Silence as a Discourse Construction in Sociolinguistics


Schulz V.L.

Dr, Sci. (Philos.), Correspondent Member, Russian Academy of Sciences, Depatment Head, M. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia cona01@yandex.ru

Liubimova Т.М.

Dr. Sci. (Philos.), Cand. Sci. (Philol.), Moscow, Russia t.ljubimova@yandex.ru

DOI: 10.31857/S013216250003172-2
ID of the Article:


For citation:

Schulz V.L., Liubimova Т.М. Silence as a Discourse Construction in Sociolinguistics. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. 2018. No 12. P. 84-93




Abstract

The article uses three main concepts of discourse (conversation) analysis school as a key area in modern sociolinguistics (a preconstruct as a trace in the discourse of the preceding epochs, supplying material for the formation of discourse; interdiscourse as the relations that a discourse has to what is «already heard», «already present»; intradiscourse as the operation of discourse with respect to itself, that is, the phenomena of coreference, which generates the main thread of discourse) to build a typology of forms of silence as constructs of an ending reality, in which the conceptual beginning of a new reality is laid (oblivion, omission, hidden meanings, parables, euphemisms, silent scene). Oblivion is regarded as a spontaneous mnemonic mechanism and as a technology of instrumental influence on memory, that is, the ideologization of memory paralysis is analyzed as the oldest method of disinformation, doomed in the modern global space to reduced forms. The genesis of hidden meanings is found both in the objective properties of the langue and parole phenomenon and in the subjective intentions of the utterer. Aesopian language is interpreted as an artistic system of paralyses and concealment, worked out over two and a half millennia of confrontation between men of letters and authorities. Political euphemisms as a soft way to deal with unpleasant subjects are considered as a means of tabooing of the modern politics. The mute scene is interpreted as meta silence, the synthesis of all possible forms and figures of silence. In the article to analyze the unsaid as a key discourse construct, demonstrate the illusory nature of the transparency of meanings in a text, and explain the principle of discourse being open to multiple interpretations, explains the mechanisms of linking separate discourse constructs with spots of silence, which, while explicitly devoid of any semantics, are implicitly filled with a multiplicity of meanings.


Keywords
pre-construct; inter-discourse; intra-discourse; implicity; explicity; interpretation; memory ideologization; collective memory; loss of meaning; disinformation

References

Andreev L.G. (2001) How did the History of the Second Millennium End? In: Foreign Literature of the Second Millennium. 1000–2000. Moscow: Vysshaya shkola: 292–334. (In Russ.)

Autier-Revue J. (2002) Explicit and Constitutional Heterogenity: on the Problem of the Other in Discourse. In: Quadrature of Sense. Moscow: Progress: 54–94. (In Russ.)

Bolinger D. (1998) Truth is a Linguistic Problem. In: Language and Modeling of Social Interaction. Blagoveschensk: I. Boduen de Kurtene BGK: 23–44. (In Russ.)

Eco U. (2007) The Role of the Reader. Saint-Petersburg.: Symposium, Moscow: RGGU, 2007. (In Russ.)

Information Society. Information Wars. Information Management. Information Security. (1999) SaintPetersburg: S.-Petersburgskiy un-t. (In Russ.)

Klushina N.I. (2008) Features of the Public Discourse Style. In: Mass Media Language. Moscow: Akadem. proekt; Alma Mater: 479–495. (In Russ.)

Kurtin Zh.(2002) Clementis' Hat: Notes on Memory and Oblivion in Political Discourse. In: Quadrature of Sense. Moscow: Progress: 95–104. (In Russ.)

Leskov N.S. (1956–1958) Full Collection of Writings. Vol. 1. Moscow: Hudozh. lit-ra. (In Russ.)

Lubimova T.M. (2008) The Concept of Oblivion in the Information War Strategy. Informatsionnye voiny [Information Wars]. No. 1: 69–74. (In Russ.)

Luman N. (2005) Mass Media Reality. Moscow: Praksis. (In Russ.)

Maslennikova A.A. (1999) Linguistic Interpretations of Hidden Meanings. Saint Petersburg.: S.- Petersburgskiy u-t. (In Russ.)

Milner J. (2005) The Philosophical Step of Roland Barthes. In: Republic of Words. France in the Global Intellectual Culture. Mоscow: Nov. lit. obozrenie: 58–102. (In Russ.)

Riker P. (2004) Memory, History, Oblivion. Moscow: Gumanit. lit-ra. (In Russ.)

Romanovskiy N.V. (2011) Nova in Sociology – «Memory Boom». Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. No. 6: 13–23. (In Russ.)

Sartre J.-P. (1943) L’Être et le néant. Рaris: Gallimard. (In Fr.)

Schedrin N. (1934) Full Collection of Writings. Vol. 9. Leningrad: Hudozh. lit-ra. (In Russ.)

Schiller H. (1980) Thought Manipulators. Moscow: Mysl’. (In Russ.)

Schulz V.L., T. Lubimova T. M. (2015) «Wooden Language» as a Mirror of the Revolution. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. No. 1: 136–145. (In Russ.)

Schulz V.L., Lubimova T.M. (2016) Secret Languages as Constructs of Social Reality. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. No. 6: 3–13. (In Russ.)

Serio P. (2002) How People Read Texts in France. In: Quadrature of Sense. Moscow: Progress: 12–53. (In Russ.)

Ter-Minasova S.G. (2008) The War and Peace of Languages and Cultures. Moscow: Slovo. (In Russ.)

Content No 12, 2018