Literary discourse (меня не было на этой лекции, поэтому источники в помощь)
On the one hand, literature was researched for centuries. On the other hand, there is still a huge problem, because there are various approaches and different arguments. Literature may embed a lot of other styles (types of discourse).
The nature of the context of literary discourse is quite different from that of non-literary discourse. It is dissociated from the immediacy of social content. A non-literary text makes a connection with the context of our everyday social practice. A literary text does not. Any literary text is self-enclosed (contained).
According to one of the paradigms, literary discourse is a specific kind of discourse. It was offered by Jacobson, who wrote: “literary discourse is an organized violence committed on ordinary speech.” (because stylistic devices are difficult to interpret)
There is another approach produced by cognitive scholars and scientists. They believe it is better to dismiss these differences as such, but actually we should discuss these differences in terms of a scale.
Literature may be considered not only as discourse, but also a discourse (a piece of discourse), which shares characteristics with some other discources. In 1997 Carter proposed a continuum of literariness, along which a typology of discourses may be situated as more or less literary. The idea of cline, or continuum, is present in many disciplines. C. put forward some criteria.
Дальше по лекции, до чёт ничего не понятно
1) One of his criteria is medium-dependence. It means that the more literary a text is, the less it will be dependent for its reading on another medium. This criterion is part of the tradition, which attributes to a literary text the quality of mimesis (or fictionality). According to this tradition, literary texts generate a world of internal (self-contained) reference within the text.
However, according to Carter, this is not to suggest that literary texts cannot be determined by external or social or biographical influences.
2) Displaced interaction. What is conventionally regarded as literary text is likely to be one, in which the context-bound interaction between the author and the reader is more deeply embedded or displaced.
3) Polysemy. A literary text conventionally will be read for polyvalent meanings and may be produced with such functions in mind. One characteristic of a polysemic text is its lexical items. Do not stop automatically at their first interpretation. Denotation might acquire connotation. Polysemy is a significant communicative function that is promoted and valued in particular contexts and that operates according to specific reading strategies.
|
|
|
4) Reregistration. This notion means that no single word or stylistic feature will be separated from admission to any literary context. Reregistration recognizes that the full unrestricted of a language are open to exploitation of literary ends.
Michael Bahtin suggested that the characteristics of discursive genres may be represented in a literary context. According to him the effect of reregistration, of appropriating the characteristic of another discourse as an object for representation is often parodic (?) or travesting.
5) Interaction of levels and semantic density
A text that is perceived as resulting from the additive interaction of several levels is recognized as more literary text that is the fewer levels at work in the text, the less chances that the text belongs to literature.
6) Discourse patterning (through repetition).
Before criteria for literariness have focused mostly on effects
Now the situation has change and all linguists interested in literature and literary discourse address not to only one sentence but address to a number of sentences belonging
Literariness is seen as a point on a cline rather than as an absolute feature of literary language.
Word meaning and discourse
1) Denotational meaning equates the meaning of a word with the objects it refers to, which are its denotation and reference. A word’s denotation is clearly connected to the reference, but they don’t mean one and the same term. (Reference – its occurrence in a text)
Mentalist theory of meaning. If meanings are not real objects, it could be some idea associated with a word/ expression.
Meaning is viewed by some linguists as an image.
Meaning is a concept which is a mentally represented category of something. There is psychological evidence that our system of classification is structured in terms of prototypes.
Ogden, Richards (1956) compiled a representative list of word meaning (60 definitions) They included intentions, feelings, dictionary intentions.
|
|
|
Richards sets forth a contextual theory of Signs: Words and Things are connected “through their occurrence together with things, their linkage with them in a ‘context’; Symbols come to play that important part in our life [even] the source of all our power over the external world”. In this context system, Richards develops a tri-part semiotics—symbol, thought and referent with three relations between them.
Frege: meaning is a sense (what kind of attitude may it arouse in the person - interpretation), meaning is a reference (what the thing itself means - identity).
Properties of meaning
- Duality of meanings (there are elements that bear meaning and those that are meaningless)
- Ambiguity (one cannot precisely understand the meaning) e.g. policemy: a try/to try
Wittgenstein was the first to put forward an idea that meaning is something that can be easily changed. Meaning is a kind of a game. He insisted that the meaning of a word depend largely on its role in a sentence.
Cognitive (conceptual) approach is one of the latest. Conceptual semantics deals with meaning and decomposition of meaning.. Its aim is to provide a characterization of the conceptual elements by which a person understands words and sentences.
Discourse and gender
Cameron (1998) suggests viewing gender by looking at how people in particular social and cultural interactions do gender in their use of language. (Gender and language had been linked in scholarly writings well before the second wave of the Women’s Movement began in the late 1960s and early 1970s (for example, Jespersen 1922, Labov 1966).
People perform particular identities through the use of language. This is mostly done unconsciously as we repeat acts (gestures, movement, ways of using language) that people from our own gender around us use. Consequently, a person learns how to do and ‘display’ being a woman in a particular setting. These are not natural acts, they are acquired from interaction in a certain society.
Robin Lakoff views the difference in language use as a result of male domination. That women’s language is a way to keep women in a subordinate position.
|
|
|
Deborah Tannen argues that girls and boys live in different subcultures, and as a result they grow up learning different ways of using language.
THE DYNAMIC APPROACH:
The relationship between gender and language is always indirect and mediated by something else.
• Particular roles: mother, teacher, wife?
• Activities: shopping, praying, gossiping?
• Personality traits: modest, arrogant?
The person is said to have multiple identities which may all play at the same time or at different contexts.
In this paradigm, gender (the sociocultural expression of biological sex) is something that people do rather than something that people have. In this way, gender is something dynamic, changing and malleable; it is something that we do every time we speak. In this sense, gender is cultural, and the differences between men and women’s speech is conditioned by cultural expectations about what it is to speak like a man and speak like a woman. One benefit of the dynamic approach is that it allows us to examine speakers in context, rather than as a homogenous group of ‘men’ or ‘women’.
According to the dynamic approach and the concept of “doing gender,” styles of communication are classified as “masculine” or “feminine.” But it’s important to remember that, despite those terms, no style of communication is exclusive to one gender or another; all men and women use both kinds in different situations. What are the characteristics of masculine and feminine types of speech?
• Masculine speech is competitive, while feminine speech strives to achieve harmony.
• Masculine speech emphasizes independence, while feminine speech seeks consensus.
• Feminine speech is polite and indirect, while masculine speech is blunt and direct.
• Detailed descriptions are feminine, while brief summaries are masculine.
• Masculine speech is detached, while feminine speech is emotional.
Дата добавления: 2019-02-26; просмотров: 1074; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!