Methodological Analysis of Strategies and Tactics in Literary Discourse

Authors

Ganna PRIHODKO Chair of English Philology and Linguodidactics, Zaporizhzhia National University https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6220-5333
Oleksandra PRYKHODCHENKO Chair of Foreign Languages for Special Purposes, Zaporizhzhia National University https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8468-2453
Halyna MOROSHKINA Chair of Romance Philology and Translation, Dean of the Faculty of Foreign Philology, Zaporizhzhia National University
Maryna ZALUZHNA Chair of English Philology and Linguodidactics, Zaporizhzhia National University https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9316-452X
Oksana MERKULOVA Chair of Ukrainian Philology, Zaporizhzhia National University https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1554-1021

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24234/wisdom.v24i4.927

Keywords:

evaluation, evaluation strategy, evaluation tactics, literary discourse, semantic, pragmatic

Abstract

The objective of this paper is analysis of the prevalent strategies and tactics of evaluation used in the literary discourse. Evaluation is regarded as a cognitive-communicative phenomenon. It is viewed as the essential part of human comprehension and reflection of the outer reality. The pragmatic aspect of strategies and tactics is considered as the major means of expressing the author’s intention and the goal. All evaluation strategies and tactics used in the literary discourse are divided into two groups: semantic and pragmatic. The semantic strategies consist of the persuasion strategy and the discrediting strategy, and the pragmatic ones contain the emotive-tuning strategies and the self-presentation strategy.

The results achieved confirm the idea that strategies and tactics of evaluation must undergo profound and detailed analysis in order to reveal the complex process of communication in the literary discourse.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Aleksandrova, O. V. (2017). On the problem of contemporary discourse in linguistics. Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences 3, 10, 298-302. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17516/1997-1370-0037

Ananko, T. (2017). The category of evaluation in political discourse. Advanced Education, 8, 128-137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.108550

Arutyunova, N. D. (2012). Logicheskij analiz yazyka. Adresatsiya diskursa (Logical analysis of the language. Discourse addressing, in Russian). Moscow: Indrik.

Azimova, Sh. I. (2021). The role of communicative strategy and tactics in family discourse. Pindus Journal Óf Culture, Literature, 12, 97-101. Retrieved November 10, 2022, from https://literature.academicjournal.io

Babelyuk, O., & Aleksandruk, I. (2018). Conceptual category person and means of its verbal presentation in the fantasy genre. Advanced Education, 10, 158-165. https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.142802 DOI: https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.142802

Baker, P. (2006). Using corpora in discourse analysis. London: Continuum. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350933996

Bax, S. (2011). Discourse and genre. Analysing language in context. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-28562-1

Bigunova, N. (2019). Cognitive pragmatic regularities in communicative manifestation of positive evaluation. Lege artis. Language yesterday, today, tomorrow. The journal of University of SS Cyril and Methodius in Trnava, IV(1), 2-46.

Bigunova, N. O. (2017). Pozytyvna otsinka: Vid kohnityvnoho sudzhennia do komunikatyvnoho vyslovliuvannia (Positive evaluation: From cognitive judgment to communicative utterance, in Ukrainian). Odesa: OMD.

Britannica Concise Encyclop?dia (2006). Chicago, London, New Delhi, Paris, Seoul, Sydney, Taipei, Tokyo: Encyclop?dia Britannica, Inc.

Chernjavskaja, V. E. (2006). Dyskurs vlasty y vlastj dyskursa: problemy rechovogho vozdejstvyja (Discourse of power and power of discourse: Problems of speech influence, in Russian). Moscow: Flynta: Nauka.

Coleman, S., & Ross, K. (2003). The media and the public. ëThemí and ëUsí in media discourse. Wiley-Blackwell.

Cook, G. (2006). The discourse of advertising. London and New York: Routledge.

Dijk, T. (2009). Society and discourse. How social contexts influence text and talk. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511575273

Dijk, T. A. van, & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.

Drewniany, B., & Jewler, A. (2010). Creative strategy in advertising. Wadsworth Publising.

Fei, W., Yunfang, W., & Likun Q. (2013). Exploiting hierarchical discourse structure for review sentiment analysis. Proceedings of the International Conference on Asian Language Processing (IALP) Urumqui, China 2013 (pp. 121-124). doi: 10.1109/IALP.2013.42 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/IALP.2013.42

Galsworthy, J. (2013). In Chancery. The complete works of John Galsworthy (series three) (pp. 1930-2106). Delphi Classics.

Hailey, A. (2015). The final diagnosis. New York: Open Road Media.

Hart, C. (Ed.) (2011). Critical discourse studies in context and cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.43

He, A.W. (2017). Discourse analysis. In M. Aronoff, & J. Rees-Miller (Eds.), The handbook of linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119072256.ch21 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119072256.ch21

Iskakova, N. S., & Islam, A. (2020). Evaluation strategies and tactics of immigration issues in social media discourse. Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 12(6), 1-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21659/rupkatha.v12n6.29

Issers, O. S. (2013). Rechevoye vozdeystviye (Speech influence, in Russian). Moscow: Nauka.

Lodge, D. (2008). Deaf sentence. London: Penguin Books.

McEwan, I. (2012). Sweet tooth. Alfred A. Knopf Canada.

Mitchell, D. (2004). Cloud Atlas. New York: Random House.

Myroniuk, T. (2017). Evaluative responses in modern English fiction. Advanced Education, 8, 103-108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.108021

Prihodko, G. (2018). Specific nature of evaluative speech acts. Advanced Education, 9, 201-205. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.128232

Prihodko, G. I. (2016). Katehoriia otsinky v konteksti zminy linhvistychnykh paradyhm (The category of evaluation in the context of the change of linguistic paradigms, in Ukrainian). Zaporizhzhia: Kruhozir.

Thompson, G., & Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation: An introduction. In G. Thompson, & S. Hunston (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Volf, E. M. (2009). Funktsionalnaya semantika otsenki (Functional semantics of evaluation, in Russian). Moscow: Editorial URSS.

Downloads

Published

2022-12-25

How to Cite

PRIHODKO, G., PRYKHODCHENKO, O., MOROSHKINA, H., ZALUZHNA, M., & MERKULOVA, O. (2022). Methodological Analysis of Strategies and Tactics in Literary Discourse. WISDOM, 24(4), 18–24. https://doi.org/10.24234/wisdom.v24i4.927

Download Citation

Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)

Issue

Vol. 24 No. 4 (2022): 4-2022

Section

Articles

License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial (CC BY-NC). CC BY-NC allows users to copy and distribute the article, provided this is not done for commercial purposes. The users may adapt – remix, transform, and build upon the material giving appropriate credit, and providing a link to the license. The full details of the license are available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.