Varia
Representative features of the modern English press
language
Dosmanbetova K.S.
4th year student,
specialty :“Foreign language: two foreign languages”
Kazakh National University named Al-Farabi,
Almaty, Republic of Kazakhstan
87784576398
Abstract. In this article we consider the representative
features of the language of contemporary English-language press. Representative
features of the language is based on the action of language a priori that, in
spite of the joint work with the functions of communication and pragmatic, it
seemed, would have to divert the lexical units of the versatility and
universality, nevertheless reported the transcendental nature of the language.
Key words: English-language press, the media, the model,
the subject.
Due to the independence and freedom of the modern
press, the role of the subject extraordinarily, and as the creator of the
journalistic text, and its destination, which is reflected above all in the
language of the media. Important is the idea of M.M. Bakhtin, that "the
reality of language - is not a single isolated monologic utterance, and the
interaction of at least two statements, that is dialogue." [1].
It is natural that the modern media is dialogical, maybe even archipelagic. Journalist safely come
in contact with your readers. Taking into account the socio-cultural and
psychological model of the destination, its values and demands of the author
goes through the joint development of the world, joint understanding of the
fact that creates the conditions for an effective communication process. It is
in the joint search for "the best ways of pressing social problems"
is the essence of journalistic way of development of the information space.
Creating the text, the author thinks not only their position in relation
to the facts described, and ways of representation, taking into account, on the
one hand, personal creative identity, and on the other hand, the cognitive
abilities of the addressee. Modern resolute journalist, he boldly shares his
thoughts and conjectures, and arguments, doubts and hopes to engage in a
collaborative process of creativity and the search for truth. [2]
The author, as a subject
of modern journalism - is not just an observer, not an extra, but rather, a
researcher, trying to find patterns in the contemporary world, to understand
the causes of certain facts and give the correct social diagnosis. The author
is not limited to the function of the scientist, detached from the object of
his research, he is excessively emotional.
Clinton’s compromising bent
also makes him appear at times to take both sides of a controversial issue, to
be all things to all men.
Associated Press, January, 2014
In this example, the
expression «all things to all men», which stands for duplicity, the desire to
please everyone. It has been used to convict politicians who give conflicting
promises with a view to win elections or extract political gain. [3]
And today, the rags-to-riches
American dream remains a potent draw for many foreigners.
The Daily Telegraph, May 4, 2014
In this example, the expression «American
Dream» to refer to the political
philosophy of Americanism, which is understood as a combination of freedom and
equal opportunity. [4]
A large number of in modern
journalistic discourse "egopositive language" says that the author
did not contemplate being, does not register the facts and lead an active and
interested in a dialogue with the reader, sharing with him the thoughts and
feelings, judgments and estimates.
In similar texts,
"the emotional charge passes multistage rational processing and carefully
veiled in order to create a hidden emotional stress."
“... Western accent on “The
American way of life” and the things that made America great that seems stogy
to some and pleasantly nostalgic to others “.
W.Safire “Safirs’s Political
Dictionary” «American way of life»
(american way of life), the famous
American diplomat E. Johnston sees as a euphemism. He wrote: "American way
of life" is capitalism.
Last week Under Secretary of
State Lawrence Eagleburger fell back on the concept of “reciprocity” in the
negotiations, a code word for a carefully timed agreement for the simultaneous
withdrawal of South Africans from Namibia and Cubans from Angola. [5]
Associated Press, July 4, 2014
In this example, the
expression «code word» denotes the
euphemism, the word of itself innocuous, but it has the connotation of bias. [3]
«… a man saying to himself: “I
used to think I was poor. Then they told me I wasn’t poor, I was needy. I was
deprived. Then they told me underprivileged was overused. I was disadvantaged.
I don’t still have a dime. But I have a great vocabulary»[5]
The Daily Telegraph, April 20, 2014
In this example, a euphemism «disadvantaged» is set to "hypocritically
used by politicians, replacing« ...
underprivileged »
By creating a journalistic text, the author offers his modern information
needs of readers, having a certain communicative competence, and cognitive
ability, so the image of the text as to "congruent" to its readers.
The audience in some way dictate the need for a style of speech.
The very speed of television’s development
might have led to some initial
resistance to it. Gogglebox and idiot’s
lantern are hardly terms of affection and respect.
Guardian, January 23, 2014
In this case, we use the
expression «gogglebox», which
denotes TV, box.
The extraordinary thing about
this new consciousness is that it emerged from the machine – made environment
of the corporate state... For those who thought the world was irretrievably
encased in metal and plastic and sterile stone, it seems a veritable greening
of America. [5]
The Daily Telegraph, September 26, 2014
In this case, we used
the expression «greening», which
denotes the flowering, the return of
youth. [3]
Thus, the analysis of the journalistic discourse
reveals that the language of modern media reflects the interaction, dialogue
writer and the recipient. It is formed not only on the basis of total freedom
of expression of the author, but also based on the desire to "please"
the addressee.
Resources:
1.
Áàõòèí Ì.Ì., Ýñòåòèêà ñëîâåñíîãî òâîð÷åñòâà / Ì.Ì. Áàõòèí. – Ì., 1979 – 341 ñ.
(234 c.)
2.
Âîñêîáîéíèêîâ, ß. Ñ., Þðüåâ, Â. Ê. Æóðíàëèñò è èíôîðìàöèÿ / Â. Ê. Þðüåâ, ß. Ñ.
Âîñêîáîéíèêîâ. – Ì., 1993. – 256 ñ. (187ñ.)
3.Êîìèñàðîâ,
Ä.È. Ñîâðåìåííûé ðóññêî-àíãëèéñêèé ôðàçåîëîãè÷åñêèé ñëîâàðü / Ä.È. Êîìèñàðîâ. –
Ì., 2000. – 204ñ. (13 c.)
4.
Safire, W. Safirs’s Political Dictionary – Ì., Âîñòîê – Çàïàä, 2005. – 302ñ
5. http://schoolenglish.ru/
www.time.com
www.newsweek.com
www.inopressa.ru/edition/wp