Strategies to Discredit Opponents: Russian Presentations of Events in Countries of the Former Soviet Union

• Authors: Ludmilla A’Beckett
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Discourse in this paper is represented by the totality of texts (Koller, 2004, p. 18) covering events in former Soviet republics such as Ukraine, Georgia and the Baltic countries. Over 100 texts have been collected from the most popular Russian newspapers, Argumenty i Fakty and Komsomol’skaia Pravda, between 2004 and 2010 in order to compile a “discourse of Russian satellites.” Even though the contemporary Russian press avoids the totalitarian habits of Soviet times such as monoglossia, dysphemisms (language of insults), sanctions and social commands, it still attempts to exercise control over the formation of readers’ opinions. The Russian press tries to channel the reaction of their audience toward disapproval of independent nations. The objective of this article is to summarize those narrative techniques which generate negative responses toward sovereign countries of the former Soviet Union. These techniques, which are called “strategies for discrediting opponents,” include sourcing favorable and unfavorable opinions, humorous framing, ironic statements and constructing a negative background. The means of control are subtle, but they are no less effective than through direct coercion.

Keywords

EN

appraisal theory; discourse strategies; negative perception; dialogic perspectives; humor; metaphor; Russian press

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Psychology of Language and Communication
• Year: 2013
• Volume: 17
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 133-156

Dates

published

2013-09-01

online

2013-09-06

Contributors

author

Ludmilla A’Beckett

• School of Languages, Cultures and Linguistics, Monash University, Building 11 A, Clayton, Vic 3800, Australia

References

• A’Beckett, L. (2012). The play of voices in metaphor discourse: A case study of “NATIONS ARE BROTHERS”. Metaphor and Symbol, 27 (2), 171-194.
• A’Beckett, L. (2009a). Appraisal in the Russian Press: The characterization of the Ukrainian leaders. RAEL: revista electrónica de lingüística aplicada, 8, 2009, 102-119. Can be accessed at: http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/revista?codigo=6978
• A’Beckett, L. (2009b). Onomastic allusions in the Russian press: Multiple facets of the Russian terminator. In S. Birzer, M. Finkelstein, & I. Mendoza (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Perspectives on Slavistics Conference,Regensburg 2006 (pp. 3-16). Munich: Otto Sagner.
• A’Beckett, L. (2008). Political myths on the Ukrainian orange revolution in Russian public discourse. Monash University Linguistics Papers, 6 (1), 3-18.
• A’Beckett, L. (2007). The stance of Russian mass media on the Ukrainian Orange Revolution. Transcultural Studies: A Series in Interdisciplinary Research, 2-3 (2006-2007), 217-244.
• Anderson, R.D. (2001). Metaphors of dictatorship and democracy: Change in the Russian political lexicon and the transformation of Russian politics. SlavicReview, 60 (2), 312-335.
• Attardo, S. & Raskin, V. (1991). Script theory revis(it)ed: Joke similarity and joke representation model. Humor: The International Journal of Humor Research, 4 (3/4), 293-347.
• BBC Monitoring (2008). The press in Russia. In BBC News, Europe, 16 May 2008. Available (accessed 1 October 2010): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4315129.stm.
• Bednarek, M. (2006). Evaluation in Media Discourse: Analysis of a NewspaperCorpus. London: Continuum.
• Besemeres, J. (2010a). Ukraine: A sharp turn eastwards? ANU Centre for EuropeanStudies Briefing Paper Series, 1 (1), 1-24.
• Besemeres, J. (2010b). Can Poland and Russia get along at last? Quadrant, 54 (9), 50-57.
• Blommaert, J. & Verschueren, J. (1998). Debating Diversity: Analysing the Discourseof Tolerance. London: Routledge.
• Bloor, M. & Bloor, T. (2007). The Practice of Critical Discourse Analysis: An Introduction. New York: Hodder Arnold.
• Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Braiker, H.B. (2001). The Disease to Please. New York: McGraw Hill.
• Budaev, E.V. & Chudinov, A.P. (2009). Linguisticheskaia Sovetologiya [LinguisticSovetology]. Yekaterinburg: Ural’skiy Pedagogicheskiy Institut (in Russian).
• Budaev, E.V. & Chudinov, A.P. (2006). Sovremennaia Politicheskaia Lingistika. [Contemporary Political Linguistics]. Yekaterinburg: Ural’skiy Pedagogicheskiy Institut (in Russian).
• Burridge, K. (2004). Weeds in the Garden of Words. Sydney: ABC.
• Burridge, K. (2002). Blooming English. Sydney: ABC.
• Cameron, L. & Maslen, R. (Eds.) (2010). Metaphor Analysis. London: Equinox.
• Giora, R. (2003). On Our Mind: Salience, Context and Figurative Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Grant, L. (2001). People Who Make Your Life Hell. Sydney: Simon & Schuster.
• Horvath, R. (2011). Putin’s ‘preventive counter-revolution’: Post-Soviet authoritarianism and the spectre of velvet revolution. Europe-Asia Studies, 63 (1), 1-25.
• Hudson, K. (1997). The Dictionary of Diseased English. London: Macmillan Press.
• Inkeles, A. (1950). Public Opinion in Soviet Russia: A Study in Mass Persuasion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Koller, V. (2004). Metaphor and Gender in Business Media Discourse: A CriticalCognitive Study. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Kostomarov V.G. & Burvikova, N.D. (2001). Starye Mehi i Molodoe Vino. Iz Nablyudeniyza Russkim Slovoupotrebleniem Kontsa XX Veka [Old Wine and NewBottles: Some Observation on Russian Word Usage at the End of 20th Century]. Saint Petersburg: Zlatoust (in Russian).
• Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Leave By. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
• Littlemore, J. & Low, G. (2006). Figurative Thinking and Foreign Language Learning. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Maples, D. (2011). Russia and Ukraine: A new stage in the gas war. Posted 11.09.2011. Can be accessed at: http://ukraineanalysis.wordpress.com/2011/09/11/russiaand-ukraine-a-new-stage-in-the-gas-war/.
• Martin, J.R. & White, P.R.R. (2005). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal inEnglish. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Musolff, A. (2006). Metaphor scenarios in public discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 21 (1), 23-38.
• Musolff, A. (2004). Metaphor and Political Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Peters, R. (2011). Tsar quality is Putin’s dangerous asset. The Australian, 3.10.2011.
• Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic Mechanisms of Humour. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
• Ritchie, L.D. (2006).Context and Connection in Metaphor. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.[WoS]
• Thompson, G. & Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation: An introduction. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in Text (pp. 1-28). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Van Dijk, T. & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. London: Academic Press.
• Weiss, D. (2007). Stalinistskiy i Natsional-Sotsialisticheskiy Diskursy Propagandy: Sravnenie v Pervom Priblizhenii [The Stalinist and National-Socialist discourses of propaganda: A primary approach in comparison]. Politicheskaialinguistika, 2007 (3), 34-60 (in Russian).
• Weiss, D. (2008a). Zhivotnye v Sovetskoi Propagande [Animals in the Soviet propaganda]. Politicheskaia linguistika, 2008 (2), 19-35 (in Russian).
• Weiss, D. (2008b). “Parazity, Padal’, Musor. Obraz Vraga v Sovetskoi Propagande”. [Parasites, carrion, trash. The image of enemy in the Soviet propaganda]. Politicheskaia linguistika, 2008 (1), 16-22 (in Russian).
• Weiss, D. (2009). Zhivotnye v Sovetskoi Propagande. Chast’ 2 [Animals in the Soviet propaganda. Part 2]. Politicheskaia linguistika, 2009 (1), 39-46 (in Russian).
• Zemtsov, I. 1984.Manipulation of a language. The lexicon of Soviet Political Terms. Fairfax: Hero Books.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/plc-2013-0009