AUTHORITY IN COMMUNICATION: DIRECT AND INDIRECT

In this article we are going to look at the category of authoritativeness in scientific discourse and media discourse. We assume that authority is a category inherent in communication in different spheres because of the dialogical nature of communication which is involved in the process of human cooperation and interaction.  The roles of the participants are not equal one of them being more trustworthy or argumentative than the other. There is a bright example in the article written by V.B. Kashkin, the professor of Voronezh State University. In his lectures he asked students who they would believe more, the dean or the cleaner, if they heard this: “There won’t be lectures tomorrow”. The choice was obviously in favour of the dean, which means that it’s not the word that matters but who says the word [2].

Authority (of a person, group of people, social institute) is an entitative phenomenon of social reality. It appears as a consequence of social wants and is intended to insure their repletion. Authority is also the ability to direct (without resort to force) the behavior and thinking logic of other people to the way that is desirable for the person possessing authority. The possibility of such influence (that can be either purposeful or unintended, involuntary) is largely conditioned by our positive emotional attitude towards the authority carrier. 

The media are justly called the fourth estate, because the minority of those in power (authorities) can influence the majority (general public) controlling their thoughts and guiding their actions.

The phenomenon of television has been thoroughly studied and a lot has been said and written about it. Television, as a medium and a mediator, has undoubtedly got authority. In the recent past viewers implicitly believed what they saw on TV, especially in the news, thanks to that credibility and trustworthiness created by on-the-spot reports, live broadcast and so on. It should be admitted that audiovisual TV environment is immersive. 

The authoritativeness of news is closely connected with their objectivity, which is, on the one hand, the key requirement for the news reports, but, on the other hand, this objectivity is superficial taking into account all the stages of news production.

There are direct markers of authority in media texts such as indication of the source of information, sound-bites and quotes belonging to prominent people, references to opinion-makers and so on. But what is often underestimated and even neglected is the role of indirect (hidden) authority. And we believe that a famous metaphor “The medium is the message”, which implies that the medium has much more power over the user than the message delivered through it, is as relevant as ever. This deliberately paradoxical statement was said by Marshall McLuhan in the period of transition from the print code to the audiovisual code (represented by television) It should be underlined, however, that McLuhan was really forward-looking in his assessment of the role of the media and his ideas could be extended on new forms of media.

With the advent of Internet our media landscape has changed a lot, though it might not be fully realized now.  Erosion of confidence in TV as a dominating medium among television news audiences and competition with Internet forced the former to undertake something to hold its audience.  It must be admitted that the character of TV news is changing. Nowadays news programs tend to be more like talk shows with their aggressive rhetoric and attempts to prove something by all means.   

Politics could be a good example. The television medium gave birth to a new form of politics – television politics. According to McLuhan this new format brought to the fore the image of a politician while the policy of the party they represent is sidelined.  Media coverage of the presidential election campaign of 2016 excellently illustrates this idea. There were news reports about political debates in the USA with the candidates for the presidency Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump and the emphasis on their personalities was very strong. The fly on Hillary’s face during the second presidential debate got on the news: “Confirmed, Hillary is a robot”– Twitter goes meltdown after a fly lands on Hillary Clinton’s face and she doesn’t flinch at all” (The Sun), “Was fly sending message when it landed on Hillary Clinton’s face?” (CBS News). In other words the form changed the content. We are not aware of the fact that every medium (in our case television) creates a kind of invisible environment and this unawareness is compensated for by attention to the content (the message). So apart from direct authority of what is being said there is indirect influence of the medium.

Now let us take a look at authority in scientific sphere because the authority of science in the modern world is apparent. Political spells and advertising slogans are often supported by references to ideas and research of “leading specialists” (who are often anonymous). Moreover it has become a trend when pseudoscientific texts in such spheres as occult sciences (extrasensorics, chiromancy, astrology), paramedical discoveries of miracle health cures, pseudopedagogical ideas about magic methods for language studying use the external authority of science, the authority of myth about science in naive worldview [3].  We suggest looking at authority from the linguistic point of view as a special way of influence on addressee by choosing and employing particular discourse strategies. Herein we will consider authority as both means of influence and its goal (and sometimes the result of this influence).

The internal authority of science is expressed as important communicative category in scientific publications of different levels and genres (scientific report, article, review, thesis, monograph, etc.). In such papers scientists try to present their research at its best in order to gain the approval and respect of their colleagues and increase their authority in scientific community.

It should be said, though, that authority in scientific discourse is not only direct but also indirect. Consequently discourse markers of authority, found in every professional text, can be either direct (reference to the authority of respected experts, public opinion, the author of publication) or indirect (hidden). Indirect markers of authority are characteristic of indirect communication, the phenomenon described by V.V. Dementiev, the professor of Saratov State University [1]. According to him, understanding utterances in this type of communication involves understanding implicated meanings that are not mentioned directly in the utterances.

50 PhD dissertations written in English have been studied and we have identified some indirect markers of authority. The most common of them are:

• Original initial of the work, epigraph, creative title (LINES FOR A VIRTUAL T[y/o]POGRAPHY: Electronic Essays on Artifice and Information [7])
• Wide use of professional terminology, that is often of foreign origin.
• Systematization of information, its visualization in formulae, diagrams, tables (In an eight player game, when two players meet and start fighting, they will both be transmitting three times as much data, and the network will slow down to 8/1+1+1+1+1+1+3+3 = 8/12 = 66% of the normal speed. In a sixteen player game, when two players meet and start fighting, they will both be transmitting four times as much data, and the network will slow down to 16/14*1 + 2*3 = 16/20 = 80% of the normal speed [6]).
• Application of visible examples, statistic data, figures, etc.
• Figurativeness and irony (This dissertation is dedicated to my wife, who supported me during (not so short) time of my studies and to my daughters Alena, Lucie, and Petra, without whose constant assistance I would probably have finished it much sooner [5].)

So, markers of authoritativeness can be direct and indirect and they pervade mass communication as well as scientific and other types of discourse. Being different, these markers have something in common: with their help texts start to accomplish not only referential function (information transfer) but conative function as well (manifested in the increased impact on the addressee).

To sum up it should be said that generation and increase of authority becomes possible only in the process of interpersonal communication during which the participants experience mutual influence. When an authoritative person says or writes something he or she affects others more effectively. That is why increase of authority in professional discourse (and as a consequence increase of the author’s authority) is one of the significant strategies of present-day professional communication. Studying authority in media discourse is challenging and promising as it is one of the framework features of mass communication.