{"id":5166,"date":"2021-10-21T17:00:24","date_gmt":"2021-10-21T15:00:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/?p=5166"},"modified":"2025-05-15T21:10:52","modified_gmt":"2025-05-15T19:10:52","slug":"object-of-discourse-e","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/object-of-discourse-e\/","title":{"rendered":"Object of Discourse"},"content":{"rendered":"

OBJECT OF DISCOURSE\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Jean-Blaise Grize introduced the concept of a discourse object (\u00ab\u00a0discursive object\u00a0\u00bb; French objet de discours) in connection with the schematization<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n

1. Cluster of a word<\/span><\/h1>\n

At the linguistic level, the cluster of an object <\/em>[\u201cfaisceau d’objet\u201d] is studied based on the term <\/em>that designates this object. It is defined as:<\/p>\n

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 \u00ab\u00a0rose<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb includes properties such as \u00ab\u00a0to be red<\/em>,\u00a0\u00bb relationships such as \u00ab\u00a0to be more beautiful than<\/em>,\u00a0\u00bb and action patterns such as \u00ab\u00a0to fade<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb (Grize 1990, p. 78-79). (Grize, 1990, pp. 78\u201379).<\/p>\n

The cluster attracted by an object is defined at the notional level. It does not coincide either with linguistic categories<\/em><\/span> such as those used in semantic analysis (id.<\/em>, p. 79), with lexicographical elements<\/em> used in dictionaries, with elements associated with the object psychologically<\/em>, or with ontological features<\/em> claiming to grasp the being of the object, see categorization<\/a>. A word’s cluster results from an aggregation of discourses using that word (id<\/em>., p. 78), see orientation<\/a>; words as arguments<\/a>; inference<\/a>; polyphony<\/a>.<\/strong> This concept can be compared to the stereotypes associated with a word, or, better, to the set of its preferred linguistic collocations<\/em>, as established in corpus linguistics.<\/p>\n

2. The cluster of a discourse object<\/span><\/h1>\n

At the discourse level, the elements that make up the cluster attached to a specific <\/em>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.<\/p>\n

The study of discourse objects<\/strong><\/span> focuses on their plasticity<\/span><\/strong>, 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<\/em><\/strong> (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.<\/p>\n

Discourse objects can be contrasted with \u201clogical objects.\u201d Classical logic refers to stable objects.<\/strong><\/span> According to the principle of identity every occurrence of the sign (signifier) \u201ca<\/strong>\u201d is strictly equivalent to another. Consequently, any variation in the scope of the reference of \u201ca<\/strong>\u201d introduced in the development of discourse are considered fallacious, see fallacy<\/a>; ambiguity<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u00a03. Objects of discourse in argumentative situations<\/span><\/h1>\n

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<\/em>\u00a0 central and peripheral objects, and primarily on those mentioned in the formulation of the argumentative question. Just as peaceful<\/em>, uncontroversial, assertions are taken to be true<\/em>, uncontroversial objects are taken to be real<\/em> and stable in their reference.
\nControversial objects<\/em> are associated with controversial claims<\/em>. Observing their discursive development, and correlatively establishing their contrastive characterization is a simple and practical method for revealing their precise argumentative relevance.<\/p>\n

Workers<\/em><\/span> or undocumented immigrants<\/em><\/span>?<\/span><\/h2>\n

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 \u201cWho? Who can obtain French <\/em>citizenship<\/em>?<\/em>\u201d immediately structures the debate, see invention<\/a>. The two antagonistic positions taken by the participants are clearly reflected in the two systems, of designations they use to answer the question \u201cwho?<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2014 All the students agree that there is an unproblematic group, that should have an automatic right to French citizenship, namely, \u201cthe persecuted<\/em>\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014 One group of students supports the claim that \u201cthe process of acquiring citizenship should be facilitated<\/em>\u201d. Immigrants are constructed as people who have a right to French citizenship.<\/em> These individuals are referred to as:<\/span><\/p>\n

Workers; people who came to work during prosperous times.<\/span>
\nPeople we asked to come.<\/span>
\nPeople we welcomed.<\/span>
\nPeople who have been here for a long time;<\/span>
\nTheir relatives;<\/span>
\nTheir children – born in France – born in another country<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014 Another group of students supports the claim that \u201cthe process of obtaining citizenship should be tightened.\u201d In this set of aligned (cooriented) discourses, immigrants are portrayed as people who do not have the right to French citizenship.<\/em> These individuals are referred to as:<\/span><\/p>\n

Undocumented immigrants<\/span>
\nPeople with problems; having or creating problems<\/span>
\nIllegal immigrants;<\/span>
\nImmigrants by \u201cpracticality\u201d (i.e., economic migrants)<\/span>
\n\u00ab\u00a0Everyone\u201d, (i.e., indiscriminate foreigners, people asking for citizenship).<\/span><\/p>\n

In reality, among those who apply for French citizenship, there are certainly both<\/em> undocumented immigrants and<\/em> people who came to France many years ago to work. Nevertheless, each group of students schematizes immigrants<\/em> (as a group) as either<\/em> one (undocumented) or<\/em> the other (workers).
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

For another example of divergent constructions of causality as an object of discourse, see cause – effect.<\/a><\/p>\n

This method can be used to show how a particular \u00ab\u00a0light\u00a0\u00bb is cast on an object of discourse, how it is \u201cspotlighted\u201d (Grize), or given a discursive \u201cpresence\u201d (Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca’s [1958], 115-120).<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

OBJECT OF DISCOURSE\u00a0 Jean-Blaise Grize introduced the concept of a discourse object (\u00ab\u00a0discursive object\u00a0\u00bb; 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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5166","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5166","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5166"}],"version-history":[{"count":13,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5166\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14295,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5166\/revisions\/14295"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5166"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5166"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5166"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}