ECOLOGY OF RUSSIAN POLITICAL DISCOURSE: PROBLEM STATEMENT
Palavras-chave:political discourse, ecolinguistics, legitimate and illegitimate political practices, social and linguocultural dominants, communicative risks.
The article offers a comparative description of typological mechanisms for political communicative practice and methods of verbal explication of its axiological and symbolic constituents, determining mental universals of individual/collective consciousness. The research position is based on the system multilevel analysis of the component structure of discourse in order to identify and characterize the linguistic and sociocultural dominants of political interaction, organized by a certain language system, taking into account the semiotic and literary-genre specifics of legitimate and illegitimate communicative acts.
The methodological concept aimed at modeling institutional interactions in the context of ecological compatibility/toxicity of the transmission of ethno-sociocultural components of the universe allowed the authors to characterize the ways and mechanisms of representation and transformation of the sign structures of political communication, which determine the algorithms of verbal and discursive behavior. The combination of methods of discourse analysis, linguistic and cognitive projection, linguistic and cultural interpretations and functional-pragmatic consideration of text units made it possible to identify and qualify the linguistic and semiotic elements of legitimate/illegitimate political practices and to carry out the ecolinguistic typology of the basic linguistic components of political communication. The results of the study indicate a special communicative register of Russian political discourse, the markers of which are the processes of diffusion/recontextualization of language and persuasive techniques, semiotic consolidation of institutional reversion, various verbal indicators of social asymmetry (from metaphorization, euphemization, nominalization to the tactics of disintegration and manipulation), which not only actualizes the linguistic and cultural resources of ideologically marked discursive practices, but also significantly expands the area of possible communication risks. The modern political logosphere, as a part of the ecosystem, synergetically included in all spheres of human communication, forms new contextual concepts, stereotypes of assessments, norms (often limiting) of verbal behavior of all subjects included in it and communicative traditions of the universum as a whole.
Skovorodnikov, A.P. (2013). On the subject of ecolinguistics in relation to the state of the modern Russian language. Ecology of Language and Communicative Practice, 13, 205-233.
Bernatskaya, A.A. (2014) Linguistic ecology and “language criticism” // Ecology of language and communicative practice, 2, 15-31.
Aristotle (1983) Politics / Aristotle. Works: in 4 Vol. Moscow, Vol. 4.
Blakar, R.M. (1987) Language as the tool of social power // Language and modeling of social interaction. Moscow, 88-120.
Zilbert, B.A. (1994) Linguistic personality and “Newspeak” of totalitarianism // Linguistic personality and semantics, Volgograd: Peremena, P. 50.
Levin, Yu.I. (1998) Semiotics of the Soviet slogans // Selected works. Poetics. Semiotics. Moscow: Languages of Russian culture, 542-558.
Norman, B.Yu. (1995) Semantic evolution of some Russian words (about the ideological component, value), Kiev: Sciences. Dumka, P. 37-43.
Baranov, A.N. (1997) Political discourse: a farewell to ritual, Man, 6. 108-118.
Ermakova, O.P. (1996) Semantic processes in vocabulary // Russian language of the end of XX century (1985-1995). Moscow: Language of Russian culture, 32-68.
Kokorina, E.V. (1996) Stylistic image of the opposition press. Russian Language of the end of the XX century (1985-1995). Moscow: 409–426.
Dieckmann, W. (1981) Politishe Sprache, politische Kommunikation: Vortrage, Aufsatze, Entwurfe. Heidelberg: Winter, 1981, 279 p.
Ealy, S. (1981) Communication, Speech and Politics. Washington D.С.: University Press of America, 244 p.
T.A. van Dijk (2013) Discourse and power: representation of dominance in language and communication. Per. with English. Moscow: Book house “LIBROKOM, 344 p.
Baranov, A.N., Kazakevich, E.G. (1991) Parliamentary debate: traditions and innovations. Moscow: Znaniye Publ., 42 p.
Sheigal, E.I. (2000) Semiotics of political discourse. Volgograd: Peremena, 386 p.
Popova, E.A. (1995) Cultural and linguistic characteristics of political discourse (based on newspaper interviews): dissertation, Volgograd, 197 p.
Sheigal, E.I. (2001) Semiotics of political discourse: dissertation, Volgograd, 434 p.
Sorokin, Y.A. (1997) Political discourse: an attempt to interpret the concept // Political discourse in Russia. Moscow, 55-68.
Bazylev, V.N. (1997) Russian Political Discourse (from official to ordinary) // Political discourse in Russia, Moscow, P. 7-9.
Demyankov, V.Z. (2001). The interpretation of the political discourse in media. In Mass media as an object of the interdisciplinary research. Moscow: Moscow State University, 116-133.
Kara-Murza, S.G. (2005) Mind manipulation. Moscow: Eksmo, 832 p.
Habermas, J. (2001) The inclusion of the other: studies in political theory, St. Petersburg: Nauka, 417 p.
Bozhenkova, N.A., Bozhenkova, R.K., Bozhenkova, A.M. (2017) Verbal exemplification of tactical and strategic preferences of communicants in modern political discursive practices. Vestnik RUDN. “Russian and foreign languages and methods of their teaching”. Vol. 15 No. 3 Moscow: RUDN, 2017. P. 255-284. DOI: 10.22363/2313-2264-2017-15-3-255-284.
Parshina, O.N. (2005) Speech behavior strategies and tactics of the modern political elite of Russia. Saratov, 315 p.
Graber, D. (1981) Political Languages // Handbook of Political Communication. Beverly Hills, London: Sage Publications, P. 195-224.
Parshin, P.B. (2001) Research practice, concept and methods of political linguistics. Scripta linguisticae applicatae. Problems of applied linguistics. Institute Yazykoznaniya RAN. Moscow: Azbukovnik, 181-207.
Solganik, G.J. (2012) Introduction // The language of media and politics / ed. by G.J. Solganik. M.: Publishing house of Moscow University; faculty of journalism. M.V. Lomonosov, 8-28.
Zdravomyslov, A.G. (1996) Sociology of conflict: textbook for University students. 3-e ed. M.: Aspect-Press, 317 p.
Jurilinguistics - 7: Language as a phenomenon of legal communication, 2006, 348 p.
Zavershinsky, K.F. (2016) Legitimacy of political power: the morphology of scientific discourse// POLITEKS, Volume 12, 4, 4-18.
Rusakova, O.F., Rusakov, V.M. (2008) PR-Discourse: theoretical and methodological analysis. Ekaterinburg, 282 p.
Ilyin, M.V. (2002) Between things and meanings: foundations of the concept analysis // Principles and directions of political studies. М.: ROSSPEN, P. 161-183.
Shakhovsky, V.I. (2008) Energy the power of the emotions and discursive norms // Questions of psycholinguistics. No. 7. P. 39-42.
Ionova, S.V., Shakhovsky, V.I. (2012) Man and his language environment: ecolinguistic aspect // Anthropology of language: collection of articles. Issue. 2. M.: Flinta: Nauka. P. 48-56.
Sandomirskaya, I. (2001) Book about Motherland. Experience in the Analysis of Discursive Practices / Wiener slawistischer Almanach. Sonderband, Wien: Gesellschaft zur Förderung slawistischer Studien, 282 p.
Likhachev, D.S. (1997) The conceptosphere of the Russian language // Russian literature. The anthology / Ed. by V.P. Neroznak. M.: Academia, P. 279-288.
Voinova, E. A. (2006) Mediatization of politics as a phenomenon of information culture. Moscow: MSU, 24 p.
Lotman Yu.M. (2010) Unpredictable mechanisms of culture / Preparation of the text and notes by T.D. Kuzovkina with the participation of O.I. Utgof. Tallinn: TLU Press, 232 p.
Nikolaeva, T.M. (2003) On the principle of “Non-cooperation” or the categories of sociolinguistic impact // Logical analysis of a language. Selected works. 1988–1995. – М.: Ind-rik, P. 268-275.
Lermontov, M.Yu. (1935-1937) Complete works in 5 Volumes; Leningrad: Academia, Vol. 2.
Chupina, A.A. (2011) Legitimization of political decisions in the communicative discourse of society and power: author’s abstract. Saratov, 24 p.
Steffensen, S. V., & Fill, A. (2014). Ecolinguistics: The state of the art and future horizons. Language Sciences. 41A. Р. 6-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.langsci.2013.08.003.
Solodovnikova, N.G. (2010) Ecologisity of emotive communication (the case-study of pre-election creolized texts), Volgograd, 196 p.
Khazimullina, E.E. (2016) The mechanism of speech involvement in extremist organizations // Acta linguistica petropolitana. Proceedings of Institute for linguistic studies, Russian Academy of Sciences. Vol.12. Part 3. P. 453-469.
Olson, M. (1995) The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Moscow: FEI, 165 p. (In Russian).
Araeva, L.A., Katyshev, P.A., Osadchiy, M.A., Olenev, S.V. (2018) Recontextualization of the Religious Term ‘Ziyarat’: Critical Discourse Study // European Journal of Science and Theology, Vol.14. No.5. P.137-147.
Fomina, Yu.S. (2016) Peculiarities of realization of speech acts, motives in the texts of extremist orientation // Acta linguistica petropolitana. Proceedings of Institute for linguistic studies, Russian Academy of Sciences. 2016. Vol. 11, Part 3. P. 441-451.
Fomina, Yu.S. (2016) The role of the speech-act of “plea” in conflict-prone text // Bulletin of the Chelyabinsk State Pedagogical University. No. 5. P. 189-194.
Khazimullina, E.E. (2017) Signs of verbal involvement in extremist organizations // Education and spiritual security. No. 2 (2). P.38-41