View this article in RussianAccording to an approach by P. Seriot discourse represents the process of making an impact on an addressee with regard to the situation [1]. Making a certain impact discourse represents one of the instruments of exercising social power.
T. N. Astaphurova and A. V. Olyanich regard the phenomenon of power as one of the most important types of social influence, a specific type of relations between members of society one of which complies with the other’s orders. T. N. Astaphurova and A. V. Olyanich distinguish between three types of the phenomenon of power: absolute, sacral and institutional [2].
As one of criteria for classification of discourse types A.A. Kibrik singles out the degree of formality which he describes as a character of social relations between a speaker and an addressee [3]. The category of formality distinguished by A. A. Kibrik correlates with the opposition of a person-oriented and a status-oriented (institutional) discourse introduced by V. I. Karasik.
Analysis of the approaches by A. A. Kibrik and V. I. Karasik leads to the understanding of personal discourse as communication of closely acquainted people exposing their inner world to each other. The institutional discourse represents a speech interaction between members of social groups and institutions with each other, with people exercising their status-role opportunities in the framework of established social institutions the number of which correlates with demands of society on a certain stage of its development [4]. Thus, a speaker acts not like a person sharing their inner world but as a member of a certain social institution and as a bearer of a certain social status.
Such a communication presupposes compliance with established status-role and situation-communicative norms. V.I. Karasik compares this to communication in masks.
Speaking of discourse types V. I. Karasik distinguishes the following ones: political, administrative, juridical, military, pedagogical, religious, mystical, medical, business, advertising, sports, scientific, mass-media, discourse of stage [4].
V.I. Karasik notes that members of institutional discourse may be not acquainted to each other, the more important condition is compliance with norms of behavior in a particular society. The centre of institutional discourse is communication of a base pair of communication members. In addition, institutional communication has got a clearly stated aim and is realized in a prototype place (school, church, stadium etc) [4].
In regard to institutional discourse M.L. Makarov singles out its characteristic feature: a rigid structure with maximum speech restrictions [5].
It is worth mentioning that characteristics of institutional discourse introduced by V. I. Karasik comply with political discourse fully, though a rigid structure and maximum speech restrictions mentioned by M.L. Makarov relate not to all subtypes of political discourse.
In political discourse as a type of institutional discourse a speaker acts as a member of a certain social institution and as a bearer of a certain social status which presupposes compliance with established status-role and situation-communicative norms [6, p. 44]. According to E.I. Sheigal, the difference of political communication from other types of institutional communication lies in a type of addressees. In political discourse an addressee is usually of mass type, i.e. a mass addressee. More seldom it is a group addressee, and even more seldom − an individual one whereas in medical, juridical, administrative, trade, pedagogical and other professional and organizational spheres an addressee is predominantly of an individual or group types [7, p. 60].
Any type of an institutional discourse is characterised by a system of strategies and tactics determined by its dominant functions.
Institutional communication performs three main functions:
- Ø phatic (entering into contact);
- Ø effecting (making a certain influence);
- Ø informational (exchanging information) [2].
The primacy of either function varies according to the kind of discourse. For example, in political communication an informational function is implemented to a less extent. The dominant functions of political discourse are an effecting function which is realized by modifying separate fragments within the structure of addressee’s knowledge or making changes in their emotional state [8] and a phatic function realized by rhetorical techniques of attraction.
Speaking of structure, the following elements can be identified in political discourse:
- Ø opening sentences or a set of etiquette formulae (otherwise it can be formulated as a greeting or an appeal to the society);
- Ø an introduction to a topic that simultaneously seeks to establish contact with the audience attracting their attention and interest;
- Ø the main part / the body of discourse which is divided into theme blocks;
- Ø сonclusion [2].
It should be emphasized that this structure is not characteristic of all types of institutional discourse. But if we consider an extensive speech of a politician, it usually has a rigid structure mentioned above.
As far as taxonomy of discourse is concerned, A.A. Kibrik mentions modes of discourse: spoken and written ones.
Secondly, he underlines another central taxonomy of discourse which is a classification into genres. We agree with A.A. Kibrik’s definition of discourse genres as “classes of discourse that correspond to certain standard communicative goals, typical of particular discourse communities” [3, p. 274].
V.B. Kashkin distinguishes between several typologies of discourse, namely structural-formal, structural and content-related and genre typologies.
Structural-formal typology studies the following issues:
1) the code: verbal/non-verbal (mixed, creolized);
2) the message: oral/written (hybrid);
3) participants of discourse: monologue, dialogue, polylogue;
4) utterance direction: from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd persons.
Structural and content-related typology is connected with a referential context (social area within which discourse activity is realized). The scope of study is as follows:
1) position of a communicant in regard to the contextual situation (narration / discussion);
2) the field of discourse activity (institutional / personal discourse);
3) theme of discourse (correlation with the text);
4) the type of discourse in relation to narrative composition forms (narration, description etc) [9].
Genre typology of discourse is based on the notion of discourse chronotope. V.B. Kashkin distinguishes between genres of a communicative (discourse) event and speech genres proper. The notion of a genre of a communicative (discourse) event is broader than the notion of a speech genre. The former is singled out according to extralinguistic and social parameters (an exam, a sitting of the court, a birthday party, a picnic etc) [9].
As I. N. Borisova puts it, a communicative event is a limited in space and time, reasoned, integral, socially determined process of speech interaction of communicants [10].
Speech genres, according to M. M. Bakhtin, are types of utterances elaborated by a particular field of language use. The field of language use is reflected in the utterances through thematic content of speech, the style of speech and compositional structure [11].
He also singles out primary and secondary speech genres. Primary speech genres are formed in immediate live communication. Secondary genres (novels, dramas, scientific researches etc) appear in more complicated, developed and organized cultural communication.
By way of conclusion, political discourse is a type of institutional discourse which performs three main functions: predominantly phatic and effecting ones and to a less extent an informational function. A speaker acts as a bearer of a certain social status and as a member of a certain social institution. Political discourse is aimed at a mass / group addressee. An extensive speech of a politician usually has a rigid structure with maximum speech restrictions.
References
- Серио П. О языке власти: критический анализ // Философия языка: в границах и вне границ. Харьков: Око, 1999. Т.1. С. 83–100.
- Астафурова Т. Н., Олянич А.В. Лингвосемиотика власти: знак, слово, текст. – Волгоград, 2008. − 244 с.
- Кибрик А.А. Модус, жанр и другие параметры классификации дискурсов / А.А. Кибрик // Вопросы языкознания, 2009. №2. C. 3 – 21.
- Карасик В.И. Языковой круг: личность, концепты, дискурс. – Волгоград: Перемена, 2002. – 477 с.
- Макаров М.Л. Основы теории дискурса. – М.: ИТДГК «Гнозис», 2003. – 280 с.
- Чудинов А.П. Современная политическая коммуникация. – Екатеринбург, 2009. – 292 с.
- Шейгал Е.И. Семиотика политического дискурса: дис. …докт. филолог. наук. – Волгоград, 2000. – 440 с.
- Цыганова Е.Б., Хазина Р.Р. Средства выражения эмоций в публичных выступлениях англоязычных политических деятелей [Электронный ресурс] // Студенческий научный форум: V Международная студенческая электронная научная конференция (2013): сайт. – URL: http://www.scienceforum.ru/2013/194/5048 (дата обращения: 18.03.2013).
- Кашкин В.Б. Введение в теорию дискурса. – М.: Восточная книга, 2010. – 152 с.
- Борисова И.Н. Русский разговорный диалог: структура и динамика. – Екатеринбург, 2001.
- Бахтин М.М. Проблема речевых жанров / М.М. Бахтин // Автор и герой: к философским основам гуманитарных наук. – СПб.: Азбукаб, 2000. – С. 249 – 298.