The notion of discourse and discourse genres

The words text and discourse are often treated by linguists as synonyms. Text is regarded as an abstract unit belonging to language-as-a-system, and discourseas current speech generated and perceived in its oral or written form, as language-in-action. The relationship of the notion of functional style and that of discourse are well traced through the notion of text. The notion of discourse seems to be wider than that of FS as the discourse implies many more extra-linguistic characteristics of the text (e.g. ideological, social, cultural) than the latter one. Quite a number of scholars think that, being realized in texts, discourse is neither a text nor a FS: these terms are similar but not synonymous. Each FS is represented by a certain variety of genres that are typical solely of it. To give a clear description of the FS it is necessary to study thoroughly many texts of the same genre. In the corresponding literature one can come across two diametrically opposite estimations of the term FS. Thus, I.V. Arnold considers it to be very accurate, emphasizing the fact that the specificity of each style is predetermined by the specificity of functions carried out by language in a particular sphere of communication (Arnold, 2002). On the contrary, V.I. Karasik qualifies the term FS as "the least successful" in linguistics. Introducing the criterion of genre canon of discourse, he uses the nomination format of discourse instead of FS. The canon of genre is understood as a stereotype of generating and comprehending speech in recurrent specific circumstances. V.I. Karasik believes that for penetrating into the essence of FS the term under consideration is of the utmost importance. In such a case discourse turns out to be a prototype that correlates with cognitive structures representing in people's mind things, events and qualities. If we take all these facts into account, the format of discourse (in traditional terminology, FS!) is "a variety of discourse singled out on the basis of the communicative distance, degree of self-expression, existing social institutions, register of communication, and language cliches." V.I. Karasik thinks that it is important to add to the list of genre-and-style categories of discourse the category of projectivity, explaining that any discourse is built in accordance with certain canons related to the aims and circumstances of communication. The basis for typification of discourse is the degree of its canonization. In this sense the basic discourse and the projective discourse are opposed, to a certain extent their relationship reflects the relationship between direct and indirect, or implicit, speech acts. On the analogy with implicit speech acts (e.g. flatter, or something), one can single out projective types of discourse. It is especially true in connection with the discourse of mass media. Detailed research into the modern political discourse proves that the latter is mainly realized through its reflection in the mass media. We cannot but share the opinion of V.I. Karasik that any form of communication is manifold and parti-coloured (Karasik, 2002). Eliminating a personal component within the frame of institutional discourse is unreasonable and impracticable; moreover, it is impossible because personal relationships constitute one of the basic features of the process of communication. It is necessary to stress that identifying in speech interaction certain types of communication, different types of discourse and, on their ground, singling out the canonical types of discourse are abstract procedures which are mainly employed for scholarly reasons. The same can be referred to another abstraction traditionally, in the Russian literature on the issue, called junctional style

The scientific prose style

The function of SPS is to work out and ground theoretically objective knowledge about reality. The SPS has three subdivisions: (1) the substyle of humanitarian sciences; (2) the substyle of exact sciences; (3) the substyle of popular scientific prose.

The type of scientific prose may vary depending on a particular sphere of investigation. Thus, a mathematical text will most certainly comprise a number of formulae with precise, compact phrases introducing them, and contrary wise, a text on history usually gives an extended description of past or present events, a detailed analysis of historical processes, etc.

The most important features of scientific English are: objectivity, logical sequence, lucidity, exactness, impersonality. These style-forming features are revealed in all the levels of a concrete scholarly text - the phonographical level, that of morphology, lexis, syntax, and the text proper.

Emotionally colored words, elements of expressive syntax, lex styl devices as metaphors similes are difficult to avoid in popular scientific prose.

The most notable feature of scientific vocabulary is the use ofterms - words which are most likely to occur only in a scientific text and contribute to its exactness. In scholarly texts the personal pronoun "we" unites the author and his/her potential reader, promoting a kind of dialogue between them. In actual communication the style of scientific prose is presented by a variety of genres including experimental articles, monographs, research and critical papers, reports, lectures, theses, scientific essays, reviews, text-books, research projects, theoretical overviews, etc.