Home → Releases → 4 (60) →

COMMUNICATIVE SCENARIO AS A DISCOURSE UNIT

Linguistic Theory. Cross-cultural Communication Theory , UDC: 81’42 DOI: 10.24412/2076-913X-2025-460-84-100

Authors

  • Karasik Vladimir Ilyich D. Sc. (Philology), Professor

Annotation

The paper deals with a communicative scenario (script) as a functional unit of discourse. Five approaches to understanding, explaining and describing communicative scripts have been proposed: structural-compositional, interpretive-thematic, subjectsocial, tonal-pragmatic and situational-mode. The structural-compositional approach is the study of a communicative scenario from the positions of outlining communicative moves, explaining behavioral norms and describing the genre character of this event. The interpretative-thematic approach to the study of a communicative scenario allows us to identify and describe its factual, conceptual and implicative-subtextual information. The subject-social approach makes it possible to characterize the types of linguistic personalities and their inherent communicative behavior in relation to different situations. The tonal-pragmatic approach is aimed at describing the types of communicative tone; from these positions the modus indicators of speech are considered, which allow characterizing the dramaturgical organization of discourse. The situational-mode approach to understanding and explaining discourse allows us to describe the specifics of the communicative scenario conditioned by external ways of communication implementation. Especially significant nowadays are the characteristics of network discourse in public and private communication.
Tags:
communicative move , communicative scenario , Discourse , discourse mode , discourse participant , discourse tone , discourse topic

How to link insert

Karasik, V. I. (2025). COMMUNICATIVE SCENARIO AS A DISCOURSE UNIT Bulletin of the Moscow City Pedagogical University. Series "Pedagogy and Psychology", 4 (60), 84. https://doi.org/10.24412/2076-913X-2025-460-84-100
References
1. 1. Borbotko, V. G. (2011). Principles of discourse formation: From psycholinguistics to linguosynergetics. 4th ed. Librokom. (In Russ.).
2. 2. Vikulova, L. G. (2023). Publishing discourse in the professional communication system. From word to discourse: the interaction of words and the (non)predictability of meanings (p. 8–10). Abstracts of the international scientific conference. Minsk State Linguistic University. (In Russ.).
3. 3. Demyankov, V. Z. (2022). Narrative and discourse. Issues of Cognitive Linguistics, (4), 5–16. (In Russ.).
4. 4. Zolyan, S. T. (2008). Language and discourse. Language through the prism of culture (р. 3–12). Abstracts of the international conference. Lingva. (In Russ.).
5. 5. Karasik, V. I. (2004). The linguistic circle: personality, concepts, discourse. Gnozis. (In Russ.).
6. 6. Kasavin, I. T. (2008). Text. The discourse. The context. An introduction to the social epistemology of language. Kanon+. (In Russ.).
7. 7. Kashkin, V. B. (2010). Introduction to the theory of discourse. Vostochnaya kniga. (In Russ.).
8. 8. Kibrik, A. A. (1994). Cognitive research on discourse. Voprosy` yazy`koznaniya, (5), 126–139. (In Russ.).
9. 9. Klyukanov, I. E. (2015). The nature of communication. Scientific Research and Development. Modern Communication Studie, 1(14), 6–13. (In Russ.).
10. 10. Kubryakova, E. S. (2000). On the concepts of discourse and discursive analysis in modern linguistics. Discourse, speech, speech activity: functional and structural aspects (p. 7–25). Collection of reviews. INION RAS. (In Russ.).
11. 11. Makarov, M. L. (2003). Fundamentals of the theory of discourse. Gnozis. (In Russ.).
12. 12. Manaenko, G. N. (2011). Linguistic coordinates of the concept of «discourse». Issues of Cognitive Linguistics, (4), 83–92. (In Russ.).
13. 13. Olyanich, A. V. (2004). The presentation theory of discourse. Monograph. Paradigm. (In Russ.).
14. 14. Savitsky, V. M. (2013). Speech generation: a discursive approach. Monograph. Volga State Social and Humanitarian Academy. 226 p. (In Russ.).
15. 15. Tareva, E. G., & Dorokhova, A. M. (2024). Modern intercultural discourse: status in linguodidactics. MCU Journal of Philology. Theory of Linguistics. Linguistic Education, 1(53), 124–135. (In Russ.).
16. 16. Tyupa, V. I. (2010). Discourse formations: Essays on comparative rhetoric. Yazy’ki slavyanskoj kul’tury’. (In Russ.).
17. 17. Chernyavskaya, V. E. (2021). Text and social context: sociolinguistic and discursive analysis of meaning generation. Lenand. (In Russ.).
18. 18. Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse. A critical introduction. Cambridge University Press.
19. 19. Duranti, A. (1985). Sociocultural dimensions of discourse. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.). Handbook of discourse analysis. Vol. 1, 193–230. Academic Press.
20. 20. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and text: linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, (3), 192–217.
21. 21. Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Oxford University Press.
22. 22. Slembrouck, S. (2019). Discourse analysis. The Routledge Handbook of Linguistic Ethnography (p. 28–39). K. Tusting (Ed.). Routledge.
23. 23. Osipov, G. V. (Ed.). (1995). Encyclopedic Sociological Dictionary. Institute of Socio-Political Research. (ESS). (In Russ.).
24. 24. Vereshchagin, E. M., & Kostomarov, V. G. (2005). Language and culture. Three linguistic concepts of foreign studies: lexical background, speech-behavioral tactics and sapientema. Indrik. (In Russ.).
25. 25. Oksaar, E. (1988). Kulturemtheorie: ein Beitrag zur Sprachverwendungsforschung. Joachim Jungius-Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften.
26. 26. Vezhbitskaya, A. (2011). Semantic universals and basic concepts. Languages of Slavic cultures. (In Russ.).
27. 27. Dementiev, V. V. (2024). Integral description of speech genres. Sarat Publishing House. The university. (In Russ.).
28. 28. Galperin, I. R. (1981). Text as an object of linguistic research. Nauka. (In Russ.).
29. 29. Dementyev, V. V. (2006). Indirect communication. Gnozis. (In Russ.).
30. 30. Denisenko, V. N. (2010). Modeling of the language system in the aspect of linguistic personality. RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics, (1), 6–12. (In Russ.).
31. 31. Karaulov, Yu. N. (2010). The Russian language and linguistic personality. 7nd ed. Publishing house of LKI. (In Russ.).
32. 32. Pushkin, A. A. (1990). Method of discourse organization and typology of linguistic personalities. Language, discourse, and personality (р. 50–59). TSU. (In Russ.).
33. 33. Sukhov, S. A. (1988). The pragmalinguistic dimension of the communicative process [Dissertation … Doctor of Philological Sciences: 10.02.01. Un-t «ME`GU-Krasnodar»]. РГБ. (In Russ.).
34. 34. Karasik, V. I., & Dmitrieva, O. A. (2005). Linguistic and cultural type: towards the definition of the concept. Axiological linguistics: Linguistic and cultural types (p. 5–25). Collection of scientific works. Paradigma. (In Russ.).
35. 35. Motorina, N. V. (2014). Linguistic and cultural scripts of traditional communicative behavior in Russia and England [Abstract of the dissertation for the PhD (Philology): 10.02.20. Volgogradsk. gos. social`no-ped. un-t]. RSL. (In Russ.).
36. 36. Sternin, I. A. (2001). Introduction to speech impact. Izdatel`stvo Voronezhskogo universiteta. (In Russ.).
37. 37. Beilinson, L. S. (2009). Professional discourse: signs, functions, norms. Monograph. Peremena. (In Russ.).
38. 38. Mityagina, V. A. (2007). Sociocultural characteristics of communicative action. Monograph. Izdatel`stvo VolGU. (In Russ.).
39. 39. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Vol. 1. Reason and the rationalization of Society. Heinemann.
40. 40. Vikulova, L. G., & Korolenko, O. I. (2018). Academic discourse: a diachronic vector of communication practice of the XVII–XVIII centuries (France). Discourse as a universal matrix of verbal interaction (p. 133–160). O. A. Suleymanova (Ed.). Lenand. (In Russ.).
41. 41. Golovanova, E. I. (2013). Professional discourse, subdiscourse, genre of professional communication: Correlation of concepts. Vestnik Chelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 1(292). Filologiya. Iskusstvovedenie. Issue. 73, 32–35. (In Russ.).
42. 42. Kazachkova, M. B. (2010). Professional language as a reflection of professional culture. Monograph. OGI. (In Russ.).
43. 43. Suleymanova, O. A. (2018). Academic discourse as a continuous dialogue with Another. Discourse as a universal matrix of verbal interaction. O. A. Suleymanova (Ed.). Lenand. (In Russ.).
44. 44. Bally, S. (1955). General linguistics and issues of the French language. (E. V. and T. V. Ventzel, transl.; R. A. Budagov, ed., intro. article and notes). Izdatel` stvo inostrannoj literatury`. (In Russ.).
45. 45. Bogdanova-Beglaryan, N. V. (2014). Pragmatimes in oral everyday speech: definition of the concept and general typology. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Seriya: Rossijskaya i zarubezhnaya filologiya. Issue 3(27), 7–20. (In Russ.).
46. 46. Baranov, A. N., Plungyan, V. A., & Rakhilina, E. V. (1993). A guide to discursive words of the Russian language. Pomovskij i partnery`. (In Russ.).
47. 47. Borisova, E. G. (2021). Discursive markers in the text as a sign of dialogicity. The anthropological turn: theories and practices (p. 18–25). Collection of works. International scientific conference. (In Russ.).
48. 48. Kamensky, M. V. (2014). Discourse markers: a cognitive-discursive approach. Monograph. Izdatel`stvo SKFU. (In Russ.).
49. 49. Krassa, S. I. (2006). Discursive and incomplete words. Pyatigorsk State Linguistic University Bulletin, (4), 31–34. (In Russ.).
50. 50. Pravikova, L. V. (2000). Discourse markers: the current state of the problem. Pyatigorsk State Linguistic University Bulletin, (4), 22–34. (In Russ.).
51. 51. Pervukhina, S. V. (2014). Structural-semantic and discursive-pragmatic characteristics of the adapted text. Monograph. RGUPS. (In Russ.).
52. 52. Karasik, V. I. (2025). Linguistic pictures of being. Monograph. Gnozis. (In Russ.).
53. 53. Abieva, N. R. (2023). Linguistic and pragmatic features of the online discourse of an English teacher: the stage of discovering new knowledge. Cognitive Studies of Language, 4(55), 167–170. (In Russ.).
Download file .pdf 423.76 kb