Education Quarterly Reviews
ISSN 2621-5799
Published: 10 December 2024
The Fields of Pragmatic Discourse Analysis
Ayten Rahimli Muzaffar
Baku State University, Azerbaijan
Download Full-Text Pdf
10.31014/aior.1993.07.04.540
Pages: 244-250
Keywords: Linguistics, Language, Discourse Analysis, Pragmatics, Text, The Methods, Science
Abstract
The article is devoted to the fields of pragmatic discourse analysis. Pragmatic approach to the discourse takes into account all the aspects of communication including both linguistic and extra-linguistic units, and provides efficient tools for affecting an addressee. The article has been written on the basis of synchronic descriptive method in the study of the English language. It is noted in this article that discourse analysis (discourse analysis) is a set of methods and techniques for interpreting various types of texts or statements as products of speech activity. The pragmatic approach to discourse involves analyzing it from the standpoint of speech acts, which allows us to consider pragmatics as one of the areas of discursive research. It is also stated that some definitions of pragmatics are almost identical to some definitions of discourse analysis, which may lead us to think that both fields of study are the same.
References
Benveniste E. (1971) Problems in General Linguistics. Front Cover. University of Miami Press, - Language Arts & Disciplines - 317 pages.
Chafe, William (1987). Cognitive constraints on information flow. In R. Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 21—51.
Chudinov A. (2007) Political linguistics: a tutorial. Moscow, Pp. 7–8.
Guillaume J. Maldidier D. (1999) On new methods of interpretation, or the problem of meaning from the point of view of discourse analysis // Quadrature of meaning. Moscow, pp. 124-136.
Hoffman V. (1983) The language of the symbolists // LN, M., 1937, vol. 27-28. Greimas A.J. Courtet J.(1982) Semiotics. Explanatory dictionary of the theory of language // Semiotics. M., pp. 481-550.
Kobozeva I.( 2003). Intentional and cognitive aspects of semantic utterance: diss. Doctor of Philological Sciences. Moscow, Page 112.
Katz I. J., Fodor J. A. (1963.) The structure of a semantic theory. Language. Baltimore.pp. 170-210.
Leech G. N. (1983) Principles of Pragmatics. 265 p.
L. de Saussure, (2007). Procedural Pragmatics and the Study of Discourse. Universite de Neuchatel. Pp 139-158.
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. (2001) Third edition with New Words supplement. Б.м., s. 30.
Morris C.W. (2001) Foundations of the theory of signs // Semiotics: Anthology. Moscow, , pp. 45-97
Morris C. (1983) Foundations of the theory of signs // Semiotics. Moscow, Page 63.
Ozhegov S. (1997) Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language / edited by N. Yu. Shvedova. 4th ed., suppl.
M., P. 689. Serio P. (1999) How texts are read in France // The quadrature of meaning. Moscow, pp. 12-53.
Searle J.R. (1986) Classification of illocutionary acts // New in foreign linguistics. Issue 17. Moscow, pp. 170-194.
Searle, J. (1968) Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p.203.
Van Dijk T.A. (2012) Editor’s Introduction: The Study of Discourse : An Introduction. The Emergence of a New CrossDiscipline. 14 p. URL: http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/The%20study%20of%20discourse.pd
Van Dijk T. A. (1998). Towards a definition of discourse. [www-document] URL http://www.nsu.ru/psych/internet/bits/vandijk2.htm