Le travail de recherche mené dans cette thèse porte sur les discours et l’emploi de formules discursives d’ordre phraséologique prononcés par le président colombien Álvaro Uribe Vélez lors des Conseils Communaux de Gouvernance pendant ses deux mandats de présidence (du mois d’août 2002 jusqu’au mois de juillet 2010). L’objectif est d’étudier le rôle de ces Unités Discursives à Caractère Phraséologique dans les discours. Ces unités ont été extraites, décrites, analysées et caractérisées à l’aide du logiciel Lexico 3 et des différentes méthodes lexicométriques proposées par celui-ci: index, concordances, inventaire distributionnel, analyse factorielle des correspondances et spécificités. Le premier chapitre présente le contexte historique, politique et la présidence d’Á. Uribe Vélez. Nous proposons une présentation de la situation socio-politique de l’Amérique latine et de la Colombie et du locuteur politique avant et pendant sa présidence. Le deuxième chapitre est consacré à l’exploration de l’analyse du discours politique et des caractéristiques particulières qui le définissent. Nous proposons une analyse de deux types de discours politiques différents en fonction du destinataire. Cette analyse permet de mettre en évidence plusieurs stratégies mises en place dans ce type de discours : la construction d’une image de chaque intervenant et l’emploi d’un système de croyances communes utilisé comme moyen de persuasion. Le troisième chapitre a comme objectif de présenter l’état de l’art de la recherche menée en phraséologie tant en français qu’en espagnol. Ce panorama nous permet de mettre en avance une description et délimitation des unités qui nous intéressent. Le quatrième chapitre se focalise sur le processus de constitution du corpus et la présentation des différentes caractéristiques lexicométriques du corpus d’étude. Le cinquième chapitre explore les chronologies thématiques du corpus d’étude, mises en évidence grâce à des méthodes lexicométriques complémentaires. Enfin, le sixième chapitre aborde la phraséologie des discours du président colombien à partir des stratégies discursives mises en place par le locuteur politique. / This thesis focuses on the speeches and the use of speech formulae considered phraseological delivered by Colombian President Álvaro Uribe Vélez in the Communal Councils of Governance during his two presidential terms in office (from August 2002 until July 2010). The objective is to study the role of these phraseological units in the speeches. The units were extracted, described, analyzed and characterized using the software Lexico 3 and the different lexicometrical methods proposed by this software: index, table of matches, distributionnal inventory, factor analysis of correspondences and calculation of specificities. The first chapter presents the historical and political context and the presidency of Á. Uribe Vélez. We offer an overview of the socio-political situation in Latin America and especially in Colombia and the political speaker before and during his presidency. The second chapter is devoted to the exploration of the analysis of political discourse and special features that define it. We propose an analysis of two different types of political discourse depending on the recipient. This analysis allows us to highlight several strategies implemented in this type of discourse: building an image of each participant and the use of a common system of beliefs used as a means of persuasion. The objective of the third chapter is to provide an overview of the state of the art of research in phraseology in both French and Spanish. This view allows us to advance a description and definition of units of our interest. The fourth chapter focuses on the process of constitution of the corpus and the presentation of different lexicometrical characteristics of the corpus of study. The fifth chapter explores the thematic chronologies of our corpus, highlighted by complementary lexicometrical methods. Finally, the sixth chapter discusses the phraseology of the discourse of Colombian president taking into account the discursive strategies implemented by the political speaker.

Made available in DSpace on 2017-06-01T18:24:54Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 jonadab_mansur_junior.pdf: 6610175 bytes, checksum: 598dbd381c4cedf90fc70b862b88c38f (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013-02-27 / Works using discursive genres to check about written productions for learning English classroom are not recent. Since the requirements of the official documents for teaching and learning a Modern Foreign Language (MFL) in Brazil National Curriculum Parameters (PCN) in 1998, for the fourth and third cycles of Elementary Education (EE), and in National Textbook Program (PNLD), in 2011, this skill becomes a reason of study for English language teachers and researchers. Therefore, based on the perspective that every utterance is a link in the chain of discursive communication, Bakhtin (2010), we analyzed the work with discursive genres observing the treatment given to the activities of written productions in English textbooks (ET) 9th year of EE. Our aim was to interpret as proposed in discursive genres work with writing in ET. Our research was guided by social cognitive approach in the philosophy of language in view of Marcuschi (2005) and socio-philosophical conceptions of Habermas (2002). We also based on the sociodiscursive theory of Bakhtin (2010) and socio-interacionist approach based on conceptions of authors like bronckart (1999), B. Marcuschi & Cavalcante (2005) and Costa Val (2003). The research corpus was composed of two student ET 9th year of EE. We listed categories of content analysis to the selected discursive genres; we decided to establish these categories on the basis of the proposed PNLD 2011 for the conditions of written productions and Costa Val (2003). The research result showed us the importance of a greater systematization, in EE, regarding the conditions of productions of discursive genres to work with writing skill, and also provides relevant guidance on the conduct of activities in the didactic sequences proposed in the ET. / Pesquisas utilizando os gêneros discursivos para verificação da produção escrita em sala de aula de língua inglesa não são recentes. Desde as exigências dos documentos oficiais para o ensino-aprendizagem de Língua Estrangeira Moderna (LEM), no Brasil, Parâmetros Curriculares Nacionais (PCN), de 1998, para o terceiro e quarto ciclos do Ensino Fundamental (EF) e do Programa Nacional do Livro Didático (PNLD) de 2011, a habilidade escrita se torna objeto de estudo por professores e estudiosos de língua e linguagem. Nesta visão, baseados na perspectiva de que todo enunciado é um elo na cadeia da comunicação discursiva, segundo Bakhtin (2010), identificamos a proposta de trabalho com os gêneros discursivos, observando o tratamento dado à produção escrita nas atividades dos Livros Didáticos de Inglês (LDI), do 9º ano do EF. Tivemos como objetivo apontar como é proposto, nos gêneros discursivos, o trabalho com a produção escrita nos LDI. Nossa investigação foi norteada pela abordagem sociocognitiva no campo da filosofia da linguagem na visão de Marcuschi (2005) e das concepções sociofilosóficas de Habermas (2002). Tomamos também como base a proposta sociodiscursiva em Bakhtin (2010) e a abordagem sócio-interacionista em Bronckart (1999), Dolz & Schneuwly (2004), B. Marcuschi & Cavalcante (2005) e Costa Val (2003). O corpus da pesquisa foi composto de dois LDI do aluno do 9º ano do EF. Elencamos categorias de análise de conteúdo para os gêneros do discurso selecionados; optamos por estabelecer essas categorias com base no que propõe o PNLD 2011 de LEM para as condições de produção escrita e Costa Val (2003). Os resultados da pesquisa demonstraram a importância de uma maior sistematização, no LDI, quanto às condições de produção dos gêneros do discurso para o trabalho com a habilidade escrita e, também, o fornecimento de orientações pertinentes quanto à realização dessas atividades nas sequências didáticas propostas nos manuais didáticos.

Made available in DSpace on 2017-06-01T18:25:01Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 pre_textual.pdf: 193980 bytes, checksum: 07d2f435ff154911b08693b65886e5aa (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-03-20 / This dissertation analyzes the nominal expression used in the textual and discursive construction of the point of view in argumentative context, specifically in initial petition and plea (answer) genres in consensual marriage legal action. Although they are genres known as argumentative, they hold in its structure narrative sequences from which we can observe different voices that it establishes when we argue narrating in a conflict situation or discursive clash in juridical domain. Thus a hypothesis entertained here is that these genres are different when a person arguments narrating from the literary and journalistic domain, for example, from a dialogic approach of the text/discourse and based on the assumption that all discourse has several voices and consequently points of view, we understand that nominal expressions are extremely important (they play an important role) to the argumentation in these genres. In other words, we understand that this resort contributes to the establishment of enunciative positions and to the subjectivity expression in a clash dialogal-argumentative context. Seen in these terms, it is important to analyze the relation among enunciators in a discourse, like: how the lawyers as a locutor/enunciator, as the main enunciator, manages the points of view in a discourse and contributes to putting a perspective of the objects of discourse (facts and characters). So, it is important to investigate how this narratorial instance mobilizes the nominal expressions to assume a point of view responsible for the argumentative orientation of a text. In these different voices ( a game of voices ), the locator/enunciator coenunciates with his client, and the other person (the opponent) is a subenunciator. The corpus of this research will be an initial petition and plea (answer) in consensual marriage legal action - both documents are from 2012 and they belong to the 4ª Vara da Família e Registro Civil da Comarca da Capital, Estado de Pernambuco. The results found in this research confirmed Rabatel s theory: in argumentative contexto, the prevalente point of view is the affirmed point of view. / Esta dissertação analisa as expressões nominais utilizadas na construção textual-discursiva do ponto de vista em contexto argumentativo, especificamente, nos gêneros petição inicial e contestação em ações de união estável. Apesar de serem gêneros argumentativos, comportam, em sua estrutura, sequências narrativas a partir das quais podemos averiguar o jogo de vozes estabelecido, ao se argumentar narrando em situação de conflito ou de embate discursivo no domínio jurídico. Daí a nossa hipótese de que tais gêneros se diferenciam quanto à forma de argumentar narrando em relação a gêneros dos domínios literário e jornalístico, por exemplo. Com base na abordagem dialógica do texto/discurso e no pressuposto de que todo discurso é povoado de diversas vozes consequentemente, de pontos de vista , entendemos que as expressões nominais desempenham expressivo papel para a argumentação nos referidos gêneros. Em outras palavras, esse recurso contribui para o estabelecimento de posições enunciativas e para a expressão da subjetividade em contexto argumentativo-dialogal de embate. Assim, importa analisar a relação entre os enunciadores no discurso, a saber: como o locutor/enunciador advogado (enunciador principal) gerencia os pontos de vista no discurso e perspectiva os objetos de discurso (fatos e personagens). Isso implica investigar como tal instância narradora mobiliza as expressões nominais para assumir um ponto de vista responsável pela orientação argumentativa do texto. No jogo de vozes, o locutor/enunciador coenuncia com seu cliente, enquanto o outro (adversário) é um subenunciador. Quanto ao corpus da pesquisa, constitui-se de uma petição inicial e da respectiva contestação em ações de união estável documentos do ano de 2012 e pertencentes à 4ª Vara da Família e Registro Civil da Comarca da Capital, Estado de Pernambuco. Os resultados encontrados confirmaram a teoria de Rabatel: em texto argumentativo, o ponto de vista predominante é o afirmado.

This diploma thesis deals with the penetration of discourse of Communist power into the society through content of (women's) magazine Žena a móda within 50s and 60s. The aim of this thesis is to point out that the elements of communist ideology appeared also in media such as fashion magazine. First chapters of this thesis deal with socialism and its ideological propaganda and represent the importance of ideological symbols, propaganda and manipulation through the media. In connection with this the thesis represents also the political-economic situation in the textile and clothing industry and also uses the facts about the media control by the communist regime. On this basis the thesis presents an analysis of 240 issues of the Žena a móda magazine and focuses on selected ideological symbols such as socialist fashion, working clothes, relationship between the East and the West, ideological leaders and personalities, the Soviet Union as ideal, conceptualization of the "Great History" and the image of socialistic woman. The method of discourse analysis thus allowed to introduce the symbols in different historical and social contexts and also to point to their changes in time, specifically in the context of comparing their likeness in the 50s and 60s of 20th century. The content of Žena a móda magazine...

Scholars have proposed that Jude and 2 Peter are literarily dependent. However, there is no definitive conclusion among scholars concerning which one is literarily dependent on the other. There are arguments for and against each of the literary dependency theories. It is difficult to define what is meant by literary dependency and how to measure it. By utilizing Lemke’s notion of intertextuality, this study examines the thematic formations, axiological stance, and rhetorical formations of Jude and 2 Peter. This study demonstrates that there are significant intertextual relations that can account for the similarities between these two texts. There is substantial evidence which suggests that their differences are significant. Jude and 2 Peter do not provide essential intertextual background information to understand each other. Through the analysis of other intertexts, this study reveals a significant number of intertexts, like the LXX, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, and contemporary literature, that can account for the meaning formation of the two books. These texts can be considered as more significant intertexts for Jude and 2 Peter.

<p>Дискурс анализа је интердисциплинарно подручје истраживања које<br />посматра језик као делатност. Она се бави питањима разговора и текста и то тако<br />што је фокус пажње подједнако и на саговорницима, и на контексту, и на<br />вербалној поруци.<br />Њу у домаћу академску заједницу уводи Свенка Савић, најпре у оквиру<br />наставе на основним студијама Одсека за српски језик и лингвистику<br />Филозофског факултета у Новом Саду. За овај предмет на Универзитету у Новом<br />Саду објављује уџбеник под називом Дискурс анализа (1993) и формира, заједно<br />са бројним сарадницама, пројекат &bdquo;Новосадски корпус разговорног српског<br />језика&rdquo;. Осим на Одсеку за српски језик и лингвистику, данас се анализа<br />дискурса као наставни предмет изучава и на Одсеку за журналистику и<br />делимично на Одсеку за англистику.<br />Крајем 20. и почетком 21. века у анализи говорних и писаних облика<br />дискурса јавља се нов приступ проучавања под називом критичка анализа<br />дискурса (КАД). У оквиру критичке анализе дискурса, истраживачи се највише<br />баве приказом демонстрације моћи, контроле и друштвених неједнакости у<br />различитим институцијама, а једну такву институцију представља и суд.<br />Примену у истраживању дискурсних особина разговора у суду значајније<br />видимо у радовима са енглеског говорног подручја, док су друга језичка<br />подручја мање истражена. Предмет проучавања ових радова су различите<br />граматичке и дискурсне какрактеристике разговора у суду, као што су: употреба<br />номинализација, пасива и техничких термина током размена у судском поступку<br />(Gibbons, 1999), доминантан положај судије/пороте у простору суднице као и<br />демонстрацију моћи првенством права говорења током судског поступка<br />(Přidalov&aacute;, 1999), анализа типова питања током судског поступка и њихова улога<br />у усмеравању исказа учесника (Cotterill, 2003).<br />У литератури на српском језику радови који се баве правном и судском<br />проблематиком у фокусу пажње углавном имају текст &ndash; писани облик судског<br />дискурса, који се манифестује кроз законе и разне прописе у којима се закон примењује (Јанићијевић, 2010) или се баве одликама жанра текста судских</p><p>пресуда (Макевић, 2014), а мали је број радова који се баве особинама разговора<br />у суду током судског поступка (Јанковић, 2002).<br />Предмет овог рада јесу особине дискурса разговора у суду (ДРС). Термин<br />дискурс разговора у суду подразумева онај тип разговора у којем се један<br />(раз)говорни догађај остварује просторно у јавној сфери (у судници), у којој<br />учествује више особа са одређеним социјалним и дискурсним улогама. У центру<br />пажње су дискурсне стратегије током размена судије са другим учесницима у<br />судском поступку током судске расправе, са посебним освртом на интеракцију<br />између судије и (оп)туженог.<br />Циљ овог истраживања је да се анализира, опише и објасни дискурс судске<br />праксе у институцији суда у Србији и покажу односи друштвене моћи<br />саговорника укључених у судску расправу.<br />Хипотеза је да ће анализа разговора судије са (оп)туженим бити добар<br />показатељ начина на који се у суду спроводе у праксу законодавне одредбе<br />(о дискриминацији, равноправности и сл.) и како се интерпретира друштвена<br />моћ.<br />Теоријско-методолошки оквир коришћен у овом раду је у сагласности са<br />анализом употребе језика, са језичком делатности, пре свега са учењем<br />холандског лингвисте Тојнa ван Дајка (Van Dijk, 2009) о моћи, и у сагласности с<br />теоријом учтивости Пенелопи Браун и Стивена Левинсона (Brown and Levinson,<br />1987). Обе теорије прати дескриптивни приказ одабраних узорака емпиријског<br />материјала.<br />У раду користим метод прикупљања и анализе материјала устаљен у<br />анализи дискурса (Савић, 1993). Емпиријски материјал представља узорак од 9<br />судских расправа из два временска периода: 4 судске расправе снимљене 1991.<br />године и 5 судских расправа снимљених након 24 године (2015). Укупно је<br />снимљено 180,13 минута разговора, односно 140 страна текста трансркибованог<br />у писану форму припремљену за анализу. Јединице анализе су речи, размене и<br />параграфи (Савић, 1993: 57&ndash;61).<br />Резултати истраживања показују да је у разговору у суду доминантна улога<br />суткиње, која има институционално дату моћ да води судску расправу и доноси<br />решења и пресуде. Из доминантне позиције произлази и њена комуникативна и<br />друштвена моћ коју остварује применом различитих разговорних стратегија као<br />што су: стратегија постављања питања, усмеравања разговора, одређивања<br />понашања других у разговору, започињања и завршавања разговора, употреба<br />професионалне терминологије, стратегија ословљавања, извођења закључка,<br />причања прича, прекидања и преклапања разговора са саговорницима.<br />За разлику од суткиње, (оп)тужени је правни лаик са малим дискурсним<br />учинком. Његова подређена улога огледа се у стратегијама: одговарања на<br />питања, покушају усмеравања разговора, покушају постављања питања,<br />принципу сарадње, ословљавању, понављању и самопонављању, прекидању и<br />преклапању, причању приче и оклевању.<br />На основу резултата анализе судских расправа може се закључити да је<br />дискурс разговора у суду хибридни жанр. У њему се на граматичком, лексичком,<br />семантичком и прагматичком нивоу сједињавају формални писани правни<br />дискурс и неформални разговорни језик свакодневне комуникације.<br />Предлог за непосредну праксу. Потребно је успоставити успешнији модел<br />комуникације у суду током интеракција између правних стручњака (судија, јавних тужилаца, адвоката) и правних лаика: избегавањем непознате</p><p>терминoлогије, употребом једноставних реченица (избегавањем пасивне и<br />безличне конструкције и номинализације), коришћењем учтивих фраза и родно<br />осетљивог језика, како би се језик у службеној употреби у институцији суда</p><p>саобразио говору саговорника који нису део судске хијерархије.&nbsp;</p> / <p>Diskurs analiza je interdisciplinarno područje istraživanja koje<br />posmatra jezik kao delatnost. Ona se bavi pitanjima razgovora i teksta i to tako<br />što je fokus pažnje podjednako i na sagovornicima, i na kontekstu, i na<br />verbalnoj poruci.<br />NJu u domaću akademsku zajednicu uvodi Svenka Savić, najpre u okviru<br />nastave na osnovnim studijama Odseka za srpski jezik i lingvistiku<br />Filozofskog fakulteta u Novom Sadu. Za ovaj predmet na Univerzitetu u Novom<br />Sadu objavljuje udžbenik pod nazivom Diskurs analiza (1993) i formira, zajedno<br />sa brojnim saradnicama, projekat &bdquo;Novosadski korpus razgovornog srpskog<br />jezika&rdquo;. Osim na Odseku za srpski jezik i lingvistiku, danas se analiza<br />diskursa kao nastavni predmet izučava i na Odseku za žurnalistiku i<br />delimično na Odseku za anglistiku.<br />Krajem 20. i početkom 21. veka u analizi govornih i pisanih oblika<br />diskursa javlja se nov pristup proučavanja pod nazivom kritička analiza<br />diskursa (KAD). U okviru kritičke analize diskursa, istraživači se najviše<br />bave prikazom demonstracije moći, kontrole i društvenih nejednakosti u<br />različitim institucijama, a jednu takvu instituciju predstavlja i sud.<br />Primenu u istraživanju diskursnih osobina razgovora u sudu značajnije<br />vidimo u radovima sa engleskog govornog područja, dok su druga jezička<br />područja manje istražena. Predmet proučavanja ovih radova su različite<br />gramatičke i diskursne kakrakteristike razgovora u sudu, kao što su: upotreba<br />nominalizacija, pasiva i tehničkih termina tokom razmena u sudskom postupku<br />(Gibbons, 1999), dominantan položaj sudije/porote u prostoru sudnice kao i<br />demonstraciju moći prvenstvom prava govorenja tokom sudskog postupka<br />(Přidalov&aacute;, 1999), analiza tipova pitanja tokom sudskog postupka i njihova uloga<br />u usmeravanju iskaza učesnika (Cotterill, 2003).<br />U literaturi na srpskom jeziku radovi koji se bave pravnom i sudskom<br />problematikom u fokusu pažnje uglavnom imaju tekst &ndash; pisani oblik sudskog<br />diskursa, koji se manifestuje kroz zakone i razne propise u kojima se zakon primenjuje (Janićijević, 2010) ili se bave odlikama žanra teksta sudskih</p><p>presuda (Makević, 2014), a mali je broj radova koji se bave osobinama razgovora<br />u sudu tokom sudskog postupka (Janković, 2002).<br />Predmet ovog rada jesu osobine diskursa razgovora u sudu (DRS). Termin<br />diskurs razgovora u sudu podrazumeva onaj tip razgovora u kojem se jedan<br />(raz)govorni događaj ostvaruje prostorno u javnoj sferi (u sudnici), u kojoj<br />učestvuje više osoba sa određenim socijalnim i diskursnim ulogama. U centru<br />pažnje su diskursne strategije tokom razmena sudije sa drugim učesnicima u<br />sudskom postupku tokom sudske rasprave, sa posebnim osvrtom na interakciju<br />između sudije i (op)tuženog.<br />Cilj ovog istraživanja je da se analizira, opiše i objasni diskurs sudske<br />prakse u instituciji suda u Srbiji i pokažu odnosi društvene moći<br />sagovornika uključenih u sudsku raspravu.<br />Hipoteza je da će analiza razgovora sudije sa (op)tuženim biti dobar<br />pokazatelj načina na koji se u sudu sprovode u praksu zakonodavne odredbe<br />(o diskriminaciji, ravnopravnosti i sl.) i kako se interpretira društvena<br />moć.<br />Teorijsko-metodološki okvir korišćen u ovom radu je u saglasnosti sa<br />analizom upotrebe jezika, sa jezičkom delatnosti, pre svega sa učenjem<br />holandskog lingviste Tojna van Dajka (Van Dijk, 2009) o moći, i u saglasnosti s<br />teorijom učtivosti Penelopi Braun i Stivena Levinsona (Brown and Levinson,<br />1987). Obe teorije prati deskriptivni prikaz odabranih uzoraka empirijskog<br />materijala.<br />U radu koristim metod prikupljanja i analize materijala ustaljen u<br />analizi diskursa (Savić, 1993). Empirijski materijal predstavlja uzorak od 9<br />sudskih rasprava iz dva vremenska perioda: 4 sudske rasprave snimljene 1991.<br />godine i 5 sudskih rasprava snimljenih nakon 24 godine (2015). Ukupno je<br />snimljeno 180,13 minuta razgovora, odnosno 140 strana teksta transrkibovanog<br />u pisanu formu pripremljenu za analizu. Jedinice analize su reči, razmene i<br />paragrafi (Savić, 1993: 57&ndash;61).<br />Rezultati istraživanja pokazuju da je u razgovoru u sudu dominantna uloga<br />sutkinje, koja ima institucionalno datu moć da vodi sudsku raspravu i donosi<br />rešenja i presude. Iz dominantne pozicije proizlazi i njena komunikativna i<br />društvena moć koju ostvaruje primenom različitih razgovornih strategija kao<br />što su: strategija postavljanja pitanja, usmeravanja razgovora, određivanja<br />ponašanja drugih u razgovoru, započinjanja i završavanja razgovora, upotreba<br />profesionalne terminologije, strategija oslovljavanja, izvođenja zaključka,<br />pričanja priča, prekidanja i preklapanja razgovora sa sagovornicima.<br />Za razliku od sutkinje, (op)tuženi je pravni laik sa malim diskursnim<br />učinkom. NJegova podređena uloga ogleda se u strategijama: odgovaranja na<br />pitanja, pokušaju usmeravanja razgovora, pokušaju postavljanja pitanja,<br />principu saradnje, oslovljavanju, ponavljanju i samoponavljanju, prekidanju i<br />preklapanju, pričanju priče i oklevanju.<br />Na osnovu rezultata analize sudskih rasprava može se zaključiti da je<br />diskurs razgovora u sudu hibridni žanr. U njemu se na gramatičkom, leksičkom,<br />semantičkom i pragmatičkom nivou sjedinjavaju formalni pisani pravni<br />diskurs i neformalni razgovorni jezik svakodnevne komunikacije.<br />Predlog za neposrednu praksu. Potrebno je uspostaviti uspešniji model<br />komunikacije u sudu tokom interakcija između pravnih stručnjaka (sudija, javnih tužilaca, advokata) i pravnih laika: izbegavanjem nepoznate</p><p>terminologije, upotrebom jednostavnih rečenica (izbegavanjem pasivne i<br />bezlične konstrukcije i nominalizacije), korišćenjem učtivih fraza i rodno<br />osetljivog jezika, kako bi se jezik u službenoj upotrebi u instituciji suda</p><p>saobrazio govoru sagovornika koji nisu deo sudske hijerarhije.&nbsp;</p> / <p>Discourse analysis is an interdisciplinary research area which observes language as an activity. It deals with issues of conversation and text focusing its attention evenly on interlocutors, context and verbal message.<br />It was introduced to our academic community by Svenka Savić, firstly as teaching within undergraduate studies at Department of Serbian language and linguistics, at the Faculty of Philosophy in Novi Sad.&nbsp; She published a course book Discourse Analysis (1993) for this subject at the University of Novi Sad and established, with numerous associates, a project &bdquo;The Corpus of Novi Sad conversational Serbian language&rdquo;. Today, apart from Department of Serbian language and linguistics, discourse analysis as a subject is taught at Department of journalism and partly at Department of English language and literature.<br />At the end of the XX and the beginning of the XXI century, a new approach of analysing spoken and written forms of discourse appeared, under the name critical discourse analysis (CDA). Within CDA, the researchers mainly deal with the representation of demonstration of power, control and social inequalities in various institutions, one of which is the court.<br />Its application in the study of discourse aspects in courtroom, CDA has particularly found in the works from Anglosphere, while other language spheres have not been researched enough. The subject matter of these works are different grammatical and discourse features of talk in the courtroom such as the use of nominalization, passive construction and technical terms during judical proceedings (Gibbons, 1999), dominant position of a judge/jury in the courtroom as well as&nbsp; demonstration of power by priority turn-taking during judical proceedings (Přidalov&aacute;, 1999), analysis of types of questions during judical proceedings and their role in guiding the participants&rsquo; statements (Cotterill, 2003).<br />In the literature in Serbian language, the works dealing with legal and judical matters mainly focus on the text- written form of courtroom discourse, which manifests itself through laws and their various regulations (Janićijević, 2010) or deal with the aspects of the genre of the verdict text (Makević, 2014), and very few works deal with the aspects of talk in the courtroom during judical proceedings (Janković, 2002).</p><p>The features of courtroom discourse (CD) are the subject of this work. The term courtroom discourse means the type of talk where one spoken event is realized in spatially public sphere (in a courtroom), where several persons with different social and discourse roles participate. Discourse strategies during interaction of a judge with other participants in judical proceeding during hearing are in the spotlight, with particular reference to the interaction between the judge and the defendant/accused.<br />The aim of this research is to analyse, describe and explain the discourse of case-law in the institution of court in Serbia and to show relations of social power of participants involved in judical proceedings.<br />It is supposed that tha analysis of conversation between the judge and the defendant/accused will be an excellent indicator of the manner in which the court implements legislative provisions (оn discrimination, equality and etc.) and how social power is defined.<br />The theoretical and methodological framework in this study is in compliance with analysis of use of language, with linguistic activity, above all with the approach of Dutch linguist Teun van Dijk (2009) on power, and in accordance with the Politeness theory by Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson (1987). Both thories are accompanied by descriptive review of selected examples of empirical material.<br />I have used the method of collecting and analysing material rooted in analysis of discourse (Savić, 1993). The empirical material represents nine courtroom hearings from two periods of time: 4 in 1991 and 5 courtroom hearings recorded 24 years later (2015). There are 180.13 minutes of recorded conversation, that is 140 pages of text transcribed into written form prepared for analysis. The units of analysis are words, exchanges and paragraphs (Savić, 1993: 57&ndash;61).<br />The results of the research show that in a courtroom discourse the role of the judge is undoubtedly dominant, having the institutionally given power to lead the hearing and reaches decisions and verdicts. Her communicative as well as social power arises from the domination which she realizes this applying various conversation strategies such as: strategy of posing questions, directing the talk, adjusting behaviour of other interlocutors, starting and ending the talk, use of professional terminology, addresssing strategy, drawing the conclusions, storytelling, interupting and overlapping the interlocutors.<br />Unlike the judge, the defendant/accused is a law layman with small discoursive contribution. Their subordinated role is reflected in the following strategies: question answering, attempting to direct the talk, attempting to pose a question, principle of cooperation, addressing, repeating and self-repeating, interupting and overlapping, storytelling and hesitating.<br />Based on the results of the analysis of the courtroom hearings, we can draw the conclusion that the courtroom discourse is rather hybrid in its genre. It represents, on grammatic, lexic, semantic and pragmatic level, merging of&nbsp; formal written legal discourse and informal spoken language of everday conversation.<br />Suggestion for direct practice. It is essential to establish more successful model of communication in a courtroom during the interaction among law experts (judges, Abstract:</p><p>AB</p><p>Discourse analysis is an interdisciplinary research area which observes language as an activity. It deals with issues of conversation and text focusing its attention evenly on interlocutors, context and verbal message.<br />It was introduced to our academic community by Svenka Savić, firstly as teaching within undergraduate studies at Department of Serbian language and linguistics, at the Faculty of Philosophy in Novi Sad.&nbsp; She published a course book Discourse Analysis (1993) for this subject at the University of Novi Sad and established, with numerous associates, a project &bdquo;The Corpus of Novi Sad conversational Serbian language&rdquo;. Today, apart from Department of Serbian language and linguistics, discourse analysis as a subject is taught at Department of journalism and partly at Department of English language and literature.<br />At the end of the XX and the beginning of the XXI century, a new approach of analysing spoken and written forms of discourse appeared, under the name critical discourse analysis (CDA). Within CDA, the researchers mainly deal with the representation of demonstration of power, control and social inequalities in various institutions, one of which is the court.<br />Its application in the study of discourse aspects in courtroom, CDA has particularly found in the works from Anglosphere, while other language spheres have not been researched enough. The subject matter of these works are different grammatical and discourse features of talk in the courtroom such as the use of nominalization, passive construction and technical terms during judical proceedings (Gibbons, 1999), dominant position of a judge/jury in the courtroom as well as&nbsp; demonstration of power by priority turn-taking during judical proceedings (Přidalov&aacute;, 1999), analysis of types of questions during judical proceedings and their role in guiding the participants&rsquo; statements (Cotterill, 2003).<br />In the literature in Serbian language, the works dealing with legal and judical matters mainly focus on the text- written form of courtroom discourse, which manifests itself through laws and their various regulations (Janićijević, 2010) or deal with the aspects of the genre of the verdict text (Makević, 2014), and very few works deal with the aspects of talk in the courtroom during judical proceedings (Janković, 2002).<br />The features of courtroom discourse (CD) are the subject of this work. The term courtroom discourse means the type of talk where one spoken event is realized in spatially public sphere (in a courtroom), where several persons with different social and discourse roles participate. Discourse strategies during interaction of a judge with other participants in judical proceeding during hearing are in the spotlight, with particular reference to the interaction between the judge and the defendant/accused.<br />The aim of this research is to analyse, describe and explain the discourse of case-law in the institution of court in Serbia and to show relations of social power of participants involved in judical proceedings.<br />It is supposed that tha analysis of conversation between the judge and the defendant/accused will be an excellent indicator of the manner in which the court implements legislative provisions (оn discrimination, equality and etc.) and how social power is defined.<br />The theoretical and methodological framework in this study is in compliance with analysis of use of language, with linguistic activity, above all with the approach of Dutch linguist Teun van Dijk (2009) on power, and in accordance with the Politeness theory by Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson (1987). Both thories are accompanied by descriptive review of selected examples of empirical material.<br />I have used the method of collecting and analysing material rooted in analysis of discourse (Savić, 1993). The empirical material represents nine courtroom hearings from two periods of time: 4 in 1991 and 5 courtroom hearings recorded 24 years later (2015). There are 180.13 minutes of recorded conversation, that is 140 pages of text transcribed into written form prepared for analysis. The units of analysis are words, exchanges and paragraphs (Savić, 1993: 57&ndash;61).<br />The results of the research show that in a courtroom discourse the role of the judge is undoubtedly dominant, having the institutionally given power to lead the hearing and reaches decisions and verdicts. Her communicative as well as social power arises from the domination which she realizes this applying various conversation strategies such as: strategy of posing questions, directing the talk, adjusting behaviour of other interlocutors, starting and ending the talk, use of professional terminology, addresssing strategy, drawing the conclusions, storytelling, interupting and overlapping the interlocutors.<br />Unlike the judge, the defendant/accused is a law layman with small discoursive contribution. Their subordinated role is reflected in the following strategies: question answering, attempting to direct the talk, attempting to pose a question, principle of cooperation, addressing, repeating and self-repeating, interupting and overlapping, storytelling and hesitating.<br />Based on the results of the analysis of the courtroom hearings, we can draw the conclusion that the courtroom discourse is rather hybrid in its genre. It represents, on grammatic, lexic, semantic and pragmatic level, merging of&nbsp; formal written legal discourse and informal spoken language of everday conversation.<br />Suggestion for direct practice. It is essential to establish more successful model of communication in a courtroom during the interaction among law experts (judges, prosecutors, lawyers) and law laymen: avoiding unfamiliar terms, using simple sentences (avoiding passive and impersonal constructions and nominalizations), using polite and gender-sensitive language, so as to assimilate the use of official institutional language with the speech of interlocutors who are not part of the court hierarchy.</p>

La investigación tiene como objetivo central estudiar como los criterios de tratamiento informativo relacionados a hechos políticos que se ven afectados o alterados por la posición política de un diario. Para ello se ha elegido un caso específico: la relación entre Keiko Fujimori, excandidata presidencial y lideresa de Fuerza Popular, y el caso Lava Jato. Se realizará un estudio de tres hitos importantes de este caso los cuales son la detención preliminar a Keiko, los cambios que se realizaron en el Ministerio Público y la apelación de la prisión preventiva a Keiko. Se hará un análisis comparativo cualitativo de las notas emitidas por La República y La Razón para entender este fenómeno de la comunicación. / The main objective of the research is to study the information treatment criteria related to political events that are affected or altered by the political position of a newspaper. For this, a specific case has been chosen: the relationship between Keiko Fujimori, former presidential candidate and leader of Fuerza Popular, and the Lava Jato case. A study of three important milestones of this case will be carried out, which are the preliminary arrest of Keiko, the changes that were made in the Public Ministry and the appeal of the preventive detention to Keiko. A qualitative comparative analysis will be made of the notes issued by La República and La Razón to understand this phenomenon of communication. / Trabajo de investigación