MEDIA RIGHTS DISCOURSE IN THE MEDIA SPACE BILINGUAL

I. Y. Skovronska
Abstract: 
The article deals with the rights discourse that includes pragmatic, ethical, ethnic, social, psycholinguistic points. The closest rhetoric associated with philosophy and is part of it. Philosophy studies the general laws of human nature, society and shaping the outlook of man; rhetoric studies and describes specific law effective mental-verbal activity produces rules of verbal communication and promotes holistic moral rules and human ethics. In modern science, there was quite a classification of genera and species of eloquence: socio-political, academic, social, judicial, theological and ecclesiastical eloquence (G. Apresyan, M. Kohtyev, L. Pavlov, L Vvedenskaya). L. Hraudina outlined the social, academic and lecture, discussion, polemical, judicial, military, spiritual eloquence. T.Kuznetsova uses the concept of practical and ceremonial eloquence. The researcher does not provide definitions, but contextually “practical rhetoric” means training, and “smart” – in the sense of a literary genre. Domestic scientist V.Moldovan is talking about rhetoric genres such as socio-political, academic, lectures, legal, social, military, diplomatic, church and theological. G. Sagach highlights the socio-political rhetoric with species and subspecies as political speech, speech rally, parliamentary eloquence. Eloquence is a communicative phenomena, it is subject to the laws of communication. Today there is widespread understanding of public broadcasting as a particular type of discourse. The concept of discourse is often used along and sometimes synonymous with such concepts as communication, certain activities, language and other behavior. According to R. Warta, rhetoric can be considered as ideology, in this case it appears connotative determinate totality. In such rhetoric dimension becomes the subject of cultural analysis. Legal discourse includes pragmatic, ethical, ethnic, social, psycholinguistic points. The grammar of discourse has similar problem with rhetoric as linguistic and rhetorical analyzes language based on extra-linguistic aspects.
References: 

1. Демський М. Українські фразеологізми й особливості їх творення. – Львів, 1994. – 62 с.
2. Дилтс Р.Фокусы языка. Изменение убеждений с помощью НЛИ. – СПб., 2000. – 245 с.
3. Крупський І. Українська газета, як художньо-поліграфічний феномен: історія, сучасний стан,
перспективи розвитку. – Львів, 1994. – 101 с. 4. Потебня А. Полное собрание сочинений. Мысль и
язык, 1924. – Т. 1. – 208 с. 5. Мецлер А., Скиба В. Деякі аспекти функціонально-комунікативного
аналізу мови // Мовознавство. – 1988. – № 3. – С. 15–20. 6. Молдован В. Судова риторика: навч.
посіб. – К.: Кондор, 2006. – 328 с. 7. Нюрнбергский процесс. Сб. материалов. – Т. 1. – М., 1955. –
С. 101–102. 8. Грицаєнко Л. М. Основи красномовства [Текст]: навч. посіб. / Л. М. Грицaєнко. – К.:
Нац. ун-т технологій та дизайну. – К.: КНУТД, 2013. – 245 с. 9. Селиванова Е. Когнитивная
ономасиология. – К., 2000. – 248 с. 10. Риторика загальна та судова: навч. посіб. / С. Д. Абрамович,
В. В. Молдован, М. Ю. Чикарькова. – К.: Юрінком Інтер. 2002. – 416 с. 11. Судебные речи
прокуроров. Сб. 1. – М., 1956. – 349 с.

Received: 
Friday, December 25, 2015
Accepted: 
Friday, December 25, 2015