Features of Artistic Discourse in Linguistics

Abstract

The study of discourse and discursive analysis are relatively new disciplines, especially in linguistics, which arouse great scientific interest and attract the attention of researchers to various aspects of discourse. In the last decade, many scientific works have been devoted in particular to artistic discourse. This article examines the specifics of artistic discourse and the solution of the question regarding the correct understanding and interpretation of key artistic images in works.

Introduction

I. INTRODUCTION

“Discourse” (from fr. Discours speech) is a coherent text in combination with extralinguistic - pragmatic, socio-cultural, psychological, and other factors; a text taken in the event aspect; speech considered as a purposeful social action, as a component involved in the interaction of people and the mechanisms of their consciousness (cognitive processes) [??????? 1997: 136-137]. The basis of the discourse is the text, and the discourse itself is associated with a pragmatic situation and at the same time is addressed to the thought processes of communication participants.

N.D. Arutyunova believes that discourse as a speech “immersed in life” is a coherent text taken together with extralinguistic conditions and the situation of communication – pragmatic, socio-cultural and other factors [????????? 1990: 136-137]. The typology of discourse partially coincides with the classification of functional speech styles, determined primarily by the set and specifics of the speech genres present in them [?????? 1986: 250-255]. According to the functional orientation and spheres of consciousness served, political, pedagogical, scientific, religious, legal are distinguished and other types of discourse marked by varying degrees of institutionalization [??????? 2000a]. A look at the text from the conditions of its production allows us to put forward the concept of “discourse”. The concepts of “artistic text” and “artistic discourse” have a number of features. We know that a work of art (an artistic text) is a work of art, the result of creativity. This is a special system that models a person's ideas about reality and is a means of communication between people.  An artistic text is created as a result of aesthetic cognition of the surrounding world, therefore, such a text contains information of a special kind - aesthetic. Therefore, it is necessary to agree with I.Y. Chernukhina's definition: “An artistic text is an aesthetic means of mediated communication, the purpose of which is a figuratively expressive disclosure of the topic, presented in unity of form and content and consisting of speech units performing a communicative function” [????????? 1984: 11]. This definition specifies the features of the literary text that need attention. At the same time, it should be taken into account that the specificity of a literary text follows from extralinguistic factors, conditions for the creation of a text, that is, consideration of artistic discourse is required. The writer, creating a work of art, learns about the world around him and reflects it, expressing his attitude to reality, his understanding. The result of the writer's activity becomes a literary text.  G.V. Stepanov writes: “A specific artistic text conveys a meaning that, in our opinion, cannot be expressed by synonymous statements. Artistic meaning cannot be “semantically represented” regardless of the given language design. Changing the language design entails either the destruction of a specific artistic meaning or the creation of a new one” [???????? 1976: 144].

We emphasize that man in all his manifestations is the most important part of the world created by the artist, in other words, anthropocentrism is inherent in artistic discourse. On the other hand, artistic discourse can be viewed in the light of communication theory. Thus, G.V. Stepanov pointed out “a well-known parallelism between a speech act in general and a literary text [???????? 1988: 108]. At the same time, Yu.B. Borev remarks: “Strictly speaking, in the process of transmitting artistic information, there is not communication, but artistic communication, because it goes not only from the author through the work to the recipient; but also in the opposite direction (feedback). The recipient acts not only as a consumer of artistic products, but also as, in a certain sense, a participant in its creation” [????? 1988: 160].

In fact, the reader is not at all a passive participant in artistic communication, since he is immersed in reality and learns it first of all independently, and then through an artistic text. According to I.V. Arnold, “the social existence of a text consists in its spiritual appropriation by the reader and in feedback, which plays an important role in this process” [??????? 1999: 375]. In the process of artistic communication, complex relations are carried out between the participants of communication - the addressee (author), the addressee (recipient, reader), as well as their relations with the text (work) and reality.

In addition to the writer as a speaking person, another speaking person is created in the literary text - the “image of the author”, which, according to I.I. Vinogradov, combines all the elements of the artistic system [??????????, 1971: 151-152], and the author's point of view and the “image of the author” on the depicted world may not coincide. Similarly, in a work of fiction, an “image of the reader” can be created (although this does not always happen), which is not identical to the real reader.

The reader perceives an artistic text, and this is another feature of artistic discourse: since there are no two identical people, there cannot be two identical understandings of a literary text. Each reader brings something of his own to the understanding of a literary text, conditioned by life experience, age, social status, emotional state, etc. However, the variety of understandings of a literary text has its limits. Here is what Yu.B. Borev writes about this: “Although the perception of a literary text is variable, it contains an invariant of these discrepancies and gives a stable program of artistic perception due to its objective content, the artistic concept and value orientations fixed in it” [?????, 1988: 211].

The artistic text is intended for communication of a special kind. It is designed for a special type of communicants and a special distribution of roles between them. Therefore, the question of artistic discourse sometimes acquires a debatable character, moreover, even time aims at the idea that an artistic text as a specific formation does not have a discourse, because the creation of an artistic text and its perception cannot be imagined as direct components of one communicative act. In addition, in artistic communication there is a special code for transmitting information and means of influencing the listener or reader. The creation of the text is not spontaneous and spontaneous. The author is also guided by certain attitudes, as well as communicative intentions and techniques of aesthetic influence on the addressee known to him.

References

[1] ??????? ?.?. ?????????. ??????????. ???????????????????: ??. ?????? / ????. ???. ?.?. ????????. – ???. 1999. – 456 ?. [2] ????????? ?.?. ??????? // ??????????????? ????????????????? ???????. – ?., 1990. – ?. 136–137. [3] ?????? ?.?. ???????? ?????????? ??????????. – ?., 1986. [4] ????? ?.?. ????????. 4-? ???., ???. – ?., 1988. [5] ?????????? ?.?. ? ?????? ?????????????? ????. – ?., 1971. [6] ??????? ?.?. ? ????? ???????? // ???????? ????????: ????????????????? ? ???????????? ???????. – ?????????, 2000?. – ?. 5–20. [7] ??????????????? ????????????????? ??????? / ??. ???. ?.?. ??????. – ?., 1990. [8] ??????? ?.?. ??????????????? ?????? ??????????????? ??????????????? ??????: ????. ???????. – ??., 1997. [9] ???????? ?.?. ????????? ????????? ? ????????? ??????????????? ?????? // ??. ????. ?????? ?????? ??. ?. ??????. – ?., 1976. ???. 103. [10] ???????? ?.?. ????. ??????????. ???????. – ?., 1988. [11] ????????? ?.?. ???????? ??????????? ??????????????? ????????????? ??????. – ???????, 1984. [12] Eshkuvvatovna, K. L., Tuychievna, M. S., & Furkatovna, S. D. (2021). Comparative analysis of the usage of concept\" hospitality\" in the phraseological units of English, Russian and Uzbek languages on the basis of the English translation of the novel “Silence” by S. Ahmad. Linguistics and Culture Review, 5(S1), 1640-1648. [13] Eshkuvatovna, K. L., & Ilhomovna, K. M. (2022). LINGUISTIC PROBLEMS OF LITERARY TRANSLATION. Galaxy International Interdisciplinary Research Journal, 10(1), 864-867. [14] Eshkuvatovna, K. L., & Furkatovna, S. D. (2022). The Analysis of the Usage of Lexical Transformations in the Translation of the Words Expressing the Concept “Hospitality”. European Journal of Life Safety and Stability (2660-9630), 16, 101-104. [15] ???????????, ?. ?. (2012). ???????? ???????? ????????, ?????????? ? ?????????? ???????????????? ??????? ????. ??????? ???????????? ???????????????? ????????????, (5 (259)), 161-163.

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Gulamova Malika Yakubovna. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.