Karshi state university master of arts department

CHAPTER II. THEORETICAL FOUNDATION OF THE RESEARCH OF PRAGMATIC - COMMUNICATIVE TYPES OF PHRASEOLOGICAL UNIT
2.1. Discourse analysis in the study of the pragmatic-communicative parameters of phraseological unit in context-discursive conditions
Cognitive linguistics, trying to reveal the peculiarities of the structures of the organization of knowledge and operations on these structures, usually comes from the data obtained in the course of the analysis of language material. This way of research - from the linguistic form to the cognitive structure it represents - is of an interpretative nature and is oriented towards understanding the utterance, so it turns out to be close to the approach that is practiced in discursive analysis. It is no coincidence that scientists working in the mainstream of the cognitive approach are increasingly turning to the ideas of discursive analysis in search of new research techniques and heuristics.
In this regard, it is appropriate to consider some provisions of the discursive analysis in order to determine their place in the methodology of cognitive linguistics and to identify the possibilities of their use for solving the problems of the present study.
Among the dominant theories of linguistics at the end of the 20th century, a special place, according to V.Z. Demyankov, takes an analysis of the discourse. The goal of discourse analysis is to explain why those and not other statements were used, why this way of mobilizing the forces of using data from social sources was chosen³¹. In the present study, discourse analysis should describe how, in the context of human interaction aimed at achieving any goals, communicators interpret speech and actions, whether such reference to interpretation is mutual - as in the case of a conversation - or non-reciprocal, when we read or write Such a task, in our opinion, forces discourse analysis to expand due to detail the communicative functions of messages. Interpretation is based on general and specific knowledge used in the course of this process.
Investigating the categorical and semiotic characteristics of phraseological unit the first chapter, we came to the conclusion that in the system of the language of phraseological units. They reach a high degree of sign significance. In this regard, it should be noted that the most interesting areas in the further study of phraseological units, in our opinion, are pragmatics and the context of communication. Consequently, pragmatic and communicative parameters occupy a priority place in the study of phraseology. Based on the principle of a systematic approach to the phenomenon being studied, these phraseologies’ parameters should be considered in the fullest possible context of their application. This context, in our opinion, is discourse.
According to A.M. Kaplunenko, “a rare text is self-sufficient for an adequate interpretation, therefore an ascent to discourse, to knowledge that has remained beyond the limits expressed in the text, is logical³². Since the concept of “discourse” is of fundamental importance in this study, it will be given special attention. We consider it logical to dwell on the interpretation of such concepts as: “discourse” and “text”, as well as on the relationship of these concepts.
The definition of such a thing as “discourse” already implies a certain ideological orientation, its own point of view on the analysis of language communication. In this regard, it is interesting to trace the formation of scientific thought regarding this concept. Michel Foucault considers discourse in the broadest sense and considers discourse not a linguistic, but a general cultural concept. He writes: “... Certainly, discourse is a sign event, but what he does is more than just using signs to signify things. It is this more that allows him to be irreducible to language and speech ”³³.
The unit or “atom” of discourse in the understanding of M. Foucault is a statement. Collections of statements form discursive formations. Foucault refers to the formations of such aspects of human society as economics, politics, medicine, the science of living beings, which allows him to speak, for example, about climate discourse, economic discourse, natural history discourse, psychiatry, etc.
Thus, all areas of human knowledge are, in his view, a collection of discourses. At the same time, Foucault admits that such use of the notion of “discourse” is not considered generally accepted, and linguists give it a completely different meaning. In linguistic studies, the concept of “discourse” is interpreted as “a coherent text in combination with extralinguistic, pragmatic, sociocultural, psychological and other factors; the text taken in the eventual aspect, speech considered as a targeted social action, as a component involved in the interaction of people and the mechanisms of their consciousness. Discourse is speech immersed in life ”³⁴.
Yu.S. Stepanov considers the definition given by V.Z. Demyankov to be the best: “Discourse is a discourse, an arbitrary fragment of text consisting of more than one sentence or an independent part of a sentence. Often, but not always, concentrates around some reference concept; creates a general context describing the actors, objects, circumstances, times, actions, etc., determined not so much by the sequence of sentences as by the world common for the discourse creating and its interpreter, which is “built” in the course of the discourse deployment”. It should be noted that in this part of the definition, V.Z. Demyankov expresses the intentional structure of discourse, since it deals with the world of the interpreter, i.e. on the intentional horizon and the context of interpretation. At the same time, the discourse, as the author of this definition believes, has a logical structure and continues: “The original structure for a discourse it has the form of a sequence of elementary propositions, interconnected by logical relations of conjunction, disjunction, etc. Elements of discourse: narrated events, their participants, performative information and “non-events”, i.e. a) the circumstances accompanying the event; b) background explaining the events; c) assessment of participants in the events; d) information relating to discourse with events ”³⁵.
As follows from both definitions, discourse must be understood as a text or speech in action, in combination with all extralinguistic factors, including knowledge of the world, opinions, attitudes, assessments, goals of the addresser.
Thus, discourse is a broader and more open concept. The point of view of Yu.S.Stepanov, which links discourse with the concepts of an alternative world, fact and causality, is interesting. Yu.S. Stepanov also a broad lingvo-philosophical interpretation of discourse as a “language in a language”, presented as a special social reality. At the same time, discourse cannot be reduced to style, grammar, or lexicon as just a language. It “exists, first of all, and mainly in the texts, but such, followed by a special grammar, a special lexicon, special rules of word usage and syntax, special semantics - ultimately a special world”³⁶. Although Yu.S. Stepanov also speaks of the existence of discourse in texts, his vision of discourse as a special, possible world takes the discourse far beyond the text.
Let us now consider how some foreign linguists, who have made a significant contribution to the development of the theory of discourse, define this concept. Makarov sees three approaches to the definition of “discourse”.