The contrast of representation of political conflicts in American and Russian presidential discourses

Authors

  • Наталья Борисовна Боева-Омелечко Boeva-Omelechko Natalya Borisovna – Ph.D. of philology, professor. Institute of philology, journalism and cross-cultural communication. Southern Federal University.
  • Татьяна Фёдоровна Костенко Kostenko Tatyana Fedorovna – Institute of philology, journalism and cross-cultural communication. Southern Federal University, student.
  • Валерия Геннадьевна Володько Volodko Valerya Gennadevna – Institute of philology, journalism and cross-cultural communication. Southern Federal University, student.

Abstract

Boeva-Omelechko N.B., Kostenko T.F., Volodko V.G. (Rostov-on-Don, Russian Federation)

The problem discussed in the article is topical due to the interest of linguists to the phenomenon of political modalization as an immanent feature of political and especially presidential discourse in which language is used as the main instrument of political power, its maintenance, exercise and change. This modalization presupposes axiological ambivalency of interpretation of political events in oppositional political discourses. The article reveals linguistic means used for the modalization in question  such as contrastive nominations, metaphors and  comparisons with contrastive connotations as well as antonyms  in the presidential discourses of B. Obama and V.V. Putin. The authors analyze the role of these means in  representing Russia in Putin’s discourse as  a peaceful country which keeps within law especially while joining Crimea,  does it best to settle the conflict in the south-east of Ukraine and achieves military successes in Syria  and in representing it in Obama’s discourse as an aggressor which suppresses small nations, supports separatists in Ukraine  and conducts counterproductive operation in Syria. It is concluded that language is a powerful weapon used in ideological war nowadays and it is worth studying in this aspect.

Key words: presidential discourse, political modalization, axiology, contrast, nomination, metaphor, connotation, antonymy.


References

Берендеев М.В. Образ и дискурс к вопросу о дискурсивном характере формирования политических образов // Вестн. Балтийского федерального ун-та им. Канта. 2011. Вып. 6.

Боева-Омелечко Н.Б., Зайцева Н.В. Антонимическая когезия в современном английском и русском языках. Ростов н/Д.: Изд-во СКАГС, 2011.

Шейгал Е.И. Семиотика политического дискурса. Волгоград: Перемена, 2000.

References

Berendeev M.V. Obraz i diskurs k voprosu o diskursivnom haraktere formirovanija politicheskih obrazov Vestnik Baltijskogo federal’nogo universiteta im. Kanta. 2011. Vyp. 6. S. 91-99.

Boeva-Omelechko N.B., Zajceva N.V. Antonimicheskaja kogezija v sovremennom anglijskom i russkom jazykah. Rostov n/D.: Izd-vo SKAGS, 2011.

Shejgal E.I. Semiotika politicheskogo diskursa. Volgograd: Peremena, 2000.

Downloads

How to Cite

Боева-Омелечко, Н. Б., Костенко, Т. Ф., & Володько, В. Г. (2016). The contrast of representation of political conflicts in American and Russian presidential discourses. Proceedings of Southern Federal University. Philology, (3), 61–68. Retrieved from https://philol-journal.sfedu.ru/index.php/sfuphilol/article/view/10.18522%252F1995-0640-2016-3-61-68

Issue

No. 3 (2016)

Section

LINGUISTICS

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).

Most read articles by the same author(s)