Karshi state university master of arts department

The first approach, carried out from the standpoint of formally oriented linguistics, defines discourse simply as a language above the level of sentences or phrases - “language above the sentence or above the clause”
The second approach gives a functional definition of discourse as “any use of language”: the decree.: . This approach assumes the conditionality of the analysis of discourse functions by studying the functions of a language in a broad sociocultural context.
The third approach to defining “discourse” emphasizes the interaction of form and function: “discourse as utterances” - “discourse as utterances”.
This definition implies that discourse is not a primitive set of isolated units of the “more sentence” language structure, but a holistic collection of functionally organized, contextualized units of language use³⁷.
Undoubted interest in the concept under consideration is caused by the approach of Robert de Bogrand. The scientist interprets this concept from a slightly different angle and, let us say, in a completely original context. Taking into account the fact that the science of the language of the 20th century has been studying only language as such for a long time, Bogrand emphasizes that in the real world the language does not exist by itself: “You will not find the Dutch language strolling along the canals, English, enjoying a cup of tea, and German, wildly rushing along the autobahn. You will find only discourses, real communicative events ”³⁸.
Considering the relationship of these two concepts, V.G. Borbotko argues that text is a more general concept than discourse, since text is a sequence of units of any order. Discourse, according to the scientist, is also a text, but one that consists of communicative units of the language - sentences and their associations into larger unity, which are in continuous internal semantic connection, which allows to perceive it as a complete education. For example, texts, stories, articles, speeches, poems can be considered as discourses. At the same time, V.G .Borbotko does not deny the status of discourse as “the highest communicative language unit”³⁹.
Some linguists relate the concepts of “discourse” and “text”, attempting to differentiate between categories of text and discourse, which were previously interchangeable, by means of the situation factor. Discourse is suggested to be interpreted as “text plus situation”, and the text, respectively, is defined as “discourse minus situation”⁴⁰. Sometimes the distinction between these categories occurs along the line written text oral discourse. So, at I.R. Halperin we find the following understanding of the text, according to which: “the text is a writing-work written in a letter”⁴¹. Following I.R. Halperin, Z.Ya.Turaeva adopts such a narrow definition of the text, which excludes oral speech from consideration and according to which “the text is a work of writing, having perfection, objectified in the form of a written document”⁴² . This approach, which is very characteristic of supporters of the formal study of language and speech, unnecessarily narrows the scope of these categories, reducing them to only two forms of language reality — using and not using writing. Based on this dichotomy, a number of linguists prefer to distinguish between discourse analysis, the object of which, in their opinion, should be oral speech and written text linguistics. Such an approach sometimes does not work, for example, a report can be viewed simultaneously as a written text and a speech (communicative event), although monologue in nature, but nevertheless reflecting all the specifics of language communication in this type of activity.
In a great many of functionally oriented studies, there is a tendency to oppose discourse and text according to a number of opposing criteria: functionality, structure, process and product. Accordingly, structural text-as-product and functional discourse-as-process are distinguished.
Some linguists interpret discourse as an emphatically interactive way of speech interaction, as opposed to a text usually belonging to one author, which brings this opposition together with the traditional opposition dialogue vs. monologue. In itself, this distinction is rather arbitrary; L.S.Vygotsky, M.M. Bakhtin and others wrote about the dialogical nature of the whole language, speech and thinking⁴³. Obviously, we can talk about writing interaction.
Thus, despite the significant differences between the discourse and the text, there are some similarities between them sufficient to, according to J. Leach, include the concept of “discourse” text as an abstract theoretical construct that is realized in the discourse is the same as the sentence is actualized in the statement. In the words of J. Leach, the text is realized in the message through which the discourse is carried out⁴⁴.
As we can see, modern linguistics is rich in various approaches to the definition of the concept of “discourse”. In this connection, the point of view of A.M. Kaplunenko, which very accurately expresses the relationship between the concepts of “discourse” and “text”, attracts attention. According to the point of view of the scientist, “discourse is a broader and universal linguistic object, covering not only the linguistic structure of the speech work, but also typical parameters of the communicative situation, features of communicants, strategy for building communication. In contrast to discourse, the text is a more specific and narrow phenomenon that does not go beyond the actual structural and semantic parameters of the speech work⁴⁵. Such a broad understanding of discourse is increasingly found today in the linguistic literature that addresses this issue. Of course, we cannot exhaust all of it, therefore we takes point of view as the main one, according to which discourse is a complex communicative phenomenon that includes, in addition to the text, extralinguistic factors (knowledge of the world, opinions, attitudes, goals addressee required to understand the text). Following the scientist, we consider discourse in three of its aspects: 1) use of language, 2) transfer of ideas and beliefs (communication), 3) interaction in socially-conditioned situations.
Obviously, an integration approach to the study of all three aspects gives a complete picture of how the use of language affects the way ideas and beliefs are transmitted, and vice versa, as well as aspects of interaction affect how people speak and how beliefs control language usage and interaction during communication. Recall that the object of this study is phraseology, therefore one should not lose sight of the fact that intensity is not just a “appendage” to the semantics of the predicate, but primarily a part of the whole meaning that characterizes the intentionality of the author of speech. This explains our so close attention to discourse analysis as a method for studying the pragmatic - communicative parameters of phraseologies. At present, there are various models of discourse analysis in theoretical linguistics. Appeal to discursive analysis in the study of phraseologies in context - discursive conditions suggests the rationale for the choice of one of them.
Let us remind that the object of the present study is FI, so we should not lose sight of the fact that intensity is not just an «additive» to the semantics of the predicate, but primarily a part of the whole meaning that characterizes the intentionality of the author of the speech. This explains our close attention to the analysis of discourse as a method of studying the pragmatic and communicative parameters of FI. Currently, in theoretical linguistics there are various models of discourse analysis. Appealing to discourse analysis in the study of FI in contextual - discursive conditions involves justifying the choice of one of them.
2.1.3 Rationale for the choice of the model of discourse analysis in the study of FI in contextual - discursive conditions
Several analytical models have been developed within the framework of discourse analysis, among which V.Z. Demyankov distinguishes two types:
1.Formal models - in them semantic qualities of language forms are not considered and are distracted from historical aspects of language. These include the following areas: speech act theory, conversation analysis and ethnography of speech. These models aim to describe communicative competence. Formal theories of discourse consider the forms of existence of spoken language from the perspective of human interaction in the sociological aspect. The sequences of speech interactions are the subject of analysis. The units under study lie above the level of the sentence; for example, these units include speech acts and moves in communication and the exchange of replicas⁴⁶.
2.Content models - they focus discourse analysis entirely on the semantic and historical planes, both theoretically and practically. An example is the approach of M. Foucault, who understands by discourse «a set of verbal performances», and his analysis of discourse is aimed at explaining the phenomena of speech activity, more precisely, what has been produced by a set of signs⁴⁷.
The communicative model of discourse analysis developed by T. van Dyck has received the greatest linguistic resonance. Let us dwell on the main provisions of this model.
1. T. van Dijk’s model of discourse analysis combines both the formal and substantive aspects of discourse analysis highlighted by V. Z. Demyankov and provides for the analysis of discourse understood as a communicative event and verbal interaction.
2. According to this model, discourse analysis focuses on speech as a product of speaking and text as a product of writing in the context of the communicative event as a whole.
3. Approaching the methodology of discourse analysis as such, T. van Dijk emphasizes the openness, unclosed nature of discourse. According to the linguist, discourse analysis always takes us with the help of models and social contexts into another discourse. Discourse analysis moves in a circle from macro to micro levels of conversation, text, context, society, and vice versa.
4. «Discourse is not merely an isolated textual or dialogical structure. Rather, it is a complex communicative
1) Learning the natural language of texts and conversations;
1) the use of context (social and cultural);
2) a linear sequence of analysis of structural units;
3) consideration of written and oral discourse as a social practice of its participants;
4) the study of oral speech, but written speech should not be completely ignored;
5) taking into account in the analysis of discourse the categorization produced by its participants;
6) identification of the general meaning and functions of discourse;
7) analysis of discourse in all directions and at all levels (sound, grammatical, semantic);
8) taking into account the constructiveness of discourse, since its constructive elements can be functionally used, understood and studied as parts of other elements;
9) consideration of general grammatical, communicative rules and rules of speech interaction, as well as consideration of violations, disregard and modifications of existing rules in a given discourse;
10) identifying the strategies that language users use to achieve the goals of discourse;
11) recognizing the role of social cognition in discourse i.e. knowledge, attitudes, ideologies, norms, values⁴⁸.
For the purposes of the study of the pragmatic and communicative parameters of FI in discourse, in our opinion, it is the communicative model of T. van Dijk that seems the most acceptable, since it not only involves a systematic description of its various dimensions, but also makes it possible to determine the relationship between language use, ideas and persuasions, as well as their interaction.
According to the model we have chosen, discourse analysis should answer the following questions: How does language use affect persuasion and influence? How do aspects of speech influence language? How do beliefs control language and impact?⁴⁹. Answering these questions clearly requires an interdisciplinary approach that encompasses a number of theoretical postulates. The main theoretical approaches to discourse analysis as well as to the analysis of the pragmatic-communicative parameters of FI will be discussed in the next section.