Political toxicity in the contrastive perspective (Based on American, British and Ukrainian media discourse)
Abstract
This research focuses on the issue of political toxicity in the media discourse of the United States of America, Great Britain and Ukraine. It defines common and distinctive features of semiotization of political toxicity in the media discourse. In political communication, toxicity is understood as a type of interaction between various participants in political discourse, which is characterized by a high degree of aggressive verbal, para- and/or non-verbal behavior and discriminates against the opponent based on race, ethnicity, gender, etc. resulting in such a politician (politicians) being perceived and then defined as toxic. Its purpose is to identify common and different ways and means of semiotization of political toxicity. It is based on methods of associative and identification experiments, computer multimodal analysis, as well as statistical processing of the information received. The study reveals the modes of the toxic effect deployment and the dictums of the politician’s toxic image formation in the their collective, associative-individual, symbolic, and media discourse-portrait. Complex analysis of a politician’s toxic image in different linguistic cultures takes into account the politicians’ behavior as opinion leaders and the coverage of the target audience, to which the effect of their toxic rhetoric extends: one person, a group of people, or the wider community. At the same time, the types of harm resulting from the visualization of the media toxic effect can be aimed at both the psychological states of the addressee and their gender, age, and professional characteristics. The paper determines means of verbal expression of toxicity both by the aggressive-emotional type of the politician and by the socio-cultural features of political struggle in the United States of America, Great Britain, and Ukraine.
Downloads
References
Beattie, G. (2016). Rethinking body language: How hand movements reveal hidden thoughts. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315880181
Beck, C. (2021). Mobility, spatiality, and resistance in literary and political discourse. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Charteris-Black, J. (2018). Analysing political speeches: rhetoric, discourse and metaphor. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Columba, A.-S., & Benjamin, M. (2019). Toxic masculinity: Militarism, deal-making and the performance of brexit. In M. Dustin, N. Ferreira & S. Millns (Eds.), Gender and queer perspectives on brexit. Gender and politics (pp. 15-44). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dyakiv, K., Korolyov, I., &Yaremko, M. (2021). Communicative deviations of respondents in political video interviews in Ukrainian and German. Amazonia Investiga, 2021, 10(43), 189-199. https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2021.43.07.19
Erdal, N., & Budak, O. (2021). The mediating role of organizational trust in the effect of toxic leadership on job satisfaction. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, 10(3), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v10i3.1144
Feldman, O. (Ed.). (2020). The rhetoric of political leadership: logic and emotion in public discourse. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Fetzer, A. (Ed.). (2013). The pragmatics of political discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Garbarino, J. (2005). Raising children in a socially toxic environment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Glass, L. (2005). Toxic people: 10 ways of dealing with people who make your life miserable. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Gnezdilova, Ya. V. (2021). Kognityvno-dyskursyvni modeli anglomovnoyi manipulyatvnoyi metakomunikaciyi [Cognitive and discourse models of English manipulative metacommunication]. Unpublished doctor of sciences dissertation thesis, Kyiv National Linguistic University, Ukraine.
Gratton, G., & Zudenkova, G. (2020). Political games: strategy, persuasion, and learning. Basel, Switzerland: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute.
Housman, M., & Minor, D. (2015). Toxic workers. Harvard Business School Working Paper, 16-057. Retrieved from http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:23481825
Kovalevs`ka, A. V. (2020). Analiz politychnogo dyskursu: paradygma spindoktoringu [Political discourse analysis: the paradigm of spindoctoring]. Aktual`ni problemy ukrayins`koyi lingvistyky: teoriya i praktyka, XLI, 42-61. https://doi.org/10.17721/APULTP.2020.41.42-61
Liboiron, М., Tironi, М., & Calvillo, N. (2018). Toxic politics: Acting in a permanently polluted world. Social Studies of Science, 48(3), 331-349.
Manno, A. (2020). Toxic masculinity, casino capitalism, and America’s favorite card game: The poker mindset. Berlin: Springer International Publishing.
Nagorna, L. P. (2005). Politychna mova i movna polityka: diapazon mozhlyvostej politychnoyi lingvistyky [Political language and language policy: the range of possibilities of political linguistics]. Kyiv: Svitoglyad.
O’Brien, Sh. B. (2018). Why Presidential speech locations matter: Analyzing speechmaking from Truman to Obama. Berlin: Springer International Publishing.
Petlyuchenko, N. V. (2009). Kharyzmatyka: movna osobystist` i dyskurs [Charisma: linguistic personality and discourse]. Odesa: Astroprynt.
Pochepczov, G. (2011). Komunikatyvni operaciyi vchora j s`ogodni [Communication operations yesterday and today]. Detektor media. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/3eHb8lu
Potapenko, S. I. (2021). Kognityvna media-rytoryka: buttya konfliktu-kryzy v anglomovnykh Internet-novynakh [Cognitive media rhetoric: the existence of conflict-crisis in English-language Internet news]. Kyiv: KNLU Publishers.
Radziyevs`ka, T. V. (2018). Dyskursyvni prostory: istoryko-lingvistychnyj vymir [Discursive spaces: historical and linguistic dimension]. Kyiv: DP “Informacijno-analitychne agentstvo”.
Semenyuk, O. A., & Bilous, V. B. (2011). Movni zasoby stvorennya obrazu voroga v romani T. Klensi ‟DEBT OF HONOR” [Linguistic means of creating the image of the enemy in T. Clancy’s novel ‟DEBT OF HONOR”]. Suchasni doslidzhennya z inozemnoyi filologiyi, 9, 419-425.
Serazhym, K. S. (2003). Dyskurs yak sociolingval`nyj fenomen suchasnogo komunikatyvnogo prostoru (metodologichnyj, pragmat`ko-semantychnyj i zhanrovo-lingvistychnyj aspekty: na materiali politychnogo riznovydu ukrayins`kogo masovoinformacijnogo dyskursu) [Discourse as a Sociolinguistic Phenomenon of the Modern Communication Space (Methodological, pragmatic-semantic, genre-linguistic aspects: Based on the material of the political variety of Ukrainian mass media discourse)]. Unpublished doctor of sciences dissertation thesis, Taras Shevchenko Kyiv National University, Ukraine.
Shevchenko, I., Alexandrova, D., & Gutorov, V. (2021). Impoliteness in parliamentary discourse: a cognitive-pragmatic and sociocultural approach. Cognition, communication, discourse, 22, 77-94. http://doi.org/10.26565/2218-2926-2021-22-05
Shkvorchenko, N. (2020). Linguistic and gender peculiarities of English political discourse. Annals of the University of Craiova. Series Philology. Linguistics, XLII (1-2), 398-416. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/3U6bouG
Shkvorchenko, N. (2022). How politicians become toxic: expression of toxicity in utterance & action & gesture. In A. Karasin & A. M. Sayakova (Eds.), 2nd International Antalya Scientific Research and Innovative Studies Conference, Antalya, Turkey, March 17-21, 2022. Full Texts Book (pp. 156–158). IKSAD GLOBAL Publishing House. Retrieved from https://www.izdas.org/_files/ugd/614b1f_26940b337a1e4811ae927fdb2313b779.pdf
Slavova, L. (2015). Image of a leader’s linguistic personality in political discourse. Cognition, communication, discourse, 11, 109-122. http://doi.org/10.26565/2218-2926-2015-11-08
Soloshchuk, L. V. (2009). Vzayemodiya verbal`nykh i neverbal`nykh komponentiv komunikaciyi u suchasnomu anglomovnomu dyskursi [Interaction of verbal and nonverbal communication components in modern English discourse]. Unpublished doctor of sciences dissertation thesis, Taras Shevchenko Kyiv National University, Ukraine.
Stashko, H. (2018). Phonetic and syntactic stylistic means in media space: Manipulation or emotional commonplace? Communication today, 9(2), 132-142.
Syeryakova, I. I. (2009). Politychnyj dyskurs ta semiotychna osobystist` [Political discourse and semiotic personality]. Visnyk Kyyivs`kogo nacional`nogo lingvistychnogo universytetu. Seriya: Filologiya, 12(2), 115-120.
Tirrell, L. (2017). Toxic Speech: Toward an epidemiology of discursive harm. Philosophical Topics, 45(2), 139-161. http://doi.org/10.5840/philtopics201745217
Welch, B. (2008). State of confusion: Political manipulation and the assault on the American mind. New York, NY: Thomas Dunne Books.
Westen, D. (2008). The political brain: The role of emotion in deciding the fate of the nation by Drew Westen. Political Psychology, 29(4): 623-627.
Zernecz`ky`j, P. V., & Ryabokon`, G. L. (2012). Argumentacijna struktura brytans`kogo politychnogo movlennya: aksiologichnyj aspekt [The Argumentative Structure of British Political Speech: The Axiological Aspect]. Naukovi zapysky NaUKMA. Filologichni nauky, 137, 147-152. Retrieved from http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/NaUKMAfn_2012_137_37
Copyright (c) 2023 Nataliia Shkvorchenko
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors, who publish with this journal, accept the following conditions:
The authors reserve the copyright of their work and transfer to the journal the right of the first publication of this work under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Non-Derivs License (CC BY-NC-ND), which allows other persons to freely distribute a published work with mandatory reference to the authors of the original work and the first publication of the work in this journal.
Authors have the right to enter into separate additional agreements for the non-exclusive dissemination of the work in the form in which it was published by this journal (for example, to post the work in the electronic institutions' repository or to publish as part of a monograph), provided that the link to the first publication of the work in this journal is given.
The journal policy allows and encourages the authors to place the manuscripts on the Internet (for example, in the institutions' repositories or on personal websites), both before the presentation of this manuscript to the editorial board and during review procedure, as it contributes to the creation of productive scientific discussion and positively affects the efficiency and dynamics of citing the published work (see The Effect of Open Access).
