Authors
- Alexeyev Alexander B. PhD (Philology)
Annotation
The article considers communicative features of politainment. Aggressivization and ludization are the primary focus of the research carried out through the intermediary of general scientific and linguistic methods. The phenomena under study are often inseparable from one another and this corresponds to the ludic function of impoliteness, being transformed into a tainment technology. The research witnesses a number of techniques singled out. They are as follows: the rhetorical figure of mentioning, hyperbolization (grotesque), the tool of language play, euphemization, dysphemization, ironization (self-irony), the effects of defeated expectancy and suspense, linguistic appropriation. Not all of them ought to be qualified as the methods of speech aggression realization. For example, self-irony, having ludic and even manipulative potencies, unlike irony, is hardly ever associated with impoliteness. Nevertheless, most of the techniques in question are able to transform political discourse into politainment precisely because they prompt to exert speech and psychological pressure on the political rival. In its extreme cases, ludization combined with aggressivization presupposes mockery and communicative annihilation of the ideological or political foe. For this, hyperbolization and grotesque portraying can be most effective. In other cases, the ludic effect is achieved by ‘softer’ techniques: mentioning, ironization, etc. Sometimes, as the result of ludiziation and aggressivization, connotative aspects of some words are changed. Thus, every invective is open to reconsideration with the help of linguistic appropriation. Further studies suppose a more detailed account of other communicative trends like mediatization, simplification, juvenilization, that contribute to politainment emerging to be inscribed into more general structures of tainment discourse as hyperdiscourse.
How to link insert
Alexeyev, A. B. (2023). AGGRESSIVIZATION AND LUDIZATION OF POLITICAL DISCOURSE IN THE LIGHT OF POLITAINMENT STUDIES Bulletin of the Moscow City Pedagogical University. Series "Pedagogy and Psychology", 2023, №4 (52), 170. https://doi.org/10.25688/2076-913X.2023.52.4.13
References
1.
1. Semenova, T. I., & Skulimovskaya, D. A. (2022). Frame modeling of the speech act of warning in English political mediadiscourse. Crede Experto: transport, society, education, language, 4(35), 83–98. (In Russ.).
2.
2. Kinzel, U. (2000). Ethische Projekte. Literatur und Selbsttung im Konetext des Regierungsdenkens. Humboldt, Goethe, Stifler, Raabe. Vittorio Klostermann. (In German).
3.
3. Mal’tseva, I. A., & Lebedinskaya, V. G. (2022). Development of Esports journalism in the context of formation of sports discourse: experience of analyzing the media text of the regional online publication «Yuga.ru». I. Yakovlev Chuvash State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 1(114), 84–90. (In Russ.).
4.
4. Mal’tseva, I. A. (2022). Problems and prospects of development of esports journalism. International Research Journal, 4(118), 19–22. (In Russ.).
5.
5. Leonard, A. (2010). Political poetry as discourse. Rereading John Greenleaf, Whittier, Ebenezer Elliott, and hip-hop-ology. Rowman & Littlefireld publishers, Inc. (In English).
6.
6. Zhuvenel’, B. de. (2011). Power: natural history of its growth. Mysl’. (In Russ.).
7.
7. Grosheva, A. V. (2022). Politainment discourse: to the definition of the concept. Znak: problemnoe pole mediaobrazovanija, 4, 31–37. (In Russ.).
8.
8. Styrina, E. V., & Martirosyan, A. A. (2021). Elements of Fictionality in Media Texts: Facts vs Fiction. NSU Vestnik. Series: Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, 1, 92–105. (In Russ.).
9.
9. Dörner, A. (2001). Politainment: Politik in der medialen Erlebnisgesellschaft. Suhrkamp Verlag. (In German).
10.
10. Jenks, C. (2022). Mock News: On the discourse of mocking in U. S. televised political discussions. Discourse & Communication, 16(1), 58–75. (In English).
11.
11. Kopnina, G. A. (2020). Verbal resistance to political labelling as a defensive means in information-psychological war. Philological Sciences. Issues of Theory and Practice, 11, 248–253. (In Russ.).
12.
12. Bulgakova, A. A. (2021). Creating a new world: transmedia storytelling principles in the COVID-19 pandemic discourse. Actual Issues of Contemporary Philology and Journalism. Series: Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, 3(42), 82–90. (In Russ.).
13.
13. Mal’kovskaya, I. A. (2005). Communication sign. Discourse matrices. KomKniga. (In Russ.).
14.
14. Debord, G. (2003). La société du spectacle. Champ Libre. (In French).
15.
15. Mautner, G. (2010). Language and the market society. Critical reflections on discourse and dominance. Routledge. (In English).
16.
16. Peredreeva, M. A., & Tuvatina, A. R. (2020). The formation of mass vibes: moral panic. Forum molodyh uchenyh, 538–542. (In Russ.).
17.
17. Khrabrova, E. S. (2020). Constructing of alarmist discourse in the UK media (on the basis of COVID-19 pandemic media coverage). Actual Issues of Contemporary Philology and Journalism. Series: Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, 2(37), 152–161. (In Russ.).
18.
18. Jerome, J. K. (2014). The Best of Jerome K. Jerome. Eksmo. (In Russ.).
19.
19. Janich, N. (2012). Handbuch Werbekommunikation. Sprachwissenschaftliche und interdisziplinäre Zugänge. Francke Verlag. (In German).
20.
20. Petrov, O. V. (2004). Rhetoric: student’s book. Priem. (In Russ.).
21.
21. Erlikh, S. E. (2016). War of myths. The memory about Decembrists on the millennium frontier. Nestor-Istoriya. (In Russ.).
22.
22. Kondakova, E. A., & Printsipalova, O. V. (2021). Discourse on the Linguistic Implementation of the principles of Political Correctness in German Political Linguistics. NSU Vestnik. Series: Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, 2, 143–156. (In Russ.).
23.
23. Curzan, A. (2014). Fixing English. Prescriptivism and language history. Cambridge University Press. (In English).
24.
24. Leech, G. (2014). The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford University Press. (In English).
25.
25. Galichkina, E. N. (2019). Typology of speech genres of network computer communication. Ivzestia of the Volgograd State Pedagogical University, 2(135), 97–100. (In Russ.).
26.
26. Serebryuk, A. N. (2019). Linguistic discrimination and linguistic appropriation as the examples of double consciousness in the U. S. NSU Vestnik. Series: Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, 1, 134–148. (In Russ.).