Aspects of the discourse community in foreign language teaching

Linguistics is often inclined to identify the hard-to-define term discourse simply with speech that is reproduced over and over again, retaining the implicit rules of its generation. This article is primarily devoted to an attempt to highlight the main characteristics of discourse strategies and presupposition as a mechanism of philosophical discourse in communicative linguistics; besides that, in this article we also attempt to answer the question of what the reason is for the social maladaptation of philosophers and how it is connected to the strategies of discourse. Each interpretation of discourse is based primarily on some particular aspect – a phenomenon that is quite common in linguistics. It seems possible that this is also the reason for the fact that modern scientists have not found a universal definition – a law that reveals the possible diversity of signs and forms of discourse as a phenomenon. We believe that research activities call for not compilation, but genuine integration, which significantly complicates the scientist’s task: this article is devoted to trying to find possible solutions to this problem. Research methods are based on comprehensive analysis of phenomena and on the interdisciplinary approach. The article considers the current linguistic discursive situation mainly in two ways. First, on the examples of a number of publications, modern linguistic studies are considered in order to identify the significance that the study of individual texts acquires in the discursive context. Secondly, this study also extends to the discourse analysis of texts related to such areas as academic writing, economics (including such types of discourse as business, religious, scientific, artistic, review). The materials of the study are texts selected by us from text corpora, translations, as well as original texts of various genres of written and oral speech, including texts of classical philosophical works and corpus texts.

1. Foucault, M. Archeology of knowledge. Kyiv, 1996. 513 p.

2. Bouchard, G. Michel Foucault: unité ou dispersion de l’œuvre. In Laval Théologique et Philosophique. Paris: Minuit, 2003. P. 485–502.

3. Henry, A., Roseberry, R. L. Using a small corpus to obtain data for teaching a genre. / Ed. by M.Ghadessy, A.Henry, L.Robert. In Roseberry, Small Corpus Studies and ELT. Theory and Practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2001. P. 93–133.

4. Flowerdew, J. Academic Discourse. London: Pearson Education, 2002. 264 p.

5. Gaskell, D., Cobb, T. Can learners use concordance feedback for writing errors? System 32/3. 2004. P. 301–319.

6. Hyland, K. Teaching and Researching Writing. London: Pearson Education. 2002. 324 p.

7. Carter-Thomas, Sh., Rowley-Jolivet, E. Syntactic differences in oral and written scientific discourse: the role of information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019. P. 37–42.

8. Resche, C. Décryptage d’un genre particulier: les communiqués de presse de la banque centrale américaine. ASp 39/40. 2003. P. 21–35.

9. Laffont, H. Un ingénieur est-il bien an engineer? ASp 49/50. 2006. P. 9–21.

10. Percebois, J. Les économistes universitaires français et leurs homologues anglais et américains: aspects institutionnels, culturels et linguistiques. ASp 49/50. 2006. P. 79–91.

11. Sinclair, J. McH. How to Use Corpora in Language Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2004. 317 p.

12. Johns, T. Data-driven Learning page. In Language learning as discourse analysis. Implications for the LSP learning en Asp. 2007. P. 51–52.

13. Gaskell, D., Cobb, T. Is there any measurable learning from hands on concordancing? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. P. 301–315.

14. O’Sullivan, Í. Learners’ writing skills in French: Corpus consultation and learner evaluation. In Journal of Second Language Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2006. P. 49–68.