title: Arguments vs emotions: Argumentative models as a tool of ideological confrontation in the mass media
metadata.name: dc.contributor.author
metadata.value: Danilevskaya, Natalia V.
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.accessioned
metadata.value: 2023-08-14T09:38:57Z
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.available
metadata.value: 2023-08-14T09:38:57Z
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.issued
metadata.value: 2023-06
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.identifier.citation
metadata.value: Danilevskaya N. V. (2023). Arguments vs emotions: Argumentative models as a tool of ideological confrontation in the mass media. Media Linguistics, 10 (2), 148–165. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu22.2023.201 (In Russian)
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.identifier.other
metadata.value: https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu22.2023.201
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.identifier.uri
metadata.value: http://hdl.handle.net/11701/43750
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.description.abstract
metadata.value: The article analyzes the texts covering the special military operation (SVO) of the Russian Federation
  on the territory of Ukraine in the modern media discourse. The question of language
  strategies and tactics used in media texts belonging to authors professing different ideological
  positions is considered. By means of linguistic-stylistic, functional-grammatical and comparative
  analyses, it is concluded that in the texts, on the one hand, pro-Russian-minded, and
  on the other — liberal-minded journalists and bloggers, different argumentation methods are
  chosen as language strategies. As a result of the study of texts devoted to the topic of SVO, the
  author of the article comes to the conclusion about the predominantly reasoned nature of the
  speech of pro-Russian authors and, conversely, about the predominantly evaluative and hypothetical,
  i. e., in general, the emotional type of speech in the texts of liberal-minded authors. It
  is argued that the main method of argumentation of “pro-Russian texts” is the factual method,
  whereas the main methods of argumentation in “liberal texts” are evaluative and hypothetical
  methods. Special attention is paid to the question of the place and role of argumentation in
  texts representing new knowledge. In this regard, the problem of logical and cognitive actions
  relevant to substantiating truth in scientific communication is considered. Based on a comparative
  analysis of the logic of argumentation in journalistic and scientific communication, a
  conclusion is made about the similarity of communicative and cognitive strategies of science
  and quality journalism. The description of argumentative actions representing the position of journalists and bloggers belonging to the liberal wing of the media sphere allows the author to
  speak about the low-quality nature of liberal journalism.
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.description.sponsorship
metadata.value: The study was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research grant no. 20-412-590006
  “Mass speech culture of the Perm region: transformation of linguistic, communicative, ethical norms in the
  21st century”.
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.language.iso
metadata.value: ru
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.publisher
metadata.value: St Petersburg State University
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.relation.ispartofseries
metadata.value: Media Linguistics;Volume 10; Issue 2
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: methods of argumentation
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: ideological confrontation
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: media texts
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: language strategy
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.title
metadata.value: Arguments vs emotions: Argumentative models as a tool of ideological confrontation in the mass media
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.type
metadata.value: Article
metadata.lang: en_GB
resources.filename: 148-165.pdf
resources.url: https://dspace.spbu.ru/bitstream/11701/43750/1/148-165.pdf
resources.format: Adobe PDF
resources.size: 738,15 kB