The value characteristics of the administrative discourse

,Oksana A. Evtushenko,Natalya A. Prom,
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu09.2024.214
2024-01-01
Abstract:The presented study was conducted within the framework of axiological linguistics. It has revealed the relationship between the participants of the administrative discourse, namely, a senior official and subordinates, through language markers in order to identify the values of modern managerial communication that regulate these relations. The relevance of the study is due to the fact that the value and linguistic characteristics of the administrative discourse as a special dimension of status-based communication are of interest to any person involved in the employer-employee relationship. The authors dwell on the discourse’s qualitative change caused by globalization and digitalization and have come to the conclusion that such an impact is reflected in the evolution of values of the modern administrative discourse. The institutional feature of value attitudes towards subordinates has been proved to be expressed through texts of the “corporate website” hypergenre and lies in promotion of utilitarian and practical values. The authors pay special attention to the analysis of the hypergenre of administrative discourse — “corporate website”, which is considered as a multifunctional Internet hypergenre of administrative discourse, incorporating various genres and subgenres, performing an informing function and being virtual environment for institutional, administrative communication, which helps corporate values and traditions be broadcast and cultivated. The results of the discursive and linguistic analysis of corporate websites of organizations made it possible to decode the value dominants in the behavior of the leader in relation to the subordinate. An up-to-date list of administrative discourse values has been compiled and their hierarchy has been built, with the employee loyalty being highlighted as its key value. The identified values are in a binary opposition of “values for the organization” (employee loyalty) — “values for the employee” (person, care, health, education).
What problem does this paper attempt to address?