Linguistic and pragmatic aspects of communication in the modern media world

Liudmyla Mialkovska; Vita Sternichuk; Anzhelika Yanovets; Аlla Hubina; Natalia Kyseliuk; Iryna Zabiiaka; Yuliya Kriukova

doi:10.31893/multiscience.2024ss0709

Keywords:

ecological communication

ecological vocabulary

ecological discourse

media communications

linguistic analysis

nonecological communication

Abstract

Taking into account the purposeful activity of modern man, his acquisition of huge masses of information during a short period, the communication aspect of communication in the business sphere has gradually turned from a means of enjoyment, length, and unhurried language interaction into a means of accurate, short and simultaneous full communication of a problem, initiative, proposal. Communication pragmatics came to the aid of such language transformations. The article proves that pragmalinguistics studies speech communication as a manifestation of speech activity – purposeful influence on each other (persuasion, persuasion, request for information, etc.) using language. To achieve their communicative goals, depending on the context and situation, their communicative roles, the speaker and the addressee use certain speech acts (written as sentences) corresponding to these goals – stating facts, encouraging action, etc. It is scientifically determined that the emergence of ecolinguistics is due to the need to solve the problems of interaction between language, man and nature. It is indicated that it covers extremely diverse research that reflects the importance of environmental issues in society. The attention paid to issues of environmental protection at all levels of society, and as a result, the relevance of environmental issues, as well as the peculiarities of communication in the field of environmental protection, allow us to distinguish a separate type of discourse - ecological, which is characterized by the constant addition of the ecological glossary, the emergence of special axiological units, the presence of separate status models - role configuration, which determine the use of certain communicative strategies in specific communicative situations. It was highlighted in practice that the main discourse-creating concepts in environmental discourse are environment, pollution, energy, and climate change, which constitute the semantic base of communication in the field of environmental protection.
References
1. Akimova, N., Akimova, A., Akimova, A. (2022). The study of the genesis of internet texts understanding in adolescence depending on the level of mental and speech development. Psycholinguistics, 31(1), 6-24. https://doi.org/10.31470/2309-1797-2022-31-1-6-24
2. Baylo, Y. (2011). Cognitive direction as a new approach to language learning. Bulletin of the Chernivtsi National University, 3 5-8.
3. Boldyrev, N. N. (2000). Cognitive semantics: a course of lectures on philology. Ternopil.
4. Center for Environmental Initiatives Ekodia. https://ecoaction.org.ua/
5. Chenki, A. (1997). Semantics in cognitive linguistics. Fundamental directions of modern American linguistics. Kibrika, A. A., Kobozeva, I. M., Sekerina, I. A. (Ed.). Kyiv, 340 p.
6. Discourse as a cognitive-communicative phenomenon (2005). General ed. I. S. Shevchenko, Constanta. Kharkiv.
7. Environmental Communication. https://www.tandfonline.com/journals/renc2
8. Fauconnier, G. (1994). Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 190 p.
9. Green Web Foundation. https://www.thegreenwebfoundation.org/
10. Huzenko, T. A. (2012). Strengthening the role of social networks in ecological communication. Scientific Notes. Ukrainian Academy of Printing. 3, 15-23. http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/Nz_2012_3_5
11. International Communication Association. https://www.icahdq.org/group/envirocomm
12. Jackendoff, R. (1988). Conceptual Semantics. Meaning and Mental Representations. U. Eco, M. Santambrogio (ed.), PTVioli. Bloomington.
13. Johnson-Laird, Ph. N. (1980). Mental models in cognitive science. Cognitive science, 4, 71-115.
14. Kyseliuk N., Yanovets, A. (2023). Analysis of communication through the prism of emotional ecolinguistics (on the basis of contemporary english discourse). Current issues of humanitarian sciences: interuniversity collection of scientific works of young scientists of Ivan Franko Drohobych State Pedagogical University. Drohobych: Helvetika Publishing House, 60(5), 23-28.
15. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 614 p.
16. Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical prerequisites, 1. Redwood: Stanford University Press, 540 p.
17. Meisner, M. (2020). Environmental communication: what it is and why it matters. https://www.theieca.org/resources/environmental-communicationwhat-it-and-why-it-matters
18. Mialkovska, L., Yanovets, A., Solohub, L., Pochapska, O., Reshetnik, H. (2022). Cognitive and Pragmatic Aspects of Media Text in the Digital Context. International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, 22(1), 485-490. https://doi.org/10.22937/IJCSNS.2022.22.1.63
19. Mialkovska, L., Zhvania, L., Rozhylo, M., Yablonskyy, M., Hrysiuk, V. (2023). Digital Tools in Teaching the Mass Media Language. World Journal of English Language, 13(4), 43-48. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v13n4p43
20. Milstein, T., Pileggi, M., Morgan, E. (Eds.). (2017). Environmental Communication Pedagogy and Practice (1st ed.). Routledge, 298 р.
21. Popov, O. O., Kyrylenko, Y. O., Kameneva, I. P., Iatsyshyn, A. V., Iatsyshyn, A. V., Kovach, V. O., Kiv, A. E. (2022). The use of specialized software for liquid radioactive material spills simulation to teach students and postgraduate students. Paper presented at the CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 3085, 306-322.
22. Popova, N. M. (2013). Modeling of the national conceptosphere: semantic analysis and cognitive interpretation. Problems of word, sentence and text semantics, 31, 198-206.
23. Prometheus. https://prometheus.org.ua/
24. Rozmaritsa, I. (2000). Linguistic aspects of environmental issues. Materials of the conference Linguistics and verbal communication in the 21st century: trends and perspectives, Logos, Kyiv, May 16-17, 55-57.
25. Rozmaritsa, I. O. (2001). Axiologically labeled units in ecological discourse. Linguistic and conceptual pictures of the world: Collection. of science works, Logos, Kyiv, 199-202.
26. Rozmaritsa, I. O. (2002). Verbal representation of the climate change concept in the English-speaking picture of the world. Linguistic and conceptual pictures of the world: Collection. of science Pract., Logos, Kyiv, 440-447.
27. Rozmaritsa, I. O. (2004). Linguistic features of communication in the field of ecology autoref. Thesis candidate philol. Sciences: spec. 10.02.04 Germanic Languages, Kyiv, 15 p.
28. Sandmen, P. (1972). Who Should Police Environmental Advertising? Columbia Journalism Review, January/February, 41-47.
29. Schank, R. C., Abelson R. P. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale: N. J., 248 p.
30. Selivanova, O. O. (2006). Modern linguistics: a terminological encyclopedia. Dozvillia-K, Poltava, 716 p.
31. Selivanova, O. O. (2010). Linguistic encyclopedia, Dovkillya-K, Poltava, 844 p.
32. Shytyk, L., & Akimova, A. (2020). Ways of transferring the internal speech of characters: Psycholinguistic projection. Psycholinguistics, 27(2), 361-384. https://doi.org/10.31470/2309-1797-2020-27-2-361-384
33. Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge: A Bradford Book. The MIT Press, 1 (Concept Structuring Systems), 565 p.
34. The International Environmental Communication Association. https://theieca.org/
35. The Journal of Environmental Education. https://www.tandfonline.com/journals/vjee2

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

How to cite

Mialkovska, L., Sternichuk, V., Yanovets, A., Hubina А., Kyseliuk, N., Zabiiaka, I., & Kriukova, Y. (2024). Linguistic and pragmatic aspects of communication in the modern media world. Multidisciplinary Science Journal, 6, 2024ss0709. https://doi.org/10.31893/multiscience.2024ss0709

[1] Akimova, N., Akimova, A., Akimova, A. (2022). The study of the genesis of internet texts understanding in adolescence depending on the level of mental and speech development. Psycholinguistics, 31(1), 6-24. https://doi.org/10.31470/2309-1797-2022-31-1-6-24

[2] Baylo, Y. (2011). Cognitive direction as a new approach to language learning. Bulletin of the Chernivtsi National University, 3 5-8.

[3] Boldyrev, N. N. (2000). Cognitive semantics: a course of lectures on philology. Ternopil.

[4] Center for Environmental Initiatives Ekodia. https://ecoaction.org.ua/

[5] Chenki, A. (1997). Semantics in cognitive linguistics. Fundamental directions of modern American linguistics. Kibrika, A. A., Kobozeva, I. M., Sekerina, I. A. (Ed.). Kyiv, 340 p.

[6] Discourse as a cognitive-communicative phenomenon (2005). General ed. I. S. Shevchenko, Constanta. Kharkiv.

[7] Environmental Communication. https://www.tandfonline.com/journals/renc2

[8] Fauconnier, G. (1994). Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 190 p.

[9] Green Web Foundation. https://www.thegreenwebfoundation.org/

[10] Huzenko, T. A. (2012). Strengthening the role of social networks in ecological communication. Scientific Notes. Ukrainian Academy of Printing. 3, 15-23. http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/Nz_2012_3_5

[11] International Communication Association. https://www.icahdq.org/group/envirocomm

[12] Jackendoff, R. (1988). Conceptual Semantics. Meaning and Mental Representations. U. Eco, M. Santambrogio (ed.), PTVioli. Bloomington.

[13] Johnson-Laird, Ph. N. (1980). Mental models in cognitive science. Cognitive science, 4, 71-115.

[14] Kyseliuk N., Yanovets, A. (2023). Analysis of communication through the prism of emotional ecolinguistics (on the basis of contemporary english discourse). Current issues of humanitarian sciences: interuniversity collection of scientific works of young scientists of Ivan Franko Drohobych State Pedagogical University. Drohobych: Helvetika Publishing House, 60(5), 23-28.

[15] Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 614 p.

[16] Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical prerequisites, 1. Redwood: Stanford University Press, 540 p.

[17] Meisner, M. (2020). Environmental communication: what it is and why it matters. https://www.theieca.org/resources/environmental-communicationwhat-it-and-why-it-matters

[18] Mialkovska, L., Yanovets, A., Solohub, L., Pochapska, O., Reshetnik, H. (2022). Cognitive and Pragmatic Aspects of Media Text in the Digital Context. International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, 22(1), 485-490. https://doi.org/10.22937/IJCSNS.2022.22.1.63

[19] Mialkovska, L., Zhvania, L., Rozhylo, M., Yablonskyy, M., Hrysiuk, V. (2023). Digital Tools in Teaching the Mass Media Language. World Journal of English Language, 13(4), 43-48. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v13n4p43

[20] Milstein, T., Pileggi, M., Morgan, E. (Eds.). (2017). Environmental Communication Pedagogy and Practice (1st ed.). Routledge, 298 р.

[21] Popov, O. O., Kyrylenko, Y. O., Kameneva, I. P., Iatsyshyn, A. V., Iatsyshyn, A. V., Kovach, V. O., Kiv, A. E. (2022). The use of specialized software for liquid radioactive material spills simulation to teach students and postgraduate students. Paper presented at the CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 3085, 306-322.

[22] Popova, N. M. (2013). Modeling of the national conceptosphere: semantic analysis and cognitive interpretation. Problems of word, sentence and text semantics, 31, 198-206.

[23] Prometheus. https://prometheus.org.ua/

[24] Rozmaritsa, I. (2000). Linguistic aspects of environmental issues. Materials of the conference Linguistics and verbal communication in the 21st century: trends and perspectives, Logos, Kyiv, May 16-17, 55-57.

[25] Rozmaritsa, I. O. (2001). Axiologically labeled units in ecological discourse. Linguistic and conceptual pictures of the world: Collection. of science works, Logos, Kyiv, 199-202.

[26] Rozmaritsa, I. O. (2002). Verbal representation of the climate change concept in the English-speaking picture of the world. Linguistic and conceptual pictures of the world: Collection. of science Pract., Logos, Kyiv, 440-447.

[27] Rozmaritsa, I. O. (2004). Linguistic features of communication in the field of ecology autoref. Thesis candidate philol. Sciences: spec. 10.02.04 Germanic Languages, Kyiv, 15 p.

[28] Sandmen, P. (1972). Who Should Police Environmental Advertising? Columbia Journalism Review, January/February, 41-47.

[29] Schank, R. C., Abelson R. P. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale: N. J., 248 p.

[30] Selivanova, O. O. (2006). Modern linguistics: a terminological encyclopedia. Dozvillia-K, Poltava, 716 p.

[31] Selivanova, O. O. (2010). Linguistic encyclopedia, Dovkillya-K, Poltava, 844 p.

[32] Shytyk, L., & Akimova, A. (2020). Ways of transferring the internal speech of characters: Psycholinguistic projection. Psycholinguistics, 27(2), 361-384. https://doi.org/10.31470/2309-1797-2020-27-2-361-384

[33] Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge: A Bradford Book. The MIT Press, 1 (Concept Structuring Systems), 565 p.

[34] The International Environmental Communication Association. https://theieca.org/

[35] The Journal of Environmental Education. https://www.tandfonline.com/journals/vjee2

Abstract

References

How to cite