Theoretical and methodological approaches to understanding public-administrative discourse as a type of communication in public administration
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.34132/pard2023.21.03Keywords:
discourse, administrative discourse, institutional discourse, public-administrative discourse, communication, language communication, communication, communication subjects, public, public opinion, public administrationAbstract
The article provides a theoretical and methodological analysis of public-administrative discourse as a type of communication between public administration institutions and the public. The author describes the main approaches to understanding the concept of "discourse", which are not limited to purely linguistic issues, but have a wider scope of application in such fields of knowledge as linguistics, political science, philosophy, psychology, pedagogy, journalism, cultural studies, art history, mathematics, and public administration.
The article reveals that "discourse" and its variant "institutional discourse" are a system of actions, roles and norms of behaviour in the process of communication (communication), according to the following main criteria: communication subjects (public authorities, civil society institutions, representatives of a particular social group, the public) communication goals. Its components are "administrative discourse" and "public-administrative discourse".
The author determines that the specificity of "administrative" discourse is communication within the framework of status-role relations, i.e., speech interaction between representatives of executive authorities (civil servants) performing executive and administrative functions and citizens. The main functions of administrative discourse are prescriptive, controlling and evaluative, the essence of which is to assess the work of performers.
It is substantiated that "public-administrative discourse" is a type of communication, communicative interaction between public authorities (public managers) and civil society institutions and the public at different communicative levels in different socio-political conditions. Thus, "public-administrative discourse" is a tool for realising the practical interests of the State, i.e., it contributes to the democratisation of society and improvement of the quality of life of the population.
References
2. Andriyash, V. & Yevtushenko, О. (2018). Ponyattya publichnogo upravlinnya u vitchiznyanomu naukovomu diskursi. [The concept of «public administration» in the national scientific discourse]. Public administration and regional development. № 1. S. 51-65. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.26693/pard2018.01.01 [in Ukrainian]
3. Batsevych, F.S. (2007). Slovnyk terminiv mizhkulturnoi komunikatsii [Dictionary of terms of intercultural communication]. MON Ukrainy, Lviv. nats. un-t im. I. Franka. Kyiv : Dovira. 2007. 205 s. [in Ukrainian]
4. Velykyi tlumachnyi slovnyk ukrainskoi movy [A large explanatory dictionary of the Ukrainian language]. Retrieved from: www.slovnyk.net [in Ukrainian]
5. Viktoriia Andriiash, Nadiia Torkhova, Alexander Yevtushenko, Oksana Malikina. Organizational forms of public relations and media management in the justice system of Ukrainian. Mykolas Romeris University. Public Policy and Administration. Vol 19. № 4 (2020). Р. 169-182. [in English]
6. Entsyklopediia politychnoi dumky [Encyclopedia of political thought]. / Za red. D. Millera. K.: Dukh i Litera, 2000. 472 s. [in Ukrainian]
7. Malynovskyi, V. Ya. (2009). Derzhavne upravlinnia: navchalnyi posibnyk [Public administration: study guide]. Kyiv: Atika. 608 s. [in Ukrainian]
8. Nahorna, L. B. (2005). Politychna mova i movna polityka: diapazon mozhlyvostei politychnoi linhvistyky [Political language and language policy: the range of possibilities of political linguistics]. NAN Ukrainy; Instytut politychnykh i etnonatsionalnykh doslidzhen. K.: Svitohliad. 316 s. [in Ukrainian]
9. Oleksandr Yevtushenko, Tetiana Lushahina, Anna Soloviova, Mykola Suslov. Communication capacity index of united territorial communities in the context of Ukraine’s European integration policy. Mykolas Romeris University. Public Policy and Administration. Vol.21. No 4 (2022). Р. 451-465. [in English]
10. Problemy efektyvnosti pidvyshchennia kvalifikatsii kerivnykh kadriv: (Monohrafiia) [Problems of the effectiveness of improving the qualifications of managerial personnel: (Monograph)]. /I.V.Rozputenko, V.O.Hushchenko, N.H.Protasova, N.V.Hrytsiak /Za zah.red. Rozputenka I.V. K.: Vyd-vo „K.I.S”, 2003 224 s. [in Ukrainian]
11. Selyvanova, E. A. (2002). Osnovы lynhvystycheskoi teoryy teksta y kommunykatsyy [Fundamentals of Linguistic Theory of Text and Communication]. K.: Fytosotsyotsentr. 336 s. [in Ukrainian].
12. Sériot, P. (1999). L`ecole française d'analyse de discourse. Paris : PUF Fondamental, 1999. 127 p. [in France].
13. Slovnyk inshomovnykh sliv [Dictionary of foreign words]. Retrieved from: https://www.jnsm.com.ua/cgi-bin/u/book/sis.pl?Qry=%C0%E4%EC%B3%ED%B3%F1%F2%F0%E0%F2%E8%E2%ED%E8%E9 [in Ukrainian]
14. Tertychka, V. (2007). Suspilna polityka: chy stala vona sferoiu naukovoho poshuku i prykladnykh doslidzhen v Ukraini? [Social policy: has it become a field of scientific research and applied research in Ukraine?]. Politychnyi menedzhment. № 1 (22). S. 10-23. [in Ukrainian]
15. Cherniavskaia, V. (2011). Dyskurs kak obъekt lynhvystycheskykh yssledovanyi [Discourse as an object of linguistic research]. Uchenыe zapysky Tavrycheskoho natsyonalnoho unyversyteta ym. V. Y. Vernadskoho Seryia «Fylolohyia. Sotsyalnыe kommunykatsyy». Retrieved from: http://science.crimea.edu/zapiski/2011/filologiya/uch24_3fn/041.pdf [in Ukrainian]
16. Shevchenko, I.S., Morozova, O. I. (2005). Problemy typolohii dyskursu [Problems of discourse typology]. Dyskurs yak kohnityvno-komunikatyvnyi fenomen: monohrafiia. Kharkiv: Konstanta. 356 s. [in Ukrainian]
17. Arendt, H. (1998). The Human Condition. University of Chicago Press. 370 p. [in English].
18. Bourdieu, P. (1995). Taste and Cultural Capital: Culture and Society. Cambridge University Press. 206 p. [in English].
19. Crystal, D. (1991). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. 389 р. [in English].
20. Dijk, T. A. van. (1997). Discourse as structure and process. London: SAGE, 1997. 356 p. [in English].
21. Dijk, T. A. van, W. Kintsch. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press. 389 p. [in English].
22. Dijk, T. A. van. (1998). What is political discourse analysis? Political linguistics / Ed. J. Blommaert, C. Bulcaen. Amsterdam, 1998. [in English].
23. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. N. Y.: Routledge. 200 р. [in English].
24. Habermas, J. (1991). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. MIT Press. 301 p. [in English].
25. Harris, Z. S. (1952). Discourse analysis. Language. Vol. 28. № 1. P. 1–30. [in English].
26. Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell. 470 р. [in English].
.png)
.png)
