Problematisation of Discourse and Discourse on Problems: a Methodology of Research

Abstract

The article analyses theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of discursive practices of constructing social problems. Two classes of theories are considered: theories of critical discourse analysis and constructionist concepts. Three variants of N. Fairclough's interpretation of discourse are analysed: 1) as the use of language within the social practice of speech and articulation; 2) as a kind of language used in a specific field; 3) as a way of speaking that gives meaning to life experience from a certain position. In order to clarify the author's concept, the article reveals the content of the category ‘communicative event’ as a special case of language use that enters and maintains dialectical relations with the general order of discourse, which, in turn, refers to the social context. The article traces N. Fairclough's construction of a multi-level analytical model of a communicative event: the linguistic structures of the text itself; discursive practice; and social practice. In addition, the relationship between intertextuality and interdiscursivity (according to N. Fairclough) is investigated. Some of the developments and ideas of L. Chouliaraki are presented, namely her assertion that social practice is a product of the articulation of its various moments, in which different dimensions of the social collide. The author analyses R. Wodak's concept, according to which discourse is a complex ‘pattern’ of simultaneous and sequential interrelated linguistic acts, and any definition is ‘embedded’ in complex compositions and constellations of actions. Particular emphasis is placed on the theory of text planning as a process that has three dimensions: socio-psychological, cognitive, and linguistic. Analysing the dynamic aspects of discursive construction, the authors refer to the concept of J. Torfing, according to which the order of discourse is the dominant way of interpreting social concepts and actions, established under certain social and historical circumstances. The methodological proposal of Teun van Dijk is updated, in which the critical analysis of language and communication includes the study of three aspects: discourse, cognition, society. It is emphasised that critical discourse analysis is a research area that is distinguished on the basis of a number of common principles: research focus on the relations of inequality and power; reliance on normative ideas; prevalence of the symbolic aspect; language and speech as social phenomena. The article examines constructionist concepts, where the key concept is the claim, in particular Donileen R. Loseke's concept of ‘social problem work’, H. Blumer's concept of stages of social problem construction, Joel Best's ‘natural history’ of social problems, and the study of rhetorics and counter-rhetorics by P. Ibarra and J. Kitsuse. The article analyses claims and four dimensions of rhetoric: rhetorical idioms, leitmotifs, styles and counter-rhetorical strategies. The author proposes a modification of the classification of styles based on the three criteria they have identified: ‘particularism - universalism’, “emotionality - emotional neutrality”, “objectification - subjectification”. Attention is focused on the concept of public arenas of problems by S.Hilgartner and C. Bosk and the concept of ideological spectacle by Murray Edelman, which continues the logic of Guy Debord. Conclusions are drawn about the prospects for building a general conceptual scheme for analysing the processes of discursive construction of social problems.