Features of the institutional parameters of documentary film discourse

Introduction. This work is a comprehensive study of documentary film discourse as an institutional form of communication. Documentaries play an important role in the political and educational spheres, acting as a tool of influence and propaganda due to the evaluative vector of presenting real events that are significant for society, which determines their special socio-cultural and pragmatic potential.

Materials and methods. The anthropocentric approach to the study of documentary film discourse as a semiotically complex unity predetermined the use of a comprehensive methodology, including discourse analysis techniques in the aspect of studying the verbal presentation of communicants' intentions, content analysis with an emphasis on information about pastevents and their socio-cultural significance, semiotic analysis in the aspect of identifying meaningful elements of the image. The sociolinguistic approach made it possible to describe the institutional parameters of documentary film discourse. The material for the study was the documentary film "The Royal House of Windsor" (2017) of the British TV channel Channel 4.

Analysis. The study of the institutionality of documentary film discourse shows how language shapes social reality and ethnocultural identity within the framework of the film industry institution. The analysis of the documentary film discourse presented by the film "The Royal House of Windsor" (2017) is carried out based on the sociolinguistic approach of V. I. Karasik: participants (directors, experts, viewers), chronotope, purpose and values of the discourse. Documentary film discourse is a complex dynamic process of interaction between a collective author within the framework of the film industry institution, managing the narrative, heroes and experts, on the one hand, and a viewer participating in the process of decoding and interpreting the film, on the other.

Results. The study shows that the institutional characteristics of documentary film discourse as a complexly organized semiotic unity are associated with many social institutions, while revealing close interaction with educational, scientific and mass media discourses. Documentary discourse is characterized by a cause-and-effect narrative and complex meaning-making through audiovisual elements that form holistic images and unique structures of the film. The goal of documentary film discourse is to critically examine historical events, educate the interested viewer and activate his cognitive activity. In terms of genre, the film under study reveals features of both a popular science subgenre and an educational one.

1. Anisimov VE. Intertextual parameters of small-format texts of French film discourse: thesis. Moscow, 2021. 311 p. (In Russ.).

2. Zaychenko SS. On the issue of the sign heterogeneity of film discourse Vestnik Chelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. 2013;2(293):96-99. (In Russ.).

3. Karasik VI. Language circle: personality, concepts, discourse. Moscow: Gnosis, 2004. 390 p. (In Russ.).

4. Lotman YuM. History and typology of Russian culture. St. Petersburg: Art-SPB, 2002. 768 p. (In Russ.).

5. Mukarzhovsky Ya. Studies in aesthetics and theory of art. Moscow: Art, 1994. 606 p. (In Russ.).

6. Pisanaya TO. Aspects of institutional discourse analysis. Vestnik Maykopskogo gosudarstvennogo technologicheskogo universiteta. 2015;1:66-69. (In Russ.).

7. Serebriakova SV, Plokhaya EE. Dichotomy of cognitive space: on the correlation of the concepts of “knowledge” and “information”. Aktual'nyye problemy filologii i pedagogicheskoy lingvistiki. 2018;3(31):130-137. (In Russ.).

8. Serebriakova SV, Kibkalo RI. Evaluation as a pragmatically significant marker of the author’s presence in the popular science discourse of astronomy (based on the texts of VG Surdin). Izvestiya YUFU. Filologicheskiе nauki. 2024;28(3):72-83. (In Russ.).

9. Slyshkin GG, Efremova MA. Cinema text: an experience of linguocultural analysis. Moscow: Vodolay Publishers, 2004. 153 p. (In Russ.).

10. Filimonova EP. Lingvocognitive dominants of sports discourse: the concept of "competition". Vestnik Adygeyskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Series 2: Philology and Art Criticism. 2019;1(232):119-123. (In Russ.).

11. Chernyavskaya VE. The language of assessments in scientific discourse: terminological field and methodological approaches. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Rossiyskaya i zarubezhnaya filologiya. 2022;14(3):44-55. (In Russ.).

12. Shiryaeva TA. Structural-substantive and functional paradigm of modern business discourse: thesis. Moscow, 2014. 420 p. (In Russ.).

13. Arminen I. Institutional Interaction: Studies of Talk at Work. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2005. 268 p.

14. Mayr A. Institutional discourse in The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2015: 756-774.

15. Serebriakova S. Multidimensionality of “Europäische Idendität” concept in German mass media. Research in Language. 2021;19:4: 427-441.