GASTRONOMIC DISCOURSE IN LINGUISTIC ASPECT

The concept of gastronomic discourse, which we study in the paper, suggests first focusing on the characteristics of discourse as an object of the Human Sciences as a whole. The term discourse is widely discussed among linguists around the world, but it is not possible to give an unequivocal definition. The reason for this is the correlation of the discourse with various subject areas such as linguistics, semiotics, philosophy, sociology, and others. Thus, each science considers the discourse from the point of view of its existing aspects.

The paper studies some definitions of discourse. V. Z. Demyankov defines discourse as a text in the process of creation and subsequent interpretation of the speaker. The discourse consists of sentences, and the content, in turn, often comes from a fundamental concept [3, p. 32]. By the way, according to T. A. Van Dijk, discourse is defined as ‘a complex communicative phenomenon that includes, in addition to the text, extralinguistic factors necessary for understanding the text’ [2, p. 194]. Extralinguistic factors, in particular, pragmatic, socio-cultural, psychological, include knowledge about the world, as well as the goals of the addressee. In addition, the author notes that such a communicative act includes social participants (speaking/writing, listening/reading) involved in it in a certain situation (time, place, circumstances) or based on other signs of the context. Extralinguistic factors, in particular, pragmatic, socio-cultural, psychological ones, include knowledge about the world, as well as the goals of the addressee. Moreover, the author asserts that such a communicative act includes social participants (speaker/writer, listener/reader) involved in it in a certain situation (time, place, circumstances) or based on the context [2, p. 195].  Based on the participants, we can conclude that such a communication act can be both written and spoken. Live communication may be accompanied by non-verbal means of communication (gestures, facial expressions). Examples include a dinner talk with family or friends, a conversation between a seller and a buyer, a doctor and a patient, or reading an article in a newspaper.

Still on the subject of the term of discourse in the works of other authors, let us consider the definition of A. A. Kibrik, who distinguishes the concepts of text and discourse. According to A. A. Kibrik, discourse focuses on the dynamic, time-unfolding nature of language communication, while the text, on the contrary, appears as a static object, the result of language production [7, p. 10]. To conclude what a discourse is, we suggest reading the definition of T. M. Nikolaeva, who identified five homonymous meanings of discourse based on the works of other authors: 1) a coherent text; 2) a verbal-spoken form of the text; 3) a dialogue; 4) a group of statements related to each other in meaning; 5) a written or verbal speech process [9, p. 467].

As a rule, the discourse is constantly evolving and has no clear boundaries. Nowadays, there is no single designation of the term discourse associated with the purchase, preparation, consumption of food, evaluation of the quality of meals, the methods of serving dishes and eating them. Hence, several synonymous explanations have been offered in the works of modern scientists: culinary discourse, gastronomic discourse, and gluttonic discourse. However, they are all built around the concept of ‘food’.

P. P. Burkova uses the definition of gastronomic discourse and suggests considering it using the formula: ‘communication + culinary text + context’ [1, p. 24]. In addition, an important material for linguoculturological research of gastronomic discourse is culinary texts, where ‘professionally-oriented signs-terms, stable turns, characteristic morphosyntactic structures’ are actively used [4, p. 12]. Based on the characteristics of gastronomy, N. N. Katsunova outlines the gastronomic discourse as the discourse of an expert society, whose participants are either professionals with expertise in cooking, or people with deep knowledge in the field of gastronomy [6, p. 196]. According to F. L. Kositskaya and I. E. Zaitseva, the gastronomic discourse also revolves around gastronomy that is the science that studies the relationship between culture and food, and its components are a sophisticated taste in food and an understanding of the subtleties of culinary art. Furthermore, the authors underline the heterogeneity of gastronomic discourse within the restaurant academic (educational) culinary discourse, gastronomic media discourse [8, p. 26].

The concept of culinary discourse is usually considered as part of the gastronomic discourse. Cooking, in other words, the art of preparing food, is a certain ‘type of activity, in the process of which special equipment is involved and certain rules (recipes) are observed’ [8, p. 197]. However, N. N. Katsunova has another opinion on culinary discourse. She suggests considering gastronomy as part of cooking, since cooking, unlike gastronomy, is not limited to cooking techniques, a list of products and someone with the skills to cook. Besides, N. N. Katsunova outlines the communication between the participants of the discourse according ‘professional + professional’ concept, while culinary discourse involves ‘professional + non-professional’ relationship [6, p. 197]. Taking into consideration the author's opinion, we can conclude that the cooking knowledge exchange between participants takes place within the culinary discourse.

The term gluttony is a kind of neologism and its meaning is not recorded in dictionaries. A.V. Olyanich was one of the first Russian authors who thoroughly investigated this concept. The author points out that the gluttonic discourse is ‘a special type of communication related to the state of food resources, the processes of food processing and consumption’ [10, p. 168]. However, the author interchanges the terms gluttonic and gastronomic discourse in his works. M. V. Undrintsova defines the gluttonic discourse as ‘a special verbal social discourse (in conjunction with socio-cultural, religious-ethnic, linguophilosophical properties) the purpose of which is to achieve gluttonic communication’ [11, p. 87]. The use of the term gluttonic discourse is criticized by some researchers. The word gluttonic comes from the Latin ‘gluttire’ and means ‘to swallow, to absorb’, that is, it is limited only to the consumption of food or its preparation and also evaluation of taste. As an alternative, N. N. Katsunova suggests using Latin verbs ‘edere, comedere, manducare’ which could mean not only eating, but also about cooking [6, p. 198].

Under the paper it is important to focus on the components of the gastronomic discourse that are necessary for its functioning. According to V. I. Karasik, gastronomic discourse includes characteristics of model participants of the discourse, chronotope, aims, values, strategies, genres, precedent texts and discursive formulas [5, p. 242].

For the participants of the gastronomic discourse, P. P. Burkova provides the role model ‘author-client’, where the author is a person with expertise in cooking, and the client is a person who is going to cook something [1, p. 20]. Participants include representatives of the food service (waiters, bartenders, sommeliers, chefs), readers of cookbooks, culinary programs audience, and customers.

The chronotope is determined by time and place. The time corresponds to the intervals for eating accepted in society (breakfast, dinner, supper). However, these intervals vary depending on the cultural and national specifics, so such meals as lunch, brunch, etc. may also be included. The place for the communication of gastronomic discourse is the kitchen or public food service establishment (restaurants, bars, cafes).

In addition, the gastronomic discourse proceeds from the following aims: 1) to transfer experience; 2) to learn the culinary traditions of a particular society; 3) to evaluate a dish/recipe based on existing experience. M. V. Udrintsova expands the list, adding the satisfaction of physical needs (thirst and hunger) and consumer orientation [11, p. 87].

The values of the gastronomic discourse come from the attitude to the cooking process: 1) pragmatic (daily); 2) ritual (holiday breakfast/dinner, romantic dinner) and class differences in its consumption [1, p. 24].

Strategies include public service for visitor based on the established norms in the field of food service. Precedent texts of gastronomic discourse are considered to be texts containing culinary recipes. In the era of modern technology, in addition to newspapers, books, and magazines, numerous posts with recipes on social networks can also be attributed to precedent texts.

We describe discursive formulas as the established language turns of speech used for communication in the society concerned. Brief examples might clarify this concept: ‘preheat the oven to 180C’, ‘cook for 10 minutes, stirring regularly…’, ‘roast on the bottom of the oven for 50 minutes’, ‘bake for 30 minutes, or until golden and crisp’, ‘simmer for 5 minutes, or until thickened’, ‘add salt to your liking’, etc.

Thus, nowadays it is impossible to designate a clear definition for the term discourse, since it is at the intersection of many disciplines. The lack of a single designation for the discourse related to the processes of cooking and consuming food is the result of efforts to find a term that can cover the field of study as widely as possible. This inevitably leads to the artificial creation of synonymous concepts in the scientific world. In addition, the study of gastronomic discourse as a special type of verbal social communication implies taking into account such discursive characteristics as participants, conditions, time and place for communication, as well as strategies and aims.

References:

1. Burkova P. P. Culinary recipe as a special type of text (Based on the material of the Russian and German languages). Dis. Dr. phil. nauk. / P. P. Burkova. Stavropol, 2004, 212 p.
2. Van Dijk T.A. Language, Cognition, Communication. M.: Progress, 1989, 310 p.
3. Demyankov, V.Z. Political Discourse as a Subject of Political Science Philology. Political Science. Political Discourse: History and Modern Studies, M., 2002, pp. 32—43.
4. Zakharov S. V. Lingvosemiotics of Anglo-Saxon institutional glutton. Dis. Dr. phil. nauk / S.V. Zakharov. Volgograd, 2008, 165 p.
5. Karasik V. I. Language circle: personality, concepts, discourse: monograph / Karasik V. I.; Volgogr. gosudarstvenny ped. univ. Volgograd: Peremena, 2002, 477 p.
6. Katsunova N. N. On the question of "Synonymization" of discourses / / Vestnik IGLU, 2012, pp. 196-201.
7. Kibrik A.A. The analysis of discourse in cognitive perspective. Doctor’s of Philological sciences thesis. M.: Progress, 2003, 90 p.
8. Kositskaya F. L., Zaitseva I. E. French gastronomic discourse and its genre palette / / Vestnik TSPU, 2016, pp. 25-30.
9. Nikolaeva T.M. Brief Glossary of text linguistics. // New in foreign linguistics. Edition VIII. Text linguistics. M., 1978, pp. 467-472.
10.  Olyanich A.V. Presentational theory of discourse. Dis. Dr. phil. nauk / A.V. Olyanich. Volgograd, 2004, 602 p.
11. Undritsova M. V. Gastronomic discourse: linguoculturological and translation aspects. Dis. Dr. phil. nauk / // Moscow University Bulletin, 2012, pp. 86-90.