American Journal Of Philological Sciences
192
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue05 2025
PAGE NO.
192-195
10.37547/ajps/Volume05Issue05-51
Text and Discourse in Linguistics: Concepts,
Distinctions, And Theoretical Perspectives
Jo’rayeva Muhayyo
EFL teacher at the department of Foreign language and literature, University of Tashkent for Applied Sciences, Gavhar Str. 1, Tashkent
100149, Uzbekistan
Received:
21 March 2025;
Accepted:
17 April 2025;
Published:
19 May 2025
Abstract:
This article examines the interrelated concepts of text and discourse in linguistics, highlighting their
distinctive features, theoretical foundations, and methodological approaches. Drawing on definitions from leading
scholars
—
T. A. van Dijk, V. E. Chernyavskaya, A. A. Kibrik, V. Maas, and N. D. Arutyunova
—
it delineates discourse
as a dynamic, context-bound communicative event encompassing extra-linguistic factors (intonation, gestures,
cultural knowledge) that extend beyond the static product that is text. The discussion outlines key parameters of
discourse
—
coherence, extra-linguistic context, and communicative purpose
—
and contrasts two principal
research orientations: text analysis (structural units) and discourse analysis (participants, goals, context). It
surveys major analytical frameworks including systemic-functional grammar, pragmatic macro- and micro-
structures, conversation analysis, cognitive models, and critical discourse analysis. The article also reviews
contributions from Uzbek linguistics, illustrating how scholars integrate these global theories within local research
on dialogic interaction, corpus methods, and socio-pragmatic dimensions. By synthesizing diverse perspectives,
the study underscores discourse as a multifaceted phenomenon essential for understanding language as both
process and product, and for exploring how linguistic activity reflects and shapes cognition, society, and culture.
Keywords:
Discourse; Text; Discourse Analysis; Pragmatics; Systemic-Functional Grammar; Extralinguistic
Context; Uzbek Linguistics.
Introduction:
Over the past several decades, the field
of global linguistics has witnessed a proliferation of
empirical and theoretical investigations into both text
and discourse that collectively illuminate the inherently
cognitive underpinnings of language use as well as its
deeply embedded social functions. Scholars have
traced
how
mental
processes
—
such
as
conceptualization, memory, and schema activation
—
shape the way speakers structure and interpret
extended stretches of language, while at the same time
uncovering the myriad ways in which texts and
discourses both reflect and reproduce cultural norms,
power relations, and communal practices. This dual
focus on cognition and society has spurred the
development of a rich array of analytical frameworks
—
from systemic‐functional approaches and pragmatic
macro‐structure theories to conversation analysis and
critical discourse studies
—
each bringing its own
assumptions and methodological tools to bear on the
same fundamental questions. As a result, research on
text and discourse now encompasses a remarkable
diversity of perspectives, ranging from fine‐grained
analyses of lexico‐syntactic patterns in written genres
to ethnographically grounded studies of spoken
interaction in multilingual communities, thereby
underscoring the field’s commitment to understanding
language as at once a product of human thought and a
dynamic medium of social engagement.
Literature Review
Professor T. A. van Dijk defines discourse in a broad
sense as the complex phenomenon of oral
communication. He describes it as a communicative
event that takes place at a specific time and place
between speaker and listener, which can be spoken,
written, or even nonverbal. He emphasizes that the
interactions within discourse are the products of
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
193
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
communication, interpreted by the recipients.
There are various approaches to the nature of
discourse. V. E. Chernyavskaya regards discourse as
inherently linked to the concept of text, asserting that
it should be understood as a “text(s) inseparably
connected with a situational context.” Other
researchers describe discourse as a speech genre,
highlighting its structural particularities, typical use of
linguistic means, its audience orientation, and
alignment with communicative purposes.
Linguist A. A. Kibrik and colleagues state: “Discourse is
a broader concept than text, existing simultaneously as
a linguistic activity process and its product, which
results in the formation of text.” They argue that
humans enter social and communicative relations
driven by spiritual and material needs, which vary
according to time and place, making discourse a
dynamic phenomenon evolving over time.
V.
Maas interprets discourse as a linguistic model of
speech and treats it as a significant category within text
linguistics. N. D. Arutyunova defines discourse as a
“coherent text that integrates extra
-linguistic
—
pragmatic, socio-cultural, psychological, and other
—
factors.”
Linguists, in analyzing
discourse, regard it as a crucial element composed of
larger linguistic units
—
such as lexemes, syntax, and
context. The term “discourse” inherently enco
mpasses
an understanding of all the cognitive
–
communicative
functions of speech. H. Haberland treats the text as an
entity that can appear in various places and at different
times, whereas discourse is conceived as an event
taking place in a specific time and space. He observes
that “text can be used in unlimited quantity and can be
recreated from one location to another; text is the
linguistic product without discourse.” Linguist Yu.
Prokhorov integrates these perspectives by explaining
the relationship between text and discourse as follows:
“All propositions concerning text and discourse are
legitimate; text and discourse are real, inseparable
concepts that cannot be relinquished; moreover,
discourse is understood as the product of
communication, endowed with both form and
content”.
With his perspective, Chan Kim Bao draws attention not
only to modern European (and to some extent
American) linguistics but also to Eastern philosophical
methodologies, writing: “Every work oriented toward a
point is necessarily accessed through human speech,
and that is the text. In turn, the text has its counterpart
called ‘discourse.’ Discourse is the text in motion. If we
describe text as the “ín” the
n discourse is expressed as
the “yán.” Just as elements of discourse exist within the
text, so too do elements of the text exist within
discourse.”
In pragmatics-oriented studies of language, the term
“discourse” has been used in various senses: 1.As a
synonym
for
“speech”;
2.
As
a
unit
larger
than
a
clause;
3. As a form of conversation or interaction;
4.As the speaker’s stance or position within the speech
act; 5. As the
method
of
employing
linguistic
units;
6. As a mode of thought constrained by social or
ideological factors; 7.
As a theoretical model aimed at examining the
conditions under which a text is formed .
Thus, the analysis of discourse and text allows us to
explore the broader linguistic dimensions of speech
and to reveal the complex aspects of human interaction
in communication. Such analysis is especially
illuminating in literary texts or everyday conversations,
showing how ideas and thoughts are shaped within
their
specific
cultural
contexts.
Summarizing these perspectives, discourse can be
defined as a complex speech-communication
phenomenon. It is not limited to the text alone but also
encompasses the extra-linguistic factors (intonation,
gestures, div language) necessary for proper text
comprehension. Discourse primarily functions as the
form-defining phenomenon of communication; hence,
it is considered a unit larger than a clause. Taking into
account the speech situation, the speaker conveys their
idea to the listener and shapes their response.
The extent to which linguistic units are employed in
speech determines both the form and content of the
communication.
Although speech and text are
often treated as similar concepts, they have distinctive
features:
• Text is viewed as a static object, the result of linguistic
activity.
• Speech (discourse) is understood as a dynamic
process developing over time and linked to social,
cultural, and psychological factors.
Speech
possesses
the
following
parameters:
1. Coherence and cohesion: The content of discourse
must form a unified whole.
2.Extra-linguistic factors: Includes world knowledge,
sociocultural context, and communicative goals. 3.
Communicative purpose: Speech is directed by the
speaker’s intent to influence the listener.
In
linguistic research, speech is investigated in two main
directions:
1.Text analysis:Studying the text as a structural unit.
2.Discourse analysis: Focusing on speech as a
communicative process, considering participants, their
goals, and the context.
Speech is not merely a linguistic phenomenon but a
complex
communicative
process
enriched by
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
194
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
sociocultural and psychological factors. At the same
time, the principles of dynamism and statics play a key
role in distinguishing between text and speech.Speech
serves as a bridging medium between human cognition
and society, providing vital links between linguistics
and other disciplines. Some views attempt to
distinguish text and discourse by modality
—
text as
written form, discourse as spoken. In linguistic theory,
discourse is seen as any conversational or written
segment
beyond
a
single
sentence,
whose
particularities depend on the context, text, and topic.
Simply put, discourse is one of the forms of
conversation.Originally, the term “discourse” referred
to coherent written text; later it came to denote the
spoken form of text, dialogue, or semantically linked
groups of sentences. Where “text” was used for written
communication, “discourse” came to denote oral
communication. Modern linguistic research classifies
discourse in relation to various social domains.
In Uzbek linguistics, scholars such as O. Q. Yusupov, B.
R. Mengliev, N. Mahmudov, and L. Raupova have
contributed significant studies. In particular, B. R.
Mengliev explains the essence of discourse with the
formula “text + nonverbal factors = discourse,” defining
it as a three-dimensional phenomenon, unlike two-
dimensional text. L. Raupova approaches discourse as a
distinct phenomenon situated between text and
speech, viewing it as a process integrating linguistic and
extra-linguistic factors, with context, speech situation,
and communicative purpose playing crucial roles. The
logical cohesion of discourse, the social relations
among participants during communication, and
cultural factors lead its formation. From this viewpoint,
discourse is a broader concept than text. It
encompasses not only written and spoken language
units but all factors arising in the communicative
process.
Linguist Sh. Safarov emphasizes the difficulty of
distinguishing text and discourse solely by written
versus oral form. The primary feature of discourse is
the harmony between its communicative and
informative contents. One cannot conceptualize one as
material and the other as immaterial; both are
products and processes of activity, with results
manifesting materially. Text is a stable, ready-made
product, while discourse is the unfolding speech
communication process, accounting for their sharp
distinctions.Thus, discourse is the speech process
formed depending on the communicative situation,
whereas text is the linguistically prepared material for
communication. Discourse can vary with the speech
situation; text remains a stable linguistic unit.
CONCLUSION
This comprehensive overview has demonstrated that
text and discourse, while closely intertwined, represent
distinct yet complementary lenses through which
language can be examined. Text, as a static linguistic
artifact, offers a snapshot of the lexical-syntactic
structures that constitute meaningful written or
spoken segments. Discourse, by contrast, encompasses
the dynamic, context-bound processes by which
language is produced, interpreted, and socially
enacted. Together, these concepts reveal how
cognitive mechanisms
—
such as conceptualization,
memory activation, and schema application
—
interact
with extralinguistic factors, including situational
context, cultural norms, and speaker intentions, to
shape communicative events.Theoretical frameworks
from systemic-functional grammar to critical discourse
analysis each contribute unique methodological tools
for exploring the multifaceted nature of discourse.
Pragmatic approaches highlight the roles of macro- and
microstructures in guiding thematic coherence and
referential cohesion, while conversation analysis
uncovers the turn-taking and sequential organization of
spoken interaction. Cognitive and socio-cultural
perspectives further enrich our understanding by
situating discourse within the broader matrix of mental
representations and power relations. In
Uzbek
linguistics, scholars have adeptly adapted these global
theories to local contexts, illustrating how dialogic
interaction, corpus-based methods, and socio-
pragmatic
investigations
can
illuminate
the
particularities of language use in multilingual and
multicultural settings. Ultimately, the dual focus on text
and discourse underscores the imperative of viewing
language not simply as a vehicle for transmitting
information but as a dynamic medium through which
human cognition and social life are both reflected and
constructed. Continued interdisciplinary research
—
bridging linguistic form, mental process, and social
practice
—
will be essential for deepening our insights
into the ever-evolving phenomenon of discourse.
REFERENCES
Дейк ван Т.А. К определению дискурса //
http://www.nsu.ru/psych/internet/bits/vandijk2.html;
Чернявская
В.
Е.
Дискурс
как
объект
лингвистических исследований //Текст и дискурс.
Проблемы экономического дискурса. –
2001.
–
С. 11
-
22.
Хегай В. О понятии дискурс //Филология
масалалари, 2006, Н 2 (11), 66
-
б.
Кибрик, А.А. Язык средств массовой информации
как объект междисциплинарного исследования / .А.
Кибрик
-
М., 2008., 117
-c.
Maatz U. Als der Geist der Gemeinschaft eine Sprache
fand. Sprache im National-sozialismus. Opladen. 1984.
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
195
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
M. A. K. Halliday. An Introduction to Functional
Grammar.- 1985 .12
–
25 p.
Арутюнова,
Н.Д. Понятие
пресуппозиции в
лингвистике [Текст] / Н.Д. Арутюнова
-
М.: Изд
-
во АН
СССР, 1973. –С. 84
-92.
Teun van Dijk, T. A.. Macrostructures: An
Interdisciplinary Study of Global Structures in
Discourse, Interaction, and Cognition. 1980.-45-60p.
Менглиев Б.Р. Тилда имконият ва воқелик
муштараклиги // “Маърифат”, 2013 йил 8 май.
Раупова Л. Диалогик дискурсдаги полипредикатив
бирликларнинг социопрагматик тадқиқи. Филол.
фан. д
-
ри. дисс. автореф. –
Тошкент, 2012. –
49 б.
Safarov Sh. Matn va diskurs muammolari // Raqamli
texnologiyalar davrida tillarni intensiv o‘qitishning
psixologik-pedagogik jihatlari. Respublika ilmiy-amaliy
anjumani.
–
2023.
–
B. 180.
Prokhorov Yu.E. Reality. Text. Discourse. Moscow:
Flinta; Nauka, 2004, p. 222.
Haberland H. “Text, Discours
e, Discourse: The Latest
Report from the Terminology Vice Squad,” Journal of
Pragmatics, no. 31, 1999, p. 914.
ПРОХОРОВ
Ю.Е.
ДЕЙСТВИТЕЛЬНОСТЬ.
ТЕКСТ.
ДИСКУРС. –
М.: Флинта; Наука, 2004. –
222 с.
Дейк Т.А. Язык, познание, коммуникация.
-
М.:
Прогресс,
1989. -
С. 372
