The realization of prosodic categories in political media discourse in British and American linguacultures
Abstract
The main aim of the article is to describe, analyze and compare main prosodic categories that are realized in a unique context, namely in political media discourse. The article looks into the principles of classification of the prosodic categories as well as at realizational differences of three main prosodic categories: syllable, foot and intonation phrase. These categories are distinguished unanimously by the majority of the researchers and are described in the article form their structural and cognitive perspectives. The realizational differences of these categories derive from pragmatic and linguacultural features of English media communication. In the article media communication is represented with political media discourse which is understood as a new contextual model of media communication and is characterized by high degree of immediacy and interactivity. Certain attention in the article is given to the results of the comparative research of the realizational differences of the prosodic categories done by the author. On the basis of the data resulted from the prosodic and content analysis the author concludes that the realizational differences of the prosodic categories are often due to pragmatics of the discourse and the type of discourse itself.
About the Author
L. V. Milyaeva
Moscow Financial University under the Government of Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Laurissa V. Milyaeva
Moscow
References
1. Аkhmanova, О.S. (2007). Slovar’ lingvisticheskih terminov [The dictionary of the linguistic terms]. Мoscow: URSS (in Russian).
2. Buraya, E.А., Galochkina, I.E., & Shevchenko, T.I. (2006). Fonetika sovremennogo anglijskogo jazyka. Teoreticheskij kurs [Phonetics of the modern English language. Theoretical course]. Мoscow: Academy (in Russian).
3. Durand, J., & Laks, B. (2004). Phonetics, phonology and cognition. Oxford: University Press.
4. Firth, J.R. (1935). The technique of semantics. Transactions of the philological society, 36-72.
5. Gussenhoven, C. (2005). The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Hayes, B. (1995). Metrical theory. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
7. Hirst, D., & Di Cristo, A. (2004). Intonation systems. A survey of twenty languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. Jun, J. (2006). Prosodic typology. The phonology of intonation and phrasing. New York: Oxford University Press.
9. Ladd, D.R. (1980). Stylized intonation. Language, 54, 517-540.
10. Ladd, D.R. (1981). On intonational universals. In T. Myers et al. (Eds.). The cognitive representation of speech (389-397), Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing.
11. Ladd, D.R. (1996). Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. Lieberman, P. (1967). Intonation, perception, and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13. Pierrehumbert, J. (1979). The perception of fundamental frequency declination. The journal of the acoustical society of America, 66(2), 363-369.
14. Pierrehumbert, J.B. (1980). The phonetics and phonology of English intonation (PhD thesis). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts, the USA.
15. Pierrehumbert, J.B., & Beckman M.E. (1988). Japanese tone structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16. Pierrehumber, J., & Hirschberg, J. (1990). The meaning of intonation contours in the interpretation of discourse: intentions in communication. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
17. Postnikova, L.V. (2011). Prosodija politicheskogo diskursa v britanskoj i amerikanskoj lingvokul’turah [Prosody of political discourse in British and American Linguacultures]. Moscow: Librokom (in Russian).
18. Postnikova, L.V. (2012). Britanskij kommunikativnyj stil’ v prosodii politicheskoj rechi [British communicative style in the prosody of political speech]. Kul’tura ustnoj rechi [Spoken language culture], Moscow: Rema, 18(651), 92-103 (in Russian).
19. Selkirk, E. (1978). On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure. In Th. Fretheim (Eds.). Nordic prosody II (268-271), Trondheim: TAPIR.
20. Selkirk, E. (1986). On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3, 371-405.
21. Selkirk, E. (2005). Comments on intonational phrasing in English. In S. Frota, M. Vigário & M.J. Freitas (Eds.). Prosodies (11-58), Berlin: Mounton de Gruyter.
22. Yartseva, V.N. (1998). Lingvisticheskij jenciklopedicheskij slovar’ [Unabridged encyclopedic dictionary]. Moscow: Sovetskaya Encyclopedia (in Russian).
For citation:
Milyaeva L.V. The realization of prosodic categories in political media discourse in British and American linguacultures. Professional Discourse & Communication. 2020;2(2):10-19. https://doi.org/10.24833/2687-0126-2020-2-2-10-19
Email this article 