The article raises the problems of the status-oriented discourse typology. The essence of them lies in the fact that there exist several terminological nominations of such general type of the discourse, namely “institutional discourse”, “business discourse”, “expert discourse”, “specialized discourse”, “professional discourse”. These terminological nominations often overlap giving the effect of vagueness of a certain term. The genre versatility of the texts pertaining to some discourse cluster of a specialized (i.e. involving certain special knowledge at least from the part of one of the discourse participants) character is such a case. More than that, we often meet the same authors using different terms from the list above. Still, the authors of the article consider these terms to denote different essences differentiating not only from the nominative point of view, but ontologically as well. First, they are sure to denote hierarchically different levels of the status-oriented discourse. Second, they are sure to present peculiar to a certain types of a discourse categorical status of the communicants. Third, the coordination of oral and written discourse genres is bound to be peculiar to a certain kind of the discourse. All these considerations predetermine the common efforts of linguists to conduct systemic research of the problem.

No abstract

No abstract

This paper examines ways to divide dysphemisms into groups. It argues that there is need to take into account several factors common for communicative situations in which dysphemisms are used. Research shows that they are the speaker, the referent, the intention of the speaker, language resources. According to language recourses used to achieve dysphemistic effect words and phrases are divided into those that have contextual or dictionary dysphemistic meaning. They fall into two groups according to animate or inanimate referent. Two other factors are pragmatic. They influence the use of dysphemism in different groups determining their characteristics in a particular communicative situation.

This article describes the conceptual basis of formation of the mental structure of assessment. As it is stated in the ongoing research, the structure consists of obligatory and optional elements which constitute a hierarchy. To prove this fact, special attention is given to the conceptual features of these elements, their content and correlation with the object of reality. Considering the mental structure under study as a structure with transparent borders, we pay particular attention to the possible connection of the concept under study and other mental structures in the situation of assessment. Similarity between the mental structure and a synergetic self-developing system is also pointed out. This is possible due to the equivalent parameters of the concept of assessment and self-organizing non linear, dissipative synergetic system flexible to changes in the process of evolution.