Agreement From A Diachronic Perspective
There is a sub-field of diachronic discourse analysis whose objectives are to study the fields of discourse, discursive categories and structures, changes in discursive functions and forms, as well as the development of large communicative units in which they are implemented: types of texts, genres and fields of discourse [3, pp. 139-140]. This sub-territory, based on historical linguistics, textual linguistics and discourse theory, is much less developed in modern linguistics. With this approach, scientists generally have to adapt to the needs the tools they have taken from the general theory of discourse and 28. Lopushanskaya S.P. Izmeneniye semanticheskoy struktury russpristavochnikh glagolov dvizheniya v protsesse modulyatsii [changes in the semantic structure of Russian non-prefixed verbs in the modulation process]. Russkyy glagol (v sopostavitelnom osveshchenii) [Russian verb (from a comparative perspective)]. Volgograd, Izd-vo VolGU, 1988, pp. 5-19. So far, there have been few attempts to analyze individual genders that are part of past historical periods. Their stylistic resources and genetic characteristics are explored as part of a linguistic-historical development supported by additional linguistic factors (see:[41; 42 et al.]), most of the data come from literary, journalistic and scientific texts.
The contribution is devoted to the scientific observation of research on historical and social discourse (historical discourse), presented using different research approaches and traditions. The authors provide an overview of several established parts of diachronic research on languages and types of texts, namely historical pragmatism, historical linguistics, diachronic analysis of discourse, with a focus on the tools and methods used to study historical changes in the practice of language use. It is found that, in Russian linguistics, the diachronic aspect of the functioning of linguistic units has been studied so far within the framework of diachronic stylistics, with the aim of defining the semantic and functional potentialities of speech units and text elements, distinguishing text composition with their dependence on the social and cultural circumstances of text production, discovering synchronous/diachronous perspectives in general and specific categories of discourse. The authors suggest that the use of corpus methods in diachronic discourse studies could significantly improve perspectives, some prototype features of discourse and their historical variations, if research is based on collections of texts (textual data) analyzed with corpus analysis protocols, rigorous historical periods, and general references to a given text culture. Clearly defined corpus data could certainly help to obtain information on the cognitive, social, cultural, pragmatic aspects of the type of discourse presented in the collection of texts from a studied historical period. The further comparison of data during certain historical periods and/or regional references opens the way to the discovery of diachronous vectors in the evolution of the type of discourse by indicating changes, transformations, replacements in discursive forms and genders. . . .