KAZAKH ABLAI KHAN UNIVERSITY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND WORLD LANGUAGES MIDTERM 2 Project work The classification of the discourse theories of Van Dijk Prepared by Sandybay A., Salikhojayeva Y. 422 group Almaty 2022 Aim: to identify the classification of discourse theories according to Van Dijk Overview: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Introduction Discourse-analysis The emergence of some theories of discourse The birth of discourse analysis The basis of the classification of Van Dijk's theories of discourse Conclusions of the process of formation of discourse analysis Conclusion References Introduction According to T.A. Van Dijk's "Discourse is a speech stream, language in its constant movement, absorbing all the diversity of the historical era, individual and social characteristics of both the communicant and the communicative situation in which communication occurs. Discourse reflects the mentality and culture, both national, universal and individual, private". The emergence of discourse “Discourse” was first introduced into the scientific theory of text linguistics by the American scholar Z. Harris in 1952 as a linguistic term in the phrase "discourse analysis". Thus, the concept of "discourse", borrowed from structural linguistics, is gaining increasing scientific interpretation and terminological versatility at the end of the twentieth century. According to T.A. Van Dijk's definition, "discourse is a speech flow, language in its constant movement, absorbing all the diversity of the historical era, individual and social characteristics of both the communicant and the communicative situation in which communication takes place. Discourse reflects the mentality and culture, both national, universal and individual, private". Looking at different interpretations of discourse, Van Dijk notes that the term is used in science with several meanings: ● Discourse in the broad sense (as a complex communicative event) can be spoken, written, and have verbal and non-verbal components; ● Discourse in the narrow sense (as a text or conversation) is the written or spoken verbal product of a communicative action; ● Discourse as a specific conversation always relates to some specific objects in a specific setting and in a specific context; ● Discourse as a type of conversation related not to specific communicative actions, but to types of verbal production; ● Discourse as a genre (e.g.: news discourse, political discourse, scientific discourse); ● Discourse as a generalized representation of a specific historical period, a social community or an entire culture Discourse analysis Van Dijk's classification of discourse theories is based on a disciplinary-genetic approach, which is formulated in the introductory article to the first volume of the four-volume Handbook of Discourse Analysis that he edited (see: Dijk, 1985). In his preface, Van Dijk presents discourse analysis as a new cross-discipline whose development is linked to the constant expansion of the field of study, with more and more disciplines becoming involved in the study of discourse, resulting in a variety of discourse analysis disciplines in the humanities and social sciences. Van Dijk sees the expansion of the field of discourse analysis as a result of integrative interdisciplinary processes. The process of expanding the subject field of discourse analysis, according to Van Dijk, is accompanied by the introduction into discourse theory of new methodological approaches borrowed from certain disciplines. Van Dijk attributes the early emergence of discourse analysis as a new independent discipline to the application of structural linguistics methods in the study of literary works and cultural myths. The first theoretical experiments in structural analysis of discourse, in his opinion, can be considered the work of Vladimir Propp, "The Morphology of the Folktale" (1928), and the structuralist studies of primitive mythology by Lévi-Strauss in the 1930s. Van Dijk attributes the emergence of the first specialized works on the theory and practice of discourse analysis to the publication of Communications 4 and Communications 8 in France in 1964 and 1968 (see: Communications 4, 1964; Communications 8, 1968). These collections published Todorov's work on the application of structural linguistics and semantics to literature, and the first works on semiotics and semiology by Barth, Eco and others. By combining structural analysis with semiotic analysis, the subject area of discourse analysis expanded to the study of mass culture products and mass communications (cinema, advertising, media, fashion, etc.). Van Dijk concludes his brief analysis of the formation of discourse analysis with a number of general conclusions. First, the early interest in systematic discourse analysis was predominantly a structuralist enterprise, linked to the application of the structuralist approach to linguistic and anthropological research. The subject of study was not only folk genres and myths, but also ritual interactive interactions. Secondly, in the 1960s discourse analysis was enriched by semiotic methods of research on texts, mass communication media and communicative events. Thirdly, the emergence of new research areas within linguistics has contributed to the further development of discourse analysis both within and outside of linguistic research. The birth of discourse analysis in the status of a new discipline, according to Van Dijk The emergence of discourse analysis as a new discipline, according to Van Dijk, occurred between 1972 and 1974. In the early 1970s, the first monographs and collective works appeared, fully or partially devoted to discourse analysis as an independent interdisciplinary branch of knowledge. In the early 1970s, theories of everyday, conversational discourse emerged within sociolinguistics (Labov, Sacs, Schegloff, Jefferson) and, within philosophy of language, the theory of speech acts (Austin, Grice, Searle), which began to focus on the extra-linguistic dimensions of discourse, namely the speaker's intentions, beliefs, value orientations and relations between the speaker and listener. At the same time, the field of everyday discourse is becoming the subject of new sociological disciplines: microsociology and phenomenological sociology (Goffman, Garfinkel et al.). The natural and spontaneous language of colloquial communication has been viewed through the lens of linguistic pragmatics and social situations. Discourse analysis acquired dialogical and situational dimensions (situational convergent discourse analysis). The subject of interest is various kinds of institutional dialogical discourses, such as conversations between students in school classrooms (Sinclair and Coulthard). At least two other disciplines, according to Van Dijk, contributed significantly to the emergence of new theories of discourse in the 1970s, namely cognitive psychology and computer science. The development of cognitive psychology led to the emergence of psychological theories of discourse, or discursive psychology (Kintsch, Bower, Rumelhart, Charniak). The development of computer science enriched discourse analysis with a new categorical apparatus describing the reproduction of knowledge in artificial memory. During the following decade, covering the period from 1974-1985, according to Van Dijk, disciplinary integration in the field of discourse analysis intensified. The interdisciplinary process of studying discourse becomes increasingly homogeneous and autonomous. Discourse analysis is becoming a superdiscipline, involving more and more objects in its field of study. Discourse analysis is penetrating into the legal space, making legal documents and relations of textual and dialogical nature its subject. The study of mass communications is evolving from the previously popular content analysis to a more sophisticated discourse analysis of media texts and media performances. Here, as in semiotics, not only verbal but also visual discourses - photographs, films, comics, etc. - are systematically analyzed. Clinical psychology turns to the study of therapeutic discourse, social psychology to the interaction of cognitive and social aspects of incentive communication, to the situational analysis of verbal interactions mediated by discourse. Since the mid-1980s, according to Van Dijk, discourse analysis has entered a phase of developing intraspecific specialization. Specialized theories of discourse emerge, such as ideological discourse theory, ethnic discourse theory, social minority discourse theory, racist discourse theory and others. New ideological and theoretical trends in discourse analysis are emerging. Critical discourse analysis (abbreviated as CDA) is becoming one of the widest and most branched out areas. The analysis of political discourse stands out as a special field. Van Dijk himself has in recent years specialized in the study of ideological discourse, especially the discourse of racism. The basis of the classification of Van Dijk's theories of discourse Van Dijk's classification of discourse theories is based on a disciplinary-genetic approach, which was formulated in the introductory article to the first volume of the four-volume Handbook of Discourse Analysis (1985) that he edited. Conclusions of the process of formation of discourse analysis Van Dijk concludes his brief analysis of the formation of discourse analysis with a number of general conclusions. First, the early interest in systematic discourse analysis was predominantly a structuralist enterprise, linked to the application of the structuralist approach to linguistic and anthropological research. The subject of study was not only folk genres and myths, but also ritual interactive interactions. Secondly, in the 1960s discourse analysis was enriched by semiotic methods of research on texts, mass communication media and communicative events. Thirdly, the emergence of new research areas within linguistics has contributed to the further development of discourse analysis both within and outside of linguistic research. Conclusion So much of discourse theory is oriented toward unmasking, debunking, and raising our consciousness about the ways current discourses serve power that one sympathizes with Foucault's suggestion that it reflects intellectuals' uneasiness, embarrassment, or fear of power, which has as much a creative, positive aspect as it does an exclusionary, silencing one. That observation, made late in his life, remains to be fully assimilated into discourse theory. The methodological basis of discourse theories is of a fundamentally complex, interdisciplinary nature, and the subject area of these theories is always open for further expansion. Taken as a whole, multiple theories of discourse represent an intensively and extensively developing poly paradigmatic, cross-disciplinary area of contemporary scientific research. We have seen that among many other resources that define the power base of a group or institution, access to or control over public discourse and communication is an important “symbolic” resource, as is the case for knowledge and information (van Dijk 1996). Also vital for all discourse and communication is who controls the topics (semantic macrostructures) and topic change, as when editors decide what news topics will be covered (Gans 1979; van Dijk 1988a, 1988b). Van Dijk (1988b) applies a theory of news discourse (van Dijk 1988a) in critical studies of international news, racism in the press, and the coverage of squatters in Amsterdam References 1. 2. 3. 4. https://studfile.net/preview/10033132/ https://articlekz.com/article/28920?ysclid=lbkd3i8f1n569771194 http://analiculturolog.ru/journal/archive/item/514-article_47-3.html Teun A. Van Dijk. Critical Discourse Analysis http://srirahayupku.blogspot.co.id/2016/10/critical-discourse-analysis-fromteun.html
