Discourse is always difficult to learn a language. Because not only linguistic aspects influence the discourse, but also a number of extralinguistic factors. In this regard, many linguistic scientists devote their research to discourse. One of such outstanding scientists is the Russian scientist V.I. Karasik. The article sets out the views of V.I. Karasika on communicative linguistics, discourse, speech genres and communicative tonality. The creativity of Professor Vladimir Ilyich Karasik is characterized by a pronounced interest in communicative phenomena, communicative ideas.
His work seriously enriched communication theory, discourse analysis, text linguistics, theory of speech genres. This article, of course, does not pretend to embrace all the communicative ideas expressed by V.I. Karasik, with these ideas, directly or indirectly, I repeat, all the work of Vladimir Ilyich is permeated, and even if only talking about - to the present conceptual positions, not only expressed, but also deeply developed, equipped with detailed methodological models, successfully and fruitfully used by the followers and students of Vladimir Ilyich.
This article, of course, does not pretend to embrace all the communicative ideas expressed by V. I. Karasik, with these ideas, directly or indirectly, I repeat, all the work of Vladimir Ilyich is permeated, and even if only talking about - to the present conceptual positions, not only expressed, but also deeply developed, equipped with detailed methodological models, successfully and fruitfully used by the followers and students of Vladimir Ilyich.
I will begin with the provisions of V.I. Karasik, directly devoted to communication.
The most significant contribution of Vladimir Ilyich to the general theory of discourse, in my opinion, consists in the development and systematization of categories of discourse, to which numerous studies in this subject area are devoted, but, as we know, still far from the final theory, and the modes of discourse on the basis of which typology.
In the model of V.I. Karasika among the categories of discourse are constitutive categories (relative design, thematic, stylistic and structural unity), genre and stylistic categories (contrasting personality - oriented and status - oriented, artistic - oriented and everyday - oriented communication, amplification / compression, projective category) and - the main thing is the substantive (semantic - pragmatic, broader - axiological) categories of discourse, where the most important is justly considered to be terpretiruemost (on this basis Karasik isolated and studied more specific categories of accuracy, clarity depth) [1 287 - 298; 2, 185 - 196].
The evolution of the communicative views of V.I. Karasik, as far as I can judge, represents a gradual turn from the study of the Sociolinguistic aspects of communication - the reflection in the language of social relations of people important for status and interpersonal communication, and the inventory of language units used to establish appropriate social relations (doctoral Thesis «Linguistic Aspects studying the social status of a person (based on the material of modem English)»  and the monorafia «Language of social status» written on its basis , in a significant degree of the monograph «The linguistic circle» ), - to the study of cognitive aspects - recorded in the semantics of the fiction and texts of mental projections of data social relations and processes (monographs «Language keys» , «Language crystallization of meaning» , «The language matrix of culture» ).
The value of the genre studies of Vladimir Ilyich Karasik is determined, in my opinion, by five main points.
First, the typology of discourse varieties developed by V.I. Karasik seriously enriched genre studies (primarily from Sociolinguistic positions), in particular, highlighting two basic Sociolinguistic discourse varieties — institutional / ritual and personal discourse, with a number of private varieties of institutional and personal discourse was studied in detail by V.I. Karasik in works specifically devoted to specific types of discourse (pedagogical, religious, scientific, political, pocket medical ). Of course, this model itself, which has great theoretical value, and even so brilliantly tested in a whole series of high — quality practical research, is already of sufficient value for TST (Theory of Speech type). However, this far from exhausts the genre significance of V.I. Karasik's creativity: by highlighting and describing the mentioned varieties of discourse, the scientist identifies genres of this type of discourse (in particular, everyday and everyday dialogue as part of a common personal discourse) and carefully analyzes their features.
Secondly, V.I. Karasik explores varieties of discourse from linguistic - culturological (primarily conceptual and value) positions, reveals those concepts and values that correspond to this type of discourse, its individual strategies and tactics. Among such concepts are significant intra - genre values / anti - values (for example, «common sense», «loyalty», «power», «authenticity», «simplicity», «laziness»), as well as communicative concepts that are essentially cognitive projections of a number of speech genres (for example, the concepts of «challenge», «enemy conspiracy»).
Thirdly, V.I. Karasik considers speech genres in the communicative behavior of the Iinguocultural types distinguished by him — for example, the «Russian intellectual» (together with O. Dmitriyeva), the «English eccentric» (together with E.A. Yarmahova, «American Superman», etc.
Fourthly, V.I. Karasik is one of the founders of the theory of communicative tonality.
Fifthly, V.1. Karasik himself is the author of a number of subtle and detailed studies on specific speech genres, and above all — the anecdote genre: thus, some remarkably interesting separate studies are devoted to anecdotes from English, Russian, ethnic, absurd, anecdotes containing an aesthetic assessment.
Of course, the works of V.I. Karasik on communicative tonality should also be attributed to directly communicative — in a certain sense, this is a continuation of his genre — study ideas, it was not without reason that in the first works of Vladimir Ilyich different types Oftonality were considered within certain speech genres of O. Baghdasaryan.
V L Karasik defines the communicative tonality as «the emotional - style format of communication that occurs in the process of mutual influence of communicants and determines their changing attitudes and choice of all means of communication» and develops a model for identifying and describing types of tonality and its individual components 1) uniformity / multiplicity of meanings, 2) the sense / openness of meanings, 3) the seriousness / lack of seriousness of communication, 4) the cooperativity / conflict of communication, 5) the priority of the content / form of communication, 6) the specificity / distraction of the subject. On these grounds, the researcher identifies 12 types of tonality: informative, phatic, status, humorous, solemn, ideological, fascinative, hypothetical, aggressive, esoteric, manipulative, mentoring. It is noted that the list is open.
Communicative linguistics, as is known, is part of anthropological linguistics, and the study of human communication in linguistics (wider humanities) is part of the general study of the «human factor» in language and speech. In this respect, it is very significant that the problem of the linguistic personality, the «person of the speaker» has always remained a priority for V.I. Karasik. And here, of course, the models he carefully developed are of
particular value, ranging from «types of influential personalities in Russian culture of the 1990s» to simply filigree calculus of aspects of «model language personality», typology of linguistic and cultural types. The basis for the theory of linguistic and cultural types is the concept of a model language personality as the most representative in its behavioral and communicative speech expression. In essence, the «type» is a very high communicative phenomenon, and the extremely significant communicative aspect of the type is interlinked with the characteristics of the typical (for a given type) speech - genre competence, that is, possession of a set of genres and their use: communicative behavior, namely: through the specific individual refraction of the pronunciation norms, the choice of certain vocabulary and the conscious rejection of a number of words and expressions, the use of certain syntactic words Orochi, possession of different genres of speech, individual paraverbal behavior (gestures, facial expressions, elected by a distance in communication, etc..). A systematic description of these features of communicative behavior is a speech portrait of a person. The linguistic and cultural type is manifested through communicative behavior, the most important component of which is the verbal series. In addition to purely speech portraying, the paraverbal portraying may also be useful for learning types (for example, excessive gesticulation is not accepted among the intelligentsia, spitting, picking their nose and other accompanying speech that does not cause protest in other groups are tabooed).
It should be noted that the very idea of a type, new to linguistics (although logic, even the need for it was long overdue, but to single out, «grasp» the idea, turning it into a full - fledged scientific concept, as it always happens in science, only the Scientist can ), is unusually successful: two collective monographs and about a dozen dissertations were devoted to her already, for example, T.V. Bondarenko («English butler»), L.A. Vasilyeva («British Prime Minister»), V.V. Derevyannoy («British colonial employee»), O.A. Dmitriev oh (Iinguocultural types of Russia and France of the XIX century), A. Yu. Korovina («English snob»), M.V. Mironenko («joker»), I.A. Murzinova («British Queen»), L.P. Seliverstova («Hollywood star»), I.V. Scheglova («Russian official»), E.A. Yarmakhova («English eccentric»).
Perhaps, the greatest level of generalization, scientific abstractness, the communicative ideas of V.I. Karasik were achieved in the system of «communication postulates» developed by him together with G.G. Slyshkin. These postulates (and they reflect the largely largely postulate character of modern communicative linguistics, starting with P.Greis, J.Lich and others), although they seem not to contain specific methodological instructions or tools (which, in fact, distinguishes postulates from theorems), on the one hand, encompass a number of truly fundamental properties of communication, and on the other hand, they draw a systematic picture of the whole modem science of communication, its most relevant areas.
Let us turn to that part of the work of Vladimir Ilyich, where communicative ideas are presented not so explicitly, are revealed in connection with something else, however, in my opinion, they are no less significant and important for both the «other» problems developed in this case, and for the theory of discourse, speech genres, etc.
And here, in my opinion, the most important are the Iinguoculturological and conceptual developments of V.I. Karasik. Their significance for science is very great: in the opinion of many cognitive scholars, on the one hand, V.I. Karasik did almost no more than all the other cognitive scholars and Conceptologists to develop relevant scientific disciplines (talking about such matters, such masters are usually put next to him as J. Lakoff1 A. Wezhbitskaya), on the other hand, that Vladimir Ilyich himself is, above all, a Conceptologist.
The meaning of the Conceptological approach for research on communication in general and the place here of V.I. Karasik’s ideas should therefore be said in more detail.
First, this approach, aimed at analyzing mental and Iinguomental, that is, associated with certain linguistic units, structures, operates with the concept of a concept in this direction (at least in a large part of the works) as Iinguocultural, that is, having a pronounced national - cultural and national - linguistic specificity.
Secondly, understood as a cognitive structure, the concept is related to other cognitive structures, the role and hierarchy of which is established: concept, image, symbol, frame, norm, rule, category, projection, cognition, script, script, gestalt, etc.
Thirdly, the components of the concept are highlighted, including the extremely significant (in the above - mentioned Iinguocultural direction of the conceptual approach to which we primarily focus, the main component), along with the figurative perceptual and conceptual one.
Finally, fourth, the value - conceptual approach (especially its cultural linguistic direction) has a markedly discursive character. This approach is actively and successfully used in studies of speech, texts belonging to different areas, communication within different genres. Accordingly, there are special - discursive concepts that organize discursive knowledge and skills and directly intersect with the concepts of the communicative norm, the communicative category / category of discourse, the communicative / speech genre - and the value components of such concepts. These include a) everyday and artistic concepts defining personality - oriented discourse) various institutional concepts - political, scientific, business, diplomatic, sports, etc., defining institutional discourse in one or another of its varieties.
In modem communicative linguistics, the ideas of Vladimir Ilyich Karasik are deservedly widespread, highly demanded, moreover, necessary (although their enormous explanatory potential still has to be discovered and implemented in many ways: as is often the case in science, it will truly be appreciated only in the future) . But now almost all studies on specific discourse, speech and speech, communicative speech phenomena, carried out in domestic (and not only) linguistics, necessarily rely on the ideas and models of Vladimir Ilyich (these are, without exaggeration, many hundreds of works, which even in the first approximation here is no possibility). Of course, this is not by chance.
The main significance of the ideas of V.I. Karasik for communicative linguistics, as far as I can tell, is that he developed a differently but more internally integrated cognitive and semiotic basis for comprehending and processing communicative material. This base is mental projections of communicative phenomena, conditioned, on the one hand, by cognitive mental structures (which are revealed and studied with the help of the corresponding theory and methodology), on the other hand, by the structure of communicative speech phenomena.
And here we have every right to talk about the extremely large-scale and at the same time objective reflection in the work of V.I. Karasik the whole multicolor picture of modem communicative and discursive linguistics - and a huge contribution to its further development.
- Karasik V.I. Lingvisticheskie aspekty izuchenija social'nogo statusa Cheloveka (na materiale sovremen-nogo anglijskogo jazyka). [Linguistic aspects of the study of social status (based on the modem English language). Dr. philol. sci. thesis diss.]. Moscow, 1993. 46 p.
- Karasik V.I. Jazj k social'nogo statusa [Lan-guage of social status]. Moscow, 1992. 330 p.
- Karasik V.I. Jazjkovoj krug: Iichnost'. konceptv. diskurs [Linguistic Circle: personality, concepts, dis-course]. Volgograd. 2002. 476 p.
- Karasik V.I. Jazvkowe kljuchi [Linguistic clues]. Volgograd, 2007. 520 p.
- Karasik V.I. Jazykovaja kristallizacija smvsla [Language crystallization the point]. Volgograd, 2010.421 р.
- Karasik V.I. Language matrix of culture [Jazjkovaja matricakuTtury]. Volgograd, 2012. 448 p.
- Karasik V.I. O kalegorijah diskursa [About the categories of discourse]. Jazjkovaja Iiclmost': Sociolingvisticheskij i jemotivnyj aspekty: sb. nauch. tr. [Linguistic Personality: Sociolinguistic and emotive aspects: collection of scientific works. Ed. V.I. Karasik. Volgograd, 1998, pp. 185 - 196.
- Karasik V.I. Anckdol kak predmet Iingvisticheskogo izuchenija [Anecdote as an object of linguistic study.]. Zhaniy rechi: sb. nauch. tr. [Speech genres: collection of scientific works. Ed. by V. V. Dementyev], Iss. 1. Saratov. 1997. pp. 144 - 153.