METADATA


Title: The socio-cognitive aspect of verbalization of journalistic discourse

 

Vol. 8(2), 2020, pp. 7-18.

DOI: 10.46687/SILC.2020.v08i02.001

 

Author: Alesia Shevtsova

About the author: Assistant Professor Alesia Shevtsova, PhD is the head of the Romance-Germanic Department at the Faculty of Foreign Languages, Mogilev State A. Kuleshov University, Mogilev, Belarus. She is the author of seventy publications in Belarus and abroad (Russia, Poland, Latvia, Bulgaria). Alesia Shevtsova has been trained at the Faculty of Philology at Vilnius University (Latvia), the Institute of English Studies at the Jagiellonian University (Poland), the Temple University (Philadelphia, the USA). The courses taught are media linguistics, theoretical phonetics, stylistics, corpus linguistics, discourse linguistics, English for specific purposes. The fields of expertise are media and cultural studies, contrastive linguistics, discourse linguistics. 

e-mail: shevtcova@msu.by

ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3041-6862

 

Citation (APA style): Shevtsova, A. (2020). The socio-cognitive aspect of verbalization of journalistic discourse. Studies in Linguistics, Culture, and FLT, 8(2), 7-18. doi: 10.46687/SILC.2020.v08i02.001

 

Link: https://silc.fhn-shu.com/images/issues/2020/SILC_2020_Vol_8_Issue_2_007-018_12.pdf

 

Abstract: The paper focuses on the differences in the English and Russian headlines referring to the mental and contextual models of readers and journalists. The article considers the tendencies in the verbalization of the models under the influence of a concrete linguistic culture. The analysis reveals that the Russian-language headlines of articles to a greater extent actualize the ethno-specific contextual model. The title is represented by a proposition with an implication and an abstract level of description. Unlike the Russian-language headlines, the high-quality UK press is still characterized by a rather “serious” approach to presenting information in the genre of news articles. The headlines of the articles have a clear description indicating specific agents and patients of the communicative event, and also represent fairly explicit propositions. Based on the socially shared knowledge of the British epistemic community, the author actively forms a dynamic contextual model of the recipient reader by introducing new knowledge about current events and realities of modern life.

Key words: journalistic discourse, mental (semantic situational) model, contextual (pragmatic) model.

 

References:

Clyne M. 1994. Inter-cultural communication at work. Cultural values in discourse. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Cuhna G. 2015. The multiplicity of voices in the journalistic discourse: study of polyphony in Journalism in light of a modular perspective of discourse organization. Intercom, Rev. Bras. Ciênc. Comun, 38(2). São Paulo.  Retrieved from https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S18095-8442015000200159andscript=sci_arttextandtlng=en.

Fairclough N. 2013. Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Routledge, New York.

Fairclough N. 2014. Language and power. Routledge, New York.

Filliettaz L. and Roulet E. 2002. The Geneva model of discourse analysis: An interactionist and modular approach to discourse organization. Discourse Studies, 4(3). Thousand Oaks, 369-393.

Givón T. 2017. The grammar of referential coherence as mental processing instructions. The story of zero. John Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA.

Grobet A. 2002. L’identication des topiques dans les dialogues. Duculot, Louvain-la-Neuve.

Gudykunst W. 1990. Culture and interpersonal communication. Interpersonal communication-8. Sage Publications.

Hanitzsch T. 2017. Journalistic roles and the struggle over institutional identity: The discursive constitution of journalism. Communication Theory. 27(2): 115-125.

Roulet E., Filliettaz L. and Grobet A. 2001. Un modèle et un instrument d’analyse de l’organisation du discours. Lang, Berne.

Van Dijk T. A.  2008. Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Van Dijk T. A.  2009. Critical discourse studies: A sociocognitive approach. Wodak R. and Meyer M. (Eds.). Methods for critical discourse analysis. Sage, London, pp. 63-85.

Van Dijk T. A.  2011. Discourse, knowledge, power and politics. Towards critical epistemic discourse analysis. Hart Ch. (Ed.). Critical Discourse Studies in Context and Cognition. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 27-63. 

Van Dijk T. A.  2012. A note on epistemics and discourse analysis. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51: 478-485.

Van Dijk T. A.  2016. Sociocognitive discourse studies. Handbook of discourse analysis. Routledge, New York.

Ван Дайк Т. A. 2013. Дискурс и знание. Научние ведомости, 13(156).

Ларина T. 2005. Национальный стиль вербальной коммуникации: постановка проблемы. Вестник РУДН. 7. РУДН, Мосва.

Ларина T. 2009. Категория вежливости и стиль коммуникации: сопоставленные английских и русских лингвокультурных традиций. Рукопис, Москва.

Торопова E. 2010. Качественная пресса как фактор формированья имиджа России. МГУ имени М. Ломоносова, Москва.

Шевцова A. 2019. Социо-когнитивный план вербализации русскоязычного публичного дискурса. Современный дискурс-анализ. 3(24): 38-44.