International Journal Of Literature And Languages
71
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue04 2025
PAGE NO.
71-74
10.37547/ijll/Volume05Issue04-18
Revisiting Discourse in Linguistic Theory: Insights into
Military Communication
Abdusalomov Firuz Abdukholikovich
Senior lecturer of the Center for foreign languages, associate professor, Academy of the MIA of the Republic of Uzbekistan, Tashkent,
Uzbekistan
Received:
26 February 2025;
Accepted:
22 March 2025;
Published:
25 April 2025
Abstract:
By the end of the 20th century, global linguistics had increasingly shifted its focus toward analyzing
speech structures and the communicative activities associated with them from the perspective of both the
speaker and the interlocutor. In modern linguistic theory, the concept of discourse has emerged as a result of
approaches aimed at studying speech patterns within interactive communication. A variety of theoretical
perspectives have been proposed on discourse, and their analysis is essential for synthesizing differing viewpoints
and identifying interrelations among them. Historically, the term text was often used interchangeably with
discourse. However, over time, a distinction has been drawn: text generally refers to written communication,
while discourse typically implies spoken interaction. This article explores the core essence of discourse and
critically examines the major theoretical approaches to its study, with a particular emphasis on military discourse.
Keywords:
Discourse, text, military discourse, approach, intentional structure, spoken discourse, written
discourse.
Introduction:
The term discourse originates from the
Latin discursus, meaning “reasoning”, “movement” or
“conversation”. In French, discours translates more
directly as “speech” This term has undergone extensi
ve
exploration
in
linguistics,
philosophy,
and
epistemology. The first scholarly conceptualization of
discourse is attributed to Émile Benveniste, a successor
of Ferdinand de Saussure. Diverging from Saussure’s
binary opposition of langue (language system) and
parole (individual speech), Benveniste introduced the
term discourse to reflect a more dynamic and
functional aspect of language use.
This study aims to examine the theoretical
underpinnings of discourse and to highlight its practical
implications. A combination of linguistic analysis and
philosophical-epistemological
approaches
was
employed. The research involved a comparative review
of major scholarly works on discourse theory, while
also utilizing historical and cognitive methods to
investigate how discourse has been interpreted across
various schools of thought. Structuralist and post-
structuralist
paradigms
provided
the
primary
frameworks for analyzing terminological approaches.
Literature review
Discourse, from both scientific and linguistic
perspectives, is broader and more complex than the
concept of text. It encompasses not only the process of
speaking but also the resultant textual product.
Whereas a text is often seen as a static and complete
artifact, discourse is perceived as an ongoing, evolving
process of communicative interaction. In linguistic
literature, the definition of discourse continues to
evolve, reflecting its application in contexts ranging
from textual segments to entire communicative events.
Although discourse remains a complex and sometimes
ambiguously defined term, it has gained significant
attention in contemporary linguistic research. The
earliest mention of discourse analysis in linguistics
appeared in Zellig Harris's 1950s works, where he
emphasized the communicative processes constituting
discourse, rather than viewing it as mere speech or
text. Discourse is now widely accepted as not only a
linguistic phenomenon but also a sociocultural process
of meaning-making and interaction.
In recent years, discourse studies have become a
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
72
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
central
focus
in
modern
linguistics.
While
interpretations vary, the fundamental objective
remains the clarification and refinement of core
concepts such as speech, text, and dialogue. For
example, A.Pardayev defines discourse as a dynamic
process in which interlocutors utilize both linguistic and
non-linguistic
tools
to
achieve
effective
communication. He emphasizes the practical use of
language forms and styles chosen by speakers for their
communicative impact.
Scholars have approached discourse from various
theoretical angles. Initially, it was associated with
cohesive text, but over time, the term has been
expanded to include dialogue, conversation, and other
forms of speech interaction. In English- and French-
speaking cultures, the notion of “speech” encapsulates
aspects such as performance, cognition, and
interaction, whereas in Russian and several other
European languages, the term lacks a precise
equivalent and may correspond to “speech”, “text” or
“thought” depending on the context.
Three dominant approaches to defining discourse have
emerged in linguistics. Some consider it analogous to a
genre, characterized by a fixed structure, specific
linguistic tools, targeted audience, and a defined
communicative purpose. Others view discourse as a
morally and ethically governed form of speech.
N.Abdurakhmonova regards the term as polysemous,
identifying several common interpretations such as
“coherent text”, “oral form of textual communication”,
“dialogue”, “monologue” and “spoken narrative.”
Deborah Schiffrin proposed a tripartite framework for
discourse analysis. The first, a formal linguistic
approach, defines discourse as language above the
sentence. The second, a functional approach, describes
discourse as the study of any aspect of language use,
focusing
on
the
socio-cultural
purposes
of
communication.
The
third,
an
interactional
perspective, conceptualizes discourse as utterances -
contextually embedded units of language functioning
in real-life communication.
Overall, discourse is not limited to linguistic features
alone but is inherently tied to extralinguistic factors,
including pragmatic, socio-cultural, and psychological
dimensions. It is interpreted as a purposeful social
action and an inseparable part of speech activity,
interpersonal communication, and cognitive processes.
Findings
The conducted study has demonstrated that discourse
is not merely a linguistic phenomenon but is inherently
linked to socio-cultural and psychological processes.
The approach developed by Émile Benveniste
underscores the dynamic nature of discourse,
distinguishing it from traditional static language
systems. Throughout the research, it was established
that discourse should be viewed as a linguistic structure
operating above the level of individual sentences,
encompassing broader communicative and cognitive
functions.
As a linguistic category, the term discourse emerged in
the mid-20th century and has since been used in
various senses within pragmatically oriented linguistic
research. It has been interpreted as: a synonym for
speech; a linguistic unit larger than a phrase; a mode of
communication shaped by speech situation and
audience effect; a reflection of speaker positioning in
conversation; a process involving the use of linguistic
resources; an ideologically or socially constrained form
of expression; and a theoretical framework for
analyzing the conditions under which texts are
produced. Consequently, the concept of discourse has
evolved into a multidimensional object of inquiry
across diverse branches of linguistics.
Discourse is thus a complex communicative-cognitive
phenomenon, which must be studied as a dynamic
process that unfolds in real-time interaction, shaped by
linguistic and extralinguistic factors in a given socio-
cultural context. It is not limited to verbal information
alone but also entails non-verbal cues, shared
knowledge, societal values, and cognitive operations.
These components are crucial in the processes of
understanding, interpreting, and accepting discourse.
A defining feature of discourse is its anthropocentric
character
—
it is structured around human cognition,
perception, and creativity. This feature enables
discourse to construct and represent a subjective
"artistic world," especially evident in literary
communication. In such contexts, the discourse
involves not only the author and the reader but also
fictional characters, each actively participating in the
communicative process.
V.Z.Demyankov, analyzing the intensional structure of
discourse, posits that it possesses a logical
organization, comprising interconnected propositional
sequences governed by conjunctions, disjunctions, and
other logical relations. According to him, discourse
encompasses not only events and participants but also:
a) post-event conditions
—
contexts emerging from the
consequences of events;
b) background information
—
contextual elements
necessary for correct interpretation;
c) evaluative components
—
subjective assessments by
participants;
d) comparative information
—
correlations between
discourse data and actual events.
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
73
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
These elements collectively constitute the interpretive
and functional structure of discourse.
The rise of discourse studies as an independent field
occurred at the end of the 20th century, marking a shift
in linguistic research toward the study of spoken
interaction. Scholars have expressed skepticism about
considering the paragraph as the maximal unit of
speech due to its dependence on stylistic and graphical
conventions. Sh. Safarov argued that only discourse,
not the paragraph, can serve as the highest level of
speech unit, thus justifying its classification as a
phenomenon surpassing text in both linguistic and
communicative complexity.
Discourse is commonly divided into two forms: spoken
and written. Spoken discourse unfolds in real-time and
is characterized by features such as repetition,
hesitation, and ellipsis. The spontaneity and immediacy
of speech interactions often result in incomplete or
grammatically imperfect constructions. In contrast,
written discourse is premeditated, structurally refined,
and adheres to grammatical and stylistic norms. It is
constructed outside of real-time constraints, ensuring
greater coherence and logical consistency.
Therefore, spoken discourse is interactive and dynamic,
whereas written discourse is reflective and static. Each
form plays a distinctive yet interrelated role in the
process of communication. Based on our analysis, we
conclude that while spoken and written discourse
exhibit contrasting features, they must be studied in
tandem to understand the full scope of discourse
phenomena in human interaction.
Discourse is not merely a collection of linguistic units;
rather, it is a complex phenomenon deeply embedded
in communicative processes and social context. A
comprehensive
understanding
of
discourse
necessitates not only linguistic analysis but also the
consideration of its social, cultural, pragmatic,
psychological, and communicative dimensions.
Information and communication. Discourse conveys
not only specific content but also entails the manner in
which information is presented and perceived. The
mode of delivery and the recipient’s interpretation are
central to the meaning-making process.
Participants in communication. The interaction
between the speaker (addresser) and the listener or
reader (addressee) is fundamental. The identity of the
speaker, the intended audience, and the context of
communication significantly influence the construction
and interpretation of discourse.
Situational context. Every discourse emerges within a
particular situational and environmental context. For
instance, a political speech, a scientific article, or an
informal conversation each occur in distinct settings,
shaping their structure and content accordingly.
Spatial and temporal dimensions. The time and place in
which discourse occurs are integral to its structure. For
example, interpreting an ancient text in a
contemporary context, or analyzing discourse across
cultures, requires attention to spatial and temporal
factors.
Mode of communication and style of expression. Oral
and written discourse differ in structure and stylistic
features. While repetition and intonation are crucial in
spoken discourse, written discourse prioritizes logical
coherence and structural clarity.
Evaluation by communication participants. Discourse
reflects not only objective information but also
subjective perspectives and value judgments. For
instance, media coverage of political events can
present identical facts through differing ideological
lenses.
According to Professor G.N. Manaenko, discourse can
be defined as “a socially and historically conditioned
form of verbal behavior, regulated by institutionalized
norms of organization and interpretation within any
sphere of human activity” (Manaenko,
2010, p.160). He
identifies four core components of discourse:
environment, social subject, content, and text.
Discourse arises from the human need for
communication, driven by material and spiritual
requirements that vary across time and space. This
variability indicates the dynamic and evolving nature of
discourse.
As
a
multifaceted
communicative
phenomenon, discourse encompasses not only the
textual component but also the extralinguistic factors
essential for understanding that text.
CONCLUSION
This study contributes to a deeper understanding of the
linguistic and philosophical foundations of discourse. It
highlights that discourse should not be viewed solely
through the lens of linguistics, but also as a significant
category within the social sciences, philosophy, and
psychology. The multidimensional nature of discourse
calls for interdisciplinary approaches:
−
Linguistic analysis explores the structure,
grammar, and semantics of discourse;
−
Cultural
approach
examines
discourse
formation in social and cultural contexts;
−
Political analysis investigates the role of
ideology and power;
−
Psychological perspective assesses participant
motivation and communicative influence.
Therefore, discourse should not be considered
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
74
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
as a mere aggregation of sentences but as a powerful
medium through which social reality is constructed and
negotiated. Based on the analysis presented, discourse
exhibits the following essential characteristics:
➢
Abstract nature:
an open-ended
phenomenon with no rigid boundaries;
➢
Complex
structure:
involving
multilayered relationships across disciplines;
➢
Social embeddedness:
shaped by
cultural, political, and historical contexts;
➢
Communicative product:
emerging as
speech or text with specific intent;
➢
Spatio-temporal
specificity:
dependent on the conditions of time and space;
➢
Intentional speech act:
requiring a
purposive communicative effort to qualify as discourse.
The results of the study provide a deeper
understanding of the linguistic and philosophical
foundations of the concept of discourse. Discourse is
not limited to linguistics but is also a significant
category within social sciences, philosophy, and
psychology. As a multifaceted and complex
phenomenon, discourse is essential for the formation
of social reality through communicative interaction. In
our research, we have identified that discourse must be
examined through various academic lenses to fully
comprehend its significance.
From a linguistic perspective, discourse is analyzed in
terms of its structure, grammar, and semantic features.
A cultural approach delves into how discourse is shaped
within social and cultural contexts. Political analysis
explores the role of ideology and power dynamics in
discourse. Psychological analysis investigates the
motivations and influences on the participants of
discourse. Consequently, discourse should not be
regarded merely as a series of connected sentences,
but as a vital tool in shaping social perceptions and
realities.
Furthermore, the study highlights that discourse is a
dynamic phenomenon, continuously evolving with the
changing social, political, and cultural landscape. It is
not just a static linguistic structure but an ongoing
process influenced by time, space, and context. The
study of discourse, therefore, requires a multifaceted
approach, encompassing not only linguistic analysis but
also an understanding of the extralinguistic factors that
shape communication.
In conclusion, discourse is a powerful communicative
phenomenon that shapes and reflects the social,
cultural, and cognitive realities of its participants.
Future research should focus on exploring the semiotic
and cognitive dimensions of discourse, as well as its
practical applications in various fields. Expanding the
scope of discourse analysis will contribute to a more
comprehensive understanding of its role in
communication and its impact on social processes.
REFERENCES
Abdurakhmonova, N. The Boundaries of Discourse and
Text Concepts in Linguistics and Their Relationship with
Each Other. Tashkent, 2022.
Arutyunova, N.D. Discourse. In: Linguistic Encyclopedic
Dictionary. Moscow, 1990.
Demyankov, V.Z. The Theory of Interpretation in
Applied Linguistics. In: Problems of Computational
Linguistics and Automatic Text Processing in Natural
Language. Moscow: MSU, 1980. Pp. 125-158.
Dijk van, T.A. The Study of Discourse. Discourse as
Structure and Process. Discourse Studies: A
Multidisciplinary Introduction. London
–
Thousand
Oaks
–
New Delhi: SAGE Publications, 1997. Vol. 1. 352
p.
Gee, J.P. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. Theory
and Practice. Routledge, 2005. P. 209.
Manaenko, G.N. Speech, Text, and Language Related to
Discourse. In: Language, Text, Discourse: Inter-
University Publishing. Stavropol; Pyatigorsk: PGLU,
2003. Pp. 26-40.
Pardayev, A. On the Definition of the Word.
"Internauka": Scientific Journal, Part 2. Moscow, 2017.
No. 11(15).
Safarov, Sh. Pragmatics. Tashkent, 2008.
Schiffrin, D. Approaches to Discourse. Oxford;
Cambridge, MA, 1994.
Shukurov, U.I. Political Discourse: Theoretical
Foundations and Communicative Strategy. Philol. Sci.
Dissertation Abstract. Andijan, 2023.
Zellig, S.Harris. Discourse Analysis (journal article).
Linguistic Society of America, 1952.
