The thesis, from which this report derives, is devoted to examining the means of reproduction of “Other Speech and Thought.” This term is understood in a broad sense, meaning other people’s ideas, thoughts,opinions. In our approach to discourse analysis, dialogue is one of the fundamental structuring principles of whole discourse (according to M. Baxtin, V. Vološiniv and Y. Kristeva). The analysis is based on examining of the phenomenon in scientific discourse. Scientific discourse is different in its kinds: scientific in proper sense (“schema preserving”) and polemical scientific discourse (“schema refreshing”).
In the monographs, reviews, articles the canon tends to be defined not for specific readers, but for—and by—a dominant social group. It possible to compare “schema preserving” with “schema refreshing” discourse. The “schema refreshing” discourse disrupt the schemata through conventional text and language structures, metalanguage. Among other instances, the scientific-journalistic prose disrupt rigid and strongly-held schemata. It is pertinent to draw on discourse analysis.
This approach is motivated by three-functional interpratation of discourse as interpersonal: 1) how text becomes discourse in the mind of the receiver; 2) what the sender intends to do with his or her words; 3) how text schemata and language reflect world schemata. The discourse interpretation is constituted of introspection concerning author’s interpreting schemata and rhetorical representations. Thus we take into consideration the situation of utterance, the authorial intention and insist on necessity of including a description of the individual reader.
The ways of introduction of “Other Speech and Thought” are determined by corresponding factors of scientific discourse and the polemical one within the framework of the discourse approach. My attention is focused on top levels—on meaning and function, on genre and social effect. Knowledge of the larger social structures created through discourse is necessary for conventional and conformist language behavior. Current discourse analysis, while stressing the need for knowledge in discourse interpretation, is based on pragmatics. We are able to reveal the implications, allegories and allusions within the intertextual dialogue. This approach is based on the detailed analysis of 30 texts, all of which are representative and have attracted considerable scholarly analysis in linguistics (A. Žolkovskij, M. Èpštejn, B. Paramonov, N. Arutunova).
Key words: Other Speech and Thought, scientific and polemical discourse, scientific-journalistic prose, metalanguage, schema preserving, schema refreshing.