Literature as Discourse

Discourse comes from the Latin discursus,¹ which means “a running about.” This illustrates the basic idea of relaying information through the natural rhythm and flow of language. Discourse is another word for written or spoken communication. The term is a broad one that has slightly different definitions depending on the discipline in which it is used; in literature, discourse refers to a presentation of thought through language. Discursive language typically contains long, detailed sentences that address a specific subject in a formal manner.

Contemporary idea of discourse, in the works of the French philosopher, culture theorist M. Foucault, carries sub literary and sub-linguistic character. In 60-70s of the XX century, the term discourse was actively used in narratology. In this sense, discourse was interpreted as the element of the structure of text, its inner structure.

In the book “Words and Things” (1966) M. Foucault interprets discourse as a “set of structural mechanisms “as opposed to” not-discursive “economic, technical mechanisms and laws. In this context, “discourse” is a collective phenomenon of mentality. The development of the French school discourse analysis originates in the context of the 1968 student revolution under the sign connections of sociology, semiotics, philosophy and psychoanalysis. In M. Foucault’s book The Archeology of Knowledge (1969), the main subject of analysis is speech practices, coexistence within one episteme. Under “episteme”, M. Foucault understands “historically changing structures”, “historical apriori “, which define the foundations of the sciences in each of these periods.

The French philosopher is interested in mutual action of speech, discursive practices, defining “both words and things”. In the context of the Archeology of Knowledge, the term “Speech practice” emphasizes the linguistic expression of mental phenomena. Unlike linguists, literary scholars are much less likely to use the terms “discourse” and “discursive approach”. At the same time, the term “discourse” occupies an important place in our scientific dictionary of the French structuralists. Ts. Todorov and his circle understood discourse as “… all those levels that are put (complement, overlap) the thread of the narrative in the strict sense of the word “. Ts. Todorov wrote that the structural poetics is not interested in “… a literary work itself: it is interested in the properties of that special type of statements, as the literary text itself”. In this sense the text is divided into “intrigue” and “discourse”. It is natural that structuralism connects discourse with expressive elements of the text.

In the 60s and 70s of the XX century, the term “discourse” was actively used in “narratology” – the theory of storytelling. In that context “discourse” was understood as an element of the structure of the text, its internal structure. So, between the concept of M. Foucault and the French school of “discourse analysis”, on the one hand, and literary understanding of discourse in French structuralism, on the other hand, there are significant differences. If M. Foucault and his followers interpret discourse as “Institutional mechanism” of generating a statement, then structuralists interpret discourse as an element of structure of the text. In general, two levels of interpretation of the term are outlined: 1) discourse is an immanent feature of literature; 2) discourse is an extra-literary moment. In poststructuralist literary studies based on Foucault’s ideas were developed by the theory of “inter-discourse”. “Inter-discourse “consists of discursive elements that can meet in various fields. The object of analysis becomes there were, for example, collective symbols (Fairness, wind), etc. A new turn towards “discourse” in literary criticism was outlined in late 80s – early 90s of the XX century in the works of the members of New Historicism, also based on M. Foucault.

In the study of discourse, literary theory follows linguistics. In linguistics, discourse means “speech.” In that meaning the term was widely used by F. de Saussure. Back in 1908-1909. F. de Saussure raised the question of “two linguistics”. However, he did not deny “interdependency” between language and speech. However, the second linguistics F. de Saussure did not consider as an object of serious study. In the opinion of the Genevan scholar, speech cannot be examined word by word, since it is “continuously updated” as a result of “activities of social forces”. For the second linguistics there was, however, a great future ahead in the twentieth century. Further criticism of F. de Saussure’s dichotomy (language – speech) turned out to be productive for the development of the theory of discourse. In the 1920s, scientists from the circle of M.M. Bakhtin opposed “abstract objectivism” thorny for the Geneva school. So, V.N. Voloshinov in the book “Marxism and the Philosophy of Language”, containing key ideas of M.M. Bakhtin on dialogue and dialogism, emphasized that F. de Saussure did not consider the “statement” as a serious new object of study. MM. Bakhtin, on the other hand, saw in the language “Process”, not a static, but a dynamic, open system. He was interested in the “speaker’s attitude”, listening and understanding, from the standpoint of which the linguistic form represents it as a “changeable and flexible sign”. From this point of view, linguistic discourse can be called becoming, open linguistic process containing “mutable and flexible signs “of speakers and listeners. Later M.M. Bakhtin used the term “speech communication”. “Speech communication” opposed to “language” as a static system. Discourse from this point of view – the process of verbal communication, understood as a dynamic system.

The unit of discourse is not sentence rather utterance. In the understanding of M.M. Bakhtin, the saying is “speech as a whole”. Utterance as a unit of discourse “enters the world completely different relations … “. Such relations M.M. Bakhtin defines as “dialogical”, i.e. requiring extra-linguistic, extra text “responsive understanding” and include evaluation. Statement, according to M.M. Bakhtin, has “… not a definition, but a meaning …”. Within the framework of the system synergetic approach, it can be argued that discourse stands for statements containing a concept.

In the literature, any sign can appear instead of the gain or loss of the meaning. Even the smallest diacritical sign can significantly change the meaning of the whole, acting as a concept. So, for example, in the finale of the “Golden Pot”(1814; 1819) E.T.A. Hoffmann’s narrator asks the question: «Ist denn überhaupt des Anselmus Seligkeit etwas anderes als dasLeben in der Poesie, der sich der heilige Einklang aller Wesen alstiefstes Geheimnis der Natur offenbaret?»

The question mark here signals about the irony, which is known to impress duality for the whole “tale from new times.” However, while translating this fragment A.V. Fedorov replaced the question mark to the exclamation mark: “Дар азвеиблаженство Ансельмане есть нечто иное, как жизнь в поэзии, которойсвященнаягармониявсегосущегооткрываетсякакглубочайшаяизтайнприроды!”.

Replacement of just one sign in the translation, seemingly random, but internally natural, changes the meaning of the ending to the opposite positive. If E.T.A. Hoffmann questions romantic the idea of the omnipotence of “poetry”, then in the Russian translation water ending sounds in the affirmative and unambiguous. Author’s irony disappears. The translator recreates an earlier layer artistic worldview of German romantics, with which eye is just and polemicizes E.T.A. Hoffmann in The Golden Pot. Replacing the question mark with an exclamation mark, the translator“breaks” intonation structure of the ending. At the same time, a different idea arose about Hoffmann’s fairy tale out-of-text environment among readers. A.V. Fedorov creates an image of the textual reality gravitating towards affirmation, pathos and rejecting irony.
He tells readers a different semantic content, a different concept. Entering Soviet Discourse, Hoffman’s “Golden Pot” is “sovietized”.

Obviously, intonation changes the meaning of the statement, although the dictionary meanings of words formally remain unchanged. Utterance in discourse is rebuilt synergistically, getting involved in the “joint semantic action,” joint work “of the work. Statements- restructuring internally in relation to strangers calls, to the subject, to the very to the speaker and to the listener. The utterance comes in wide context. The text enters into discourse and becomes potentially a way able to transform into work.
Let’s take an example from the history of performing. Great pianist Heinrich Gustavovich Neuhaus once disagreed with interpretation of the fugue b-moll from the second volume of the WTC by I.S. Bach, proposed by the pianist Maria Veniaminovna Yudina. Yudina performed this fugue in one of the concerts at the beginning of the Patriotic War. To the remark of Neuhaus Yudina answered firmly and succinctly: “And now the war!”. Performed by Yudina fugue I.S. Bach ceased to be “a monument of musical art “. Musical text in military discourse turned into a new work.

Important for the theory of literary discourse is the idea that “… only the contact of linguistic meaning with a concrete reality, only the contact of language with reality, which comes out in the statement, generates a spark of expression: it is neither in the system of language, nor in the objective, existing outside of reality “. Thus, a new meaning arises- in a work of fiction in discourse, one can understand as expression in the broadest sense of the word. Literary discourse establishes connections between fictional work and author, fictional text and reader, author and tradition, reader and reality … Discourse is the text of a work for continuous “reaccentuation”, becoming in points meeting of text and context, “I” and “other”. Entering discourse, the work “… is complemented by a number of very significant non-grammatical character that radically change its nature”. In the 50s-70s of the XX century, M.M. Bakhtin developed the problem of “artistic expression, focusing attention to the semantic leap from the “given to the new in speech utterance “. As a result of the jump, the text becomes literary work in discourse, absorbing and giving new “sparks of expression”. Additional expression in the work arises on the behalf of direct and controversial links between the author↔ the reader and extra-textual tradition and reality. Their particular difficulty lies in the fact that literary discourse “Throws a bridge” between the world of imagination and reality, between the fictional world of literature and reality. Analysis of literature as a discourse shifts accents.

Structuralist poetics included the categories of literary work “and” discourse “in opposition to” static-dynamic “. Structuralism implemented «reverse translation” of ” literary work ” into ” discourse”. F. de Saussure’s version “language – speech” served as a model for this binary structure. Moreover, the work was perceived as an analogue of language, and discourse – speech.

Within the framework of system-synergetic approach of the category “text” and “discourse” is interpreted as different states of the system “literature”. Text and work are two different types of “related-great diversity “. Artistic communication leads to the reception of the text by the reader or readers.

In the course of reception, “meaning” is generated. Discourse is a dynamic mode of development of the “literature” system. There is a phase change flow of the text into a work of art.

Bibliography

1. Zinchenko V.G. Literature and its methods. M, 2011
2. Foucault Michel. Words and things. Archeology of the Humanities. 1994.
3. Ilyin I.P. Glossary of terms of French structuralism // Structuralism: pros and cons. – M., 1975.
4. Todorov Tsvetan. Poetics // Structuralism: “for” and “against”. – M., 1975
5. Davlatova M.H. Aspectual variability of informatiobn culture in the history of the English language.International Journal of Integrated Education, Volume3, Issue III,March 2020.-P.34-38
6. Davlatova, M. H. (2020). An Integrative history of Aspectual meanings. JournalNX-A Multidisciplinary Peer Reviewed Journal, Volume6, (4), 17-22.
7. Davlatova M.H. Variability of Aspectual Meanings in English.-European Journal of Research and Reflection in Educational Science, Volume.7 No.12.2019.-P.778-780
8. Davlatova M.H. An Integrative history of Aspectual meanings.-JournalNX-A Multidisciplinary Peer Reviewed Journal, Volume 6, ISSUE 4, Apr.-2020.-P.17-22
9. Давлатова, М.Х. The role of songs in learning English. / Молодой ученый. – 2015. – №10. – С.11451147
10. Mukhayyo Hasanovna Davlatova. Lexico Semantic Structure and its Analysis on the Example of Verbs Journal NX- A Multidisciplinary Peer Reviewed Journal Volume 6, Issue 6, June. (2020) 189-19221
11. МХ Давлатова. Этапы работы с видеотекстами на занятиях Английского языка. Международный научный журнал «Интернаука», – М., 2017,16-19
12. Mukhayyo Hasanovna Davlatova, “RELATION OF LEXICAL-SEMANTIC STRUCTURE OF VERBS IN THE LINGUISTIC ESSENCE”, IEJRD – International Multidisciplinary Journal, vol. 6, no. SP, p. 5, Jan. 2021.
13. Davlatova Mukhayyo Hasanovna. (2021). DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF RESULTATIVE STRUCTURES ACCORDING TO THEIR LINGUISTIC ESSENCE. Academicia Globe: Inderscience Research, 2(05), 475–479. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/D4T8J.
14. Davlatova Mukhayyo Hasanovna. (2021). DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF RESULTATIVE STRUCTURES ACCORDING TO THEIR LINGUISTIC ESSENCE. Academicia Globe: Inderscience Research, 2(05), 475–479. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/D4T8J.
15. Hasanovna, Davlatova Mukhayyo. “SEMANTIC IMPLEMENTATION OF RESULTUTIVE STRUCTURES.” METHODS 7.6 (2021).
16. Давлатова, Муҳайё. “ASPECTUAL AND LEXICO-SEMANTIC CLASSIFICATION OF VERBS.” Сўз санъати халқаро журнали 1.3 (2020
17. Зайниддиновна, Т. Н. . (2022). КРИСТОФЕР МАРЛОУ (ЛИТЕРАТУРНЫЙ АНАЛИЗ):
    ТАМЕРЛЕН ВЕЛИКИЙ КАК ТИП ЛИЧНОСТИ ВОСТОЧНОГО ПРАВИТЕЛЯ. Eurasian Journal of Academic Research, 2(2), 234–239. извлечено от https://www.in academy.uz/index.php/ejar/article/view/1093
18. Zayniddinovna, T. N. (2021). The Image of the Eastern Ruler in the Works of Christopher Marlowe. CENTRAL ASIAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HISTORY, 2(10), 10-14. Retrieved from https://cajssh.centralasianstudies.org/index.php/CAJSSH/article/view/173
19. Zayniddinovn, T. N., & Sharofiddinovich, S. S. (2021). General cultural and educational values of ancient-classic latin language. CENTRAL ASIAN JOURNAL OF THEORETICAL & APPLIED
    SCIENCES, 2(5), 77-80. Retrieved from
    https://cajotas.centralasianstudies.org/index.php/CAJOTAS/article/view/157
20. Zaynitdinovna, T. N. . (2022). Lyrical Dialogue in Shakespeare’s Poems as a Reflection of Renaissance Anthropocentrism and a Strong Personality. Middle European Scientific Bulletin, 21,
    120-125. Retrieved from https://cejsr.academicjournal.io/index.php/journal/article/view/1085
21. Zayniddinovna, T. N. . (2022). The Problem of “A Strong Personality” in Shakespeare’ Dramas: Richard III and Macbeth. Middle European Scientific Bulletin, 20, 7-10. https://doi.org/10.47494/mesb.2022.20.1006
22. Zayniddinovna, T. N. (2022). THE CHARACTER OF STRONG PERSONALITY ACCORDINGLY WITH EASTERN THEMATICS IN CHRISTOPHER MARLOWE’S PLAY” TAMBURLAINE THE
    GREAT”. International Journal Of Literature And Languages, 2(08), 9-14.
23. Obidovna, D. Z. (2022). Speech Behavior and its Gender Specificity on the Basis of the Main English Language Variants. Middle European Scientific Bulletin, 22, 199-205.
24. JALILOVA, Z. O. (2021, March). ON THE FORMATION OF THE LANGUAGE OF SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE IN THE HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. In E-Conference Globe (pp. 18-
    22).
25. Джалилова, З. (2022). РЕАЛИЗАЦИЯ МАКСИМ ВЕЖЛИВОСТИ В АНГЛИЙСКОМ И УЗБЕКСКОМ ДИАЛОГАХ. Zamonaviy dunyoda innovatsion tadqiqotlar: Nazariya va amaliyot, 1(21), 22-33.
26. Djalilova, Z. (2022). POLITENESS IN WOMEN’S DISCOURSE IN ENGLISH AND UZBEK
    LANGUAGES. Academic research in modern science, 1(11), 29-34.
27. Obidovna, D. Z. (2022). GENDER SPEECH BEHAVIOR IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SOCIO-
    LINGUISTIC FACTOR. Web of Scientist: International Scientific Research Journal, 3(6), 190-198.
28. Obidovna, D. Z. (2022). GENDER DIFFERENTIATION OF MASCULINE AND FEMININE VERBALIZATION. European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Management Studies, 2(05), 59-65.
29. Mirzaeva , A. S. (2022). INTRA-LINGUISTIC AND EXTRA-LINGUISTIC FACTORS RELATED TO
    THE LANGUAGE AND VOCABULARY OF THE BASIC CONCEPTS OF RENAISSANCE
    ENGLISH PHILOSOPHY . Eurasian Journal of Social Sciences, Philosophy and Culture, 1(5), 9–17.
30. Mirzaeva, A. S. (2022). THEORY IN INTERTEXTUALITY AND THREE SEAMLESS INTERTEXTS: M. BUTTERFLV BY DAVID H. HWANG, AS IS BY WILLIAM M. HOFFMAN, AND EXECUTION OF JUSTICE BY EMILY MANN. Oriental renaissance: Innovative, educational, natural and social sciences, 2(5-2), 160-165.
31. Мирзаева, А. Ш. (2021). РЕМИНИСЦЕНЦИЯ КАК ЭЛЕМЕНТ ИНТЕРТЕКСТУАЛЬНОСТИ В ПРОИЗВЕДЕНИИ РИКА РИОРДАНА “PERCУ JACKSON AND THE LIGHTN ING THIEF”. МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫЙ ЖУРНАЛ ИСКУССТВО СЛОВА, 4(3).
32. Norova M.F. Connotative meanings in phonetic variants of verbal root-stems (as an example of the English and Uzbek languages) // Theoretical & Applied Science. – 2020. – №1. – P. 439-442.
33. Norova M. F. Jack London’s skill in creating the image of woman (in the example of the stylistic device metaphor) // Наука. Мысль: электронный периодический журнал. – 2017. – №. 4. – С. 80-84.
34. Djalilova, Z. O. (2021). Studies on gender linguistics in the field of Uzbek language. Academic research in educational sciences, 2(3), 391-397.
35. Dzhalilova, Z. O., & Mirfajziev, K. (2021). Latin as the language of medicine. Молодой ученый, (41), 35-37.
36. Dzhalilova, Z. O., Izomova, S. G., & Ahmedova, G. A. (2021). Intercultural communication and the Latin language. Молодой ученый, (24), 398-400.
37. Dzhalilova, Z. O. (2021). The Latin language’s international status. Молодой ученый, (41), 32-34.
38. Dzhalilova, Z. O. (2021). History of formation of Latin language. Молодой ученый, (41), 34-35.
39. Djalilova, Z. (2022). POLITENESS IN WOMEN’S DISCOURSE IN ENGLISH AND UZBEK
    LANGUAGES. Academic research in modern science, 1(11), 29-34.
40. Obidovna, D. Z. (2022). A Speech Etiquette Formula for the Gender Communication Strategy. American Journal of Social and Humanitarian Research, 3(10), 44-50.

Footnotes

1. Foucault Michel. Words and things. Archeology of the Humanities. 1994.
2. Zinchenko V.G. Literature and its methods. M, 2011.AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL AND HUMANITARIAN RESEARCH ISSN: 2690-9626Vol. 3, No.10, 2022
3. Zinchenko V.G. Literature and its methods. M, 2011.
4. Ilyin I.P. Glossary of terms of French structuralism // Structuralism: pros and cons. – M., 1975.
5. Ilyin I.P. Glossary of terms of French structuralism // Structuralism: pros and cons. – M., 1975.

Citation

Qizi, N. G. Z. . (2022). Literature as Discourse. American Journal of Social and Humanitarian Research, 3(10), 266–271. Retrieved from https://www.globalresearchnetwork.us/index.php/ajshr/article/view/1600

Copyright License

Title: “Literature as Discourse”
Authors: “Nasriyeva Guzal Zulfiddin Qizi”
Source: “https://www.globalresearchnetwork.us/”
License: “CC BY 4.0”