CC BY
33
i I I T ■ ■ "Tir Тематический выыпуск ^ЦТ "ТЦ^ "W^ "Ж"
Л II in P I I I "^ООТРЕмОБЙОМ™0 I IM О Iß I
/-111 «If /VI I I ЦИВИЛИЗАЦИОННОМ ■ ■ ■ /\7 ■ ■ I
£ ULJLJ.VBI ПРОСТРАНСТВЕ: ЯЗЫК И ПОЛИТИК А И J
Критическая обзорная статья УДК 81'42:34
DOI: 10.29025/2079-6021-2021-4-28-37
Тематический выпуск
ЛИЧНОСТЬ И ОБЩЕСТВО В СОВРЕМЕННОМ ЦИВИЛИЗАЦИОННОМ ПРОСТРАНСТВЕ: ЯЗЫК И ПОЛИТИК
Thematic issue INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY IN MODERN CIVILIZATION: LANGUAGE AND POLITICS
http://philjournal.ru 2021 No 4 28-37
Юридический медиадискурс: границы, структура, категории
Ю. В. Чеметева
Волгоградский государственный университет;
400062, Волгоград, Российская Федерация, проспект Университетский, 100; ORCID ГО: 0000-0002-9134-5789
Резюме: В статье рассматривается юридический медиадискурс как дискурсивный формат, возникший в результате взаимодействия юридического дискурса и дискурса медиа. Исследование нацелено на определение границ, структуры и категорий юридического медиадискурса. Материалом выступают тексты юридического медиадискурса, включая аналитические статьи по юриспруденции, нормативные правовые акты, новостные материалы и другие жанры, реализованные в рамках границ исследуемого дискурсивного формата. В исследовании применяются методы научного описания (приёмы систематизации и интерпретации), дискурсивный анализ, а также метод моделирования. Приводится обзор исследований в области юридического дискурса и медиадискурса, что помогает приблизиться к определению границ исследуемого формата, представляющего перспективное направление для дальнейших исследований. В результате систематизации теоретического и практического материала определены границы и структура юридического медиадискурса. Установлено, что границы юридического медиадискурса, представляющего собой гибридное дискурсивное образование, лежат в пределах пересечения юридического дискурса с дискурсом медиа. Образующееся дискурсивное пространство имеет полевую структуру (ядро, периферия) и представляет собой формат дискурса, конкретизирующий в себе два типа дискурса (юридический дискурс и дискурс медиа) и представленный в свою очередь разными жанрами. Предпринято описание категорий юридического медиадискурса, в основу которого легла предложенная В. И. Карасиком модель. Выявлены типовые участники коммуникации, их возможные пресуппозиции, сфера функционирования, хронотоп, цели и стратегии, жанровая организация. Отдельно поднимается вопрос реализации экспрессивной функции в юридическом медиадискурсе посредством использования разговорной и ненормативной лексики.
Ключевые слова: юридический медиадискурс, юридический дискурс, медиадискурс, границы дискурса, структура дискурса, категории дискурса, дискурсивный формат.
Благодарности. Исследование выполнено при финансовой поддержке РФФИ в рамках научного проекта № 20-312-90026.
Для цитирования: Чеметева Ю.В. Юридический медиадискурс: границы, структура, категории. Актуальные проблемы филологии и педагогической лингвистики. 2021. №4. С. 28-37.
* ©HeMereBaK).B.,2021.
[gv Q I This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License https://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/
Critical Review
DOI: 10.29025/2079-6021-2021-4-28-37
Legal Media Discourse: Boundaries, Structure, Categories
Yuliya V. Chemeteva
Volgograd State University;
400062, Volgograd, 100 Universitetskiy Ave., Russian Federation; ORCID ID: 0000-0002-9134-5789
Abstract: The paper considers legal media discourse as a discursive format that arose as a result of the interaction of legal discourse and media discourse. The research is aimed at defining the boundaries, structure and categories of legal media discourse. The material of the research are texts of legal media discourse including analytical articles on legal issues, regulatory legal acts, news materials and other genres implemented within the boundaries of the discursive format under study. The research applies methods of scientific description (systematization and interpretation), discursive analysis, as well as the simulation method. The paper provides an overview of research in the field of legal discourse and media discourse, which helps to get closer to defining the boundaries of the format under study, which represents a promising direction for further research. As a result of the systematization of the theoretical and practical material, the boundaries and structure of legal media discourse are determined. It is established that the boundaries of legal media discourse, which is a hybrid discursive formation, lie within the intersection of legal discourse with media discourse. The resulting discursive space has a field structure (core, periphery) and represents a discourse format that concretizes two types of discourse (legal discourse and media discourse) and is represented in turn by different genres. The article gives the description of the categories of legal media discourse, which is based on the model proposed by V. I. Karasik. The paper reveals typical participants of communication, their possible presuppositions, sphere of functioning, chronotope, goals and strategies, genre organization. The author also discusses the issue of implementing the expressive function in legal media discourse through the use of colloquial and obscene lexemes.
Keywords: legal media discourse, legal discourse, media discourse, discourse boundaries, discourse structure, discourse categories, discursive format.
Acknowledgements. The reported study was funded by RFBR, project number 20-312-90026.
For citation: Chemeteva Yu. V. Legal Media Discourse: Boundaries, Structure, Categories. Current Issues in Philology and Pedagogical Linguistics. 2021, no 4, pp. 28-37 (In Engl.)
Introduction
In the information age, the phenomenon of "media" has integrated into all spheres of society, resulting in the expansion of the media discourse hybrid space. An increasing number of areas of the media and social phenomena intersection are being formed driven by rapidly developing information technologies. Hybrid discursive formations appearing due to the interaction of media discourse with any institutional discourse are of particular interest to researchers. This article is devoted to the study of legal media discourse as a phenomenon that was formed at the intersection of legal discourse and media discourse.
Aim of the Paper
The article aims to define the boundaries, structure, and categories of legal media discourse in the framework of considering it as a discursive format that was formed due to the interaction of legal discourse and media discourse.
Research Methods
The research applies methods of scientific description (systematization and interpretation), discursive analysis, as well as the simulation method. The material of the research are texts of legal media discourse including analytical articles on legal issues, regulatory legal acts, news materials and other genres lying within the boundaries of legal media discourse.
Literature Review
The term "discourse" was introduced in 1952 by the American scientist Zelling Harris who also outlined the method of discourse analysis [1: 3]. The field of discourse research is reach with theoretical works, however this issue remains relevant to this day and arouses the interest of researchers. The works of such scientists as Teun A. van Dijk, V E. Chernyavskaya, V I. Karasik, M. L. Makarov, N. D. Arutyunova, E. S. Kubryakova, M. Foucault, Yu. S. Stepanov, O. V. Kosonogova, A. A. Karamova, P. Serio, M. Stubbs, S. Slebruk, I. B. Rupert, S. A. Danilova, V. V. Dementiev, N. Fairclough and others are devoted to the issues of discourse.
Being an interdisciplinary concept, discourse does not have a generally accepted definition that covers the widest range of its interpretation in various scientific systems. This is reflected in the idea of V. I. Karasik that "the concept of discourse has become broader than the concept of language" [2: 189]. S. Slebruk, explaining the essence of the concept of "discourse", draws analytical philosophy, stylistics and social linguistics, linguistic anthropology, contextualization theory, cultural studies, sociology and ethnomethodology, which also testifies to the multifacetedness and breadth of this concept [2: 189].
The multiplicity of approaches to interpreting the concept of discourse indicates both the versatility of this phenomenon and the fact that when studying a certain type of discourse, certain features of it that determine the application of one or another approach or transform an earlier existing approach are highlighted. A reasonable step to analyzing legal media discourse is the consideration of its components: legal discourse and media discourse. The issues of studying legal discourse were addressed by O. V. Kosonogova, M. V. Torgasheva, E. A. Kozhemyakin, A.V. Chernyshev, O. A. Krapivkina, L. A. Nepomilov, I. V. Palashevskaya, L. V. Kole-snikova, P. M. Tiersma, P. Goodrich, V. Yu. Turanin, T. N. Khomutova and others. Media discourse is the object of research in the works of E. A. Kozhemyakin, E. N. Basovskaya, A.A. Kibrik, N. Fairclough, M. Talbot, N. I. Klushina, A.V. Polonskiy, T. G. Dobrosklonskaya, M. R. Zheltukhina, D. Crystal, L. B. Temnikova and others.
As for the study of the essence of media discourse, currently scientific thought expresses two points of view [3: 16]. On the one hand, media discourse is considered as one of the specific discourses, such as pedagogical, scientific, religious, political, etc. On the other hand, media discourse is interpreted as "any type of discourse implemented in the field of mass communication, produced by the media". Adhering to the second point of view, E. A. Kozhemyakin defines media discourse as "thematically focused, socioculturally conditioned speech-thinking activity in the mass media space" [3: 16]. This point of view is also supported by N. I. Klushina: "The media discourse space consists of areas of intersections of media and politics (political media discourse), media and science (scientific media discourse), media and law (legal media discourse), media and religion (religious media discourse), etc." [4: 68]. Based on this concept, we assume that institutional discourses implemented by means of mass media can be considered as media discourses with a definite subject orientation while acting as separate discursive formations. It is worth noting that one or another institutional discourse is not fully implemented in the mass media. It is the volume of the resulting discursive space at the intersection of media discourse with any special discourse that is considered the mass media sphere of this special discourse.
Thus, the global media discourse space represents the areas of various discourses implemented on media platforms or an integral formation within which contexts from various fields of activity coexist. M. R. Zhel-tukhina provides a comprehensive definition of the concept of media discourse: "verbal or nonverbal, oral or written text in combination with pragmatic, sociocultural, psychological and other factors expressed by mass media, taken in an event aspect, representing an action participating in sociocultural interaction and reflecting the mechanism of consciousness of communicants" [5: 293]. The subject component caused by one or another sphere varies within the framework of media discourse, which is why we can consider it a heterogeneous formation. Depending on the sphere covered, media discourse has many so-called subtypes: legal media discourse, economic, political, tourist, medical media discourses, etc. Media discourse can be fairly considered one of the most productive discourses in terms of generating hybrid-type discursive formations.
In this study, media discourse is considered as an integral formation, within which contexts from various fields of activity coexist. As for the understanding of legal discourse, nowadays there is a tendency for a broad
interpretation of its boundaries (M. A. Silanova, A. E. Bosov, D. N. Shlepnev, A. S. Glishchenko, A. S. Averin). A. S. Glishchenko uses the terms "professional legal discourse" and "popular legal discourse" in his works [6: 106-107]. The understanding of legal discourse is no longer limited to the sphere of legislation, court procedure and professional legal communication, but also includes explanatory communication aimed at those who are not experts in the field of law. In this regard, the comprehensive definition of O. V Kosonogova seems relevant to this study: "legal discourse is a special type of institutional discourse, the semiotic space of which is characterized by a set of verbal and nonverbal signs (and their verbal correlates) forming both institutional and non-institutional forms of communication in which the subject, addressee or content (or at least one of these components) relate to the field of jurisprudence and/or occur within the intersection of this discourse with other types of discourse (historical, political, pedagogical, military, media discourse, artistic discourse, etc.)" [7: 66]. This definition fairly notes the complex of verbal and non-verbal signs, the proximity of institutional and non-institutional forms of communication, and, most importantly, the possibility of intersection of legal discourse with other institutional types of discourse. These factors indicate the potential of legal discourse to interact with other discourses and the formation of new discursive forms, which is also true in relation to media discourse.
A comprehensive description of legal media discourse has not been presented in science to date, but there are significant developments in this area. The works of M. A. Silanova, G. B. Noruzova, V. N. Shashkova, Yu. N. Gritskevich, A. S. Shuba consider the issues of legal media discourse. The works of A. S. Averin, A. S. Glishchenko, D. S. Medvedev, and O. G. Shchitova, whose subject of research is the so-called popular legal discourse, are also of great interest.
G. B. Noruzova, emphasizing the interdiscursive nature of legal media discourse, notes that it combines "a wide field of public relations: political, economic, cultural, sports, medical, etc." [8: 5]. V. N. Shashkova in her research identifies typical models of interdiscursive interaction of hybrid texts, highlighting elements of legal discourse proper (terms and term combinations related to the legal sphere, manifestation of normative assessments expressed by evaluative adjectives and nouns in the fabric of texts) and media discourse (abbreviations, lexemes of reduced stylistic register, syntactic parallelism, metonymy and metaphor, phrasal verbs, par-cellation) [9: 123]. In the study of Yu. N. Gritskevich, the focus is on the issues of decoding and interpretation of regulatory legal acts by participants of legal media discourse [10: 67-77]. A. S. Shuba and M. V. Merkulova investigate the issue of the functioning of legal terms in the field of mass media in terms of terminology me-diatization [11; 12].
The study by M. A. Silanova presents a description of legal media discourse based on the analysis of its key verbal components - nodal points and media concepts. By the nodal point, the author understands "a privileged sign around which other signs are arranged and acquire their meaning" [13: 53-57]. The researcher uses concepts of legal discourse, media concepts and terms as nodal points to describe legal media discourse. M. A. Silanova has proposed the following definition of legal media discourse: "a specific sphere of the intersection of law and media, which is aimed at interpreting and integrating the letter of the law into everyday reality" [13: 104].
A. S. Averin considers the issue of a broad understanding of legal discourse and analyzes works focused on this direction. The researcher comments on M. A. Silanova's work and states that legal media discourse "is not an independent type of any kind of discourse and has a rather conditional relation to legal discourse" [14: 8]. This thesis casts doubt on considering legal media discourse as an independent type of communication. A. S. Averin considers legal media discourse as a subject-oriented area of media discourse, as "media discourse raising legal issues" [14: 7-8]. At the same time, the author identifies popular legal discourse as an independent type of legal discourse and positions it on the same level with the "traditional" professional legal discourse [14: 14]. The researcher defines popular legal discourse as "verbal interaction on practical issues of law enforcement aimed at explaining legal norms and practice of law enforcement by professional lawyers to persons who do not have legal knowledge, carried out mainly in writing through the publication of texts on the Internet and printed publications and characterized by a simplified and maximally understandable language" [14: 13-14].
The main difference between popular legal discourse and legal media discourse within the framework of the concepts considered is that the main function of popular legal discourse is interpretation, clarification, whereas within the framework of legal media discourse, texts with primarily informative or appellative functions can function as well: published laws, court decisions, contracts, certificates, etc. It seems that the concept of legal media discourse is broader than the concept of popular legal discourse, and the latter can be considered as a subdiscourse functioning within the framework of the former.
Results and discussion
Legal media discourse is an integral discursive formation, the result of the interaction of legal discourse and media discourse. Legal discourse, according to E. A. Kozhemyakin, "unfolds" in the interinstitutional and intercultural environment and "serves" other institutions, providing social control and regulating institutional relations [15: 132]. This thesis leads to the conclusion that legal discourse is closely connected with the values of society, with political, economic, and other spheres. Returning to the understanding of media discourse as an integral formation incorporating contexts from various fields of activity, which allows considering it as an interinstitutional formation, as well as legal discourse, we note a certain similarity of these discourses in their potential for convergence and interaction with other discourses. However, their fundamental difference should be mentioned: media discourse while interacting with other discourses acts mainly as a platform for communication, which correlates with the idea of form; and legal discourse in contact with other discourses, as a rule, translates its subject orientation, that is, it represents content. An integral discursive formation is always a unity of content and form. Merging in legal media discourse, legal discourse and media discourse organically form a full-fledged discursive format. N. Fairclough states: "I would argue that one cannot properly analyse content without simultaneously analysing form, because contents are always necessarily verbalized in forms, and different contents entail different forms and vice versa. In brief, form is a part of content." [16: 194].
Within the framework of legal media discourse, where the interaction of legal discourse and media discourse takes place, it is possible to conditionally define the roles of the constituent discourses in relation to form and content: legal discourse is focused on filling in the content, media discourse, as a rule, acts as a leader in the construction of the form. However, in this case the separation of roles is conditional, since on the one hand, the leading concepts of media discourse influence the subject component of the discursive format products, on the other hand, the strictness of the form of presenting information in some genres (for example, analytical ones) is due to the participation of legal discourse in the construction of the discursive format. The relevant opinion is expressed by E. A. Kozhemyakin: in the media space content and the method of description are determined by the subject, and the subject, the choice of it are conditioned in turn by media discourse acting as a "mode of knowledge production" [3: 17].
Science pays close attention to the study of legal discourse, though the most attractive materials for researchers remain the texts of laws and regulatory legal acts, court communication and so on, while texts of legal discourse in the media space remain a less studied area. It is worth noting that the formation of public legal awareness necessarily involves ordinary interpretation of legal issues, which provides understanding of legal discourse for citizens who do not have expertise in the field of law, while official and professional interpretation are of interest mainly for such participants of the discourse as lawyers and jurists. Mediatization makes it possible to disseminate the interpretation of legal categories among non-professional participants of the discourse. Due to the mediatization of part of legal discourse, a sphere of the law and media intersection, which is aimed at clarifying legal issues in relation to everyday reality, has been formed. While the goals of legal discourse are "control and regulation of social reality", the global goal of legal media discourse is forming a legal picture of the world in public consciousness. Acting as a convenient, accessible means of obtaining information, the media plays a crucial role in achieving this goal and provides assistance to communicants in overcoming obstacles to understanding legal discourse (stylistics, terminology, abundance of clerical forms, etc.).
V. I. Karasik identifies the system of public social institutions as one of the criteria for distinguishing varieties of discourse [2: 203]. Legal media discourse correlates with the public institute of law, or the legal institute, covering its area that is broadcast in the media. Mediatization involves a large number of legal texts: not only explanatory materials on legal issues, but also laws themselves, court decisions, and various legal documents are published in the media. It can be assumed that normative legal acts and other texts published in the media, generated in the course of professional communication in the field of law, are also part of legal media discourse, though in this case the media acts as a channel for transmitting or broadcasting such texts and does not affect their discursive genre and communicative and pragmatic characteristics. The question is in the attribution or degree of attribution of such texts to the sphere of legal media discourse. This issue is solved by referring to the field structure of discourse: the allocation of the core and the peripheral zone of legal media discourse (figure 1). We denote the media discourse space with a dotted circle. It seems that this object becomes information-packed due to the intersection with other circles - specialized discourses. In order to idealize the simulated object, we indicate only the intersection with legal discourse. At the intersection of legal discourse (smooth circle) with media discourse (unbroken circle), legal media discourse, a hybrid discursive formation,
is formed. It seems reasonable to highlight the core and peripheral zones in this discursive area. The presented model allows ranking texts withinlegalmedia discoiesebased onthedegreeofproximitytothecoreorperiph-ery. Thus, textd an wtiich tba mehsa ante onSy ax a trai^^n^i^^w^ or baoadeast chamiet lie on the perinhery oh legal media discourse. Genres implementing the function of ordinary interpretation are located closer to the core area since in this case,the mahfa acds not oaOh ana meats of blsh^t^tibag the text bug nlso airectly panticlpotes ix the formation of genan algraeterisnae.
Figure1. Schematic representationof the fieldstructure oflegalmedia discourse
The simulation method makes it possible to present a schematic designation of legal media discourse boundaries, however, it should be taken into account that discourse boundaries are conditional and are mainly in the minds of its participants. According to V I. Karasik, "there are concepts of a certain discourse, its types and genres in our consciousness" [2: 202]. The researcher, continuing his reasoning in line with cognitive science, calls discourse a prototype, a gestalt, a cognitive formation [2: 205], which implies that boundaries of discourse types are subjective. Communicants typify discourse with the help of "idealized models of evaluated discursive events" that have developed in their minds [2: 22]. It is obvious that in some cases assigning a certain type occurs unconsciously and serves to enable a communicant to build his communicative behavior within a certain discourse. These idealized models are supposed to be formed from the empirical experience of the communicant'sinteraction withother participantsofcommunicationinsociety.
To describe the structure of legal media discourse, we apply the pattern introduced by V. I. Karasik. The researcher criticizes the term "functional style" and offers an alternative to it - "discourse format", which is understood as "a type of discourse distinguished on the basis of communicative distance, the degree of speaker's self-expression, established social institutions, communication register, and cliched linguistic means" [2: 205]. Discourse format is a concretization of discourse type and, in turn, is concretized by speech genres. In relation to our research these provisions allow us to systematically correlate the levels of the discursive planes under consideration. It seems that the discourse types are legal discourse and media discourse. These types combine into a format - legal media discourse, which, in its turn, is represented by different genres.
V. I. Karasik highlights discourse categories, relying on the communicative approach in linguistics [2: 200-201]. Comparing various concepts of pragmalinguistics and sociolinguistics (R. Bell, V. G. Gak, J. Searle, I. P. Susov, D. Hymes, etc.), the researcher identifies the following categories of discourse: 1) communication participants (status and role and situational and communicative characteristics), 2) communication conditions (presuppositions, communication sphere, chronotope, communicative environment), 3) communication organization (motives, goals and strategies, deployment and division, communication control and variability of communicative means), 4) communication methods (channel and mode, tonality, style and genre of communication) [2: 200-201].
Typical participants of communication in legal media discourse include legal experts, on the one hand, and a wide range of recipients interested in legal issues, on the other hand. Everyone who has an opportunity to
access the media can take part in legal media discourse. It is worth noting that within the framework of legal media discourse, the author of the media text acts not only as an addressee. They can also act as a recipient, since they also consume information broadcast by the media.
As for the presupposition, it varies depending on the communicant's role and the communicative situation. In case of the recipient, we can assume the need to understand the basics of the legal system in the state of citizenship or residence, issues related to basic legislative regulation, basic legal terms (law, constitution, arbitration, regulatory legal act, etc.). As a rule, in legal media discourse the addressee does not have special knowledge in the field of law. They act on the basis of their knowledge based on everyday experience. The experts, who are the authors of legal media discourse texts, are supposed to know the subject at a high level. It is worth noting that due to different presuppositions of communicants within the discourse, professional legal vocabulary can be used along with colloquial lexemes [14: 10].
In addition to providing the recipient's understanding, the use of colloquial vocabulary in legal media discourse also implements an expressive function, for which even obscene lexemes can sometimes be used, especially when quoting someone else's speech. Let's consider an example:
"With businesses facing fines of £10,000 or even closure if they fail to comply with coronavirus regulations, the government has been under pressure to set out exactly what constitutes a proper meal. In October, the housing secretary, Robert Jenrick, said a Cornish pasty counted as a meal only if it came with sides, while police in Manchester found themselves at the centre of the confusion when they stopped a pizzeria from serving single slices, only to back down after the restaurant pointed out that they were "fucking massive""1.
In the example given, legal vocabulary (fines, comply with coronavirus regulations) is adjacent to colloquial (fail to do something, back down) and even obscene ("fucking massive") lexemes.
The expressive function in general should be considered as an indirect manifestation in legal media discourse. However, in texts that are closer to the core of legal media discourse in terms of its field structure we can find a lot of examples of using linguistic means aimed at expression. This fact is substantiated by the pragmatic characteristics of media discourse. Let's consider an example:
"Quarantined in their houses or masked up in grocery stores, the ultimate fantasy wasn't about going somewhere else but somewhen else: closing their eyes and opening them again to learn that a vaccine had magically been approved. Climbing into a pod and setting the open-date for whenever daily life didn't require a keg of Purell. Would it always be Blursday? Or would we, like Bill Murray, one day open our eyes to an alarm clock that flipped to something new?2".
Metaphors, allusions, epithets that are not characteristic of the legal language, in the texts of legal media discourse implement their pragmatic potential, reduce the distance between the addresser and the addressee.
As for the sphere of legal media discourse, it focuses on the field of communication, the subject of which relates to law, and which is implemented through media platforms.
The chronotope of legal media discourse can be characterized as a parameter determined by the genre and subject of the text, the communicative situation. In any case, the distance between discourse participants is implied, since texts of this discourse are mediated by media platforms, and participants have access to them from almost any location and at any time. The communicative environment of legal media discourse is determined by media platforms and the legal context associated with the sphere of life regulated by law and acting as the subject of communication in the discourse [17: 47].
One of the goals of legal media discourse can be articulated based on the reasoning of A. S. Averin on popular legal discourse [14: 14] as an explanation of issues related to law in simple terms. It is also important to note the focus of some legal media discourse texts on informing the addressee or exerting influence.
Strategies for implementing the goal of explanation in popular legal discourse are comprehensively described by A. S. Averin: description of legal terms; consistent explanation of legal actions and the content of documents; refusal to use complicated professional terms; structuring of the text by highlighting paragraphs, using subheadings, using means of cohesion and discourse markers to make the logic of information presenta-
1 The Guardian. URL: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/01/scotch-egg-is-definitely-a-substantial-meal-says-michael-gove (accessed August 26, 2021).
2 The Washington Post. URL: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/inauguration-day-kamala-harris-joe-biden-time-ma-chine/2021/01/19/b483c880-5a6e-11eb-8bcf-3877871c819d_story.html?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=e-mail&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F2eb-9b30%2F600866199d2fda0efbb87990%2F5ce44d18ae7e8a1ac4137f81%2F49%2F71%2F600866199d2fda0efbb87990 (accessed August 26, 2021).
tion more understandable; simplification of syntax [14: 10]. Here is an example of implementing the strategy of explaining the content of legal documents:
"The centerpiece of the plan from Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala D. Harris is the eight-year pathway, which would put millions of qualifying immigrants in a temporary status for five years and then grant them a green card once they meet certain requirements such as a background check and payment of taxes. They would be able to apply for citizenship three years later"3.
As legal media discourse seems to be a more complex concept and also includes legal texts broadcast on media platforms, strategies for implementing the goal of explanation may not imply simplification. Thus, in legislative acts, when defining terms, this strategy can be implemented as follows:
"Meaning of "trigger event" and "acquirer"
(1) For the purposes of this Act, a "trigger event" takes place when —
(a) a person gains control of a qualifying entity, as set out in section 8, or
(b) a person gains control of a qualifying asset, as set out in section 9.
(2) In this Act "acquirer" means the person who gains the control referred to in subsection (1) (or in relation to a trigger event that has not yet taken place, would gain that control)"4.
Informing involves broadcasting a text related to the implementation of law (any regulatory legal act, document). Commenting on the correlation of the published information with legislative norms is also possible. This strategy is implemented, for example, through publishing legislative acts in the media:
"Plastic packaging tax is charged at the rate of £200 per metric tonne of chargeable plastic packaging components of a single specification"5.
The strategy of exerting influence is implemented by appealing to the force of the law and possible legal consequences in case of ignoring the appeal. Let's provide an example:
"Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.
Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than 15 years6".
This strategy can also manifest itself in the texts of legal regulations published by the media or in their interpretation by experts.
One of the most important characteristics in analyzing the structure of discourse is its genre organization. The genre composition of legal media discourse represents a combination of genres of legal discourse broadcast on media platforms and genres of media discourse the texts of which are focused on the subject area of law. Thus, within the framework of legal media discourse, all genres of legal discourse can potentially be implemented by publishing them in the media and all genres of media discourse, if the subject of the text is the law. Consequently, the genre system of the hybrid discursive format under study represents a set of genres of legal discourse and media discourse.
Conclusion
The systematization of the results of research in the field of discourse allowed us to define the boundaries and structure of legal media discourse. The boundaries of legal media discourse are determined by the intersection of legal discourse and media discourse. The resulting discursive formation has a field structure (core, periphery) and represents a discourse format that concretizes in itself two types of discourse (legal dis-
3 The Washington Post. URL: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-immigration-plan/2021/01/18/f0526824-59a8-11eb-a976-bad6431e03e2_story.html?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&-carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F2eaef84%2F6007094c9d2fda0efbb6d792%2F5ce44d18ae7e-8a1ac4137f81%2F27%2F70%2F6007094c9d2fda0efbb6d792 (accessed August 27, 2021).
4 National Security and Investment Act 2021. UK Public General Acts 2021 c. 25 PART 1 CHAPTER 2 Section 5. URL: https://www. legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2021/25/section/5 (accessed September 3, 2021).
5 Finance Act 2021. UK Public General Acts 2021 c. 26 PART 2. URL: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2021/26/part/2 (accessed September 3, 2021).
6 TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Enacted by act June 25, 1948, ch. 645, §1, 62 Stat. 683. URL: https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title18/pdf/USCODE-2011-title18.pdf (accessed September 2, 2021).
course and media discourse) and is represented in its turn by different genres. In the course of analyzing the research material, a description of legal media discourse categories was undertaken in terms of considering it as a discursive format that arose due to the interaction of legal discourse and media discourse. The following categories were described: typical communication participants, their possible presuppositions, the sphere of functioning, chronotope, goals and strategies, genre organization.
Список литературы
1. Harris Z. Discourse analysis. Language. 1952; 1 (28): 1-30.
2. Карасик В.И. Языковой круг: личность, концепты, дискурс. Волгоград: Перемена; 2002: 477.
3. Кожемякин Е.А. Массовая коммуникация и медиадискурс: к методологии исследования. Научные ведомости Белгород. гос. ун-та. Сер. Гуманитарные науки. 2010; 2 (73); 11: 16.
4. Клушина Н.И. Медиатизация современной культуры и русский национальный стиль. Русская речь. 2014; 1: 66-73.
5. Желтухина М.Р. Медиадискурс. Дискурс-Пи. 2016; 3-4: 292-296.
6. Глищенко А.С. Функции юридического дискурса: инструментальный и онтологический аспекты. Актуальные проблемы гуманитарных и социально-экономических наук. 2019; 6 (13): 104-107.
7. Косоногова О.В. Характеристики юридического дискурса: границы, содержание, параметры. Историческая и социально-образовательная мысль. 2015; 1 (7): 61-68.
8. Норузова Г. Б. Лексико-семантические особенности юридического дискурса, опосредованного СМИ. Духовность и ментальность: экология языка и культуры на рубеже XX-XXI веков. Сборник статей по материалам Международной научно-практической конференции, посвящённой педагогической и научной деятельности проф. Галины Васильевны Звёздовой и приуроченной к её юбилею. Липецк: Липецкий государственный педагогический университет имени П.П. Семенова-Тян-Шанского; 2017: 246-250.
9. Шашкова В.Н. специфика языкового оформления юридического дискурса в средствах массовой коммуникации. Russian Linguistic Bulletin. 2020; 4 (24): 122-125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18454/ RULB.2020.24.4.6.
10. Грицкевич Ю.Н. Язык права в современном массмедийном пространстве. Актуальные проблемы исследования коммуникационных аспектов PR-деятельности и журналистики. Сборник материалов IV Международного научного семинара. Псков, Псковский государственный университет; 2020: 67-78.
11. Шуба А.С. Медиатизация юридических терминов в дискурсе современных СМИ (на материале английского языка). Studium Juvenis. Межвузовский сборник трудов молодых ученых. Челябинск, 2018: 61-63.
12. Меркулова М.В. Функционирование юридической терминологии в медиадискурсе: медиатизция или детерминологизация. Правоохранительные органы: теория и практика. 2021; 1 (40): 184-185.
13. Силанова М.А. Медиатизация юридических терминов в дискурсе современных СМИ: Дисс. ... канд. филол. наук. Москва; 2016: 260.
14. Аверин А.С. Популярно-юридический дискурс: формирование концепции. Филология и культура. 2020; 1 (59): 6-18. DOI: 10.26907/2074-0239-2020-59-1-6-18.
15. Кожемякин Е.А. Юридический дискурс как культурный феномен: структура и смыслообразова-ние. Юрислингвистика. 2011; 11 (1): 131-145.
16. Fairclough N. Critical discourse analysis. L.: Longman, 1995: 193-216.
17. Резанова З.И. Введение в дискурс-анализ. Томск: Изд-во ТПУ, 2015: 107.
References
1. Harris Z. Discourse analysis. Language. 1952; 1 (28): 1-30.
2. Karasik VI. Language Circle: Personality, Concepts, Discourse. Volgograd: Peremena; 2002: 477.
3. Kozhemyakin EA. Mass Communication and Media Discourse: Towards Methodology. Scientific bulletin Belgorod. State University. Ser. Humanitarian sciences. 2010; 2 (73); 11: 16.
4. Klushina NI. Mediatization of Modern Culture and Russian National Style. Russian Speech. 2014; 1: 66-73.
5. Zheltuhina MR. Media Discourse. Discourse-P. 2016; 3-4: 292-296.
6. Glishchenko AS. Instrumental and Ontological Aspects of the Legal Dicourse Functions. Actual problems of the humanities and socio-economic sciences. 2019; 6 (13): 104-107.
7. Kosonogova OV. Characteristics of Discourse of Law: Boundaries, Content, Parameters. Historical and Social-Educational Idea. 2015; 1 (7): 61-68.
8. Noruzova GB. Lexical and Semantic Features of Legal Discourse Mediated by the Media. Spirituality and Mentality: Ecology of Language and Culture at the Turn of the XX-XXI Centuries. Proceedings of the International Scientific and Practical Conference Dedicated to the Pedagogical and Scientific Activities of Professor Galina V Zvezdova and Timed to Her Anniversary. Lipetsk: Lipetsk State Pedagogical University named after P.P. Semenov-Tyan-Shanskiy; 2017: 246-250.
9. Shashkova VN. Specific Language of the Legal Discourse in the Mass Media. Russian Linguistic Bulletin. 2020; 4 (24): 122-125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18454/RULB.2020.24A6.
10. Grickevich YN. Language of Law in Modern Mass Media Space. Current Problems of Research of Communication Aspects of PR Activity and Journalism. Proceedings of the IV International Scientific Seminar. Pskov, Pskov State University; 2020: 67-78
11. Shuba AS. Mediatization of Legal Terms in the Discourse of Modern Mass Media (Based on the English Language). Studium Juvenis. Interuniversity Collection of Works of Young Scientists. Chelyabinsk, 2018: 61-63.
12. Merkulova MV Functioning of the Legal Terminology in the Media Discourse: Mediatization or Deter-minologization. Law enforcement agencies: theory and practice. 2021; 1 (40): 184-185.
13. Silanova MA. Mediatization of Legal Terms in the Discourse of Modern Mass Media. Cand. philol. sci. diss. Moscow; 2016: 260.
14. Averin AS. Popular Legal Discourse: Development of the Conception. Philology and Culture. 2020; 1 (59): 6-18. DOI: 10.26907/2074-0239-2020-59-1-6-18.
15. Kozhemyakin EA. Legal Discourse as a Cultural Phenomenon: Structure and Meaning Formation. Legal Linguistics. 2011; 11 (1): 131-145.
16. Fairclough N. Critical Discourse Analysis. L.: Longman, 1995: 193-216.
17. Rezanova ZI. Introduction to Discourse Analysis. Tomsk: Izd-vo TPU, 2015: 107.
История статьи:
Получена: 20.10.2021 Принята: 15.11.2021 Опубликована онлайн: 25.12.2021
Article history:
Received: 20.10.2021 Accepted: 15.11.2021 Published online: 25.12.2021
Сведения об авторе:
Чеметева Юлия Владимировна, ассистент кафедры теории и практики перевода, Волгоградский государственный университет, Волгоград, Российская Федерация; e-mail: chemeteva@volsu.ru.
Bionote:
Yuliya V. Chemetеva, Instructor, Department of translation theory and practice, Volgograd State University, Russian Federation; e-mail: chemeteva@volsu.ru.
