,
ritual concept), and 3) political, environmental or economical concept. Then,
we should outline the concept of cognitive parameters: genetic parameters –
primary or secondary concept, a structural parameter – simple or complex
concept; microconcept or macroconcept; semantic parameter – the
concept-minimum, the concept-maximum,
an
encyclopedic
application. There may also be some additional stages of a concept
classification for sociolinguistic parameter for ethno-cultural, sociocultural
and individually-cultural concept. The basic
concept of discourse is primarily positioned as a world macroconcept,
consisting of a complex of microconcepts in a particular discourse. Thus, the
basic concept of legal discourse is the concept of law, such as Article 20 of
the Constitution of Ukraine revealed through the
microconcepts of a flag, an anthem, a coat of arms. The basic concept is the
esoteric discourse macroconcepts of the Supreme Being, who in [Гуддінг, Леннокс 2006]
are formed a complex microconcepts of the Universe, the Creator, the Supreme
Reality, and the Truth. Thus, the
value of the concept of discourse in the scientific literature is defined in
three ways: 1) discourse as a concept, 2)
discourse as a combination of concepts, and 3) the discourse, based on the key
concept. Any discourse is formed around the basic concept (known to all members
of a particular institution), which is revealed through the complex of
microconcepts in a certain discourse. Accordingly, any type of institutional
discourse can be described not only through the specific strategies and
tactics, but also through a set of concepts that is characterized by its own
classification parameter.
The perspective of a future
work is to study the different types of discourse with the mandatory identification of basic and specific concepts.
References.
References Аскольдов
1997:
Аскольдов, С. Концепт и слово [Текст] / С. Аскольдов // Русская
словесность. От теории словесности к структуре текста. – М. : Academia,
1997. – С. 267-279. Бацевич 2005: Бацевич, Ф. Лінгвістична генологія : проблеми і перспективи
[Текст] / Ф. Бацевич. – Львів : ПАІС, 2005. – 264 с. – Бібліогр. :
с. 232-249. Вежбицкая
1999:
Вежбицкая, А. Семантические универсалии и описание языков [Текст] /
А. Вежбицкая. – М. : Языки русской культуры, 1999. – 776, [1] с. Ворошилова 2007: Ворошилова, М.Б. Креолизованный текст
в политическом дискурсе [Текст]
/ М. Б. Ворошилова
// Политическая лингвистика. –
Вып. 3 (23). – Екатеринбург, 2007. – С. 73-78. Гудінг, Леннокс 2006: Гудінг, Д.,
Леннокс, Дж. Людина та її світогляд : у пошуках істини і реальності [Текст] / Д. Гудінг,
Дж. Леннокс / Перекл. з рос. зі звіркою з англ. оригіналом за заг. ред. М. А. Жакалюка. – К. : УБТ, 2006. – Т. 2. – 376 с. Загнитко 2011: Загнитко, А.,
Краснобаева-Чёрная, Ж. Эпистемологически-парадигмальная типология концептов
[Текст] / А. Загнитко, Ж.
Краснобаева-Чёрная // Образ мира в зеркале языка : сб. научных статей. – М. : ФЛИНТА, 2011.
– С. 85-90. Карасик 2000: Карасик, В.И.
Этнокультурные типы институционального дискурса [Текст] / В. И. Карасик // Этнокультурная специфика
речевой деятельности : сб. обзоров. – М. : ИНИОН РАН, 2000. –
С. 37-64. Карасик 2004: Карасик, В. Языковой круг : Личность, концепты,
дискурс [Текст] / В. Карасик. – М. : Гнозис, 2004. – 389, [1] с. Карасик, Слышкин 2001: Карасик,
В.И., Слышкин, Г.Г. Лингвокультурный концепт как единица исследования [Текст] / В. И. Карасик, Г. Г. Слышкин // Методологические проблемы когнитивной лингвистики : ВГУ. – Воронеж,
2001. – С. 75-80. Кожемякин, Переверзев 2008:
Кожемякин, Е.А., Переверзев, Е.В. Подходы к изучению медиадискурса в
современной междисциплинарной среде [Текст]
/ Е. А. Кожемякин,
Е. В. Переверзев // Журналистика и медиаобразование-2008 : сб.
тр. ІІІ Междунар. науч.-практ. конф.
(Белгород, 25-27 сентября, 2008) : В 2 т. – Т. ІІ : Белгород : БелГУ, 2008. –
С. 49-54. Краснобаєва-Чорна 2009:
Краснобаєва-Чорна, Ж. Сучасна
концептологія : концепт життя в українській фраземіці :
монографія [Текст] /
Ж. Краснобаєва-Чорна. – Донецьк : ДонНУ, 2009. – 201 с. Дискурс-аналіз 2011:
Дискурс-аналіз : практикум [Текст] / Ж. Краснобаєва-Чорна,
О. Павлович, І. Коненко. – Донецьк
: ДонНУ, 2011. – 103 с. КСКТ
1996: Краткий
словарь когнитивных терминов [Текст] / Под общ. ред.
Е. С. Кубряковой. – М. : Из-во МГУ, 1996. – 245 с. Ли Же 2004: Ли, Же. Дискурс,
в котором мы живем (к проблеме определения «дискурса») [Текст] / Же Ли //
Культура народов Причерноморья. – № 54. – 2004. –
С. 221-223. Маслова
2004: Маслова, В.А.
Лингвокультурология : уч. пособие [Текст] / В. А. Маслова. – М. :
Academia, 2004. – 202, [2] с. Селиванова
2004:
Селиванова, Е.А. Основы лингвистической теории текста и коммуникации :
Монографическое учебное пособие [Текст] / Е. А. Селиванова. –
К. : Брама, 2004. – 336 с. Слышкин 2000:
Слышкин, Г.Г. Дискурс и концепт (о лингвокультурном подходе к изучению
дискурса) [Текст]
/
Г. Г. Слышкин // Языковая личность.: институциональный и персональный дискурс : сб. науч.
трудов. – Волгоград : Перемена, 2000. – С. 38-45. Степанов 1995: Степанов, Ю.С.
Альтернативный мир. Дискурс. Факт и Принцип причинности [Текст] / Ю. С. Степанов // Язык и наука конца 20 века. – М. : Ин-т языкознания РАН, 1995. – С. 35-71. Степанов
2001: Степанов, Ю.
Константы : Словарь русской культуры [Текст] / Ю. Степанов.
– М. : Школа «Языки русской культуры», 2001. – 990 с. Сусык
2008: Сусык, С.Ю.
Реализация концепта «терроризм» в дискурсе печатных средств массовой информации
: автореф. дис. … канд. филол. наук : 10.02.19 / С. Ю. Сусык. –
Челябинск, 2008. – 25 с. Ужченко
2003: Ужченко,
В.Д. Східноукраїнська фразеологія : Монографія [Текст] /
В. Д. Ужченко. – Луганськ : Альма-матер, 2003. – 362 с. У статті виявлено основні закономірності наукової парадигми «дискурс –
концепт», виокремлено та схарактеризовано такі співвідношення термінів дискурс
і концепт: дискурс як концепт; дискурс як сукупність концептів; дискурс
ґрунтується навколо базового концепту. Опрацьовано класифікаційні параметри
концепту у дискурсі. Ключові слова: дискурс, дискурсологія, концепт, концептивістика
(концептологія).
Available 3 September 2013. |