Journal archive

Abstract: Nowadays, the communication tools (computers, smartphones, the Internet, etc.) constitute an inseparable part of the life of society. Their emergence caused the transition of many traditional mass media (newspapers, magazines, etc.) to the digital format. It became a prerequisite for the breakthrough development of media discourse, which, due to its spread, is one of the most influential types of discourse, often determining the language policy of not only media but also the state as a whole. It was language policy that stimulated the interest of researchers in linguopragmatic neutralization which is a significant socio-cultural and linguistic phenomenon facilitating effective communication and achievement of social balance. Despite the fact that the language means of media discourse quite often represent occasional and artificially formed utterances, scholars often register their usualization and transition from the media discourse sphere to the spheres of official and everyday communication. Nevertheless, the typology of analysis of the lexical units in the context of the phenomenon of linguopragmatic neutralization is insufficiently represented and is a promising and poorly studied problem, since there are practically no tools for their classification in modern linguistics. The aim of this study is to identify the most productive ways of forming oppositions of linguopragmatic neutralization of modern English-language media discourse. The practical research material incorporates a corpus of 2021–2024 media texts, formed via continuous sampling and analyzed by methods of definitional, functional and contextual analysis, critical discourse analysis and semantic interpretation. The analysis has revealed the most productive ways of forming lexical units that make up oppositions in the context of the phenomenon of linguopragmatic neutralization of modern English-language media discourse. It should be noted that such lexical units contribute to solving issues related to the systematization of the typological characteristics of this phenomenon. The author believes that the results of the study make a definite contribution to the investigation of linguopragmatic neutralization, and also allow predicting with a certain degree of probability the appearance of new lexical units that can be used in media discourse.

About the author(s) :

Kseniya A. Melnikova

Yaroslavl State Technical University (Yaroslavl, Russia)

ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1998-7963

Publication Timeline:

Date of receipt: 18.09.2024; date of publication: 29.12.2025

References:

Babayan, V. N., Melnikova, K. A. (2024). Osnovnye sposoby realizatsii vtorichnoy nominalizatsii v mediadiskurse = The Basic methods of implementing secondary nominalization in media discourse. Cognitive research of language, 1-2(57), 246–249. EDN SAFLNY.

Boldyrev, N. N. (2025). Faktor kognitivnogo konteksta v ekologii yazyka i beskonfliktnoy kommunikatsii = Cognitive context factor in the ecology of language and conflict-free communication. Ecology of language and speech, 18–24. Tambov: Derzhavinskiy Publishing House. EDN AQPDAQ.

Borbotko, L. A., Mochalova, T. G. (2020). Kommunikativnye strategii uspeshnoy kommunikatsii v amerikanskom i rossiyskom mediadiskurse = Communicative strategies of successful communication in American and Russian media discourse. Actual issues of Germanic philology and linguodidactics, 51–54. Brest: A. S. Pushkin Brest State University. EDN PYKXLP.

Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language. 2^nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 229 p.

Dobrosklonskaya, T. G. (2020). Medialingvistika: teoriya, metody, napravleniya = Medialinguistics: Theory, methods, trends. Moscow: KDU; Dobrosvet Publishing House, 178 p. DOI: 10.31453/kdu.ru.91304.0107. EDN CQKWES.

Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the News. Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London: Routledge, 224 p.

Grigorieva, V. S., Mordovina, T. V., Zaitseva, V. V., Vyguzova, E. Yu. (2021). Cognitive aspects and mechanisms of argumentation in media discourse. Languages and cultures: Interdisciplinary research, 380–391. Saint Petersburg: Saint Petersburg State University Publishing House. EDN ZCAHNH.

Mamontova, Ya. R., Melnikova, K. A. (2022). Media discoursive neutralization of discriminatively marked linguistic tools. Linguistics and professional communication, 169–172. Yaroslavl: Yaroslavl State Technical University. EDN APZVNY.

Melnikova, A. V., Melnikova, K. A. (2025). Kontseptual′naya derivatsiya frazeologicheskikh edinits s tochki zreniya lingvopragmaticheskoy neytralizatsii = Conceptual derivation of phraseological units in terms of linguopragmatic neutralisation. Cognitive research of language, 1-1(62), 361–364. EDN SXQWLQ.

O’Halloran, K. (2011). How to use corpus linguistics in the study of media discourse. The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics, 563–577. London: Routledge.

Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic Mechanisms of Humour. Dordrecht, 284 p.

Stepanov, V. N. (2022). Rechevoy intellekt v mediynom prostranstve = Speech intelligence in the media space. Russian School of Public Relations, 24, 87–109. EDN UCIUSH.

Ukhova, L. V. (2021). Kreativnye tekhnologii brend-trollinga v sovremennom mediadiskurse = The creative technologies of brand trolling in modern media discourse. Russian PR: Trends and Drivers, 107–111. Saint Petersburg: Saint Petersburg State University of Economics. EDN ZXBJPN.

White, P. (1997). Death, Disruption and the Moral Order: The Narrative Impulse in Mass-Media Hard news Reporting. Genre and Institutions, 101–133. London: Cassell.

Willis, J. (1991). The Shadow World: Life Between the News Media and Reality. New York: Praeger Publishers, 264 p.