Вербалізація термінологічного сполучення "свобода слова" в комунікативній поведінці українців

Abstract

Промовці, трибуни, ті, що мають за мету нести інформативно-оцінювальні повідомлення до широкого кола слухачів, повинні відповідати за свій словесний учинок. Сьогодні можна констатувати, що публіцистичне мовлення має агресивний характер, де домінує пейоративна мовленнєва функція, що переважно зреалізовується прямими мовленнєвими актами. Потребує переосмислення і терміносполучення «свобода слова», оскільки, як видається, сьогодні багато хто його неправильно тлумачить. У суспільстві, де панує висока моральність, не тільки не повинно бути словесних образ, принижень честі і гідності громадян, нерозуміння сутності поняття «свобода слова», але повинна бути наявна висока мовленнєва культура. Відсутність свободи слова породжує ризики втрати самостійності мислення, що призводить до маніпуляції громадською думкою. Public speaking speech is not only a statement, but also an imperative. Its goal is not only to inform about something, but to induce a concrete interpretation, understanding of events or individuals, their evaluation, instilling a particular attitude, formulating specific judgments and beliefs, spirituality. That is why orators, speakers, tribunes, those whose aim is to carry informative and evaluation messages to a wide range of listeners, should be responsible for their verbal actions like ancient polemics did. What is brought to our attention by modern speakers, concerns not the conditional, imaginary circumstances or events, but concrete activities. A speaker should always be responsible for the consequences of his thinking and speech. The Civil Code of Ukraine is known to provide for the protection of the dignity and honor of every concrete citizen of Ukraine, and compensation to him of non-pecuniary damage caused by their humiliation. Each language has a group of words or combinations that are systematically used as invectives and which should be distinguished from cunning and tabooed elements. Invectives express negative pragmatic information. Terminologically there is a distinction between pejoratives and invectives. The pejorative is said to be a verbal unit with a stylistically reduced meaning. The invective is interpreted as a verbally or nonverbally offence. Today we can state that publicistic speech has an aggressive character, where the pejorative speech function dominates, which is mainly implemented by direct speech acts. In our opinion, there is also a need for re-thinking of the term of the "freedom of speech", since it seems that today many people misinterpret it. One can offer the following interpretation: freedom of speech is one of the most important constitutional political rights of citizens, which3 provides an opportunity to publicly express their opinions (in particular on matters of public or political life) in all mass media, at meetings, rallies, and so on. In the linguistic consciousness of Ukrainians everything that is connected with the notion of freedom of speech over time there is quite a constant emphasis on negativity, which is recorded in the new meanings acquired by the keywords fixing typical life situations, including those related to jurisprudence. In a society with a high morality, there should not only be verbal offences, humiliation of honor and dignity of citizens, misunderstanding of the essence of the concept of "freedom of speech”, but also an appropriate speech culture. Sophistication of speech, its elitism should be a sign of high morality of the society, a high level of legal awareness and its citizens.