Sphere of communication and discourse: terminological redundancy or the essential difference? | Sibirskii Filologicheskii Zhurnal - Siberian Journal of Philology. 2017. № 4. DOI: 10.17223/18137083/61/15

Sphere of communication and discourse: terminological redundancy or the essential difference?

The paper discusses the relationship between the two terms used to denote similar phenomena in speech communication: the sphere of communication and the discourse . In Russian philology, the first term is used frequently in macro-sociolinguistics and general philology, and the other term is used in the discourse analysis. The ratio of both concepts with the most important concepts of speech communication - speech event , speech act and utterance has been revealed. The term sphere of communication is combined with the notion of speech genre (M. Bakhtin) and the concept of discourse with the same concept and the notion of the speech act , which is associated with the European philosophical and linguistic tradition. However, both terms are combined with the notion of utterance which is used in the Russian tradition by M. Bakhtin. The utterance has important qualities of informativity and intentionality. The main conclusion of the study is that the discourse and sphere of communication represent different communicative entities. Discourse is an open set of sentences, a type of speech practices that is limited with certain socio-cultural conditions of communication. Thus, the concept of discourse generalizes the utterance as a speech work, its communicative purpose and appropriate discursive tools. It means that the discourse is nothing more than direct speech practice limited by the type of the subject, the set of communicative goals, communicative strategies, and socio-cultural conditions. The sphere of communication is one of the socio-cultural conditions of speech, the area of life, which surrounds the communicative situation. The reasons for the communication and social limitations imposed by the sphere of communication constitute an invisible frame, where the Procrustean bed of communication is placed. They set the «rules of the game»». In addition, they influence the linguistic means used in such a way. The regular participation in a particular sphere of communication leads to the specialization of the language, for example to the formation of the functional style of the literary language. Thus, the sphere of communication and the discourse are fundamentally different communicative phenomena. Their similarity is the result of their function of generalization of the communicative situation and their probabilistic existence.

Download file
Counter downloads: 239

Keywords

термин, дискурс, сфера общения, высказывание, речевое событие, речевой жанр, речевой акт, linguistic notion, discourse, sphere of communication, utterance, speech event, speech genre, speech act

Authors

NameOrganizationE-mail
Kim I. E.Institute of Philology of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Novosibirsk State Universitykim@philology.nsc.ru
Silantev I. V.Institute of Philology of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Novosibirsk State Universitysilantev@philology.nsc.ru
Всего: 2

References

Аврорин В. А. Проблемы изучения функциональной стороны языка (К вопросу о предмете социолингвистики). Л.: Наука. Ленингр. отд-ние, 1975. 276 с.
Арутюнов А. Р., Чеботарев П. Г. Справочник «Интенции диалогического общения и их стандартные реализации» (Проект «Банки методических данных»: каталог коммуникативных единиц, интенции) // Русский язык за рубежом. 1993. № 5-6. С. 75-82.
Бахтин М. М. Проблема речевых жанров // Бахтин М. М. Эстетика словесного творчества. М.: Искусство, 1979. С. 237-280.
Бахтин М. М. К философии поступка // Философия и социология науки и техники: Ежегодник. 1984-1985. М.: Наука, 1986. С. 80-160.
Винокур Т. Г. Закономерности стилистического использования языковых единиц. М.: Наука, 1980.
Гойхман О. Я., Надеина Т. М. Основы речевой коммуникации. М., 1997.
Головин Б. Н. Основы культуры речи. М.: Высш. шк., 1988. 320 с.
Золотова Г.А., Онипенко Н. К., Сидорова М. Ю. Коммуникативная грамматика русского языка. М.: Наука, 1998. 528 с.
Кант И. Критика практического разума. М.: Эксмо, 2015. 224 с.
Карасик В. И. О типах дискурса // Языковая личность: институциональный и персональный дискурс. Волгоград, 2000. С. 5-20.
Кузнецов И. В. Проблема жанра и теория коммуникативных стратегий нарратива // Критика и семиотика. 2002. № 5. С. 61-70.
Макаров М. Л. Основы теории дискурса. М.: ИТДГК «Гнозис», 2003. 280 с.
Одинцов В. В. Стилистика текста. М.: Наука, 1980. 263 с.
Словарь социолингвистических терминов. М., 2006. 312 с.
Слово в действии: Интент-анализ политического дискурса // Под ред. Т. Н. Ушаковой, Н. Д. Павловой. СПб., 2000.
Стросон П. Ф. Намерение и конвенция в речевых актах // Новое в зарубежной лингвистике. М., 1986. Вып. 17. С. 151-170.
Тюпа В. И. Пролегомены к теории эстетического дискурса // Дискурс - 2/96. Новосибирск, 1996. С. 12-15.
Тюпа В. И. Очерк современной нарратологии // Критика и семиотика. 2002. № 5. С. 5-31.
Янко Т. Е. Коммуникативные стратегии русской речи. М.: Языки славянской культуры, 2001. 384 с.
 Sphere of communication and discourse: terminological redundancy or the essential difference? | Sibirskii Filologicheskii Zhurnal - Siberian Journal of Philology. 2017. № 4. DOI: 10.17223/18137083/61/15

Sphere of communication and discourse: terminological redundancy or the essential difference? | Sibirskii Filologicheskii Zhurnal - Siberian Journal of Philology. 2017. № 4. DOI: 10.17223/18137083/61/15