Towards methodological application of discourse analysis in corpus-driven linguistics
The framework proposed in the paper combines the linguistic way of analysing discourse with a corpus-driven approach. The author presumes that the actual research focus and theoretical framework in language studies differ from the previous models of language analysis and interpretation. The new issues are connected with changed research priorities from analysis of ideal language structures towards corpus-based linguistic studies. The paper outlines that the corpus-based/corpus-driven approach matches with crucial assumptions of discourse studies. Discourse analysis has always relied on text corpora as its empirical basis. However, there are diverse aims and methods of discourse-based approaches in current linguistics. The paper sets out the author's view of key issues of discourse analysis and their application in corpus-based language studies. It includes a condensed theoretical account of critical discourse analysis (CDA) and discourse linguistics dealing with explanation and modelling language-in-use and language-related subjects. The paper comments that CDA refers to discourse as a form of social practice, ideologically shaped and shaping. The objective of the paper is to set out a methodologically different approach, first, to discourse as an intertextual structure and, second, to discourse linguistics as extension of principles of text linguistics. It is presumed that the speech structure / text is the only objective reality for a linguist. It is treated as a means for knowledge mining, generalising, formatting and augmenting. Text structure is presumed to be a starting point for a discourse processing analysis as developed in discourse linguistics. The discourse is interpreted as a linguistic reflection of collective textual practice. The paper presents methodological potential and research tools of discourse linguistics for validation of linguistic observation results on the trans- / metatextual level. This paper will follow the question of how new approaches in text linguistics and discourse analysis could contribute to redefinition of the subjects and analytical methods of linguistic facts interpretation. According to the current state of research and theory the corpus-based language analysis will be an explanatory strong theory. Text and discourse linguistics may be a precondition for corpus-based linguistics as a metatheory of language subjects. The corpus-driven discourse analysis proves the framework to be an important addition to corpus linguistics.
Keywords
текстовая структура,
лингвистика текста,
лингвистика дискурса,
критический анализ дискурса,
корпус текстов,
корпусные исследования языка,
text structure,
discourse linguistics,
text linguistics,
critical discourse analysis,
corpus-based language studiesAuthors
| Chernyavskaya Valeria E. | Peter the Great Saint Petersburg Polytechnic University | tcherniavskaia@rambler.ru |
Всего: 1
References
Gross A. Is Evidence Based Linguistics the Solution? Is Voodoo Linguistics the Problem? Lacus Forum 32. 2006. P. 173-188.
Беляева Л.Н., Чернявская В.Е. Доказательная лингвистика: метод в когнитивной парадигме // Вопр. когнитивной лингвистики. 2016. № 3. С. 77-84.
Алпатов В.М. Что и как изучает языкознание? // Вопр. языкознания. 2015. № 1. С. 7-21.
Золян С.Т. «Бесконечный лабиринт сцеплений»: семантика текста как многомерная структура // Критика и семиотика. 2013. № 1 (18). С. 18-44.
Золян С.Т. Семантика и структура поэтического текста. М.: УРСС, 2014. С. 336.
Чернявская В.Е. Лингвистика текста. Поликодовость. Интертекстуальость. Интердискурсивность. М.: УРСС Либроком, 2009.
Залевская А.А. Текст и его понимание. Тверь, 2001.
Никитин М.В. Основания когнитивной семантики. СПб., 2003.
Гончарова Е.А., ШишкинаИ.П. Интерпретация текста. М.: Высш. шк., 2005.
Тураева З.Я. Лингвистика текста: структура и семантика. М.: УРСС, 2007.
Adamzik K. Textlinguistik. Tubingen: Niemeyer, 2004.
Antos G. Texte als Konstitutionsformen von Wissen // Die Zukunft der Textlinguistik. Traditionen. Transformationen. Trends. Antos G., Tietz H. (Hgg.) Tubingen, 1997. P. 43-63.
Halliday M.A.K. An introduction to functional grammar. London, 2007.
Heinemann M., Heinemann W. Grundlagen der Textlinguistik. Interaktion - Text - Diskurs. Tubingen: Niemeyer, 2002.
Heinemann W., Viehweger D. Textlinguistik. Eine Einfuhrung. Tubingen, 1991.
Sinclair J. Trust the Text. Language, Corpus and Discourse. Ruthledge: London, NewYork, 2004.
Warnke I. Adieu Text - bienvenu Diskurs? Uber Sinn und Zweck einer poststrukturalischen Entgrenzung des Textbegriffs // Brauchen wir einen neuen Textbegriff? Antworten auf eine Preisfrage. U. Fix (Hrsg). Frankfurt/M.: Peter Lang, 2002.
Потебня А.А. Теоретическая поэтика. 2-е изд. М.; СПб., 2003.
Hartmann P. Text, Texte, Klassen von Texten // BOGAWUS. Zeitschrift fur Literatur, Kunst, Philosophie. 1964. № 2. P.15-25.
Чернявская В.Е. Фантомы и синдромы дискурсивной парадигмы // Вопр. когнитивной лингвистики. 2014. № 1. С. 54-61.
Чернявская В.Е. Лингвистика текста. Лингвистика дискурса. М.: УРСС-Либроком, 2013.
Spitzmtiller J., Warnke I. Diskurslinguistik. Eine Einfuhrung in Theorien und Methoden der transtextuellen Sprachanalyse. W. de Gruyter, 2011.
Warnke I. Diskurslinguistik nach Foucault. Berlin; New York: W. de Gruyter, 2007.
Busse D., Teubert W. Ist Diskurs ein sprachwissenschaftliches Objekt? Zur Methodenfrage der historischen Semantik // Busse D. et. al. (Hgg.) Begriffsgeschichte und Diskursgeschichte. Metho-denfragen und Forschungsergebnisse der historischen Semantik. Opladen, 1994. P. 10-28.
Busse D. Diskurslinguistik als Kontextualisierung. Methodische Kriterien, sprachwissen-schaftliche Uberlegungen zur Analyse gesellschaftlichen Wissens // Warnke I. (Hg.) Diskurslingustik nach Foucault. Theorie und Gegenstande. Berlin; New York, 2007. P. 81-105.
Warnke I., Spitzmtiller J. Methoden und Methodologie der Diskurslinguistik // Warnke I., Spitzmuller J. (Hgg.) Methoden der Diskurslinguistik. de Gruyter: Berlin; New York, 2008. P. 3-54.
Чернявская В.Е. Текст в медиальном пространстве. М.: УРСС, 2016.
Dijk T.A. van. Critical discourse analysis // D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, H. Hamilton (Hgg.). The Handbook of discourse analysis, London, 2010.
Fairclough N. Critical discourse analysis. The critical study of language. London; New York, 1995.
Fairclough N., Wodak R. Critical discourse analysis // van Dijk T. A. (Hg.). Discourse stydies. A multidisciplinary introduction. Bd. 2: Discourse as social interaction. London: Sage, 1997. P. 258284.
Fairclough N. Language and power. London, 2010.
Halliday M.A.K. Language as social semiotic. The social interpretation of language and meaning. London, 1994.
Jager S. Kritische Diskursanalyse. Eine Einfuhrung. Munster, 2009.
Reisigl M., Wodak R. Discourse and discrimination. Rhetorics of racism and anti-Semitism. London; New York, 2001.
Wodak R., Reisigl M. The discourse-historical approach (DHA) // Wodak R., Meyer M. (Hgg.). Methods of critical discourse analysis. London; New Delhi, 2009. P. 87-121.
Fairclough N. Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse // Discourse and Society. 1993. № 4(2). Р. 133-168.
Молодыченко Е.Н. Об операционализации категории «ценность» в текстовом и дискурсивном анализе: к вопросу о лингвистической аксиологии // Вестн. Моск. городского пед. ун-та. 2015. № 3. С. 90-97.
Плунгян В.А. Корпус как инструмент и как идеология: о некоторых уроках современной корпусной лингвистики // Русский язык в научном освещении. 2008. № 2. С. 7-20.
Baker P. Using Corpora in Discourse analysis. London et al.: Continuum, 2006.
Bubenhofer N. Diskurse berechnen? Wege zu einer korpuslinguistischer Diskursanalyse // Warnke I., Spitzmuller J. Methoden der Diskurslinguistik. Walter de Gruyter: Berlin; New York, 2008. P. 407-434.
McEnery T., Xiao R., Tono Y. Corpus-based Language Studies. London et al.: Ruthledge, 2006.
Teubert W., Cermakova A. Corpus Linguistics. A short introduction. London et al.: Continuum, 2007.
Tognini-Bonelli E. Corpus Linguistics at work. Amsterdam et al.: Benjamins, 2001.
