Specifics of Representation of Conceptual Opposition in the Aspect of Political Discourse Consideration (by the Example of the Dichotomy СОЗИДАНИЕ/CREATION ‒ РАЗРУШЕНИЕ/DESTRUCTION in the Russian and English Languages)

Abstract

The study aims to reveal the features of implementation of conceptual opposition by the subjects of the dichotomy СОЗИДАНИЕ/CREATION ‒ РАЗРУШЕНИЕ/DESTRUCTION within the framework of political discourse. Based on this dichotomous model, the author analyses the reasons for the actualisation of conceptual opposition in Russian and Anglo-American linguistic cultures, considered using the material of political texts, which made it possible to clarify the causal nature of the opposition of political discourse. The scientific novelty of the study lies in the definition of conceptual opposition proposed by the author using the example of the dichotomy СОЗИДАНИЕ/CREATION ‒ РАЗРУШЕНИЕ/DESTRUCTION, revealing a specific model of action in political discourse. As a result of the study, the structuring of the conceptual action СОЗИДАНИЕ/CREATION ‒ РАЗРУШЕНИЕ/DESTRUCTION demonstrating the complementary specificity of objectification has been determined; a description of the methods for implementing the oppositional model at the explicit and implicit levels has been presented; the signs of actualisation of intra-semantic opposition by the representatives of the dichotomy under consideration have been revealed; the displacement of the boundaries of this opposition formalised by the non-rigid nature of the semantic fixation of its subjects has been established.

References

1. Алиева Т. В. Концептуальная оппозиция «свой - чужой» в современном британском политическом дискурсе: лингвистический аспект: монография. М.: Русайнс, 2022.
2. Кацнельсон С. Д. Общее и типологическое языкознание. Л., 1986.
3. Краснова Т. И. Анализ политического дискурса: подходы и категории // Политическая лингвистика. 2013. № 2 (44).
4. Лоренц К. Эволюция ритуала в биологической и культурной сферах // Природа. 1969. № 11.
5. Сребрянская Н. А. Дейксис и его проекции в художественном тексте: монография. Воронеж: Изд-во Воронежского государственного педагогического университета, 2005.
6. Шейгал Е. И. Семиотика политического дискурса. М.: Гнозис, 2004.
7. Dijk T. van. Discourse, Knowledge and Ideology: Reformulating Old Questions. Essen: Linguistic Agency of the University of Duisburg-Essen, 2002.
8. Dirven R., Polzenhagen F., Wolf H.-G. Introduction: Ideology, a Vast Research Field Outside Cognitive Linguistics // The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics / ed. by D. Geeraerts, H. Сuyckens. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
9. Hawkins B. Ideology, Metaphor and Iconographic Reference // Language and Ideology: in 2 vols. / ed. by R. Dirven, R. Frank, C. Ilie. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2001. Vol. 2. Descriptive Cognitive Approaches.
10. Hawkins B. Matters of Life and Death: The Role of Iconographic Reference in the Language of Oppression // Language and Ideology: Selected Papers from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference / ed. by J. Verschueren. Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association, 1999.
11. Lakoff G. Metaphor and War: The Metaphor System Used to Justify War in the Gulf // Thirty Years of Linguistic Evolution: Studies in Honor of René Dirven on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday / ed. by M. Pütz. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1992.

Author information

About this article

Publication history

• Received: January 26, 2023.
• Published: March 31, 2023.

Keywords

• концептуальная оппозитивность
• дихотомия
• действие
• политический дискурс
• дейксис
• conceptual opposition
• dichotomy
• action
• political discourse
• deixis

Copyright

© 2023 The Author(s)
© 2023 Gramota Publishing, LLC

User license

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)