Connections of non-referential subjects of deauthorisation structures in media texts (in the English and Belarusian languages)

  • Irina M. Basovets Minsk State Linguistic University, 21 Zaharava Street, Minsk 220034, Belarus

Abstract

The article constructs two subject models of text deauthorisation: coherently dispersed and hierarchical. The features of the analysed models that are common in the compared media cultures have been established: a coherently dispersed subject model is characterised by structural and semantic heterogeneity of activated structures and linguistic means of encoding of non-referential subjects, as well as pragmatic enrichment of the main communicative intention with additional effects; the hierarchical subject model is distinguished by the fixed heterogeneity of the referential characteristics of subjects of the upper and lower levels, homogeneous nature of formal encoding tools, and pragmatic effect of the weight of the message being communicated. Different features of the models in the compared media cultures have been identified in relation to the dominant pragmatic vector, types of non-referential subject components and linguistic means for their encoding.

Author Biography

Irina M. Basovets, Minsk State Linguistic University, 21 Zaharava Street, Minsk 220034, Belarus

PhD (philology), docent; doctoral student at the department of theoretical and applied linguistics

 

References

  1. Abbott B. Reference. New York: Oxford University Press; 2010. 308 p.
  2. Bach K. On referring and not referring. In: Gundel JK, Hedberg N, editors. Reference: interdisciplinary perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008. p. 13 –58. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331639.003.0002.
  3. Huang CTJ. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. In: Roberts I, editor. Comparative grammar (critical concepts in linguistics). New York: Routledge; 2007. p. 160 –210.
  4. Lee Ch. Generic sentences are topic constructions. In: Fretheim T, Gundel JK, editors. Reference and referent accessibility. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 1996. p. 213 –222. DOI: 10.1075/pbns.38.12lee.
  5. Powell G. Language, thought and reference. Hampshire: Palgrave and Macmillan; 2010. 217 p.
  6. Radden G. Generic reference in English: a metonymic and conceptual blending analysis. In: Panther KU, Thornburg LL, Barcelona A, editors. Metonymy and metaphor in grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 2009. p. 199 –228. DOI: 10.1075/hcp.25.13rad.
  7. Recanati F. Direct reference: from language to thought. Cambridge: Blackwell; 1993. 420 p.
  8. Zelinsky-Wibbelt C. Discourse and the continuity of reference. New York: Mouton de Gruyter; 2000. 354 p.
  9. Budennaya EV. Evolyutsiya sub’ektnoi referentsii v yazykakh baltiiskogo areala [The evolution of subjective reference in the languages of the Baltic area] [dissertation]. Moscow: Lomonosov Moscow State University; 2018. 221 p. Russian.
  10. Vlasenko SV. Text as referencing percept. Journal of Psycholinguistics. 2010;11:115 – 132. Russian.
  11. Kudriavtceva AS. Referent activation and probabilistic evaluation of referential choice: a study of English newspaper texts. Computational linguistics and intellectual technologies. Proceedings of the annual International conference «Dialogue»; 2016 June 1– 4; Moscow, Russia [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2023 August 16]. Available from: http://www.dialog-21.ru/media/3466/kudryavtseva.pdf. Russian.
  12. Paducheva EV. Indefinite-personal sentence and its implicit subject. Voprosy jazykoznanija. 2012;1:27 –41. Russian. OVYWHB.
  13. Fedorova OV, Uspenskaya AM. Experimental analysis of discourse: the impact of a potential referential conflict on the choice of the referring expression (on the material of Russian). In: Kibrik AE, editor. Computational linguistics and intellectual technologies. Proceedings of the annual International conference «Dialogue»; 2011 May 25–29; Bekasovo, Russia. Issue 10. Moscow: Russian State University for the Humaties; 2011. p. 196 –206. Russian.
  14. Dobrosklonskaya TG. Media discourse as an object of linguistics and cross-cultural communication. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 10, Zhurnalistika. 2006;2:20 –33. Russian. EDN: PUZPXL.
  15. Kormilitsyna MA. [Syntactic methods of disauthorising information in modern media]. In: Shmelev AD, editor. Voprosy kul’tury rechi. Vypusk 9 [Issues of speech culture. Issue 9]. Moscow: Nauka; 2007. p. 243–249. Russian. EDN: PWEZZD.
  16. Grichin SV. Avtorizatsionnaya model’ nauchnogo teksta [Authorisation model of scientific text] [dissertation]. Tomsk: Tomsk State University; 2017. 347 p. Russian.
  17. Dracheva YuN. Mediaobraz lokal’noi ustnoi rechevoi kul’tury: kognitivno-yazykovye mekhanizmy [Media image of local oral speech culture: cognitive-linguistic mechanisms] [dissertation]. Vologda: Vologda State University; 2019. 575 p. Russian.
  18. Ivchenkov VI. Stylistics: language, speech and text. Media Linguistics. 2017;2:127–133. Russian.
  19. Abramova EI. Media texts of nowadays: axiological priorities and communicative challenges. In: Malyshev AA, editor. Medialingvistika. Materialy VI Mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii «Yazyk v koordinatakh mass media»; 30 iyunya – 2 iyulya 2022 g.; Sankt-Peterburg, Rossiya. Vypusk 9 [Media linguistics. Proceedings of the 6th International scientific conference «Language in the coordinates of mass media»; 2022 June 30 – July 2; Saint Petersburg, Russia. Issue 9]. Saint Petersburg: Mediapapir; 2022. p. 183–186. Russian. EDN: QVWGZR.
  20. Zholnerovich PP. Information line on the TV screen. Media Linguistics. 2017;2:65 –74. Russian.
  21. Janik Ch. Marking of evidentiality in Russian and German historiographic articles. In: Suomela-Salmi E, Dervin F, editors. Cross-linguistic and cross-cultural perspectives on academic discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 2009. p. 19 –32. DOI: 10.1075/pbns.193.02jan.
  22. Mutsumi Yamamoto. Agency and impersonality: their linguistic and cultural manifestations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 2006. 151 p. DOI: 10.1075/slcs.78.
  23. Downing A. Nominalisation and topic management in leads and headlines. In: Ventola E, editor. Discourse and community: doing functional linguistics. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag; 2000. p. 355–378.
  24. Hyland K. Metadiscourse. London: Continuum; 2005. 230 p.
  25. Gripsrud J. Understanding media culture. London: Arnold; 2002. 330 p.
Published
2024-02-21
Keywords: text deauthorisation, deauthorisation structures, non-referential subject, coherently dispersed subject model, hierarchical subject model
How to Cite
Basovets I. M. Connections of non-referential subjects of deauthorisation structures in media texts (in the English and Belarusian languages) // Journal of the Belarusian State University. Philology. 2024. 1. PP. 86-94.
Issue
No 1 (2024): Journal of the Belarusian State University. Philology
Section
Linguistics

Copyright (c) 2024 Journal of the Belarusian State University. Philology

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

The authors who are published in this journal agree to the following:

  1. The authors retain copyright on the work and provide the journal with the right of first publication of the work on condition of license Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial. 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0).
  2. The authors retain the right to enter into certain contractual agreements relating to the non-exclusive distribution of the published version of the work (e.g. post it on the institutional repository, publication in the book), with the reference to its original publication in this journal.
  3. The authors have the right to post their work on the Internet (e.g. on the institutional store or personal website) prior to and during the review process, conducted by the journal, as this may lead to a productive discussion and a large number of references to this work. (See The Effect of Open Access.)