War yesterday and today: The image of Russia in British media discourse

封面

如何引用文章

详细

The paper focuses on diachronic framing analysis of Russia’s images in British media discourse. The importance of the research is determined by a need to work out adequate linguistic foundations to counteract information war, generated by some foreign media and aimed at distorting Russia’s history and eroding its spiritual values. Few scholars have drawn on any systematic research into analysis of Russia’s images in foreign media discourses of different historical spans. The major objective is to compare Russia’s images and their emotional charge in the British media in chronologically divided periods of war and peace under the influence of changing historical and ideological factors. The authors account for the mechanisms by which Russia’s images are framed and transformed in the contexts of the largest war of the XX century and the information war of the XXI century. The material comprises 500 samples per period. The data covering two historical spans are investigated through a framing approach. The criteria for diachronic analysis are dominant diagnostic and prognostic frames, constituting the macroframe WAR. The significant difference in Russia’s images in war- and peacetime consists in their emotive load: Russia’s contemporary negative images are contrasted to positive images activated in the retrospective period. The findings support the idea that British media discourse focusing on Russia is subject-centered: Russia’s image is determined by the geopolitical situation, Great Britain’s political priorities and objectives, and the bilateral relationship between the countries. The results can be used to further develop the linguistic basics of war theory.

作者简介

Olga Solopova

South Ural State University (National Research University)

编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: o-solopova@bk.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4170-7267

Dr Habil. in Philology, Professor at the Department of Linguistics and Translation at the Institute of Linguistics and International Communications of South Ural State University (National Research University). Her research interests include linguistic political prognostics, metaphor studies, discourse analysis, and diachronic linguistics.

76, Lenina Av., Chelyabinsk, 454080, Russia

Svetlana Kushneruk

Chelyabinsk State University

Email: svetlanakush76@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4447-4606

Dr Habil. in Philology, Professor of Department of Theory and Practice of the English Language at Chelyabinsk State University, Russia. Her research interests focus on discourse analysis, cognitive linguistics, media linguistics, world-modelling in discourse.

129, ul. Br. Kashirinykh, Chelyabinsk, 454001, Russia

参考

  1. Allan, Kathryn. 2008. Metaphor and Metonymy: A Diachronic Approach. (Publications of the Philological Society). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell
  2. Bogatyreva, Svetlana N. 2011. Ethnic-cultural specificity of the concept tolerance in Spanish and Russian national consciousness (an attempt of linguistic analysis). Voprosy Kognitivnoj Lingvistiki 3 (28). 13-20. (In Russ.)
  3. Budaev Edward V. & Anatoly P. Chudinov. 2020. Contemporary Russian political metaphorology (2011-2020). Philological Class 25 (2). 103-113. (In Russ.). http://doi.org/10.20916/1812-3228-2020-3-56-70.
  4. Bartlett, Frederic Charles. 1932. Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  5. Beevor, Antony. 1999. Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege: 1942-1943. UK: Penguin.
  6. Blumenberg, Hans. 1998. Paradigma zu einer Metaphorologie. Frankfurt em Main: Suhrkamp.
  7. Brüggemann, Michael. 2014. Between frame setting and frame sending: How journalists contribute to news frames. Communication Theory 24 (1). 61-82.
  8. Cánovas, Cristóbal P. 2015. Cognitive patterns in Greek poetic metaphors of emotion: a diachronic approach. In Javier E. Díaz-Vera (ed.), Metaphor and metonomy across time and cultures: perspectives on the sociohistorical linguistics of figurative language (cognitive linguistics research), 295-318. Berlin/Munich/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
  9. Chudinov, Anatoly P. & Olga A. Solopova. 2015. Linguistic political prognostics: Models and scenarios of future. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 200. 412-417. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.088.
  10. Chudinov, Anatoly P., Edward V. Budaev & Olga A. Solopova. 2020. Political Metaphor Studies: Discursive Turn. Moscow: Flinta (In Russ.)
  11. De Vreese, Claes. 2005. News framing: Theory and typology. Information Design Journal 13 (1). 51-62
  12. De Vreese, Claes, Peter Jochen & Semetko Holli A. 2001. Framing politics at the launch of the Euro: A crossnational comparative study of frames in the news. Political Communication 18 (2). 107-122. http://doi.org/10.1080/105846001750322934
  13. Díaz-Vera, Javier E. 2015. Figuration and language history: Universality and variation. In Javier E. Díaz-Vera (ed.), Metaphor and metonomy across time and cultures: Perspectives on the sociohistorical linguistics of figurative language (cognitive linguistics research), 3-13. Berlin/Munich/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter
  14. Entman, Robert M. 1993. Framing: clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43 (4). 51-58
  15. Gamson, William A. & Modigliani Andre. 1987. The changing culture of affirmative action. In Richard G. Braungart & Margaret M. Braungart (eds.), Political sociology, 37-177. Greenwich: JAI Press
  16. Gamson, William A. & Modigliani Andre. 1989. Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology 95 (1). 1-37
  17. Geeraerts, Dirk. 2010. Prospects for the past: Perspectives for diachronic cognitive semantics. In Margaret E. Winters, Heli Tissari & Kathryn Allan (eds.), Historical cognitive linguistics. 333-356. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. http://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226447.
  18. Geeraerts, Dirk. 2015. Four guidelines for diachronic metaphor research. In Javier E. Díaz-Vera (ed.), Metaphor and metonomy across time and cultures: Perspectives on the sociohistorical linguistics of figurative language (cognitive linguistics research), 15-28. Berlin/Munich/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter
  19. Godefroidt, Amélie, Berbers Anna & d’Haenens Leen. 2016. What’s in a frame? A comparative content analysis of American, British, French, and Russian news articles. The International Communication Gazette 78 (8). 777-801. http://doi.org/10.1177/1748048516640482.
  20. Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper Colphon
  21. Hampsher-Monk, Iain, Karin Tilmans & Frank van Vree. 1988. History of Concepts: Comparative Perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
  22. Ireri, Kioko, Chege Njoki, Kibarabara Joy & Onyalla Don Bosco. 2019. Frame analysis: Newspaper coverage of Kenya’s oil exploration in the post-2012 discovery era. African Journalism Studies. 40:2. 34-50. http://doi.org/10.1080/23743670.2019.1635035
  23. Kahneman, Daniel & Amos Tversky. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47 (2). 263-291
  24. Keegan, John. 2002. Who’s Who in World War II. London: Routledge
  25. Kolesov, Vladimir V. 2018. “Pervosmysl” of the concept. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Jazyk i Literatura 15 (3). 438-452. (In Russ.). http://doi.org/10.21638/spbu09.2018.309.
  26. Kondratieva, Olga N. 2011. Metaphoric representation of religious concepts in ancient Russian literature. Voprosy Kognitivnoj Lingvistiki 4 (29). 36-47. (In Russ.).
  27. Konersmann, Ralph. 1999. Komodien des Geistes: Historische Semantik als Philosophische Bedeutungschichte. Frankfurt em Main: Fischer.
  28. Koselleck, Reinhart. 1983. Begriffsgeschichtliche probleme der verfassungsschichtsshreibung. Der Staat 6. 7-46.
  29. Kövecses, Zoltán. 2005. Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  30. Kövecses, Zoltán. 2009. Metaphor, culture, and discourse: The pressure of coherence. In Andreas Musolff & Jörg Zinken (eds.), Metaphor and discourse, 11-24. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. http://doi.org/10.1057/9780230594647
  31. Kushneruk, Svetlana. 2018. The development of cognitive-discourse world-modelling theory in European and Russian linguistics. Voprosy Kognitivnoy Lingvistiky 4. 115-125. http://doi.org/10.20916/1812-3228-2018-4-115-125. (In Russ.).
  32. Kushneruk, Svetlana. 2019. Cognitive-Discursive World-Modelling: Experience of Comparative Research of Advertising Communication. Moscow: Flinta. (In Russ.)
  33. Kushneruk, Svetlana & Maria Kurochkina. 2020. Cognitive-discursive approach to the analysis of information war. The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences. 826-835. http://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2020.08.96
  34. Kuznecov, Valery G. 2007. Subject matter and objectives of diachronic contrastive conceptology. Voprosy Kognitivnoj Lingvistiki 2 (11). 26-34. (In Russ.).
  35. Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1981. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  36. Larina, Tatiana & Vladimir Ozyumenko. 2021. Threat and fear: Pragmatic purposes of emotionalisation in media discourse. Russian Journal of Linguistics 25 (3).
  37. Larina, Tatiana, Vladimir Ozyumenko & Douglas M. Ponton. 2020. Persuasion strategies in media discourse about Russia: Linguistic ambiguity and uncertainty. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 15 (1). 3-22. https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2019-0002
  38. Larina, Tatiana, Vladimir Ozyumenko & Svetlana Kurteš. 2021. Deconstructing the linguacultural underpinnings of tolerance: Anglo-Slavonic perspectives. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics. Special issue on (In)tolerance and (in)civility in public discourse from multidisciplinary perspectives 16 (2). 203-234. https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2020-0010
  39. Le Roy Ladurie, Emmanuel. 1973. Le Territoire de L’historien. Paris: Gallimard.
  40. Lightbody, Bradley. 2004. The Second World War: Ambitions to Nemesis. Routledge.
  41. Mawdsley, Evan. 2009. World War II: A New History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  42. Morgan, Philip. 2008. The Fall of Mussolini: Italy, the Italians, and the Second World War. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  43. Müller, Rolf-Dieter & Gerd R. Ueberschär. 2002. Hitler’s War in the East, 1941-1945: A Critical Assessment. New York: Berghahn Books
  44. News on the Web. https://www.english-corpora.org/. (accessed 23 July 2020)
  45. Overy, Richard J. 2006. Why the Allies Won. Pimlico
  46. Ozyumenko, Vladimir. 2017. Media discourse in an atmosphere of information warfare: From manipulation to aggression. Russian Journal of Linguistics 21 (1). 203-220. http://dx.doi.org/10.22363/2312-9182-2017-21-1-203-220
  47. Papacharissi, Zizi & Maria De Fatima Oliveira. 2008. News frames terrorism: A comparative analysis of frames employed in terrorism coverage in U.S. and U.K. newspapers. The International Journal of Press/Politics 13 (52). 52-74. http://doi.org/10.1177/1940161207312676.
  48. Pocock, John G.A. 1971. Politics, Language and Time: Essays on Political Thought and History. New York: Atheneum
  49. Pulkkinnen, Tuija. 1999. One language, one mind: The nationalist tradition in Finnish political culture. In Tuomas M. S. Lehtonen (ed.), Europe’s Northern Frontier. Perspective on Finland’s Western Identity, 118-137. Jyväskylä: PS-Kustannus
  50. Reichardt, Rolf. 1998. Historische semantik zwischen lexicometrie und new cultural history, einfuhrende bemerkungen zur standortbestimmung. Zeitschrift fur Historische Forschucng 21. 7-28
  51. Sazonova, Tatiana Ju. & Irina S. Borozdina. 2010. The contents of spatial concepts as a reflection of cultural knowledge. Voprosy Kognitivnoj Lingvistiki 2 (23). 27-33. (In Russ.)
  52. Scheufele, Dietram A. 1999. Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communications 49 (1). 103-122
  53. Scheufele, Dietram A. & Iyengar Shanto. 2017. The state of framing research: A call for new directions. In Kate Kenski and Kathleen Hall Jamieson (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication Theories, 619-632. New York: Oxford University Press
  54. Semetko, Holli A. & Patti M. Valkenburg. 2000. Framing European politics: A content analysis of press and television news. Journal of Communication 50 (2). 93-109.
  55. Shaklein, Viktor M. 2009. Problems of studying and developing the common Slavic linguistic and cultural heritage. Moscow University Bulletin. Series 9. Philology 5. 38-45. (In Russ.).
  56. Solopova, Olga A. 2015. Diachronic Contrastive Metaphor Studies: Research on Models of the Future in Political Discourse. Moscow: Flinta. (In Russ.).
  57. Solopova, Olga A. 2020. The key to the future: Predictive meanings of political metaphor (based on British texts about Russia of the Great Patriotic War period). Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filologija 63. 161-177. (In Russ.). http://doi.org/10.17223/19986645/63/9
  58. Solopova, Olga A. & Anatoly P. Chudinov. 2018. Diachronic analysis of political metaphors in the British corpus: from Victory bells to Russia’s V-Day. Russian Journal of Linguistics 22 (2). 313-337. (In Russ.). http://doi.org/10.22363/2312-9182-2018-22-2-313-337
  59. Solopova, Olga & Anatoly Chudinov. 2019. Prognostic potential of political metaphors. Fachsprache Special Issue. 48-64. http://doi.org/10.24989/fs.v41iSpecial%20Is.1765
  60. Solopova, Olga A. & Maria S. Saltykova. 2019. Constructing the ideal future in foreign military media discourses of the World War II period. Russian Journal of Linguistics 23 (3). 762-783. http://doi.org/10.22363/2312-9182-2019-23-3-762-783
  61. Tannen, Deborah. 1979. What’s in a frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectations. In Roy Freedle (ed.), New directions in discourse processing, 137-181. Norwood, NJ: Ablex
  62. Tewksbury, David H. & Dietram A. Scheufele. 2009. News framing theory and research. In Jennings Bryant & Oliver Mary Beth (eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research, 17-33. Hillsdale: Erlbaum
  63. The British newspaper archive. https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk. (accessed 21 August 2020)
  64. The dictionary by Merriam-Webster. https://www.merriam-webster.com. (accessed 23 July 2020)
  65. Trim, Richard. 2011. Metaphor and the Historical Evolution of Conceptual Mapping. New York: Palgrave Macmillan
  66. Trim, Richard. The interface between synchronic and diachronic conceptual metaphor: The role of embodiment, culture and semantic field. In Javier E. Díaz-Vera (ed.), Metaphor and metonomy across time and cultures: Perspectives on the sociohistorical linguistics of figurative language (cognitive linguistics research), 95-122. Berlin/Munich/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter
  67. Tuchman, Gaye. 1978. Making News. New York: Free Press
  68. van Dijk, Teun A. 1977. Text and Context Exploration in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse. London: Longman
  69. van Gorp, Baldwin. 2005. Where is the frame? Victims and intruders in the Belgian press coverage of the asylum issue. European Journal of Communication 20 (4). 484-507
  70. van Gorp, Baldwin. 2007. The constructionist approach to framing: Bringing culture back. Journal of Communication 57 (1). 60-78. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00329.x.

版权所有 © Solopova O., Kushneruk S., 2021

Creative Commons License
此作品已接受知识共享署名-非商业性使用 4.0国际许可协议的许可。

##common.cookie##