GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PULICISTIC DISOURSE
Abstract
The purpose of the article is to give general characteristic of publicistic discourse. The following research methods are used in the article with this aim: the inductive-deductive – to generalize theoretical issues on the problems of research; methods of giving definitions and descriptions – used to give definitions of the notions of “discourse”, ”text”, “publicistic style”, “publicistic discourse” and describe their characteristics; methods of systematization and description – to clarify stylistic, functional, communicative-pragmatic and lingual features of the analyzed discourse.
The results of research are revealed in establishing its lingual status, clarifying correlative relationship with the notions related to it, providing its general characteristics as a complex communicative phenomenon in the unity of its lingual and extralingual constituents. The notion of “discourse” correlates with the notion of «communication» and is opposed to the notion of “text” or compared with it. The differention of discourse and text is made on the basis of such criteria: dynamic – static, speech – language. Discourse is viewed as a form of text actualization, while text is considered to be a symbolic form of discourse organization. The notion of «text» does not comprise extralingual constituents of communication as the notion of “discourse”. Publicistic discourse functions in media, socio-political, and socio-cultural spheres. Its lingual characteristics are determined by key features of publicistic style: objectivity, logicality, argumentativeness, and posibility to make influence. Publicistic discourse is a type of institutional communication. The choice of its language units is regulated by the rules of their normative use. As the aim of publicistic discourse is not only to inform the mass adressee, but also to influence them, the logicality of information is combined with its emotional coloring in it. Along with neutral, bookish vocabulary, emotionally and stylistically units are used in it.
Conclusions. Thus, publicistic discourse is a type of institutional communication used in socio-political, socio-cultural and media spheres to inform and influence mass addressee. Its communicative and pragmatic features determine the choice of its language means, varying from neutral to expressive and stylistically marked.
References
2. Арутюнова Н.Д. Дискурс. Лингвистический энцикло-педический словарь. Москва : Сов. энциклопедия, 1990. С. 136–137.
3. Бєлова А.Д. Поняття «стиль», «жанр», «дискурс», «текст» у сучасній лінгвістиці. Іноземна філологія. 2002. Вип. 32–33. С. 11–14.
4. Бойчук К.В. Мова газетних текстів як засіб впливу на читача. Наукові записки. Вип. 11. 2009. С. 135–139.
5. Карасик В.И. О категориях дискурса. Языковая личность: социолингвистические и эмотивные аспекты. Волгоград : Перемена, 1998. С. 185–197.
6. Костомаров В.Г. Русский язык на газетной полосе. Некоторые особенности современной газетной публицистики. Москва : Высшая школа, 1971. 117 с.
7. Кущ Е.О. Критична перспектива дослідження дискурсу в сучасній лінгвістиці. Наукові записки Кіровоградського державного педагогічного ун-ту ім. В. Винниченка. Серія: Філологічні науки. 2017. Випуск 153. С. 261–265.
8. Макаров М.Л. Основы теории дискурса. Москва : Гнозис, 2003. 280 с.
9. Москаленко А.З. Основні функції і принципи преси. Київ : Наукова думка, 1998. 96 с.
10. Чернявская В.Е. Лингвистика текста. Лингвистика дискурса. Москва : «Флинта», 2012. 208 с.
11. Dijk van T. A. Studies in the Pragmatics of Discourse. The Hague : Mouton Publishers, 1981. 331 p.
12. Fairclough N. Media Discourse. Throwbridge : Redwood Books, 1995. 216 p.
13. Galperin I.R. Stylistics. [2nd ed.]. Moscow : Higher School Publication House, 1977. 332 p.
14. Harris Z. Discourse analysis. Language. 1952. V. 28. № 1. P. 5–30.
15. Hatim B., Mason I. Discourse and the Translator. London : Longman, 1990. 210 p.