| Annotation |
The relevance of the study is due to the fact that influential Western publications are constructing a conflict-prone model of the world, and the term ‘threat’ is increasingly being used in medialinguistics. The purpose of the article is to identify the language signs of disapproval, censure, sarcasm or contempt in foreign political texts devoted to Russia and its leaders, and a description of the main types of use of the concept of ‘threat’. The research material is analytical texts in leading European and American publications: Die Welt (online version – Digital Zeitung), Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Germany), Le Figaro (Франция), Público (Portugal), New York Times (USA), The Washington Post (USA), etc. The study period is from 2014 to the present. We used random sampling to select analytical articles in which the words ‘Russia’ and ‘Putin’ are used as analysis units. We used the method of linguistic discursive analysis, which makes it possible to identify evaluative ideological attitudes in the media texts and the method of cognitive analysis, which reveals the features of the reflection of real political events in the media. The main result of the study is to confirm the trend: Western and American media against Russia are undermining ideological work manifested in non-etiquette behaviour, creating a discourse of threat against the country. For the conduct of a hybrid war, the media use the language of hostility. At the same time, a deep political rift between the official position of the authors of the publications of the leading mass media and the audience has been revealed. Readers reject the provocative and menasive rhetoric of newspaper speeches; they demand a positive and constructive solution of problems. |
| References |
1. Annenkova, I. V. Media discourse of the XXIst century. Linguophilosophical aspect of the language of the media. Moscow: Izd. Mosk. Unt.; Faculty of Journalism, Lomonosov Moscow State University, 2011. (In Rus.)
2. Dobrosklonskaya, T. G. Media discourse as an object of scientific description. Scientific Bulletin. Series Humanities, no. 13 (184). Issue 2, pp.181–188, 2014. (In Rus.)
3. Ocheretina, M. A. The Threat from the Point of View of the Culture of Speech. Theoretical and Applied Aspects of Rhetoric, Stylistics and Culture of Trecha: Abstracts and Reports of the Conference of Young Scientists of Russia, 23 – 25 November, 1995. Yekaterinburg, 1995. (In Rus.)
4. Sirotinina, O. B. Dynamism of processes in modern Russian speech. Bulletin of the Samara University. History, pedagogy, philology, no.3.2, pp.9–14, 2016. (In Rus.)
5. Skovorodnikov, A. P. Ecology of the Russian language: monograph. Krasnoyarsk: Sib. Fed. Univ., 2016. (In Rus.)
6. Skovorodnikov, A. P., Kopnina, G. A. Language trauma as a linguoecological concept and problem (on the material of modern Russian mass media). Medialinguistics. International Journal, no. 4 (19), pp. 70–79, 2017. (In Rus.)
7. Cherkasova, M. N. Media evidence and media image from the point of view of media linguistics and media criticism (on the example of hate speech). Scientific bulletins Belgorod. State. Univ. Humanitarian sciences. Philology. Journalism. Pedagogy. Psychology, no. 18 (89). Issue 7, pp. 250–25, 2010. (In Rus.)
8. Epstein, O. V. A massive speech act in a semantic aspect (based on English-language political discourse). Web. 12.12.2017. Режим доступа: http://textarchive.ru/c-1699740-p5.html. (In Rus.)
9. Ethics of speech behavior of the Russian journalist. ed. Duskayeva, L. R. SPb: Asterion, 2009. (In Rus.)
10. Baez, B. Affirmative Action, Hate Speech, and Ten sure. New York, Routledge, 2013. (In Eng.)
11. Baker, C. E. Autonomy and hate speech. In Hare, I., Weinstein, J., editors. Extreme speech and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009: 139–157 (In Eng.)
12. Mel’nik, G. S., Misonzhnikov, B. Y., Teplyashina, A. N. Political discourse as the subject transgressive intention. Social Sciences (Pakistan), vol. 10, pр. 2225–2230, 2015. DOI: 10.3923/sscience.2015.2225.2230. (In Eng.)
13. Hartmann, U. Hybrider Krieg als neue Bedrohung von Freiheit und Frieden. Zur Relevanz der Inneren Führung in Politik, Gesellschaft und Streitkräften. Berlin: Carola Hartmann Miles-Verlag, 2015. (In Eng.)
14. Hordecki, B. Contemporary research in hate speech in news websites, comments from the perspective of JÜRGEN HABERMAS’S theory. Annales. Ser. hist. sociol., vol. 24. no. 3, pp. 501–512, 2014. (In Eng.)
15. Taylor, C. H. Hate Speech and Government Speech. Journal of Constitutional Law, vol. 12, pp. 4–16, Apr. 2010. (In Eng.) |
