Evolution of political media rhetoric in Russia: a comprehensive linguistic analysis

Abstract

The relevance of the study is determined by the need to comprehend the transformation of Russia’s public political language against the backdrop of radical socio-political shifts in the 20th-21st centuries and the digitalization of the media environment. The aim of the study is to identify and linguistically describe the systemic shifts in the political media rhetoric of the USSR and Russia and to determine the specifics of their impact on the structure of the Russian language. The methodological basis integrates critical discourse analysis and linguistic methods. The empirical material includes a sample of texts of political media communication from 1920s to the 2020s (press, leaders’ speeches, TV and digital content). Lexical-semantic, syntactic, metaphorical, intertextual and diachronic corpus analysis (Russian National Corpus) were applied. Diachronic analysis has distinguished three evolutionary phases with systemic impact on the Russian language. The era of the monologue was characterized by a ritualized, clichéd idiolect with complex syntax, nominalization, and semantic inversion of basic concepts. The era of communicative chaos radically transformed the language structure: semantic instability of terms, legitimization of criminal jargon, syntactic reduction, and fragmentation of the collective subject (“we”). The modern era of managed polylogue has established a strategy of “selective complexity”, i.e. the technological variation of linguistic codes from bookish syntax to digital agrammatism and the hybridization of official discourse with Internet slang. The author proves that the evolution of political media rhetoric in Russia is a process of permanent structuring of the grammatical, syntactic and lexical foundations of public speech in the Russian Language. Its specificity lies in the technological modernization of archaic ritual models of communication, where the Russian language acts simultaneously as the object and the key instrument of this transformation.

About the authors

Natalia A. Akhrenova

RUDN University

Author for correspondence.
Email: akhrenova-na@rudn.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1265-5595
SPIN-code: 9818-1046
Scopus Author ID: 58666248600

Doctor of Philology, Associate Professor, Head of the Postgraduate Education Department at the Institute of Foreign Languages, Professor at the Department of Theory and Practice of Foreign Languages

6 Miklukho-Maklaya St., Moscow, 117198, Russian Federation

References

  1. Akhrenova, N. A., & Ter-Minasova, S. G. (2025). Evolution of political media rhetoric in Great Britain. RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics, 16(4), 000–000. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2299-2025-16-4-000-00 EDN: MXKGIU
  2. Ascott, T. (2020). This is not propaganda: Adventures in the war against reality. International Affairs, 97(1), 235–237. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiaa208
  3. Balashova, L. V. (2022). The genre of the appeal of the President of Russia to its citizens during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the mirror of conceptual metaphor. Speech Genres, 17(2), 115–132. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.18500/2311-0740-2022-17-2-34115-132 EDN: JXTSZB
  4. Chudinov, A. P. (2006). Political linguistics. Moscow: Flinta; Nauka Publ. (In Russ.). EDN: SDQKXT
  5. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.
  6. Gorham, M. S. (2003). Speaking in Soviet tongues: Language culture and the politics of voice in revolutionary Russia. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press. EDN: QRKMSB
  7. Gorham, M. S. (2015). After newspeak: Language culture and politics in Russia from Gorbachev to Putin. Canadian Slavonic Papers, 57(3), 1–2.
  8. Kolesnikova, N. L. (2020). Communicative strategies in the discursive practice of Theresa May (on the example of the campaign for the UK’s exit from the EU). Media Linguistics, 7(1), 69–82. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu22.2020.106 EDN: BJJFMT
  9. Kon’kov, V. I. (2018). Linguistic studies of political media discourse. Media Linguistics, 5(2), 138–161. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu22.2018.201 EDN: YTPHYL
  10. Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London, New York: Verso, 2001 [1985].
  11. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  12. Laruelle, M. (2019). Russian nationalism: Imaginaries, doctrines, and political battlefields. Routledge.
  13. Loginova, P. G. (2025). Political media rhetoric: A new approach to the analysis of the language of political media communication (on the example of France). Direkt-Media Publ. (In Russ.). EDN: EUBCJC
  14. Lotman, Yu. M. (1996). Inside the thinking worlds. Man — text — semiosphere — history. Moscow: LRC Publ. (In Russ.).
  15. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York : New American Library.
  16. Uspensky, B. A. (1994). Selected works. Vol. 1: Semiotics of history. Semiotics of culture. Gnozis Publ. (In Russ.).
  17. Wodak, R. (2009). The discourse of politics in action: Politics as usual. Palgrave Macmillan.
  18. Wodak, R. (2011). Language, discourse, politics. Discourse & Society, 22(5), 625–632. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0957926511405700
  19. Zappettini, F., Ponton, D. M., & Larina, T. V. (2021). Emotionalisation of modern media discourse: A research agenda. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 25(3), 586–610. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2021-25-3-586-610 EDN: NYDDJB

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

Copyright (c) 2026 Akhrenova N.A.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.