Linguopragmatic aspect of mass media language

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. 250 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 251 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