Volume 03 Issue 04-2023
23
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
(ISSN
–
2771-2273)
VOLUME
03
ISSUE
04
P
AGES
:
23-28
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2022:
5.
445
)
(2023:
6.
555
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
ABSTRACT
In this article we wrote about the extralinguistic Features of Franco-Uzbek Discourse. The analysis of discourse in its
initial versions was the study of texts (sequences of sentences) from the standpoint of structuralism, that is, it was a
structuralist- oriented grammar of the text.
KEYWORDS
Authorization, scientific discourse, extralinguistic style-forming factors,epistemic situation, the subject of scientific
activity.
INTRODUCTION
Discursive phenomena are studied in linguistics in two
main aspects. First, discourse can be studied as such,
including as a structural object. Secondly, discourse is
of interest to linguists not in itself, but as a central
factor influencing morphosyntactic phenomena (for
example, the word order in a sentence can be
explained on the basis of discursive factors that lie
outside the given sentence). It is generally accepted
that the concept of discourse was introduced by the
founder of transformational and distributive analysis Z.
Harris in 1952. Today, the category of discourse , one of
the main ones in communicative linguistics and
Research Article
EXTRALINGUISTIC FEATURES OF FRANCO-UZBEK DISCOURSE
Submission Date:
April 17, 2023,
Accepted Date:
April 22, 2023,
Published Date:
April 27, 2023
Crossref doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/ajps/Volume03Issue04-04
Khayatova Nigina Ikromdjonovna
Teacher Of The Department Of French Philology Of Bukhara State University, Uzbekistan
Xalilova Angelina Asanovna
Student Of Bukhara State University, Uzbekistan
Journal
Website:
https://theusajournals.
com/index.php/ajps
Copyright:
Original
content from this work
may be used under the
terms of the creative
commons
attributes
4.0 licence.
Volume 03 Issue 04-2023
24
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
(ISSN
–
2771-2273)
VOLUME
03
ISSUE
04
P
AGES
:
23-28
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2022:
5.
445
)
(2023:
6.
555
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
modern social sciences, like any widely used concept,
allows for various scientific interpretations and
therefore requires clarification , especially in relation to
the related terms text, speech and dialogue.
In the first sense , discourse is understood as a text, an
utterance, immersed in a socio-cultural situation.
Indeed, in the linguistics of the text of the 70s. 20th
century the terms " discourse " and "text" were usually
identified, which was explained by the absence in some
European languages of a word equivalent to the
Franco-English " discourse " - it was forced to be
replaced by the name "text". This terminological
identification led to the fact that discourse and text
began to be considered as equivalents. To separate the
concepts, the distinction between the aspects that
they represented was first used: the discourse is social,
and the text is linguistic. The “dynamic” nature of
phenomena also played a role: in the concept of E.
Benveniste discourse was considered speech,
inseparable from the speaker, and in the works of van
Dyck, the text was considered as a static object, and
discourse as a way of its actualization in certain mental
and pragmatic conditions. In this sense , discourse was
also correlated with utterance.
METHODS
We can say that the text as an utterance in the
conditions of its generation and perception functions
as a discourse . Discourse is called a text immersed in
life, which is studied along with those forms of human
activity that form it: speeches, interviews, reports, etc.
At the same time, D. Shifrin, emphasizing the
interaction of form and function and defining "
discourse as statements" ( discourse as utterances )
[96: 39-41 ], implies that discourse is not a primitive set
of isolated units of the “more sentence” linguistic
structure, but an integral set of functionally organized,
contextualized units of language use. In this context,
the ambiguity of approaches to the definition of a
statement is manifested .
So, the first approach, carried out from the standpoint
of formally or structurally oriented linguistics, defines
discourse as a text, as "a language above the level of a
sentence or phrase" - " langue au-dessus de la phrase
ou au-dessus de la paragraphe " [97: 1]. "Under the
discourse , therefore, will be understood two or more
sentences that are in a semantic connection with each
other" [25:170].
The second meaning of discourse comes from the first.
It was the result of the development of the concept of
the communicative nature of the text by T. A. van Dyck.
In the early 80s. XX century . The Dutch researcher
chose a different core concept of the definition of
discourse : a communicative event. He emphasizes: “
Discourse , in the broad sense of the word, is a complex
unity of linguistic form, meaning and action, which
could be best characterized by the concept of a
communicative event or communicative act ... The
Volume 03 Issue 04-2023
25
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
(ISSN
–
2771-2273)
VOLUME
03
ISSUE
04
P
AGES
:
23-28
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2022:
5.
445
)
(2023:
6.
555
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
speaker and the listener, their personal and social
characteristics, others aspects of the social situation
are undoubtedly relevant to this event” [80].
This judgment contains the event-situational aspect of
understanding discourse , which became the basis of
the second meaning of the term as a communicative
situation that integrates text with its other
components: text, speech subject (addresser),
addressee, time and place of utterance. The main
parameters (characteristics) of discourse in the second
meaning are contextuality , personality , processuality
, situationality, isolation.
The third meaning of discourse is the most common in
modern linguistic literature, it comes from the position
of the French semiotic tradition about the
identification of discourse with speech, mainly oral.
In his work " Le fil du discours » A. Zh. Greimas defines
discourse as a concept identical to the text in the
aspect of the semiotic process: “In the first
approximation, discourse can be identified with the
semiotic process, which ... should be understood as the
whole variety of ways of discursive practice, including
linguistic and non-linguistic practice ... »[87].
Correlating discourse with the communicative process
and superimposing them on the relationship between
language and speech, semiotics considered discourse
as an event strictly tied to the act of speech, which
models, varies and regulates the linguistic and
grammatical forms of linguistic consciousness,
translating it into speech. Such a "pragmatic" concept
led to the differentiation of the entire discursive array
of the language and gave rise to the metonymization
of the term " discourse ", which was reflected, in
particular, in the practice of using it in the fourth
meaning - as a type of discursive practice. Discourse is
a communicative-pragmatic pattern of speech
behavior that takes place in a certain social sphere,
having a certain set of variables: social norms,
relationships, roles, conventions, indicators of
interactivity, etc. The main property of discourse in this
sense is the regular co-presence of the speaker and the
listener ( face-to-face interactions).
The question of the extralinguistic conditionality of
linguistic phenomena also occupies an important place
in discursive analysis, where, according to V. E.
Chernyavskaya, “discursive analysis is focused on the
degree and nature of the influence of the
extralinguistic background - social institutions, cultural,
ideological and other factors on the formation of
certain language patterns. It is intended to answer the
question of how the various components of the
communicative process: the author of the message, its
addressee, the sphere of communication, the channel
of the message, the intention, etc., are reflected in the
intratext organization and determine in it a specific,
one, and not another, ordering of linguistic units and
structures” [1, p. 142–
143]. The discursive analysis takes
Volume 03 Issue 04-2023
26
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
(ISSN
–
2771-2273)
VOLUME
03
ISSUE
04
P
AGES
:
23-28
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2022:
5.
445
)
(2023:
6.
555
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
into account the content-semantic and compositional-
speech organization of the text, the socio-historical
context, i.e., psychological, political, pragmatic and
other factors that are commonly called extralinguistic
(in a different terminology, discursive conditions for
generating an utterance/text). Turning to a substantive
consideration of the issue of extralinguistic factors, it
should be noted that the latter are usually divided into
basic (primary) and secondary. The first group
includes: the form of social consciousness and the type
of activity and type of thinking corresponding to it and,
as a result, the sphere of communication, the form of
thinking, the purpose of communication, the type of
content, the functions of the language, the typical
situation of communication [3, p. 61
–
62]. Among the
secondary extralinguistic factors that are objective in
nature and have a certain, but different in strength,
effect on the nature of the style for scientific speech,
include: the type (branch) of science, the time of
writing the text, the foundations of the substyle, the
genre, the orientation of the content, the peculiarity of
the subject of science, the applied research method,
communicative-cognitive (cognitive) activity of the
subject, structure of knowledge, wide socio-cultural
context, subject matter, author's individuality.
RESULTS
The theory of speech acts ([49],[60]) influenced the
development of the problems of communicative
grammar, discourse analysis , conversational analysis
(especially its German variety - conversation analysis).
In recent decades , discourse analysis has become
widespread in world linguistics as a set of a number of
trends in the study of discourse (usually differing in
their dynamism from static linguistics of the text).
The analysis of discourse in its initial versions was the
study of texts (sequences of sentences) from the
standpoint of structuralism, that is, it was a
structuralist- oriented grammar of the text.
M. L. Makarov notes that in modern linguistic
literature there are three main uses of this term:
1) discourse analysis (in the broadest sense) as an
integral area of study of linguistic communication in
terms of its form, function and situational, socio-
cultural conditioning;
2) discourse analysis (in the narrow sense) as the name
of the tradition of analysis of the Birmingham Research
Group (M. Coulthard , M. Montgomery, J. Sinclair ).
3) discourse analysis as a "grammar of discourse " (R.
Longacre , T. Givon ), a direction close, but not identical
to text linguistics [43: 3-14].
In our opinion, the most common is the use of the term
in the first meaning.
The main reason discursive analysis plays a central role
in functional linguistics is that, according to
functionalists, form is largely shaped and explained by
Volume 03 Issue 04-2023
27
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
(ISSN
–
2771-2273)
VOLUME
03
ISSUE
04
P
AGES
:
23-28
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2022:
5.
445
)
(2023:
6.
555
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
the functioning of language in real time. This process,
in fact, is discourse .
In general, we can say that the functional-linguistic
trend in discourse analysis has developed under the
influence of communicative-pragmatic models of
language and the ideas of cognitive science. The focus
of his attention is the dynamic nature of discourse as a
process of constructing speech by the speaker/writer
and processes of interpretation of the received
information by the listener/reader. At the same time,
such indicators as pragmatic factors and the context of
discourse (reference, presuppositions , implicatures ,
inferences), the context of the situation, the role of the
topic and topic, the information structure (this is new),
cohesion and coherence , knowledge about the world
(frames, scripts, scenarios, schemes, mental models).
CONCLUSION
The ethnographic trend in discourse analysis was
formed from the ethnography of speech and aims to
explore the rules of conversional inferences ( infé
rences conversationnelles ), which are context- related
interpretation processes based on contextualization
rules . The founders and active researchers in this field
are E. Goffman , the author of the sociological theory
of interaction, and also F. Erickson , J. Schultz, A.
Sicourel , J. Gamperz , J. Cook. The peculiarity of this
direction of discourse analysis is that the context is
understood not as given , but as created
communicants in the course of their verbal interaction,
as a set of procedures involving the use of
"indications" to background knowledge. At the same
time, discourse strategies are studied (especially in
connection with the rules for transferring the role of
the speaker , the construction of connected pairs as
sequences of mutually correlated speech moves, the
choice of certain linguistic and non-linguistic means).
The main difference between communicative studies
of the same problems and proper linguistic ones lies in
the focus on the process of linguistic interaction itself,
based on the fund of culturally conditioned
knowledge, which is commonly called communicative
competence. The central position of the basic model of
communication is that the processing of messages,
including culturally determined information, proceeds
as an assignment of meanings known to the
communicants . At the same time, the main provision
of the discursive approach to the study of
communication is the postulate that any culture is a
society characterized by its own discourse , the
properties of which should be studied by
communicative linguistics.
Currently, there are six main areas in the study of
discourse : the theory of speech acts, interactional
sociolinguistics, ethnography of communication,
linguistic pragmatics , conversational analysis and
analysis of variations.
Volume 03 Issue 04-2023
28
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
(ISSN
–
2771-2273)
VOLUME
03
ISSUE
04
P
AGES
:
23-28
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2022:
5.
445
)
(2023:
6.
555
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
Interactional sociolinguistics is an approach to
discourse that focuses on situational meaning.
Researchers working in this direction rely on the ideas
of John Gamperz and Erwin Goffman .
REFERENCES
1.
Akhmanova O.S., Gubenett I.V. Vertical context
as a philological problem // Questions of
linguistics. - 1977.- No. 3. - S. 47-54.
2.
Baiburin A.K., Toporkov A.L. At the origins of
etiquette. Ethnographic essays. - L .: Leningrad
branch of "Nauka", 1990. - 166 p .
3.
Belyaeva E.I. The principle of politeness in
verbal communication (Methods of designing
declarative statements in colloquial English) //
Foreign languages at school. - 1985. - No. 2. - S.
12-16.
4.
Bulygina T.V.,
Shmelev
A.D.
Linguistic
conceptualization of the world (based on
Russian grammar). - M .: School "Languages of
Russian culture", 1997.-576 p .
5.
Vinogradov V.V. Pushkin's language: Pushkin
and the history of the Russian literary
language. - M.: Nauka, 2000. - 509 p .
6.
Vorobyov V.V. Linguoculturology (theory and
methods). - M.: Publishing house of RUDN
University, 1997.-331 p .
7.
Gak V.G. Phrase reflexes in the ethno-cultural
aspect // Scientific reports of the higher school.
Philological Sciences. - 1995. - No. 4. - P. 47-55.
8.
Gak V.G. Language transformations. - M .:
School "Languages of Russian Culture", 1998. -
768 p .
9.
Gak V.G. / Language as a form of self-
expression of the people // Language as a
means of transmitting culture. - M.: Nauka,
2000. - S. 54-68
10.
Д.Б.Нарзулаева
Tеолингвистическая
лексема религиозного стиля
Educational
Research in Universal Sciences 1 (7), 332-338
11.
DB Narzullaeva History of the translation of the
quran into french international conferences 1
(2), 116-118
12.
D.B.Narzullaeva
Developing
the
communication
competence
of
french-
speaking students through dialogues in the
development of oral speech Scientific Journal,
1(10), 53
–
57.
