Czy potrzebujemy postprawdy? Wyrażenie postprawda na tle głównych opozycji w podsystemie polskich wykładników fałszu

• Authors: Joanna Zaucha

Title variants

EN

Do we need postprawda (post-truth)? The expression postprawda against the main oppositions in the subsystem of Polish exponents of falsehood

Abstracts

EN

This paper is dedicated to the noun postprawda (post-truth), which is entering the Polish language. The author discusses the place of the neologism in the class of falsehood exponents relying on the analysis of ‘falsehood’ presented by A. Bogusławski (2007). The main methodological assumptions, apparent already in the title of the study, are formulated on the grounds of structuralism. The principal oppositions in the described set of lexis are based on fi ve properties, namely: 1. the number of subjects engaged in the described communication event; 2. the mood of speaking determined by the predicate, 3. the implication of the current act of speech (or its absence); 4. the responsibility for falsehood; 5. disapproval. Due to its semantic properties, postprawda is one of the assertoric multi-subject discursive exponents containing an element of disapproval. Against other falsehood exponents, such as: przesąd (a superstition), mit (a myth), propaganda, ściema (a whopper), this lexeme is distinguished by thematisation of an ascription described as false and circulating in public, one that is less signifi cant in terms of communication than another unspecifi ed ascription. The falsehood of ascription is known to both the post-truth initiator and the recipient. The instances of using the noun postprawda imply the nonconfrontational and innovative nature of the phenomenon to which the word refers.

• Publisher: Towarzystwo Kultury Języka
• Journal: Poradnik Językowy
• Year: 2017
• Volume: 748
• Issue: 9
• Pages: 33-46

Dates

published

2017

Contributors

author

Joanna Zaucha

Identifiers

Biblioteka Nauki

2170359