Text and Discourse in Linguistics: Concepts, Distinctions, And Theoretical Perspectives

Аннотация

This article examines the interrelated concepts of text and discourse in linguistics, highlighting their distinctive features, theoretical foundations, and methodological approaches. Drawing on definitions from leading scholars—T. A. van Dijk, V. E. Chernyavskaya, A. A. Kibrik, V. Maas, and N. D. Arutyunova—it delineates discourse as a dynamic, context-bound communicative event encompassing extra-linguistic factors (intonation, gestures, cultural knowledge) that extend beyond the static product that is text. The discussion outlines key parameters of discourse—coherence, extra-linguistic context, and communicative purpose—and contrasts two principal research orientations: text analysis (structural units) and discourse analysis (participants, goals, context). It surveys major analytical frameworks including systemic-functional grammar, pragmatic macro- and micro- structures, conversation analysis, cognitive models, and critical discourse analysis. The article also reviews contributions from Uzbek linguistics, illustrating how scholars integrate these global theories within local research on dialogic interaction, corpus methods, and socio-pragmatic dimensions. By synthesizing diverse perspectives, the study underscores discourse as a multifaceted phenomenon essential for understanding language as both process and product, and for exploring how linguistic activity reflects and shapes cognition, society, and culture. Keywords: Discourse; Text; Discourse Analysis; Pragmatics; Systemic-Functional Grammar; Extralinguistic Context; Uzbek Linguistics. assumptions and methodological tools to bear on the Introduction: Over the past several decades, the field same fundamental questions. As a result, research on of global linguistics has witnessed a proliferation of text and discourse now encompasses a remarkable empirical and theoretical investigations into both text diversity of perspectives, ranging from fine‐grained and discourse that collectively illuminate the inherently analyses of lexico‐syntactic patterns in written genres cognitive underpinnings of language use as well as its to ethnographically grounded studies of spoken deeply embedded social functions. Scholars have interaction in multilingual communities, thereby traced how mental processes—such as underscoring the field’s commitment to understanding conceptualization, memory, and schema activation— language as at once a product of human thought and a shape the way speakers structure and interpret dynamic medium of social engagement. extended stretches of language, while at the same time uncovering the myriad ways in which texts and Literature Review discourses both reflect and reproduce cultural norms, Professor T. A. van Dijk defines discourse in a broad power relations, and communal practices. This dual sense as the complex phenomenon of oral focus on cognition and society has spurred the communication. He describes it as a communicative development of a rich array of analytical frameworks— event that takes place at a specific time and place from systemic‐functional approaches and pragmatic between speaker and listener, which can be spoken, macro‐structure theories to conversation analysis and written, or even nonverbal. He emphasizes that the critical discourse studies—each bringing its own interactions within discourse are the products of American Journal Of Philological Sciences 192 https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN – 2771-2273) communication, interpreted by the recipients. In pragmatics-oriented studies of language, the term “discourse” has been used in various senses: 1.As a There are various approaches to the nature of synonym for “speech”; discourse. V. E. Chernyavskaya regards discourse as 2. As a unit larger than a clause; inherently linked to the concept of text, asserting that 3. As a form of conversation or interaction; it should be understood as a “text(s) inseparably 4.As the speaker’s stance or position within the speech connected with a situational context.” Other act; 5. As the researchers describe discourse as a speech genre, method of employing linguistic units; highlighting its structural particularities, typical use of 6. As a mode of thought constrained by social or linguistic means, its audience orientation, and ideological factors; 7. alignment with communicative purposes. As a theoretical model aimed at examining the Linguist A. A. Kibrik and colleagues state: “Discourse is conditions under which a text is formed . a broader concept than text, existing simultaneously as Thus, the analysis of discourse and text allows us to a linguistic activity process and its product, which explore the broader linguistic dimensions of speech results in the formation of text.” They argue that and to reveal the complex aspects of human interaction humans enter social and communicative relations in communication. Such analysis is especially driven by spiritual and material needs, which vary il