OBJECT OF DISCOURSE
The concept of a discourse object (« discursive object »; French “objet de discours”) was introduced by Jean-Blaise Grize, in connection with the schematization process. An object of discourse is an entity, a situation … focused upon in a given discourse, and, as such, is permanently re-designed throughout the discourse or the interaction.
1. Cluster of a word
At the linguistic level, the cluster of an object [“faisceau d’objet”] is studied on the basis of the term that designates this object. It is defined as:
[The] set of aspects normally attached to the object. Its elements are of three kinds: properties, relations and patterns of action. So the cluster of “rose” brings together properties like ‘to be red’ […], relationships like […] ‘to be more beautiful than’, action patterns like ‘to fade’.” (Grize 1990, p. 78-79)
The cluster attracted by an object is defined at the notional level and 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 psychologically associated with the object, or with ontological features claiming to grasp the being of the object, S. Categorization. The cluster of a word results from an aggregation of discourses using that word (id., p. 78), see orientation; words as Arguments; Inference; polyphony. This concept can be compared with 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 under analysis. A specific object of discourse is developed through the progressive aggregation of the contextual properties attributed to it in that discourse, the entities with which it is associated with, the events in which it participates, and so on.
The study of discourse objects focuses on their plasticity, as they are progressively produced and transformed in discourse: their mode of introduction, the evolution of the contexts to which they are attached. It overlaps with the grammatical study of designation paradigms (Mortureux 1993); a designation paradigm is the set of words and expressions that form the anaphoric chain associated with an evolving discourse object. It is part of the study of textual cohesion and coherence, and overlaps with basic rhetorical observations about shifts of meaning.
Objects of discourse 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 one. 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 to study the development of each one may prove impracticable; limits must be set. As far as argumentation studies are concerned, they must focus on the most relevant objects, 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.
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 construct this “who?”
— All the students agree that there is an unproblematic group, who 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; this group is further specified as:
Workers; people who came to work in times of prosperity
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 constructed as people who do not have the right to French citizenship, and 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, one can certainly observe that among the people who apply for French citizenship there are certainly both undocumented people 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 shows how a particular light is cast on an object of discourse, how it is “spotlighted” (Grize), or given a discursive “presence”, in the terminology Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca’s ([1958], 115-120).