HIPOTEZA I DEDUKCIJA U PROUČAVANJU DISKURSA REKLAMNIH PORUKA

The paper is an attempt to show that a discourse type can in itself be an analytic determinant, i.e. that it can effectively dictate methods of investigating it. This claim is illustrated by a study of the discourse of advertising, or rather, of how the discourse of advertising motivates an analyst to adopt a specific track of analysis. In the paper, the discourse of advertising is shown to possess certain properties which favor a deduction- based approach to analysis, whereby an analyst is likely to postulate about a given text’s function a priori, that is before an inquiry into particular samples of textual data takes place. This approach may lead to a number of analytic fallacies such as, for instance, underspecification of data supporting the thesis or illustration of thesis with atypical or even irrelevant data.U prilogu se pokušava pokazati da tip diskursa već sam po sebi može odrediti analitički postupak, tj. može stvarno diktirati kojim će ga se metodama istraživati. Tu se tvrdnju ilustrira na primjeru proučavanja reklamnih poruka, odnosno pokazuje se kako diskurs reklamnih poruka utječe na lingvista pri izboru specifičnog smjera u analizi. Ističu se osobine diskursa reklamnih poruka koje dovode do deduktivnog postupka u analizi pri čemu analitičar a priori postulira neke funkcije teksta prije nego što je zapravo krenuo ispitivati jezični materijal. Takav postupak može rezultirati nizom analitičkih zabluda poput previđanja određenih podataka ili potkrepljivanja tvrdnji atipičnim ili čak irelevantnim materijalom

KRITIČKI PREGLED RAZVOJA DRUŠTVENO-TEORIJSKIH I LINGVISTIČKIH TEMELJA SUVREMENIH PROUČAVANJA DISKURSA

This paper gives a critical overview of analytical approaches dominating the field of discourse studies in the last three decades, from the perspective of their philosophical and formative bases: social constructionism and linguistics. It explores different conceptions of the theoretical nexus between these two bases leading to the emergence of three distinct yet complementary strands of thought (i–iii). The paper starts with poststructuralist views of discourse salient in (i) Laclau and Mouffe’s Discourse Theory. Laclau and Mouffe’s assumption that no discourse is a closed entity but rather transformed through contact with other discourses is taken as the introductory premise to present a large family of (ii) critical discourse studies, characterized as text-analytical practices explaining how discourse partakes in the production and negotiations of ideological meanings. Finally, the paper discusses (iii) three recent discourse analytical models: Discourse Space Theory, Critical Metaphor Analysis, and Legitimization-Proximization Model. These new theories make a further (and thus far final) step toward consolidation of the social-theoretical and linguistic bases in contemporary discourse studies. The empirical benefits of this consolidation are discussed in the last part of the paper, which includes a case study where the new models are used in the analysis of Polish anti-immigration discourse.Rad donosi kritički pregled najzastupljenijih analitičkih pristupa u području proučavanja diskursa u posljednja tri desetljeća, i to iz perspektive njihovih filozofskih i formativnih ishodišta: društvenog konstruktivizma i lingvistike. Razmatraju se različite koncepcije teorijskih poveznica između ova dva ishodišta što dovodi do pojave tri različita, ali komplementarna pravca mišljenja (i-iii). Rad započinje poststrukturalističkim prikazima diskursa koji prevladavaju u (i) Laclauovoj i Mouffeovoj teoriji diskursa. Laclauova i Mouffeova pretpostavka da nijedan diskurs nije zatvorena cjelina, već se mijenja kroz kontakt s drugim diskursima, uzeta je kao uvodna premisa za predstavljanje velike obitelji (ii) kritičkih studija diskursa, koje su predstavljene kao tekstualno-analitički postupci s pomoću kojih se objašnjava kako diskurs sudjeluje u stvaranju i dogovaranju ideoloških značenja. Naposljetku, u radu se razmatraju (iii) tri nova modela analize diskursa: teorija diskursnih prostora, kritička analiza metafore i model legitimizacije i proksimizacije. Te nove teorije čine još jedan (i dosad najsnažniji) korak ka konsolidaciji društveno-teorijskih i lingvističkih temelja u suvremenim proučavanjima diskursa. Empirijske prednosti ove konsolidacije razmatraju se u posljednjem dijelu rada, koji uključuje studiju slučaja u kojoj se u analizi poljskog antiimigracijskog diskursa koriste spomenuti novi modeli

ANALIZA DISKURSA I DETERMINACIJA U SVJETLU TEORIJE SUBJEKTIFIKACIJE

The present paper bridges considerations characteristic of the domains of linguistic pragmatics, discourse analysis, as well as of cognitive linguistics and social psychology. It is claimed that, in specialist discourse analysis, a given discourse type is as such analytic determinant, i.e. one that dictates its own methods of investigation. These methods display a “more-bottom-up” or a “more-top-down” orientation (cf. Beaugrande 1997), depending on what kind of discourse is investigated. It is argued that certain discourse types which “include” the analyst (that is, where the analyst is part of depicted events or part of discourse audience) or are more “familiar” to him/her generate observations on their function and structure at a relatively early stage of their componential analysis, or even before it takes place. Once the global function of the text has been presupposed, the analysis proceeds “top-down”, i.e. toward all micro-data chunks supportive of the initial hypothesis. This happens, for instance, in the case of the discourse of advertising (cf. studies by Lutz 1990, Myers 1994; Goddard 1998, and many others). On the other hand, discourse analyses pursued in a “bottom-up” manner seem to result from an analyst having insufficient extralinguistic knowledge to postulate a priori claims about the text and its function. This constraint concerns analysts not being part of the reality investigated and, more often than not, undertaking a diachronic study or a study of highly-metaphoric discourse. The primary objective of the paper is to postulate, on the basis of investigation into a couple of different discourse types (language of politics and the media, advertising, and scientific argument), about the degree of analytic determinism pertaining to a given kind of text. In other words, it is to indicate which discourse types invite (or even dictate) which of the analytic approaches (i.e. “top-down” and “bottom-up”). The secondary goal is to suggest that the analysis of discourse determination can further benefit from the application of concepts which are normally part of Cognitive Grammar (CG) apparatus. It will be shown that CG can substantially contribute toward specification of the distance that holds between the analyst and the investigated discourse. Addressed here will be Langacker’s concept of subjectification (cf. Langacker 1990b, 1999) and its relevance to considerations of the analyst’s status in discourse.Prilog pokušava premostiti pristupe karakteristične za domene lingvističke pragmatike, analize diskurza te kognitivne lingvistike i socijalne psihologije. Tvrdi se da je određeni tip diskursa sam po sebi u specijalističkoj analizi diskurza analitički odrednik, tj. diktira svoje vlastite metode istraživanja. Te metode mogu biti više odozdolne ili odozgorne orijentacije (v. Beaugrande 1997), ovisno o tome koji se tip diskursa istražuje. Tvrdi se da pojedini tipovi diskurza koji “uključuju” analitičara (tj. gdje je analitičar sudionik zbivanja o kojima je riječ ili je pak dio publike diskursa) ili su mu “poznatiji” generiraju zapažanja o funkciji i strukturi diskursa u razmjerno ranim fazama komponencijalne analize diskursa, ili čak i prije negoli sama analiza započne. Kad je tako pretpostavljena globalna funkcija teksta, analiza se nastavlja u odozgornom smjeru, tj. prema mikropodatcima koji podupiru polazišnu hipotezu. To se npr. događa u slučaju analize reklamnog diskursa (v. studiju Lutza iz 1990, Myersa iz 1994, Goddarda iz 1998 te mnoge druge). S druge se pak strane čini da je analiza diskursa koji ide u odozdolnom smjeru rezultat nedovoljnog izvanjezičnog znanja koje je potrebno analitičaru kako bi oformio apriorne stavove o tekstu i njegovoj funkciji. To je ograničenje analitičara koji nije dio stvarnosti koja se ispituje i koji se u pravilu bavi dijakronijskim istraživanjem ili proučava diskurs koji je izrazito metaforičan. Prvenstveni je cilj priloga, na temelju proučavanja nekoliko različitih tipova diskursa (jezika politike i medija, oglašavanja te znanstvene argumentacije), ukazati na mogućnost predviđanja stupnja analitičkog determinizma koji se vezuje uz određenu vrstu teksta. Drugim riječima, prilog treba pokazati koji tipovi diskursa navode na (ili čak diktiraju) određeni analitički pristup (tj. “odozgo prema dolje” ili “odozdo prema gore”). Sekundarni je cilj priloga sugerirati da analiza diskursa može profitirati od primjene pojmova koji su normalno dio pojmovnog aparata Kognitivne gramatike (KG). Pokazuje se da KG može prižiti znatan doprinos utvrđivanju distance između analitičara i diskursa koji se proučava. Razmatra se Langackerov koncept subjektifikacije (usp. Langacker 1990b i 1999) te njegova relevantnost u razmatranju statusa analitičara unutar diskursa

Od mitu do relatywizmu czyli mikro- i makroanaliza w metodologii badań pragmatycznych

Udostępnienie publikacji Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego finansowane w ramach projektu „Doskonałość naukowa kluczem do doskonałości kształcenia”. Projekt realizowany jest ze środków Europejskiego Funduszu Społecznego w ramach Programu Operacyjnego Wiedza Edukacja Rozwój; nr umowy: POWER.03.05.00-00-Z092/17-00

Pragmatyka organizacji przemówienia inauguracyjnego J. F. Kennedy’ego

Autor podejmuje próbę analizy monologu politycznego z perspektywy teorii aktów mowy. W studium tekstu kategorią porządkującą i nadrzędną w stosunku do zaproponowanych ośmiu kryteriów analizy (m. in. kohezji i koherencji) jest tzw. makroakt mowy. Opisany proces jego lingwistycznej derywacji naświetla problem efektu perlokucyjnego przemówienia, który, w odczuciu autora, nosi znamiona manipulacji językowej opartej w znacznej mierze na wykorzystaniu psychologicznych technik perswazji.Zadanie pt. „Digitalizacja i udostępnienie w Cyfrowym Repozytorium Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego kolekcji czasopism naukowych wydawanych przez Uniwersytet Łódzki” nr 885/P-DUN/2014 zostało dofinansowane ze środków MNiSW w ramach działalności upowszechniającej nauk

Issues in cognitive discourse research: Positioning, representation, conceptualization

The present paper explores the current nexus between Cognitive Linguistics (CL) and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), focusing on theories of conceptual positioning, distancing and perspective-taking in discourse space. It assesses the strengths, limitations, and prospects for further operationalization of positioning as a valid methodology in CDA, and political discourse studies in particular. In the first part, I review the cognitive models of positioning that have made the most significant contribution to CDA. Discussing Deictic Space Theory and Text World Theory, among others, I argue that these models reveal further theoretical potential which has not been exploited yet. While they offer a comprehensive and plausible account of how representations and ideologically charged worldviews are established, they fail to deliver a pragmatic explanation of how addressees are made to establish a worldview, in the service of speaker’s goals. The second part of the paper outlines Proximization Theory, a discursive model of crisis and conflict construction in political discourse. I argue that, unlike the other models, it fully captures the complex geopolitical and ideological positioning in political discourse space, providing a viable handle on the dynamics of conflict between the opposing ideologies of the space

A note on the post-structuralist evolution of discourse analysis

This paper gives a critical overview of various analytical approaches dominating the field of discourse studies in the last three decades, from the perspective of their philosophical and formative bases: social constructionism and linguistics. It explores different conceptions and features of the theoretical nexus between these two bases leading to the emergence of three distinct yet apparently complementary strands of thought (i-iii). The paper starts with the account of (i) Laclau and Mouffe’s classical discourse theory and its idea of ‘discursive struggle’ – a struggle of particular ways of talking of and understanding the world in an attempt to achieve discursive (and social) hegemony. Laclau and Mouffe’s assumption that no discourse is a closed entity but rather transformed through contact with other discourses is then taken as the introductory premise to present a vast, complex and heterogeneous family of (ii) critical discourse studies. Critical discourse studies are characterized in the paper as a hub of text-analytical practices that work on the link between language and social reality from the perspective of power and empowerment, explaining how discourse partakes in the production, change and negotiations of ideologically-charged meanings. Most crucially, they establish a methodological link between social theory and linguistics, providing discourse analysis with text-analytical tools and methods. Finally, the paper discusses (iii) three recent discourse analytical models: Discourse Space Theory, Critical Metaphor Analysis and Legitimization-Proximization Model. Originally located in the cognitive-psychological strand of critical discourse studies, these new models can now be seen as fully-fledged discourse theories with their own apparatus of analysis, involving concepts from cognitive linguistics, pragmatics and social psychology. It is argued that these three new theories make a further (and thus far final) step toward consolidation of the social-theoretical and linguistic bases in contemporary discourse studies. The empirical benefits of this consolidation are discussed in the last part of the paper, which includes a brief case study where the new models are used in the analysis of Polish anti-immigration discourse