Representation of Semantic Power in Discourse of Institutionality

The article analyzes the linguistic peculiarities of the spatial representation of the concept of power in such types of institutional discourse as economic and legal. The interrelation of space of power which is thought as a category and the various discursive practices correlated with different spheres of communication is considered. Specification of representing the category of power is demonstrated through semantic analysis of dynamic prepositional group. Within the research, new constitutive components of the given discourses, text-forming units and components of the text are revealed, new interpretations of elements of the discursive structure and semantics are given. The examined group of dynamic prepositions undergoes derivational transformations presented in a generalized model of semantic modifications.


Introduction
The phenomenon of power is one of the key superuniversals, such as gender, life, death, man, peace, war, love, movement, space and few others, without which it is impossible to imagine more or less integral representation of a person about himself and the surrounding essentiality.
This article aims to outline the limits of this universal in the fuzzy plurality of its professional semantic manifestations in the English language.Of course, almost every "example" may be and should be a sufficient reason for independent philological discretion of one or another version of the semantic features of the category of power, but we are primarily interested in the obvious in its vastness semantic spread of notional components of the category of power represented in the discourse of institutionality.
The cognitive-discursive paradigm of modern linguistics being a continuation of the functional paradigm is successfully developing in various branches of linguistics, and especially in semantics, lexicology and text theory.However, it seems that there is every reason to argue the fact that the least of all the new scientific paradigm was reflected in the research on semantics.As rightly noted by M. A. Krongauz, until now "semantics ... in many ways remains a" thing in itself" -traditional linguistics for linguists [1,204].Meanwhile, such isolation of semantics from the direction intensively developing in linguistics is not only undeserved, but at least strange.After all, the "thing in itself" -traditional linguistics for linguists "is the area of language reflecting the phenomena of all levels of language structure, the area where the national specificity of the language, its identity is particularly evident.The importance of the cognitive approach to the study of all derivational subsystems is determined by the fact that semantic derivative meanings accumulate the most significant elements of meaning for a given language collective; they, as V. B. Kasevich correctly noted, in many cases serve as convenient "abbreviations" for more bulky lexical expressions, the semantics of which from the point of view of a given language "deserves" inclusion in lexicology for one or another reason or most often -because of its pragmatic importance (see: [2,233]).Semantics plays an important role in the nominative process, depicting the features of the human world, the specifics of the cultural and historical experience of the people.In the microsystems of derivative word meanings (motivated on this synchronous slice of language, preserving their internal form), such conceptual information is expressed explicitly.Therefore, for conceptology derived vocabulary and methods of its system organization are beneficial material and should be of considerable interest.
The issues of power and language correlation and how the category of power is represented in a certain discursive sphere always attract the attention of not only linguists but also experts practicing in various communicational fields.Therefore, it makes sense to start with the definition of discourse, namely, institutional discourse, since in institutional discourse it is especially obvious how power manifests itself in language.
Recently linguistic research has focused on the process of creating a holistic concept of the relationship between language and thinking, ways of expression of foreign language reality in the linguistics, knowledge about the world, the laws of the organization of the "linguistic picture of the world", thesaurus of an individual.The human factor in language, its cognitive and functional aspects occupy a special place in the center of the study.The problems of word research are beginning to be considered in terms of the interaction of the linguistic context with the emotional and cognitive context, in connection with the mental and psychological structures of the human person.The priority direction for modern research in the field of linguistics is considered to be a functional approach exploring the language in action and has an orientation to the linguistic identity.
The relevance of the studied problem complex is also stipulated by modern linguistic trends -growing attention to the relationship between space as a category, on the one hand, and different discursive spheres correlated with communicative fields, on the other hand, what manifests itself in different directions.Research practice, firstly, actively studies the consistency of extralinguistic factors, and secondly, the growing interest in the constituents of communicative, discursive spheres -correlation of the whole and the parts, as it clarifies the status of discourse units.
The second current tendency in modern linguistics is the specification of the characteristics of discourse, revealing new aspects of the relationship between discourse and text.Specifying the peculiarities of discourse, the researchers rely on the linguistic categorical apparatus.In the framework of the given research, the new constitutive components of discourse, the text forming units and components of the text are determined, new interpretations of the elements of discourse structure and semantics are presented.
The third tendency is the growing diversity of approaches to the interpretation of institutional communication and the need to specify it.This can be done in the process of analyzing such representative component as categorical space, for example, the space of power and in the process of finding its constitutive role in the discourse.The chosen approach does not exhaust the systematics of space semantics in institutional communication which includes many aspects.But it is the one focusing on the relationship between discursive relations and space [1].
Economics and law are those spheres, those areas of knowledge of the modern world where language dynamics, changes in public consciousness, mentality of a native speaker are especially clearly manifested.The latter, in turn, has both social and linguistic conditionality.Economic and legal lexicon of a modern person explains the relevance in terms of the theme of the concept of "linguistic identity", its structural problems, typology, methods of linguistic embodiment, methods and techniques of description [2].
Such a turn to the chosen theme fits into the General process of humanization of scientific disciplines (including linguistics) studying a person as a representative of society and as a unique self-valuable person, a person is recognized in this paradigm as a measure of all things.
Studies on the human factor in language attract attention not only to the linguistics itself but also to the extralinguistic properties of lexical units in text formation, in the study of the linguistic picture of the world.
Attention to the environment of the word functioning and its participation in the processes of text formation is associated with the term "discourse" which is legitimate at the stage of transition from the linguistics of the text as a self-supporting system to the study of the text in the aspect of the specificity of human existence, human relations with the world and people, in the aspect of cultural linguistics.

Institutional Discourse
Discourse is one of the most complicated scientific concepts incorporating not only linguistic but also extra linguistic components.Discourse is understood as the following linguistic phenomena: 1) a coherent text taken in the event aspect, i.e. the text in conjunction with extra linguistic -pragmatic, social and cultural, psychological and other factors; 2) a speech "immersed in life", considered as a purposeful social action, as a component participating in the interaction of people, in the mechanisms of their consciousness.The following types of discourse are pointed out: personal discourse -the discourse of an individual, a particular person and institutional discourse -a general, universal discourse.
The institutional component is an integral part of the mechanism of society development.The main purpose and meaning of institutions, as O. V. Inshakov notes, is not to be simple "rules of the game" but in the functional organization of public interactions of people, their groups and communities.Institutions make the rules defining at the same time opportunities and constraints, rights and duties, roles and statuses.Change of functional forms of connections and relations is impossible without corresponding structural changes which in interaction create the mechanism of society evolution.Any disregard of the role and importance of actual institutional changes, their incompatibility with structural and organizational measures to reform the community or group initially condemn this community or group to failure [3].
Institutional discourse is communication within the given framework of status-role relations.In relation to modern society, As V. I. Karasik notes, the following types of institutional discourse can be distinguished: political, diplomatic, administrative, legal, military, pedagogical, religious, mystical, medical, business, advertising, sports, scientific, scenic and mass information [4].
Status-oriented discourse is an institutional communication, that is, speech interaction of representatives of social groups or institutions with each other, with people realizing their status-role opportunities within the existing public institutions, the number of which is determined by the needs of society at a particular stage of its development.
From the point of view of sociolinguistics discourse is a communication of people, considered from the position of their belonging to a particular social group or in relation to a particular speech situation, for example, institutional communication.To determine the type of institutional communication, it is necessary to consider the status-role characteristics of the participants of communication (judge -prosecutor, judge -lawyer, prosecutor -defendant, attorney -defendant, judgedefendant; seller -buyer, consultant -client, negotiating partners), the purpose of communication (economic discourse -the establishment of trade relations, making a profit; legal discourse -making rules and regulations (improvement of legislation), law enforcement, a prototype place of communication (corporation conference hall, shop, market; prison, courtroom, Parliament).Institutional discourse is a specialized type of clichéd communication between people who may not know each other but must communicate in accordance with the rules of the society in which there is a border felt by the participants of communication, the output of which undermines the foundations of a public institution, as being mistaken a person violates the whole process, destroys the system of exchanges in the society, forcing the society to apply certain sanctions against it for violation of corporate rules [5].
Any reproduction-seeking institution needs a status of legitimacy, which the institution can acquire only by firm establishing its place in the world of things.The Institute itself provides its members with a set of categories -standards, analogues or prototypes by which they can perceive and study the world around them.These categories should justify the Institute's rules and regulations, which should facilitate its functioning in an easily recognizable, legalized form over a long period of time.
The function of the Institute is to solve an important task for the group.Institutions have structure, order, isolation, stability, specificity.Institutional capacity, however, is graded.The core of the institutional discourse is the communication of base pairs of the communication parties of the economist and his colleagues, a lawyer and a client.
Institutional discourse is based on a specific template, but the degree of stencil of different types and genres of discourse is different, as in real life, the prototype order of discourse is often violated.Here are examples of economic and legal discourses, which are based on the scheme of necessary and sufficient communicative actions related, for example, to the court session and negotiation.

Economic Discourse
Economic discourse-negotiating: 1) partners are invited to a certain place at a certain time, 2) partners take their places and get documents, 3) there is a discussion, 4) general decisions are made, 5) a contract is signed.
Legal discourse: 1) the bailiff announces the beginning of the trial, 2) the lawyer and the prosecutor make an introductory speech, 3) the judge hears testimony, 4) the lawyers of the parties make a final speech,5) the jury's verdict, 6) the judge read out the verdict.
In fact, these schemes are not-rarely violated, as business negotiations may be broken by telephone calls, secretaries or assistants can go to the office to provide new information or to clarify some details or the necessary documents may not be available or, for example, during the court session new witnesses may appear and/or additional information that requires verification, as a result of which the hearing may be postponed.All the participants got used to the deviations and overlap and react to them properly.In this case, it is appropriate to talk about the probability of the existence of soft and rigid varieties of institutional discourse.The first example illustrates a mild form of communicative event, the structure of which can change, but the main components -the discussion and signing of the contract -cannot disappear.An example of a rigid type of institutional discourse is the court session, the structure of which has a rigid (ritual) order [5].
The transition from household to institutional discourse is associated with certain difficulties.In the context of everyday communication, all communicants know each other well, talk about specific, familiar things and they do not need to talk about something complex, requiring accompanying professional explanations, so the conversation takes place in a short code that has a contextual dependence.However, when a person goes beyond the ordinary communication, it is less dependent on the context, as when faced with strangers, a person must follow the familiar pattern of background communication.
Discourse is the production of knowledge through language, but discourse itself is the product of a certain activity: discursive activity is the practice of produced meanings.Any activity has a discursive aspect, so the discourse is a component of all social activities and affects this activity.Each discourse creates a coordinate system within which it makes sense, and any speaker involved in the deployment of the discourse must act from the perspective of the subject of the discourse.For example, we personally may not believe in the superiority of the West, but if we use the discourse "West and the Rest" ("the West and the Rest"), it will appear that we are talking from the position of recognition of the West as the highest civilization, as in this case the West is opposed to the Rest from the position of dominant power [6].
Discourse is similar to what sociologists call an ideology -a set of assertions or beliefs that produce knowledge that serves the interests of a particular group or class.Foucault, for example, has a negative attitude towards diminishing the role of discourse to reflect the interests of a particular class.But this does not mean that discourse is ideologically neutral or innocent [6].

Semantic Power of Discourse
In the framework of modern philosophical ideology, power is increasingly identified with language, and the formation of identity is associated with the influence of power.And if one recognizes the existence of a special individuality as a component, its expression always refers to the language that comes from the outside.Consequently, there is the problem of the subordination of the individual to the discourse of power.
According to Ye. Sheigal, power in discourse can act in different hypostases: as a substantial, cognitive, sociolinguistic, rhetorical and pragmatic category.Power as a meaningful category is the subject of communication, the topic of conversation, and in this regard, this category acts as a manifestation of linguistic conceptualization of power.
As a cognitive category, power is something that is otherwise formulated as "the power of language» -the ability of a language to impose a worldview, to create a linguistic interpretation of the worldview.
Influencing on existing in the consciousness of society picture of the world, the government acts as a rhetorical category that is associated with the strategies of fascinatingly, manipulation, etc.This is particularly evident in the areas of communication, like advertising, propaganda, etc.
Power as a sociolinguistic category is closely related to the category of social status and acts as a manifestation of social power communication participant with a higher social status.For example, in the communication of people with education and a sufficiently high social status (top managers, lawyers, doctors, professors) shows a mechanism of pressure and exercise of power.The characteristic feature of this mechanism is the intensive use of professional terminology and jargon [7].In addition, the semantic structure of some parts of speech is subjected to derivational changes, resulting in the formation of new meanings of verbs, prepositions and the transition of these words from one lexical-semantic group to another [5].This is how, for example, the derivational changes in the semantic structure of spatial-dynamic pretexts are reflected in such types of institutional discourse as legal and economic.
The modified values of prepositions are presented in the form of a generalized model, the structure of which depends on the specific case of modification of the logic of specific prepositions

DF DF DF DF
In the analyzed examples, they began to turn to lawyers for more practical purposes (wills, divorces, estate planning, tax advice); and they began to do so more as a means of obtaining group goals that could be attained only through law - [8] and The policy of egalitarian taxation was pursued most successfully through political elections and legislation - [9] the relevant integral seme "aim of translocation" is expressed by the differential feature "means of obtaining the goal", where "law" and "political elections and legislation"act as such means, "more practical purposes (wills, divorces, estate planning, tax advice") and "the policy of egalitarian taxation"-the purpose of the action -P, and "obtaining group goals" -result R in the first example, in the second sentence there is no information about the result of the action [10].
The irrelevant integral seme "character of space" is also expressed by only one differential feature "abstract space", since political and legal space cannot be called geometric space that has dimensions, i.e. physical space.Differential features "animate object" and "specific/concrete object" implement the integral seme "character of the object", where the localized object in the first sentence is Y -"they", there is no information about the localized object in the second example.
The integral seme "character of motion trajectory" is neutralized, as in these examples there are no contextual specifiers.The categorical seme "moving in space" is not preserved.

Conclusion
Categorical and integral schemes being a part of a system organization of derived vocabulary within the framework of the cognitive paradigm should be understood as different ways of storing mental models, as a "repository" of some extremely generalized representations, images.Cognitive analysis of complex units of derived lexical meanings will allow to understand different mechanisms of language modeling of non-linguistic reality.
The cognitive-discursive paradigm can and should be implemented when considering the semantics of lexical meaning in various aspects not only in the analysis of the word-formation system, but also in the study of the semantics of derivation as one of the mechanisms of text generation.
Consequently, it may be concluded that the power as a pragmatic category is connected with the intentional aspect of communication in institutional types of discourse.
Power can act as a basic intention of various types of institutional discourse as its intentional basis.