GRAMOTA Publishers suggests publishing your scientific articles in periodicals
Pan-ArtPedagogy. Theory & PracticePhilology. Theory & PracticeManuscript

Archive of Scientific Articles

SOURCE:    Philology. Theory & Practice. Tambov: Gramota, 2020. № 7. P. 243-247.
SCIENTIFIC AREA:    Philological Sciences
Procedure of Scientific Articles Publication | To Show Issue Content | To Show All Articles in Section | Subject Index

License Agreement on scientific materials use.

https://doi.org/10.30853/filnauki.2020.7.48

Communicative Evasion Strategy in Television Discourse: Issues of Analysis
Isaeva Snezhana Nikolaevna
Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation
Submitted: 02.05.2020
Abstract. The purpose of the study is to identify the most frequent cognitive mechanisms of obscuring information, which underlie the evasion strategy, using the material of television talk-show interviews. Scientific novelty of the study lies in the fact that specifics of realising the communicative evasion strategy in television discourse is for the first time considered from the cognitive-pragmatic perspective. The attained results have shown that one of the most common cognitive mechanisms of the evasion strategy is the mechanism of full change of a reference situation / event / object, which is implemented at the verbal level, among other things, via such lexical and syntactic means as adverbs, parenthetical words and reverse questions.
Key words and phrases: стратегия уклонения, уклонение, теледискурс, ток-шоу, когнитивные механизмы, смена референтной ситуации / события / объекта, evasion strategy, evasion, television discourse, talk-show, cognitive mechanisms, change of reference situation / event / object
Open the whole article in PDF format. Free PDF-files viewer can be downloaded here.
References:
  1. Galich T. S. Kognitivnye mekhanizmy organizatsii diskursa tok-shou: avtoref. diss. … k. filol. n. Krasnoyarsk, 2018. 24 s.
  2. Gnezdilova L. B. Kommunikativnye sredstva vyrazheniya strategii ukloneniya ot pryamogo otveta. Novosibirsk: TsRNS, 2012. 110 s.
  3. Iriskhanova O. K. Igry fokusa v yazyke. Semantika, sintaksis i pragmatika defokusirovaniya. M.: Yazyki slavyanskoi kul'tury, 2014. 320 s.
  4. Kochengin M. Yu. Funktsional'no-semanticheskie svoistva amerikanskogo diskursa tok-shou: diss. … k. filol. n. Ul'yanovsk, 2005. 186 s.
  5. Krasnoperova Yu. V. Diskursivnye strategii uchastnikov interv'yu: diss. … k. filol. n. Irkutsk, 2005. 236 s.
  6. Larina E. G. Lingvopragmaticheskie osobennosti tok-shou kak zhanra televizionnogo diskursa: na materiale amerikanskikh televizionnykh programm: avtoref. diss. … k. filol. n. Volgograd, 2004. 21 s.
  7. Salikhov A. Yu. Lingvopragmaticheskie osobennosti diskursa tok-shou: na materiale angliiskogo i russkogo yazykov: avtoref. diss. … k. filol. n. Tyumen', 2016. 24 s.
  8. Firstova L. A. Diskursivnye strategii i taktiki v ramkakh telepublitsisticheskogo diskursa: na materiale russkoyazychnykh i angloyazychnykh informatsionnykh programm: avtoref. diss. … k. filol. n. Saratov, 2008. 24 s.
  9. Cheif U. L. Pamyat' i verbalizatsiya proshlogo opyta // Novoe v zarubezhnoi lingvistike: sb. statei. M.: Raduga, 1983. Vyp. XII. Prikladnaya lingvistika. S. 35-73.
  10. Bull P., Mayer K. How not to answer questions in political interviews // Political Psychology. 1993. № 14. P. 651-666.
  11. Cienki A. Bush’s and Gore’s language and gestures in the 2000 US presidential debates: A test case for two models of metaphors // Journal of Language and Politics. 2004. № 3. P. 409-440.
  12. Cienki A., Giansante G. Conversational framing in televised political discourse: A comparison from the 2008 elections in the United States and Italy // Journal of Language and Politics. 2014. № 13 (2). P. 255-288.
  13. Clayman S. Answers and evasions // Language in Society / ed. by J. Hill. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. P. 403-442.
  14. Febriani A., Damanhuri A. Gestures and facial expressions used in "The Ellen show" // Language Horizon. 2016. № 4 (2). P. 57-64.
  15. Galasinski D. The Language of Deception: A Discourse Analytical Study. California: SAGE Publications, 2000. 155 p.
  16. Grice P. Study in the way of words. L.: Harvard University Press, 1989. 394 p.
  17. Harris S. Evasive action: How politicians respond to questions in political interviews // Broadcast Talk / ed. by P. Scannell. L.: Sage, 1991. P. 76-99.
  18. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fR4zNJEPTBI (data obrashcheniya: 10.01.2020).
  19. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hP7T8ELQ4mU (data obrashcheniya: 11.01.2020).
  20. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4SgKr0skBw&t=12s (data obrashcheniya: 25.02.2020).
  21. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnVKK38d3jo (data obrashcheniya: 05.12.2019).
  22. Ilie C. Talk Shows // Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2006. P. 489-494.
  23. Krause A. J., Goering E. M. Local talk in the global village: An intercultural comparison of American and German talk shows // Journal of Popular Culture. 1995. № 29 (2). P. 189-207.
  24. Livingstone S., Lunt P. Talk on television: Audience participation and public debate. L. - N. Y.: Routledge, 1994. 252 p.
  25. Partington A. The Linguistics of Political Argument. L. - N. Y.: Routledge, 2003. 289 p.
  26. Thornborrow J. Narrative, opinion and situated argument in talk show discourse // Journal of Pragmatics. 2007. Vol. 39. Iss. 8. P. 1436-1453.
  27. Tolson A. Televised chat and the synthetic personality // Broadcast talk / ed. by P. Scannell. L.: Sage Publications, 1991. P. 178-200.
Procedure of Scientific Articles Publication | To Show Issue Content | To Show All Articles in Section | Subject Index

© 2006-2024 GRAMOTA Publishers

site development and search engine optimization (seo): krav.ru