Вопрос. Intentionality and acceptability
Intentionality was used in philosophy. Fres Brendanou introduced it into philosophy.
It was regarded as a property of mental state. Much later it was introduced into linguistics that happened in the early 20th.
In 1950 the term stated its independence from philosophy and since that time there has been a fight between philosophers and linguists.
Gibs, one of the famous American scientist produced the definition of that term.
The primary role of intention in communication is to secure the referent of the speakers.
Another definition comes from Grise who gave the understanding any utterance/text/ piece of discourse is recognizing the intention underlying that text.
Linguists propose 2 types of intention:
- Any speaker has an informative function
- Any speaker has a communicative function
Successful communication demands the fulfillment of both intentions.
When it is exercised, it gets the name of «ostensive» communication.
Within the writer’s communication intentions we differentiate explicit/implicit communication.
The content of explicature comes from 2 distinct sources(the linguistic expression and the context) and it is derived in 2 ways:
- linguistic decoding
- pragmatic inference (т.е. вывод смысла/значения)
Implicature is derived purely inferentially.
Intentionality plays a permanent role in speech act theory and in relevance theory.
Here interest is on the communicative intentions of the speaker and there is the recognition of the intention.
Part of the debate over the importance of intentions stands on different aspects of the intension.
They worked out 4 ways of intentionality:
- expressions of intentions
- escriptions of intentions
- description with the intention with which some actions are done
- classification of actions has intended
Acceptability is smth what the reader accept or smth that all the people from one culture accepted (the view of the world).
(Простите, но там больше ничего нет по этому термину)
Вопрос . Intertextuality
The concept of intertextuality is grounded in the ideas of the Russian philosopher and literary theorist Mikhail Bakhtin, who worked in the early part of the twentieth century.
Julia Kristeva was the first to coin the term "intertextuality" (intertextualité) in an attempt to synthesize Ferdinand de Saussure's semiotics—his study of how signs derive their meaning within the structure of a text—with Bakhtin's dialogism—his theory which suggests a continual dialogue with other works of literature and other author.
|
|
|
Broadly defined intertextuality is the juxtaposition of different texts. Traditionally intertext has been defined as a property of a text.
There are 3 aspects of social constructions of intertextuality, which are:
- intertextual substance;
- intertextual process;
- rights which refer to the different distribution of the rights to participate in the social construction of that intertextuality.
Intertext emerged from theories which were mostly concerned to the literature.
Modern scholars view texts as lacking text in any kind of some meaning. They claim that the act of reading into the network plunges a reader into textual relations.
Any kind of reading is the action of finding intertextuality.
Intertext has a two-fold coherence intertextual one which guarantees the integrity of the text and intertextual coherence which creates structural relations between itself and some other texts.
Informativity
It’s essential to view text as a communicative event where social, ling, cogn connectives converge in. The textuality can be regarded as a system of connections among various elements (participants, words, sounds)
Textuality is an actual system of interconnected real choices drawn from the language as virtual system of potential choices.
Textuality comprises all of the features that distinguish the text.
Beaugrande’s 7 parameters:
1. cohesion
2. coherence
3. intentionality
4. acceptability
5. informativity
6. situationality
7. intertextuality
Informativity was defined by Beaugrande and Dressler as “the extent to which a presentation is new or unexpected for the receiver”. They added that the notion usually applies to content, but that it can apply to other language systems, such as the structural or the syntactic ones.
This notion is usually applied to content.
Informativity is usually defined with new information, which reader gets from the text.
Informativity is one of the main principles of textuality.
|
|
|
The principle connects the text event to the situation where it occurs.
Information in the text may be explicit or implicit.
The concept of discourse
Discourse is the discipline devoted to the investigation of the relationship between form and function in verbal communication. In German linguistics discourse denotes structural sets of speech acts. In this case the meaning of d. is closely linked to the particular theoretical approach.
The first generation of linguists referred Discourse to spoken texts.
Any text refers to something written.
New approach - text and discourse are referred to spoken and written texts. The differences depend on composition, structure. Discourse is very close to social factors. Interphase is between linguistic and social factors.
Leeuwen: d. is (re)contextualized in social practice.
Cameron & Kulik: d. is an instance of language in use socially situated and need to be interpreted in terms of their social meaning and functions. Through the use of language people achieve certain communicative goals, perform certain communicative acts, and participate in communicative events. Language is a piece of discourse.
For the first time the term ‘discourse’ was introduced by Harris in 1952.
Discourse presents now a new sociologically imbedded perspective on the way we examine texts, utterances, conversation.
Drawing from the pragmatic idea that language is always used in context, linguistic discourse analysts have been critical of pure linguistic theory by Chomsky, who placed the greatest importance on syntax and grammar and never approached sentence analysis.
Those scholars who share pragmatic approach oppose discourse to sentence, to language, to text. If they contrast discourse with language, they believe discourse usually refers to the usage, to specific context.
In this understanding discourse must not be compounded with language as a system or structure.
Discourse can cover a multitude of phenomena: a discipline, a position in a discursive field, genre of discourse, type of discourse, verbal production.
Discourse studies can not be referred to one school or to one person. Discourse is a result of the convergence of a number of theoretical and methodological terms. It appeared in of social science and philosophy, sociology, psychology, history ….
|
|
|
There are the majority of people who are interested in DA and still remain be linguists and sociologist. Reasons : Diversity of sch, Diversity of experiments
Discourse analysis
Discourse analysis is a view of language at the level of the text/utterance/conversation. It defines how through the use of language people achieve certain communicative goals, perform certain acts, participate in communicative events and present themselves to others.
Faircluff: d.a. is moving between a focus on specific texts and a focus on what he calls the order of discourse relatively durable social structuring and networking of social practices. He includes d.a. into discursive analysis: various texts particularly related to each other according to their genre and style. According to him and many other analysts, discourse is a construction of meaning of any text, utterance, conversation.
Discourse is a method of text analysis.
Discourse studies are textually and socially oriented (what the text is doing in the social and cultural setting). That leads linguists to the relationship between language and society; language and identity. We not only display what we are, but also how other people want to see us.
Discourse study is the result of convergence of a number of disciplines of theoretical trends, originated in different countries. They are social sciences and humanities (linguistics, sociology, philosophy, literary criticism, anthropology, history, culture studies etc.). These studies got a linguistic turn.
Discourse analysis has assumed forms depending on their field.
There are two different approaches to the discourse studies.
1) Pragmatic (textually-oriented). This approach is taken up by linguists and microsociologists. According to it, discourse is a process/ practice of contextualizing a text. Discourse is language in use, the situated production of speech acts, a turn-taking practice.
2) Socio-historical (socially-oriented). Macrosociologists belong to this approach. They claim that discourse is a number of verbal and non-verbal practices.
Both linguistic and social approaches are characteristic of discourse studies. Discourse is always oriented towards linguistics and sociology. Discourse is interplay between linguistic and social approaches.
Дата добавления: 2019-02-26; просмотров: 421; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!