CC BY
14
ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMUNICATIVE-FUNCTIONAL APPROACH IN LINGUISTICS Umarova G.A.
Umarova Gulmira Abduganiyevna - Teacher, DEPARTMENT OF THEORETICAL DISCIPLINES OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, ENGLISH LANGUAGES FACULTY 3, UZBEKISTAN STATE WORLD LANGUAGES UNIVERSITY, SAMARKAND, REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN
Abstract: discourse is assumed as the way/form of interpersonal verbal interaction. Atthesametime, tistract allows us not to be limited only with the analysis of the language interaction within the framework of oral discourse, but distinguishing two main types of it - spoken (talk) and written (text) one. Including written communication into the notion of discourse gives the opportunity to describe dynamic - active and situational/contextual - aspects of this type of language interaction, and, this way, to analyze both types of discourse under the same angle of vision, not paying any attention to obvious differences between them.
Keywords: interaction, framework, language functions, involvement, communicants, semantic networks, illumination, synthesis.
Discourse is what we get when language is used in communication between people. Usually we do not consider communication that does not involve competent linguistic speech as discourse, even if the communication is successful. If a child stamps his foot and starts crying when he is told to come in for supper, the meaning I don't want to may be inferred, but it has not yet been expressed in discourse. However, sign language is also discourse and so are text messages. Discourse then consists of larger linguistic units than those dealt with in traditional linguistic analysis, and involves issues of linguistic performance and sociolinguistics. By communicating in linguistically competent speech, the speaker places himself in a particular society with its cultural norms, values and symbols.
The main types of the discourse in linguistics traditionally accepted to consider monologue and dialogue interactions, however, in surface analysis of this kind of division does not awake any difficulties in theoretical separation between monologues and dialogues interaction. First of all, it is closely related to distinction of the size of both types. At the same time exchange with remarks within addressees and addressor in the contact information allows us to distinguish easily enough this kind of interactions as dialogue, and the long chain sequentially connected and related by general topic of sayings of the one of the participants of communication can be assumed as monologue, in the cases of more difficultly organized communicative actions, for example, like exchange with opinions or debates, can cause struggles.
Each communicative approach in this kind situations can consist of many local coherent parts, semantically and pragmatically connected in global level within general macrostructure, that demands necessity for the use of different types of discourse like "simple"/ "compound", "complex discourse" [1, 33].
This way, besides the "channel of interaction" the factor of the time is one of the principals for delimitation of not only spoken and written (communicative/non-communicative) one, but dialogues and monologues discourses.
However, it is essential to mention about insufficiency of the use of this criterion as the basis for differentiation, taking into consideration their relativity and mark out the diffusiveness and conditionality of boundaries between various types and forms of discourse, as it possesses its own place within above mentioned situations of discussions and debates, in the case of literature dialogue, entries (for example, stenographical) spontaneous spoken monologue/dialogue or communication through computer electronic way, in the
process of which interlocutors enter to "indirect" - written - communication, but, using the possibility of spontaneousrelationship. This interpretation of communication and information supposes situational attachment of speech, connected with the involvement of broad socio-cultural context and conventional background knowledge.
In the process of discourse activity communicators retrieve from memory and treat the information not only presented by context, but being kept in deeper levels of recollection and including sociocultural knowledge. Speaking about different levels of memory, in which there the information is situated and kept, some scientists think, that on the first level there are kept difficult episodes and not interpreted sequences of long events; on the second level the encyclopedia information used for reconstruction of scenarios in the form of rules is situated; on the third level the socio-cultural information is situated, it is acquired by human being in the process of social practice; the fourth level involves the abstract information about the causes of action [3].
This way, in the process of discourse action there the coefficient treatment of the information goes on, starting from discourse, internal cognitive supplies of communicants and external situations of communication. That's why, in theoretical researches of the discourse the difference distinguished between explicit, conventional,word for word information, possessing language expression, on one hand, suspected, implicit one, textual information, take from the "same language units of discourse, - on the other hand, [2], it is about the similarities between semantic-pragmatic contents of the discourse being spoken and being suspected. Explicit information is usually connected with propositional meaning or semantic representation, which is reconstructed in the process of decoding the utterance.
References
1. Molchanova G.G. Semantics of text: Implicit aspect. Tashkent: Ukituvchi, 1986.
2. Kintsch W. The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension and production: a
constructive-integration model // Psychological Review. 1988. № 95. P. 163-182.
3. ShankR. C. Depths of knowledge and representation. London, 1982. P. 170-193.
