Baltic accent

2017 Vol. 8 №4

Back to the list Download the article

The Text and Discourse in the Light of Communicative Meaning Formation



This article analyses differences between the static and dynamic interpretations of the text and discourse. The concept of a communicative action (a semiotic act) is considered as the main distinguishing factor that is crucial for the communicative model of text but is ignored within the language model. The communicative (dynamic) model postulates the following: 1) the text is a sequence of verbal elements of communicative actions; 2) the verbal manifestation of an utterance differs fundamentally from a communicative action; 3) the cognitive condition of the author of an action imposes a limit on meaning formation within the action and within the corresponding sentence of a text; 4) communicative meaning formation implies that the author sees sense in the procedure of communication per se rather than in reflecting reality or conveying thoughts; 5) when perceiving a written text, the reader’s consciousness constantly interprets a single communicative action and this makes a not-procedural understanding of a text ineffective. In dynamic terms, discourse represents a recognized situation of a given communicative action or a flexible system of parameters that is constantly recreated and updated to ensure the correct interpretation of a semiotic act.


1. Arutyunova, N. D., 1990. Discourse. In: V. N. Yartseva, ed. Lingvisticheskii entsiklopedicheskii slovar' [Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary]. Moscow, p. 136—137.
2. Vdovichenko, A. V., 2016. Communicative justification of grammar. To the question of limits of grammatical description conventionality. Russkii yazyk za rubezhom [Russian language abroad], 4, p. 78—84.
3. Vdovichenko, A. V., 2016. On the non-self-identity of the linguistic sign. The causes and consequences of "linguistic imiaslavie". Voprosy filosofii [Issues of philosophy], 6, p. 164—175.
4. Dridze, T. M., 1984. Tekstovaya deyatel'nost' v strukture sotsial'noi kommunikatsii: problemy semiosotsiopsikhologii [Text activity in the structure of social communication: the problems of semiosociopsychology]. Moscow.
5. Kolshanskii, G. V., 1980. Kontekstnaya semantika [Contextual semantics]. Moscow.
6. Lukin, V. A., 1999. Khudozhestvennyi tekst: osnovy lingvisticheskoi teorii i elementy analiza [Litarary text: the foundations of linguistic theory and elements of analysis]. Moscow.
7. Nikolaeva, T. M., 1978. A brief dictionary of text linguistics terms. In: T. M. Nikolaeva, ed. Novoe v zarubezhnoi lingvistike. Vyp. 8. Lingvistika teksta [New in foreign linguistics. Issue. 8. Linguistics of the text]. Moscow, p. 467.
8. Serio, P., 1999. How read texts in France. In: P. Serio, ed. Kvadratura smysla. Frantsuzskaya shkola analiza diskursa [Quadrature of meaning. French school of discourse analysis]. Moscow.
9. Stepanov, Yu. S., 1995. Alternative world, Discourse, Fact and principle of Causality. In: Stepanov, Yu. S., Frumkina, R. M., Rudenko, D. I. et al. Yazyk i nauka kontsa XX veka [Language and science of the late twentieth century]. Moscow, p. 35—73.