OBJECT OF DISCOURSE
Jean-Blaise Grize introduced the concept of a discourse object (« discursive object »; French objet de discours) in connection with the schematization process. An object of discourse is an entity or situation that is the focus of a given discourse and is constantly redesigned throughout the discourse or interaction.
1. Cluster of a word
At the linguistic level, the cluster of an object [“faisceau d’objet”] is studied based on the term that designates this object. It is defined as:
The set of aspects normally associated with the object. Its elements are of three kinds: properties, relations, and patterns of action. Thus, the cluster of « rose » includes properties such as « to be red, » relationships such as « to be more beautiful than, » and action patterns such as « to fade » (Grize 1990, p. 78-79). (Grize, 1990, pp. 78–79).
The cluster attracted by an object is defined at the notional level. It does not coincide either with linguistic categories such as those used in semantic analysis (id., p. 79), with lexicographical elements used in dictionaries, with elements associated with the object psychologically, or with ontological features claiming to grasp the being of the object, see categorization. A word’s cluster results from an aggregation of discourses using that word (id., p. 78), see orientation; words as arguments; inference; polyphony. This concept can be compared to the stereotypes associated with a word, or, better, to the set of its preferred linguistic collocations, as established in corpus linguistics.
2. The cluster of a discourse object
At the discourse level, the elements that make up the cluster attached to a specific object of discourse are not known a priori, but are constructed empirically, on the basis of the study of the actual discourse, or corpus, being analyzed. A specific object of discourse develops through the progressive aggregation of contextual properties attributed to it in that discourse, the entities associated with it, the events it participates in.
The study of discourse objects focuses on their plasticity, as they are progressively produced and transformed in discourse, including their mode of introduction, and the evolution of the contexts to which they are attached. This study overlaps with the grammatical study of designation paradigms (Mortureux 1993). A designation paradigm is the set of words and expressions forming the anaphoric chain associated with an evolving discourse object. This study is part of the analysis of textual cohesion and coherence, and overlaps with basic rhetorical observations about shifts in meaning.
Discourse objects can be contrasted with “logical objects.” Classical logic refers to stable objects. According to the principle of identity every occurrence of the sign (signifier) “a” is strictly equivalent to another. Consequently, any variation in the scope of the reference of “a” introduced in the development of discourse are considered fallacious, see fallacy; ambiguity.
3. Objects of discourse in argumentative situations
A discourse may concern a large number of objects, and studying the development of each one may be impractical; therefore, limits must be set. As far as argumentation studies are concerned, they must focus on the most relevant objects, that is, on conflicting central and peripheral objects, and primarily on those mentioned in the formulation of the argumentative question. Just as peaceful, uncontroversial, assertions are taken to be true, uncontroversial objects are taken to be real and stable in their reference.
Controversial objects are associated with controversial claims. Observing their discursive development, and correlatively establishing their contrastive characterization is a simple and practical method for revealing their precise argumentative relevance.
Workers or undocumented immigrants?
The following data, taken from a discussion between students, concern the conditions that a person must fulfill in order to obtain French citizenship. The key question “Who? Who can obtain French citizenship?” immediately structures the debate, see invention. The two antagonistic positions taken by the participants are clearly reflected in the two systems, of designations they use to answer the question “who?”
— All the students agree that there is an unproblematic group, that should have an automatic right to French citizenship, namely, “the persecuted”.
— One group of students supports the claim that “the process of acquiring citizenship should be facilitated”. Immigrants are constructed as people who have a right to French citizenship. These individuals are referred to as:
Workers; people who came to work during prosperous times.
People we asked to come.
People we welcomed.
People who have been here for a long time;
Their relatives;
Their children – born in France – born in another country
— Another group of students supports the claim that “the process of obtaining citizenship should be tightened.” In this set of aligned (cooriented) discourses, immigrants are portrayed as people who do not have the right to French citizenship. These individuals are referred to as:
Undocumented immigrants
People with problems; having or creating problems
Illegal immigrants;
Immigrants by “practicality” (i.e., economic migrants)
« Everyone”, (i.e., indiscriminate foreigners, people asking for citizenship).
In reality, among those who apply for French citizenship, there are certainly both undocumented immigrants and people who came to France many years ago to work. Nevertheless, each group of students schematizes immigrants (as a group) as either one (undocumented) or the other (workers).
For another example of divergent constructions of causality as an object of discourse, see cause – effect.
This method can be used to show how a particular « light » is cast on an object of discourse, how it is “spotlighted” (Grize), or given a discursive “presence” (Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca’s [1958], 115-120).