The style of personality-oriented discourses as a sphere of stylistic influence of other discourses

The article considers the features of the personality-oriented discourse style determined by the use of other discourse speech forms in it. The style of discourse, a result of the choice of means and methods of speech organization a subject makes, is formed (1) on the basis of discursive intentions, conditions and the role structure of communication, as a result of specific activity frames, and (2) on the basis of the experience of a subject's participation in the practices of other discourses, as a result of the use of their speech experience in other discourses. The style of discourse is a stereo-model in which the meanings dictated by a situational discourse interact with the meanings of speech fragments synthesized in other situational discourses. Experience of participation in other discourses, on the one hand, is unique for each subject; on the other had, it is social. In concrete discourse experience of a speech form, social components of experience are individualized, which results in a specific style of a situational discourse. The style of personality-oriented discourses is formed as a result of these extra-discursive factors determined by the intention aimed at off-institutional communication as such. The specificity of the style of situational personality-oriented discourses is regulated by the type of subjective intention that refracts the national and cultural principles of everyday communication, and by the discourse subject's position in the discourse. Discourses can be everyday (participation in it has a routine, habitual character) and non-everyday (non-habitual speech activity based on a breach of the regular communication mode). Stylistic principles of everyday and non-everyday personality-oriented discourses are different. The style of everyday discourses reflects the mastered scenarios of personality-oriented communication. It is formed at the lowest level of subjective speech control. As a result, stylistic formality means, signs of other discourse speech forms penetration, are not frequent, and they are subject to active functional transformation. The style of non-everyday discourses is formed on the basis of a subjective aim to restore the discourse order, which involves raising the level of speech control. Speech formality for the subject reflects the institutionally supported social authority. As a result, the subject, guided by a desire to improve the credibility of their own speech product necessary to ensure speech security, uses stylistic means and methods of institutional discourse stylistic organization much more actively than in everyday discourses. Despite the fact that these means and methods actively interact with the means and methods of informal style, the level of speech formality increases in the transition from everyday to non-everyday communication.

Keywords

Authors

References