L`analyse du discours as an interpretative discipline
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.31548/philolog0(281).2018.0135%20-%20143
Abstract
The literary studies use a lot of methods that allow to interpret an artistic text at different levels. But problems of the subject and the semantic of the artistic text is being discussed until now. French school of discourse analysis (A. D.) can solve this problems because it focuses on conditions of a text production while other analytical methods (for instance poetic analysis, intertext analysis, analysis of fragments and the whole text) are aesthetically directed. A. D. has it own definitions and allows to research intersubjective reality that the artistic text generate, to reveal mechanismes of production of discourse. Solving the problem of the subject and the semantic allows to trace narrative-receptive strategy that influenced on interpretation of the text.
Purpose of this article is to research interpretation opportunities of A. D. for the literary studies.
Results. A. D. was formed in France at the end of 1960s. It tried to eliminate the disadvantages of content analysis that was based on transparency of speech and considered verbal material as the means of information transmission. A. D. combines linguistic, Louis Althusser’s marxist philosophy, Jacques Lacan’s psychoanalysis and overcomes the literal perception of the text. These features allow to deal with problem situation but not with one or other study or field of research.
The main theoretical work of A. D. is «Language, Semantics and Ideology» («Les Vérités de La Palice», 1975) by Michel Pêcheux. He has his own definition of discourse’ as a speech act formed by socio-historical canvas. In other words A. D. researches deals with totality of utterances «in meaning that these utterances in a social plan indicate historically defined identity in an utterance process» (Patrick Sériot). Discourse (in A. D. meaning) depends on position of the subject of utterance. But discourse is not empirical object of A. D. This school focuses attention on the subject and the semantic of discourse.
The subject is determined by history and ideology. The subject does not understand why he/she has to take a place into some ideological formation to be the subject. The discourses of this subject are formed under the influence of the ideology and unconscious. They are not transparent. The subject is constantly in the ideological formation that is structured by complex of the discourse formations. The semantic effects are produced and interpreted into certain ideological and discourse formations. These mechanisms are external to the subject and stipulate an illusion of freedom as if the subject is owner of the meaning.
The conception of A. D. does not coincide with the conception of «plurality of semantics/meanings» that provides manifestation of personality identity that reflect the text.
Originality. Interpretation opportunities of A. D. are first substantiated for Ukranian literary studies. We understand that it requires practical implementation but it is not a purpose of this article.
Conclusion. A. D. allows to interpret the artistic texts as the unity complex of utterances that the only subject could produce it in these conditions. This interpretation helps to eliminate possibility of free interpretation of the artistic text, a researcher could not contribute the text with his/her own meaning.
Full Text:
PDF (Українська)References
Altyusser L. Ideologiya i ideologicheskie apparatyi gosudarstva (zametki dlya issledovaniya). Available at : http://magazines.russ.ru/nz/2011/3/al3.html
Bart R. (1989). Izbrannyie rabotyi: Semiotika. Poetika [Selected works: Semiotics. Poetics]. Progress, 616.
Benvenist E. (1974) Obschaya lingvistika [Problèmes de linguistique générale]. Progress, 448.
Serio P. (2002) Kvadratura smyisla: Frantsuzkaya shkola analiza diskursa [Quadrature of meaning: French school of discourse analysis]. Progress, 416.
Serio P. (1993) V poiskah chetvertoy paradigmyi: Filosofiya yazyika: v granitsah i vne granits [Philosophy of language: in and out borders]. Harkov : Oko, 1993. P. 37–52.
Tyupa V. (2009) Analiz hudozhestvennogo teksta [Analysis of artistic text]. Moskow «Akademiya», 336.
Fuko M. (2003) Arkheolohiia znannia [Archéologie du Savoir]. Kyiv: Vyd-vo Solomii Pavlychko «Osnovy», 326.
Shynkaruk, V.D (1997) Narys iz syntaksysu zviaznoho movlennia (teoretychnyi spetskurs dlia universytetiv)[ An outline on the syntax of coherent speech (theoretical special course for universities)]. Chernivtsi: “Ridna mova”, 152 .
Angermuller J., Maingueneau D., Wodak R. (2014) The Discourse Studies Reader: Main currents in theory and analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 430.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.