250
LINGUOPRAGMATIC ASPECT OF MASS MEDIA LANGUAGE
Aysanem KALBAEVA
master student of the department of linguistics of English language of
Uzbekistan state world languages university
Annotation.
This article examines the main directions in the study of media
language (linguistic, rhetorical, hermeneutic, psycholinguistic, linguopragmatic,
sociological, legal and cultural aspects). Particular attention is paid to semiotic and
cognitive-discursive approaches to the analysis of mass communication texts. Active
innovation processes in the sphere of convergence of various discourses into
communicative and discursive practices of the mass media, the problem of translating
media texts, as well as texts of political discourse are considered.
Key words:
mass communication, scientific tools of media research,
methodological basis of linguistic research, discourse, media discourse, associative
connections, pragmatic, historical and cultural context, historical and linguistic
context, mass media, interdisciplinary language practice.
Аннотация.
В данной статье рассматриваются основные направления в
изучении языка СМИ (собственно лингвистический, риторический,
герменевтический,
психолингвистический,
лингвопрагматический,
социологический, юридический и культурологический аспекты). Особое
внимание уделяется семиотическому и когнитивно-дискурсивному подходам к
анализу текстов массовой коммуникации. Рассматриваются активные
инновационные процессы в сфере конвергенции различных дискурсов в
коммуникативно-дискурсивные практики масс-медиа, проблеме перевода
текстов СМИ, а также текстам политического дискурса.
Ключевые слова:
массовая коммуникация, научный инструментарий
медиаисследований, методологическая база лингвистических исследований,
дискурс, медиадискурс, ассоциативные связи, прагматический, историко-
культурный
контекст,
историко-языковой
контекст,
масс-медиа,
междисциплинарная языковая практика.
Annotatsiya.
Ushbu maqolada media tilini o'rganishning asosiy yo'nalishlari
(lingvistik, ritorik, germenevtik, psixolingvistik, lingvopragmatik, sotsiologik,
huquqiy va madaniy jihatlar) ko'rib chiqiladi. Ommaviy aloqa matnlarini tahlil
qilishda semiotik va kognitiv-diskursiv yondashuvlarga alohida e'tibor beriladi. Turli
nutqlarni ommaviy axborot vositalarining kommunikativ va diskursiv amaliyotiga
yaqinlashtirish sohasidagi faol innovatsion jarayonlar, ommaviy axborot vositalari
matnlarini, shuningdek, siyosiy nutq matnlarini tarjima qilish muammosi ko'rib
chiqiladi.
Kalit so'zlar:
ommaviy kommunikatsiya, media tadqiqotining ilmiy vositalari,
lingvistik tadqiqotning metodologik asoslari, nutq, media-diskurs, assotsiativ
aloqalar, pragmatik, tarixiy va madaniy kontekst, tarixiy va lingvistik kontekst,
ommaviy axborot vositalari, fanlararo til amaliyoti.
251
The modern abundance of channels and forms of mass communications that
serve as translators of discourses that once did not have a media character (political
discourse, everyday discourse, family discourse, entertainment discourse) stimulates
humanists to develop cross-disciplinary research, and linguists in particular, to the
formation of a synthetic, holistic anthropocentric paradigm [9]. And it is precisely
this focus on the involvement of factors that were once considered “extralinguistic”
that maintains the relevance of the semiotic triad of semantics - syntactics -
pragmatics in the analysis of discourse of any type [10].
As researchers begin to study the entire contemporary field of mass
communications, they continually cross the boundaries of one discipline to invade the
territories of several others. Psycholinguistics is adjacent to political science,
marketing theory is adjacent to communication theory, philosophy of language is
adjacent to criticism of the discourse of power, etc. The cross-disciplinary nature of
media research is obvious, based on the very linguopragmatic nature of media
messages. In the preface to the book, its editor R. Andersen and J. Gray write: “True
to the nature of media studies - an interdiscipline sitting at the crossroads of more
traditional fields such as sociology, political economy, art, rhetoric, anthropology and
political science ( just to name a few) - we offer here a broad range of entries
concentrating not only on humanistic themes but also from social scientific 4
perspectives" (“Following the nature of media studies - an interdisciplinary approach
at the intersection of more traditional fields of knowledge, such as sociology, political
economy, art, rhetoric, anthropology and political science (to name just a few), we
offer a wide range of articles that focus not only on humanistic topics, but also from
sociological perspectives” [12, p. XVIII]).
An in-depth study of the analysis of “media language” occurs at the turn of the
20th-21st centuries, and interest in this area began back in the 1980-1990s. The
expansion of linguistic meaning and its rise to the level of linguopragmatics have
changed the research vector in the analysis of speech material in the media. In the
scientific tools of media studies of the 1990-2010s. The concept of “media discourse”
is included, displacing previous nominations of the subject as “the language of the
media” [4-8].
As noted by O.V. Leshchak, methodological basis of linguistic research of the
252
twentieth century. has a “tetrichotomous structure: positivism, rationalism,
phenomenologism, functionalism” [1, p. 8-14]. Linguistics of the last two decades
has been developing in line with the functional approach, which combines semantic,
communicative, discursive, and cognitive methods [2, 3]. Developed by E.S.
Kubryakova, E.V. Paducheva, N.D. Arutyunova, Yu.D. Apresyan, N.V. Ufimtseva,
I.A. Sternin, M.V. Nikitin et al., this paradigm reoriented the analysis of language
from a structuralist immanent approach to a sign as an object to an intersubjective,
speech-generating model, which allows expanding the boundaries of semantics,
traditionally fixed on the lexical dictionary meaning, due to associative connections,
pragmatic and historical-cultural, historical-linguistic context [3].
The phenomenon of genre, stylistic, and ideological mimicry has become
ubiquitous. Thus, the media discourse of a talk show or the discourse of a women's
glossy magazine can mimic oral conversational discourse. The speech practice of
telling everyday stories has been carefully studied by modern narratology and the
theory of mass communications, and they reveal the mechanisms of transfer of story
telling stereotypes from everyday everyday communication to the press, fiction and
back [13].
M. Fladernik writes about these processes of mutual enrichment of discourses
in his study “Fictions of Language and Languages of Fiction: Linguistic
Representation of Language and Consciousness,” exploring the creative and
cognitive nature of oral discourse. Today, the discourse of power, or, more broadly,
political discourse, is also mediated by the mass media [7]. Ironically using the title
of the famous article by the German cultural sociologist W. Benjamin “The work of
art in the era of its technical reproducibility”, the German media theorist N. Boltz
designates modern political discourse as “politics in the era of its technical
reproducibility” [14, p. 56]).
In the journalistic practice of previous years, such “simulacra” were called
“ducks.” The difference between a fake and a “duck” is that it does not perform
serious revealing or misleading tasks. It is part of virtualized postmodern
communication, where information gradually loses its purely referential function and
increasingly performs an entertaining, gaming function. A fake can imitate
253
“Media. Til va madaniyat. Tarjima” talabalar ilmiy-amaliy konferensiyasi - 2023
news, advertising, analytical and any other discourse, adapting its communication
strategies and stylistic techniques, appropriating a broadcast channel (it can be
YouTube, a blog, even an official mass media channel - a television broadcast, a
glossy magazine, etc.). Thus, a new research task arises for the linguist - identifying
typological, discourse-speech mechanisms that distinguish one type of information
presentation from another, often independent of the content of the message itself. The
connection between semantics and pragmatics is built in postmodern media discourse
on the basis of pure, virtualized fiction according to the simulation model once
described by J. Baudrillard [15]. Thus, German mass media theorists R. Steber, W.
Faulstich, H. Mein [16-18] write about the convergence of various discourses into
communicative-discursive practices of mass media. R. Steber emphasizes that from
the second half of the twentieth century. mass media become an integral part of
everyday life; they expand the communicative field of intimate and family discourse
through collectivization, stereotyping, and urbanization. The expansion of the
influence of the press beyond the purely political into the area of the “private and
small local world” (“des Privaten und der kleinen lokalen Umwelt”) is carried out by
improving the technical capabilities of the media and their penetration into private
life, especially in the era of electronic media [16, p. . 291-292]. The influence of mass
media on the consciousness and speech of modern man, their manipulative potential
and the actualization of this potential are not only the subject of research, but also the
object of comprehensive media criticism (see, for example, the article by V. Greb on
the quasi-religious impact of television messages on the consciousness of the
addressee: [19 ]).
All these observations confirm the initial hypothesis that the typologization of
modern mass media should be based not on a specialized journalistic approach, but
on the identification of general cognitive-communicative structures that bring
together texts of different subject purposes. This means that, based on the
linguopragmatic nature of media discourse, the following components should be
identified during typology:
“Media. Til va madaniyat. Tarjima” talabalar ilmiy-amaliy konferensiyasi - 2023
254
1.
Technological broadcast channel (press, radio, TV, Internet);
2.
Type of communication medium (official / informal, private-interpersonal /
online);
3.
Targets (function): advertising, PR, entertainment, information, analytics,
journalistic influence;
4.
Audience (by age, social, economic, gender, national, ethnic, party-political,
etc. criteria);
5.
Genre (the choice depends on the media channel, targets, media ideology,
etc.).
6.
Stylistics (format, genre, author’s stylistics).
7.
Communication strategies (identification with the addressee, manipulation,
presentation).
8.
Subject area (business, entertainment, arts, shopping, politics, social
relations, sports, hunting, gadgets, etc.).
References
1.
Leshchak O.V. Methodological foundations of functional research of
language activity (on the material of Slavic languages) // Dis. ... doc. Philol. n. -
Ternopil, 1997. - 529 p.
2.
Functional stylistics: theory of styles and their linguistic implementation /
Interuniversity. Sat. works - Perm: Perm State. Univ., 1986. - 168 p.
3.
Horizons of modern linguistics: Traditions and innovation / Collection in
honor of E.S. Kubryakova. - M.: Languages of Slavic Cultures, 2009. - 856 p.
4.
Dobrosklonskaya T.G. Medialinguistics: a systematic approach to the study
of media language. - M.: Science; Flint, 2008. - 264 p.
5.
Zemlyanova L.M. Communication and media: English-Russian explanatory
dictionary of concepts and terms. - M.: Moscow University Publishing House, 2004.
- 416 p.
6.
Mendzheritskaya, E. O. Discourse, media discourse and cognitive-
discursive paradigm in linguistics // News of the Southern Federal University.
Philological sciences. - 2011. - N 3. - P. 54-60.
7.
Grechikhin M.V. Modern Russian media discourse: the language of
intolerance (based on the language of modern Russian media) // Dis. ...cand. Philol.
n. - Belgorod, 2008. - 159 p.
8.
Kozhemyakin E.A. Media discourse // Scientific bulletins of Belgorod State
University. Series: Humanities. - No. 2 (73). - 2010. - Issue 11. - P.13-21.
9.
Revzina O.G. Linguistics of the 21st century: on the path to the integrity of
255
the theory of language // Criticism and semiotics. Vol. 7. - Novosibirsk: NSU, 2004.
- 296 p. - P. 11-20. 10. Sharkov F.I. Communication theory. - M.: RIPholding, 2006.
- 240 p.
15.
Stepanyan S.K. New meaning of the concept “format” in modern print
media // Bulletin of Moscow State University. Ser. 10. Journalism. - 2007. No. 5.
-
P. 33-41. 10
16.
Andersen R., Gray J. (Ed.). Battleground: The Media. - Vol. 1-2. -
Westport, Connecticut; London: Greenwood Press, 2008. - 655 p.
17.
Fludernik M. The Fictions of Language and the Languages of Fiction: The
linguistic representation of speech and consciousness. - London; New York:
Routledge, 2005. - 531 p.
18.
Bolts N. ABC of media. - M.: Europe, 2011. - 136 p.
19.
Baudrillard J. Symbolic exchange
and death. - M.: Dobrosvet, 2000. - 387 p.
20.
Stober R. Deutsche Pressegeschichte: Einfuhrung, Systematik, Glossar. -
Konstanz: UVK Medien, 2000. - 370 S.
21.
Faulstich W. (Hrsg.). Grundwissen Medien. - 4. Aufl. - Munich: W. Fink,
2000. - 494 S.
22.
Meyn H. Massenmedien in Deutschland. - Konstanz: UVK Medien, 1999.
-
354 S.
23.
Grab W. Das Fernsehen als religioser Sinnproduzent // tv diskurs:
Verantwortung in audiovisuellen Medien. - Jg. 12/2008. - H. 2. - S. 48-53.
24.
Бакиева, Г. Х., and Д. М. Тешабаева. "Оммавий ахборот воситалари
тили." Журналистлар учун ўқув қўлланма (2019).
25.
Бакиева, Г. Х., and Д. М. Тешабаева. "Медиамаконда матн." Тошкент:
Турон-Икбол (2019).
26.
Teshaboeva, D. M. "Ommavij ahborot vositalari tilining nutk madanijati
aspektida tadkiki (ЎzR OAV misolida): Filol. fan. dok.. dis. avtoref." (2012).
27.
QIZI, VALIYEVA NARGIZAXON ZAMIR. "Linguocultural aspect of
teaching foreign languages as an integral part of the educational process." Til va
adabiyot ta'limi (2023).
