CC BY
106
Copyright © 2018 by Academic Publishing House Researcher s.r.o.
w " *
I
Published in the Slovak Republic
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie)
Has been issued since 2005
ISSN 1994-4160
E-ISSN 1994-4195
2018, 58(4): 69-82
DOI: 10.13187/me.2018.4.69 www.ejournal53.com
The Public Media Space and Destructive Communication of the "Language of Enmity": Law, Cognitive and Communicative-Pragmatic Mechanisms
E.G. Kulikova a > *, A.V. Kuznetsova b, Yu.A. Kolesnikov b
a Rostov State University of Economics, Russian Federation b Southern Federal University, Russian Federation b Yu.A.Kolesnikov, Southern Federal University, Russian Federation
Abstract
The objective analysis of the "language of enmity" requires a polyparadigmatic approach with law, pragmalinguistic, linguocognitive, structural-semantic and linguistic-stylistic factors in their extralinguistic conditionality. "Language of enmity" characterizes discursive and textual space, while speech aggression manifests itself in oral discourse. The article considers the basic models of production of "enmity language" and groups of communicative factors, determining cognitive and communicative-pragmatic mechanisms of this phenomena. The addressee can be represented in two ways: a real addressee (character of the text) and a formal one (reader/listener). The reaction of the formal and real addressees to the "enmity language" in the media largely depends on the linguistic form of the statement itself, and not on the type of addressing (direct or indirect). Linguistic and cognitive mechanisms for the "language of enmity" implementation determine its special style as a synthesis of standard and expressive units. The creation of the standard units is connected with the idiostyle of the "language of enmity" sender and the creation of units of expression is connected with his/her idiolect and idiostyle. Expressive means of "enmity language" are slang, argotisms, vernacular and obscene words, terms, rare words, exoticisms, barbarisms, historicisms, archaisms, neologisms, occasionalisms, and pronouns of various titles, etc., while standard means include "politically incorrect expressions".
Keywords: language of enmity, destructive communication, verbal aggression, evaluation, conceptual space, media discourse
1. Introduction
Destructiveness is a conceptual space consisting of a set of heterogeneous concepts, which include concepts of emotions that cause and support the destructive behavior of the individual, ideas about the factors and situations that contribute to the actualization and escalation of aggressive human behavior, concepts of emotions that arise as a result of a destructive act, prototypical and paraprototypic scenarios of destructive human behavior.
The conceptual space of destructiveness has a well-organized field structure.
Central concepts in the conceptual space of destructiveness are the emotional concepts of "anger", "malice", "fury", "hate", "contempt"; emotional-behavioral concepts of "revenge", "jealousy", "envy", the prototypical cognitive scenarios of destructive behavior; emotional concepts
* Corresponding author
E-mail addresses: kulikova_ella21@mail.ru (E.G. Kulikova), avk21@yandex.ru (A.V. Kuznetsova)
of "irritation", "distaste", "resentment", "fear", i.e. are in a causal relationship with emotionstimulus of destructive behavior, all paraprototypical development scenarios of "aggressive" emotions are in the near periphery; the far periphery is formed by concepts, indirectly related to the phenomenon of destructiveness.
Concepts of emotions, which are included in the core of the conceptual space of destructiveness, have significant cognitive similarities, which indicates that these emotions have a common conceptual framework.
These emotions are characterized by clustering, and their conceptualization materializes an individual's idea of aggression as a kind of spontaneous force, difficult to conscious control by a person.
Verbal conceptualization of destructive emotions is, first of all, their iconic somatic fixation.
The linguistic picture of the world of these emotions is mainly a reflection of nonverbal processes: physiological processes that accompany the experience of emotions, and the physical manifestations of emotions associated with them.
Destructive communication is a type of emotional communication aimed at conscious and intentional infliction of moral and/or physical harm to the interlocutor and characterized by a sense of satisfaction from the victim's suffering and/or understanding own rightness. The desire of the person to rise due to humiliation/moral destruction of the interlocutor is the intentional base of destructive communication, which predetermines the main ways of its implementation.
The situation of destructive communication is characterized by five obligatory constitutive features: a) destructive intention; b) negative emotional stimulus; c) indicators of verbal aggression and/or non-verbal markers of hostility/aggression; d) a negative reaction of the addressee, d) a positive reaction of the sender
On the basis of various forms of aggression in communication, the possibility of objective observation of manifestations of aggressiveness and taking into account the causal relationship between the objectives of communication and strategies, tactics of behavior of communicants, it is possible to distinguish three types of situations of destructive communication: a) the situation of open destructive communication; b) the situation of hidden destructive communication; c) the situation of passive-destructive communication.
These types of situations of destructive communication are characterized by the predominance of a certain speech strategy in them, as well as a set of non-verbal components that act as the main criterion/feature referring a particular communication situation to a specific destructive type.
Communicative behavior of a person in situations of destructive communication is associated with the choice of the basic goal setting, strategy and tactics.
Depending on what dominant emotions communicative behavior is motivated and in what form it is implemented, it is possible to identify communicative types, focused on open destructive behavior (communicative type "boor"), communicative types, focused on hidden destructive behavior ("envious"), and communicative types, practicing various types of destructive behavior ("jealous").
In the aspect of emotive linguoecology, destructive communication can be considered as ambivalent-ecological from the point of view of an addressee, because, on the one hand, it has a negative impact on the personality of the subject of destructive communication, and on the other one - it causes a catharsis of destructive emotions and/or a positive emotional reaction.
However, from the point of view of an addressee, destructive communication is qualified as uniquely non-ecological one, because it has a destructive effect on his/her psycho-emotional state and personality as a whole.
In our view, the "language of enmity" is an obligatory component of destructive communication. This phenomenon of modern communication is the object of research in various humanitarian fields of human knowledge, which determines the possibility of its study at the intersection of law, linguistics, psychology, sociology, conflictology, ethnology, cultural studies, philosophy and other disciplines.
The term "language of enmity", used in research practice, has four versions of translation: "language of enmity", "language of hate", "speech of enmity", "speech of hatred". The most popular in the scholarly literature is the first version of the translation. Despite many terms used in science denote negative statements ("verbal extremism", "speech (language) aggression", "speech
demagogy", "speech (language) conflict", "speech violence"," speech (language) manipulation"), none of them is an adequate synonym for the term "language of enmity", as it denotes either a phenomenon that is a particular case, or a concept that is broader in scope.
2. Materials and Methods
The specificity of the nature of the "language of enmity", combining in its structure explicit and implicit features, requires a polyparadigmatic research of its linguistic essence, synthesizing pragmalinguistic, structural, semantic and stylistic approaches, taking into account extralinguistic conditionality. We investigate linguocognitive mechanisms of the "language of enmity" from the standpoint of the synthesis of these approaches.
3. Discussion
An objective analysis of the linguistic component of the "language of enmity" is also impossible without taking into account four groups of communicative factors that influence the effect after its publication. The first group includes factors that characterize the addressee of the "language of enmity" associated with his/her social role, reputation, image, speech skills, as well as the choice of presentation or manipulation communicative strategy, reflecting the overall purpose of creating a statement: manipulation by the reader/listener or presentation of information to him. The second group is the factors relating to the good name of the real addressee associated with the choice by the addressee of signs for verbal discrimination and damage to the real addressee. The third group consists of factors affecting the perception of the text by the formal addressee, which are related to his picture of the world and readiness to perceive information that determines the possibility of detecting and analyzing negative expressions (Alba-Juez, Larina, 2018; Wierzbicka, 2018).
The fourth group includes factors that relate to the conditions of communication (time, place of publication of the statement, the method of presentation of information and other characteristics) and the text itself (form of speech, genre of text).
It should be noted that all these factors are associated with the psychological, cultural and socio-political foundations of the "language of enmity" functioning in the media, which explains their different impact of the linguistic component of the text.
The legal basis for the regulation of the "language of enmity" in the media is due to the change of the historical paradigm, which led to the creation in Russia of a new legislative framework regulating word creation. The inherent and still unresolved contradiction between freedom of expression and the ban on negative statements in international law is also characteristic of domestic legislation, which, unfortunately, does not help to reduce verbal discrimination in the media. The texts of the current legislation define the status of the "language of enmity" in the media as illegal, but do not contain specific features that allow objectively classifying a negative statement within the framework of this concept. However, the legal basis of this phenomenon in the media concerns not only the above-mentioned contradiction, but also the question of differentiation of statements with the signs of this phenomenon.
Currently, in legal practice it is customary to differentiate the following types of statements: 1) statements of fact that can be protected or refuted; 2) evaluative opinions with actual reference, which can be protected or refuted (if their content is true, a subject to refutation may be an offensive form and/or form containing discriminatory features); 3) evaluative opinions themselves, the content of which can not be the subject of judicial proceedings, but the subject to refutation can be their offensive form and/or form containing discriminatory features.
The ethical basis for the functioning the "language of enmity" in the media mainly concerns the dispute about the need for existing laws restricting freedom of speech, as well as the discussion of the relevance of the introduction of ethical codes (speech codes).
Despite the unformed tradition for speaking/writing person in Russia to analyze own statements from the point of morality, various public organizations, the media, higher education institutions seek to draw attention to the "language of enmity" as a kind of direct manifestation of intolerance in speech (a variant of intolerance directed at a person or a group of people and causing them suffering) and offer ways to combat this phenomenon.
Socio-political, psycho-cultural, communicative, legal and ethical foundations of the "language of enmity" in the media are extralinguistic base, consisting of non-permanent, changing
over time components that affect the linguistic component of the phenomenon under study and require to take them into consideration in the analysis of this phenomenon.
Speaking about syncretic speech genres of the "language of enmity", it should be noted the possibility of combining in them both open and/or veiled forms. A dichotomy of forms, components of the syncretic genre formation, allows you to define the genre nature of the statements. So, comparison, rough requirement and sarcasm, characteristic of expressions in direct form, resist the hint and irony (Akimoto et al., 2014), typical for veiled statements, which implies the possibility of detecting the dominant feature in the considered syncretic speech genre.
Analyzing the cognitive models of participants of communication with the "language of enmity" in the media (the sender, the formal and the real recipients) it is necessary to talk about the importance of the real addressee reaction on information about him/her, about the specifics of the information processing by the formal addressee and about the possibility of making by him/her six types of cognitive errors in the "language of enmity" perception ("random output", "selective abstraction", "overgeneralization", "exaggeration/understatement", "personalization", "absolutist dichotomous thinking").
The investigation in this aspect of linguistic markers, techniques and tactics of in certain media contexts shows their different impact on the addressee in statements with the phenomena under study and reveals the specifics of creation by them of cognitive errors that serve as an obstacle to the distinction between the formal addressee of the statement about the fact and opinion.
The stylistics of the phenomena under study is characterized by a typical for the media texts style combination of standard and expressive units. Units of standard are associated with the idiostyle of the sender of "enmity speech" and units of expression - with his/her idiolect and idiostyle. Expressive means of "enmity language" are slang, argotisms, vernacular and obscene words, terms, rare words, exoticisms, barbarisms, historicisms, archaisms, neologisms, occasionalisms, and pronouns of various titles, etc., while standard means include "politically incorrect expressions".
The analysis of linguistic and stylistic factors of the "language of enmity" functioning in the mass media also allows us to speak about the possibility of creating an offensive form and/or a form containing discriminatory features with the help of statements, the negative connotation of which is explained by their stylistic nature, as well as with the help of "politically incorrect expressions", the negative features of which are associated with extralinguistic factors. For example, "politically incorrect" nomination such as a person of Caucasian nationality and the homeless represent bad clerical terms in the speech of law enforcement personnel, which, as a rule, are not used for a neutral or positive characteristics of a person.
Destructive communication is closely connected with the manifestation of speech aggression, and the "language of enmity" is characterized as discursive-textual space, then speech aggression, of course, is, first of all, discourse in its oral form. In modern linguistics, word combinations such as speech (verbal, communicative) aggression, hate speech, verbal extremism, have become almost terminological ones (Gudkova, 2005).
Speech aggression is conflict speech behavior, which is based on the installation of negative impact on the recipient. Speech aggression can manifest itself in any type of communication (interpersonal, group, mass one) and any discourse, regardless of its time and national factors.
In the context of communicative interaction, verbal aggression is orientation of the sender to antidialogue in a broad sense of the word. This type of speech behavior is characterized by a double position.
On the one hand, it is a conscious orientation of the addressee to the subject-object type of relations (pragmatic vector), which can be expressed both through the content of the statement and through destructive forms of speech behavior.
On the other hand, in aggressive communication, regardless of the type of communication, there must be an expression of a negative attitude either to the addressee or to the subject of speech (affective vector).
In interpersonal communication, the "right to speech" of each communicant is determined by the nature of discourse and the specific speech situation.
If the priority "right to speech" of one of the communicants is not provided for by the conditions of the speech situation and is not accepted by the other participants of communication, then in this case there is the invasion into the addressee's speech space, i.e. speech aggression.
Violation of speech parity can be manifested, firstly, as a deliberate seizure of verbal initiative, and secondly, as a dismissive attitude to the content of the statements of the speech partner (Vorontsova, 2006).
In everyday communication, invective (abusive) nomination of the addressee such as moron, fool, stupid, etc. are aimed at the implementation of this task.
The purpose of such communication is to create a communicative vertical between communicants or to stop communication or turn it into monological communication.
From a psychological point of view, the purpose of aggressive speech behavior in interpersonal communication is the desire to offend, humiliate the speech partner.
Extreme forms of speech aggression can not be used effectively in the public speech discourse.
Public dialogue on TV is a form of institutional communication and speech aggression is represented here in other forms of speech behavior according to relationship of participants in public communication (Vorontsova, 2006):
a) participants of communication are objectively equal in social and educational status;
b) discourse conventions presuppose "balance" of discussion (equal participation of all communicants);
c) frames of prescribed verbal behavior is much stiffer than in household or a business interpersonal communication (complying communication ethics);
d) speech and language parameters are determined by the nature of discourse (correspondence to the literary norm in a broad sense, comprehensibility for the mass audience, etc.) (Bezmaternykh et al., 2017);
e) communication is regulated not by the communicants themselves, but by the organizer of the discourse (the presenter).
д) ход коммуникации регулируется не самими коммуникантами, а организатором дискурса (ведущим).
Despite the fact that the conditions of this discourse suggest a consistent transfer of speech courses by the organizer of the discussion (presenter), the desire to capture the speech space, pushing the opponent (or opponents) from the communicative platform, is manifested in public dialogue in a variety of forms and is carried out in a variety of ways.
Here is a kind of transfer of pragmatic models of speech behavior from the sphere of spontaneous everyday communication to the sphere of public communication (Malkova, 2002).
In public communication communicative imbalance as a result of aggressive speech behavior is aimed to provide the possibility of speech influence on the mass recipient.
There are two ways to achieve a communicative imbalance in public discourse: first, to declare in speech the communicative insolvency of the speech partner by direct or indirect discreditation of his/her statement; second, to demonstrate the failure of the opponent, violating the dialogical conventions (Malkova, 2002).
One of the most common semantic ways of forming a communicative imbalance in public discourse is an explicit (open, expressed) or implicit (hidden, implied) indication on the professional incompetence of the speech partner.
If the public dialogue is supposed to discuss the problem "on an equal footing", at a level understandable to the mass audience, the "professional factor" can serve as a basis for forming an asymmetry of communication (Soldatova, Shaigerova, 2001).
Often, in a public dialogue, the designation of a profession or position performs an informative function only in the speech situation of representation (or self-representation) of participants.
As for informativity, the inclusion of an indication of the speaker or addressee position into the statement is, at first glance, unnecessary.
However, in such cases, such an excessive designation of the profession or position of the addressee or sender is a signal of asymmetric communication and a means of implementing the sender's orientation on speech dominance.
The importance of statement is emphasized in these statements by additional indications on the sphere of professional interests (I deal specifically with psychology). As a communicative method, actualizing the idea of the sender's professional competence, an appeal to his own professional experience can be used (I have worked not for three years, I have worked for thirty-three years).
In public communication, asymmetry is often achieved through a code conflict: through the difference of codes, the sender's desire is the interlocutor do not understand him/her and could not object, such speech behavior should be qualified as an implicit "deprivation of the word."
Professional terminology, jargon, transition to another language, which is not spoken by all speakers, can be used as language tools. Direct or indirect presentation of one's own professional competence is the desire to transfer the discussion of the problem to the level of "professional -amateur", where a professional, of course, has the priority right to speech.
"Professional factor" as the basis of aggressive speech behavior is often implemented as a direct indication that the addressee of the statement is not a professional in a particular field (You have not knowledge, but full nonsense...).
A negative attitude to the professional competence of the addressee can be realized through provocative questions in the statement, ironic edification equal in status to the interlocutor, quotations or allusions as references to texts that are not authoritative for serious intellectual discussion (advertising, anecdote, children's literature, etc.).
The method "game for a fall" of opponent is intentionally fuzzy definition of his/her profession or position.
Such a "blurring" the professional status of the addressee is a communicative indicator of his/her professional incompetence: And you decide for yourself, you are a military or a politician....
Statements aimed at lowering the professional status of the opponent are often based on the principle of evaluative contrast: a high evaluation of the opponent as a professional contrasts with a low evaluation of his/her position (statements): You are a competent economist... but offer ... illusory economic plan.
Another way to establish a communicative imbalance is the factor of communicative competence. Evaluation characteristics of someone else's statement is actually an evaluation of communicative competence of the speech partner.
The negative evaluation of the speech partner's statements is aimed, first, at capturing the communicative initiative, and second, at discrediting the opponent's communicative competence and the substantial depreciation of his/her statements. One of the common ways to reduce prior information to zero is evaluation of the statements of the opponent from the point of view of its significance (not worth the attention, irrelevant, etc.). Communicative incompetence of the speech partner can be demonstrated through an indication on discrepancy of the opponent's remark to the genre of this discourse (these are slogans, this is a farce, etc.); through a negative evaluation of the linguistic parameters of the statement itself (it is said inaccurately, an inappropriate term, etc.)
Demonstrating this kind of "linguistic" claims, the sender deliberately ignores the substantive side of the opponent's statements.
The very fact of such an evaluation in the genre of public discourse, which provides for equal communication, violates discursive conventions and forms a communicative imbalance (Skovorodnikov, 1997).
Another form of speech imbalance is negative truth evaluation of the opponent's remark. A negative true evaluation of the previous statement can be given by pointing to a deliberate lie (You are lying! This is bullshit! Do not slander! etc.), to the absurdity of the message (complete nonsense, demagoguery, etc.). Expressivity can be enhanced by the use of colloquial phraseological units, metaphors indicating the connection of the content of the statement with reality (fairy tales, horror stories, fiction, etc.).
Negative true evaluation of the opponent's statement can be mediated by the designation of the emotional state of the sender. The means of expressing of this state are often verbs of affective influence such as to be surprised, to be shocked, to be amazed, verbal adjectives, their phraseological equivalents (I am once again shocked with what passion our society supports demagogy...). One of the most common ways of implicit expression of negative attitude to the speech partner is "depersonalization of the opponent". For example, the addressee does not use
his/her first name (surname or first name and patronymic one) for the nomination of the opponent.
In public discourse, such nominations can be different: 1) designation by gender (woman): I wanted to tell this famous gentleman; 2) on a professional basis: ...Here our honourable representative of showbiz says...; 3) generalized nominations (replacement of personal name with the name of organization or community that the opponent represents):...Sitting in front and the SPS and Yabloko will loose the elections...etc.
Intentional refusal to "identify" a speech partner is a demonstrative decrease in its importance. The use of such nominations is usually accompanied by an accentuated change of addressing. The use of statements of this kind in relation to the opponent is not only a violation of the dialogue regime, but also a signal that the speaker deliberately ignores his/her actual addressee, seeks to maximize the distance from the opponent, to reduce his status in the eyes of the public.
Thus, semantic ways of forming a communicative imbalance can be reduced to generalization. According to the speaker, the speech partner does not have the "right to speak", because he/she: a) professionally incompetent; b) does not have sufficient communicative competence; c) reports untrue information; d) does not have the proper authority and therefore does not have the right to identify. Capture of speech space can also be carried out through the structural and semantic violation of the speech process (Arévalo, 2018; Mackenzie, 2018). The struggle for speech initiative is carried out in this case as a speech intervention. This communicative intention is realized both at the structural and semantic level. Interruptions, interception of a speech course, use of the structural and semantic units which are not peculiar to this type of dialogue are directed on causing confusion of the opponent. Discrediting of a speech partner can occur on a substantial level of extraordinary statement. The interception of speech is determined with the intention to bring down the communication program and thus gain a communicative advantage. The content of the interventional statement bears a double position of the sender: 1) to express directly or indirectly the relation to the addressee and 2) to restructure the dialogue, capturing "a place under the sun" in it.
In the modern legal and political space, a special type of speech offenses provided for in articles 280 of the Criminal Code "Public calls for extremist activity" and 282 of the Criminal Code "Incitement of hatred or enmity, as well as humiliation of human dignity" are becoming increasingly important.
Qualification of this type of speech offences requires linguistic research. At the same time, expert practice in this type of cases reveals a number of objective difficulties that prevent unambiguous philological qualification of statements. According to article 282 of the Criminal Code, any action that promotes extremist activity is illegal. Therefore, any media (Yus, 2017; Sánchez-Moya, Cruz-Moya, 2015) transmission of extremist materials is considered to be the spread of extremist materials . According to this logic, the linguistic analysis of the speaker's intentions is insignificant for the qualification of the offense.
From the legal point of view, it is absolutely indifferent with what modality the journalist paints the statements of his/her character: whether joins to them or quotes them in the order of criticism, uses as a figurative and expressive means (tries to cause reader's negative emotions in relation to the person or proves the extremist attitude of the subject of the publication (speech tactics: he is an aggressor, because he speaks in such a way).
According to Russian legislation the fact of publication of information is illegal that considerably increases the number of the statements legalized under this article.
One of the main components that form the composition of the offense is determination of the object of the evaluative statement.
The law prohibits negative evaluation of certain social groups (or an individual belonging to this group). The law quite clearly defines the dignity of which social groups should not be affected by public statements: "by gender, race, nationality, language, origin, attitude to religion".
Thus, one of the main tasks of a linguist-expert is to determine the collective object of negative evaluation. Linguistic difficulties in determining the speech offense are associated with an indirect form of expression of the object evaluation.
For example: Note: Asian locusts!!!.. (This is followed by a picture that shows an insect with a human head of the Mongoloid race, "making its way" on a geographical map from China to
Russia) ...no one called them, but they feel themselves as at home here. Soon there will be China. Soon you'll be kicked out of the house because you're not Asian; are you expecting it?!!! - the object of evaluation is not named, and a hint on the people of Chinese nationality is carried out with graphic means. On the other hand, in criminal cases on the facts of dissemination of information such as "the Nation X is the best!" linguistic qualification of speech offense is difficult even in extreme aggressiveness of the text. A negative evaluation in such cases turns out to be non-objective and, therefore, non-legal.
The law on extremist activity has a preventive function. Its main goal is to maintain stability in a multiethnic and confessional heterogeneous society. Therefore, the question of the perlocutive component of a statement is formulated in a hypothetical modality: "can this statement be a means of inciting national, racial, religious hatred and enmity".
Thus, according to logic of linguistic expertise perlocution should follow from semantic and pragmatic analysis of the text and be "equal" to illocution (Kulikova, Kuznetsova, 2015; Kulikova et al., 2016).
At the same time, illocutionary and perlocutionary components of the utterance are not always identical. Experimental investigation of extremist materials often reveal these differences.
For example, an extremely aggressive leaflet I do not want to work - you feed me! I will blow everything up... etc. has, according to the survey, almost zero pragmatic effect. The question whether this text can become a means of inciting discord, people of Russian nationality of different ages and types of speech culture responded negatively. Ardent attacks against the Russians were evaluated as provocative (or as belonging to not quite adequate mentally linguistic personality) and not worthy of response. According to legal scholars, the "language of enmity" is aimed primarily at "forming motivation for discrimination" of a person, that is, it has a motivating character.
In any case, the "language of enmity" or the motive of hatred, which can be expressed in speech activity, is regulated by the legislation through the following legal acts:
Federal Law "On countering extremist activity", Federal Law "On perpetuating the victory of the Soviet people in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945", The Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, paragraph "e" of article 63 of the Russian Criminal Code, article 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, paragraph 2 "l" of article 105 of the RF Criminal Code (murder motivated by hatred), paragraph 2 "e" of article 112 of the RF Criminal Code (intentional infliction of moderate bodily harm motivated by hatred), paragraph 2 "b" of article 115 of the Criminal Code (infliction of willful light damage to health), paragraph 2 "b" of article 116 of the Criminal Code (Beatings motivated by hatred), paragraph 2 "z" of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and the motive of hatred is provided for in the articles 119 of the Criminal Code (threat to kill), the articles150 of the Criminal Code (Involving a juvenile into committing a crime), article 213 of the Criminal Code (hooliganism), article 114 of the Criminal Code (Vandalism), article 244 of the Criminal Code (abuse of dead bodies), article 282.1 (organization of extremist community) and article 282.2 (formation of extremist organization). Of course, it is necessary to use the legal regulation of the speech sphere in exceptional cases (Kulikova, 2004; Brusenskaya, 2016). The problem is, in our opinion, not every controversial and even conflict sphere of human activity needs legal regulation. Many spheres in which the state should regulate various relations through the competent authorities have been and remain important, these are transport, industrial, medical and others spheres.
It is important to leave art, science, journalism and other kinds of creative human activity free from the intervention of often repressive administrative apparatus. In this regard, the "language of enmity" is an actual object of linguistic research, the parametrization of which must be inscribed into the legal field.
Cognitive-semantic analysis of legal documents reveals the constitutive features of the "language of enmity" (Brusenskaya, Kulikova, 2016; Kulikova, Brusenskaya, 2017).
Understanding discourse as a linguistic correlate of specific types of social activity allows to define the "language of enmity" as a set of institutionally determined negative speech practices.
The "language of enmity" is often realized with the active functioning and the very existence of the institute of "yellow" press and media of the appropriate level in presenting information, which broadcast stereotypes of mass culture, first of all, in the national sphere. The" language of enmity" is always based on the archetypical opposition "friend - foe", which is extended, except national groups, in various social strata. Discrimination on some sign is also institutionalized: it is
always one of the practices of a number of political organizations. Of course, in this case, the "language of enmity" acts not so much as an affective-cognitive phenomenon, but belongs to the level of phenomena, deeply logical in nature, participating in solving economic and political problems. This perspective of the studied phenomenon allows to explain the reasons for the biased attitude of the object of the "language of enmity", which was exposed to it, to any speech actions of its subject, because moral suffering is the result not only of specific speech actions, but also the aggressive behavior of the subject as a whole.
Also an important parameter of the "language of enmity" should be considered the production of semantic space of discourse/text on the basis of negative stereotypes, logical errors, incorrect generalizations, which inevitably lead to biased interpretation of the behavior of representatives of the social stratum or national group, its negative evaluation as a whole without taking into account the differentiation of individuals within it (Brusenskaya, Kulikova, 2017; Brusenskaya, Kulikova, 2018; Kulikova, Brusenskaya, 2018).
An important parameter should also be considered the implementation of the "language of enmity" in the sphere of social relations (certain social, professional, ethnic/racial, interpersonal communities, etc.). At the same time, the "language of enmity" is always an effective phenomenon, as opposed to tolerance, which can be realized in inaction.
Texts characterized by the markers of the "language of enmity" often contain not direct statements, but implicatures, which provide a performative effect on the recipient through indirect communication. "Hate speech", implemented in oral communication, is first of all, the action (compare: nomination "a fool, a cretin, etc.), whereas the establishment of such nomination in writing in most cases becomes the condition for attracting authors to justice.
4. Results
The variety of existing points of view on the essence of the "language of enmity" testifies to the instability of the scope of this concept and its insufficient development for use in the analysis of Russian-language texts of modern Russian media. It is important to determine the terminological status of a new concept in the linguistic and legal sciences. Thus, the" language of enmity " in the Russian linguistic paradigm has been repeatedly characterized by researchers (See: Kuznetsova, Sokolova, 2004; Nikiporets-Takigawa, 2006), but this phenomenon is not a term in the full sense. According to F. de Sossure, the main distinguishing feature of a term is its location in" a special semiotic system and difficult fragment of a common system of meanings" (Saussure, 1977: 126127).
Accumulated knowledge about the "language of enmity" are not enough for the substantiation of its terminological status.
In the terms of the law "the language of enmity" is not also a term because of the inconsistency with the strict requirements to them in the legal paradigm: sustainable use in a law or regulation, logical connection with other terms of the system and mutual determinism of them, as well as other systems (Khizhnyak, 1997: 28-32).
However, the concept of "language of enmity" is successful, because the hatred and enmity constitute the phenomena, defined linguistically and legally (compare the definitions of the Criminal Code, including mention of "hatred and enmity" (Criminal Code, article 282).
The terms language and speech are more acceptable in interdisciplinary fields than other terminological combinations, for example, "xenophobic discourse", which is difficult to comprehend in the field of law.
In the coordinates of the Belarusian linguistics "hate speech" is considered from the standpoint of setting and significant signs of language conflict, ethnic stereotype, linguistic markers of xenophobia, linguistic and cultural and linguocultural aspects of tolerance and political correctness (See: Denisova, 2011: 221-228).
The most successful is the interpretation of the concept of "language of enmity", proposed by V.V. Kuznetsova and E.E. Sokolova, who consider it as a set of linguistic means of expression of "sharply negative attitude to any phenomenon of social life (cultural, national, religious, etc.), as well as to people who are carriers of other, opposite to the author, spiritual values" (Kuznetsova, Sokolova, 2004: 448).
G.Y. Nikiporets-Takigawa distinguishes "language of enmity" as "the linguistic manifestation of aggression, along with the motiveless usage of new words from foreign languages;
linguosuggestive influence of advertising texts; expansion of small societies vocabulary; language demagogy; metaphorization, the creation of specific metaphorical picture of the world" (Nikiporets-Takigawa, 2006: 56).
The researcher defines the "language of enmity" as "a number of familiar words and expressions that subconsciously program a person to aggression" (Nikiporets-Takigawa, 2006: 57).
The analysis of the interpretations of the notion "language of enmity" proposed by the researchers allows us to speak about two obligatory components of its content: the negative meaning of the expression and its obligatory addressing.
It should be admitted that signs on which verbal discrimination is carried out, which contributes to the incitement of hatred, are not obligatory components of this concept, since they are of a non-permanent nature.
Racial, gender, age, ethnicity, disability (disability), religious commitment, sexual orientation, self-identification as a person of a certain biological sex, language, moral and political views, socioeconomic class, sort of activity, appearance are among them. The texts of the media often contain a combination of several discriminatory features.
In our opinion, the possibility of correct definition of the term "language of enmity" is determined by the identification of its specific semantic markers that can be established in the process of studying the normative acts of the Russian legislation - these are the lexemes and their combinations represented in each legal definition of speech acts, studied for the presence of "language of enmity»:
a) semantic dominants with qualifying semantics ("enmity", "terrorism", "symbolics", "hatred", "discord", " exclusiveness/superiority/inferiority»);
b) lexemes with attributive semantics ("racial" (or "sign of race"), "origin", "national", "ideological", "political", "religious", "religion", "belonging to a social group", "sign of sex", "language" (or "sign of language»);
c) lexemes with the semantics of the action ("justification," "excitement," " humiliation of dignity", "propaganda ", " demonstrating", "the call").
According to the Federal Law on combating extremism, these semantic elements should be marked with a sign of publicity, which is manifested in the following properties:
а) the most extensive addressee;
б) communicative strategy of influence on society as a whole or any of its strata.
The sign of publicity, in our opinion, can be implemented both directly (if the statement is intended to affect the largest possible number of recipients of the discourse) and indirectly (if such text is published in a section open/closed to visitors of the Internet forum).
Criminal Code of the Russian Federation parameterizes the "language of enmity" in article 282 of the Criminal Code, which is designated as punishable "actions aimed at inciting hatred or enmity, and also on humiliation of dignity of a person or group of persons on signs of gender, race, nationality, language, origin, attitude to religion, and likewise affiliation to any social group, made publicly or through the media".
In the text of this normative-legal document during cognitive-semantic analysis in accordance with the above classification there are revealed semantic dominants and language elements.
Hatred and enmity as semantic dominants with qualifying semantics become significant in this context; language elements with attributive semantics are categorically marked by lexemes gender, race, nationality, language, origin, religion, social group.
Verbalizing them by the nominative dominant meaning of these elements, however, must be qualified as attributive: a method of transformation allows to define their indicative nature replacing language elements presented in the context with those in semantics of which meaning gender, racial, national, language sign, and indication of origin is important. Language elements with semantics of action in the this context is arousal of hatred.
The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in addition to the article on "incitement of hatred", also provides for tougher penalties in the case of any offence motivated by hatred.
This motivation is defined in the legal field as "presumption of guiltiness, hostility or depravity on the basis of nationality", which allows to classify it as the basis of all illegal actions that can be attributed to crimes of national or racial hostility or hatred. The basis of public action, which is aimed at discrediting people on the basis of their national, racial or religious affiliation is
also hate motive. Such motivation forms the context of insulting the national and confessional honour of dignity.
An aggravating circumstance, according to article 63 of the Criminal Code, may be "the Committing a crime on the motives of political, ideological, racial, national or religious hatred or enmity or on the motives of hatred or enmity against a social group".
Cognitive-semantic analysis allows to define qualifying semantic dominants hatred, enmity; attributive elements are represented by lexemes and their combinations political, ideological, racial, national, religious relating to the social group.
Language elements with the semantics of action is represented with lexical combination committing an offence. The specificity of the "language of enmity" functioning in the modern media is due to a number of extralinguistic factors: socio-political, psycho-cultural, communicative, legal and ethical. The analysis of the socio-political, psychological and cultural foundations of the "language of enmity" that influence its functioning in the modern media shows a change in the historical paradigm, which is affected not only in the content of statements with the "language of enmity", but also in the topics of media materials and public speeches.
Socio-political prerequisites for the functioning of the "language of enmity" formed two vectors of its addressing (negative statements about a person or a group of people whose mention in the media takes into account their social status, fame, income or nationality).
Represented in the media other objects of addressing this phenomenon (a person or group of people, verbally discriminated on the basis of race, gender and age, disability( disability), religion, sexual orientation, identification as a person of a certain biological sex, language, moral and political views, type of activity, appearance) is connected with psychological and cultural prerequisites for the functioning of the "language of enmity" in this area (the formation and maintenance of negative stereotypes by the media and the lack of a tradition to condemn the "language of enmity" in modern society as a whole).
Investigation of communicative bases of functioning the "language of enmity" allows to speak about existence of the following components of communication: mass addressee (in rare cases it acts as single), and also mass and single addressees of "language of enmity". It should be noted that the addressee can be represented in two forms: as a real (character of the text) and as a formal (reader/listener)
Producing "language of enmity" by the addressee is usually limited to the seven main producing models of this phenomenon ("We are at war with you", "We are at war with X", "We are at war with them", "We are at war with you", "I am at war with you", "I am at war with X", "I am at war with them") and many complex variations (such as "I am at war with and with others, and... ", "We are at war with you and them" etc.) relevant in the media within a specified period. Thus, in the following context of the leaflet, there is implemented the speech formula of the "language of enmity" "we are at war with them": "Together we will clear Russia of black locusts from the Caucasus and Central Asia". The vector of addressing the "language of enmity" can be directed not only to the real addressee, but also to his/her activity and its results (for example,"...the course of criminal and democratic reforms conducted by the team of the President"). Out of context, the expression team of the President has no negative evaluation, but in this phrase gets it in the distribution of words with such an evaluation (the course of criminal and democratic reforms). Thus, the author incriminates the real addressee of the "language of enmity" (the team of the President) carrying out this political course. The reaction of the formal and real addressees to the "language of enmity" in the media largely depends on the linguistic form of the statement itself, and not on the type of addressing (direct or indirect).
For example, when comparing speech formulas with the same negative nominations, the type of addressing does not significantly affect the character of the statement: the speech formula with direct addressing "We are at war with you", realized in the phrase You - X, is equivalent to the speech formula with indirect addressing "we are at war with him", realized in the phrase He - X.
5. Conclusion
The concept of "language of enmity" despite the diversity of its definitions has two obligatory components: a negative evaluation of expression and obligatory addressing. Extra-linguistic base of "language of enmity" in the modern media is represented with a complex of socio-political, psycho-cultural, communication, legal and ethical factors with unstable and changing with time
components that define the specificity of functioning this phenomenon and affect its linguistic component.
Linguistic factors of the functioning the "language of enmity" in the media are identified on the basis of information from pragmalinguistics, cognitive and structural linguistics, as well as stylistics, legal linguistics, jurisprudence, psychology and cognitive psychotherapy, determined by the specifics of the nature of the phenomenon under study (the ability of the addressee to intentionally or unintentionally create statements, to provide a percussive and/or suggestive effect on a person, to distort and veil information, to use words and expressions of the literary phenomenon). and non-literary languages, to manipulate stylistic means, creating cognitive errors in the perception of the "language of enmity" by the addressee, which are often an obstacle to the differentiation of statements as statements of fact, evaluative opinions with actual reference and actual evaluative opinions).Linguistic factors of the functioning of the "language of enmity" in the media are identified on the basis of information from pragmalinguistics, cognitive and structural linguistics, as well as stylistics at the junction with legal linguistics, jurisprudence, psychology and cognitive psychotherapy, determined by the specifics of the nature of this phenomenon (the ability of the addressee to intentionally or unintentionally create statements, to provide a percussive and/or suggestive effect on a person, to distort and veil information, to use words and expressions of the literary and non-literary language, to manipulate with stylistic means, forming cognitive errors in the perception of the "language of enmity" by the addressee, which are often an obstacle to differentiate statements as statements about fact, evaluative opinions with actual reference and actual evaluative opinions).
Linguistic and extralinguistic factors that comprehensively determine the specifics of the functioning the "language of enmity" in the media, influence its genesis in the modern period, predetermining the growing tendency to prefer the usage of veiled forms of this phenomenon, while ignoring direct forms as the most expressive strong ones.
The prospects of investigating the "language of enmity" are represented as a set of urgent tasks that need to be solved:
- institutionality of the "language of enmity" as its implementation in various spheres of social activity;
- investigation of techniques and methods of the "language of enmity» verbalization;
- defining the characteristics of social processes by identifying the frequency of the "language of enmity" usage in various spheres of society;
- improving the methodology of linguistic expertise in the coordinates of jurisprudence.
6. Acknowledgements
The reported study was funded by RFBR according to the research project № 18-012-00085
References
About Counteraction to Extremist Activity: the Federal Law, 2012 — About Counteraction of Extremist Activity: the Federal Law (2012) on 25.07.2002 N 114-FL: (edition of 29.04.2008).
Moscow.
About Counteraction to Terrorism: Federal Law, 2012 - About Counteraction to Terrorism: Federal Law (2012). Dated 06.03.2006 No. 35-FL (as amended on 08.11.2011). Moscow, 2012.
About Modification..., 2003 - About Modification of the Order of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation (2003) on May 14, 2003 114: the Order of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation on March 9, 2006 No. 36. Moscow, 2012.
About Some Measures..., 2013 - About Some Measures for Protection of the Rights of Investors and Shareholders (2013) : the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of November 18, 1995, 1157: (edition on 25.07.2013). Moscow, 2013.
Akimoto et al., 2014 - Akimoto, Y, Sugiura, M., Yomogida, Y, Miyauchi, C.M., Miyazawa, S., Kawashima, R. (2014). Irony comprehension: Social conceptual knowledge and emotional response. Human Brain Mapping, 35: 1167-1178. doi: 10.1002/hbm.22242.
Alba-Juez, Larina, 2018 - Alba-Juez, L., Larina, T. (2018). Language and Emotions: Discourse Pragmatic Perspectives. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 22 (1): 9-37.
Arevalo, 2018 - Arevalo, C.M. (2018). Emotional Self-presentation on Whatsapp: Analysis of the Profile Status. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 22 (1): 144-16.
Bezmaternykh et al., 2018 - Bezmaternykh, TA, Bezmaternykh, T.O., Kulikova E.G., Magomedova, A.A. (2017). Development of Municipal Education in Russia: Managerial Discourse. Man in India, 97(15): 1-19.
Brusenskaya et al., 2017 - Brusenskaya, LA, Kulikova, E.G., Ukraintseva, I.V. (2017). Mediatization: Advertising as a Modern Speech Genre of Media Discourse in the Context of Ideas of Ecological Linguistics. Media Education, 3: 61-78.
Brusenskaya, 2016 - Brusenskaya, L.A. (2016). Legal Linguistics and Linguoecology: aspects of interaction. Philosophy of Law, 4: 54-59.
Brusenskaya, Kulikova, 2016 - Brusenskaya, LA., Kulikova E.G. (2016). Ecological Linguistics. Moscow: Flinta: Nauka, 184 p.
Brusenskaya, Kulikova, 2017 - Brusenskaya, LA., Kulikova E.G. (2017). Qualification of Insult in the Context of Legal Culture. Legal Culture, 4: 43-51.
Brusenskaya, Kulikova, 2018 - Brusenskaya, LA, Kulikova, E.G. (2018). Media linguistics: Origins, Problems and Prospects. Media Education, 1: 168-183.
Civil Code of the Russian Federation, 2012 — Civil Code of the Russian Federation (2012). Part II: on 26.01.1996 № 14-FZ: (as amended on 30.11.2011: rev. and add., coming into force from 01.01.2012). Moscow, 2012.
Code of the Russian Federation about Administrative Offences, 2012 - Code of the Russian Federation about Administrative Offences (2012) on 30.12.2001 № 195-FL: (as amended on 12.11.2012). Moscow, 2012.
Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, 1996 - Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (1996). Federal Law of the Russian Federation of 13 June 1996 № 63-FZ: (as amended on 13.05.2008). Collection of Russian Legislation, 25. Art. 2954.
Denisova, 2011 - Denisova, A.V. (2011). Legal Basis of Linguistic Expertise of "hate speech". Jurilinguistics, 11: 221 - 228.
Gudkova, 2005 - Gudkova, L.D. (2005). Sociological survey (Nov.2005). Department of social and political studies of the Levada Center. The independent Newspaper, 26.12.2005.
Khizhnyak, 1997 - Khizhnyak, S.P. (1997). Legal Terminology: Formation and Composition. Saratov, 134 p.
Kokorina, 1996 - Kokorina, E.V. (1996). Stylistic Image of the Opposition Press. Russian Language of the end of the XX century (1985-1995). Moscow: 409-426.
Kulikova et al., 2016 - Kulikova, E.G., Kuznetsova, A.V., Sarkisiyants, V.R., Zayats, P.V. (2016). The Media Discourse in the Conceptual Coordinates of Linguistic Ecology: to Problem of Statement. Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 8 (4): 82-95.
Kulikova, 2004 - Kulikova, E.G. (2004). Norm in Linguistics and Paralinguistics. Rostov: Rostov State University of Economics, 300 p.
Kulikova, Brusenskaya, 2017 - Kulikova, E.G., Brusenskaya, LA. (2017). The Normativity of the Russian Language in the light of Ecological Linguistics and Social Processes in Contemporary Russian Society. Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 9(1): 312—318.
Kulikova, Brusenskaya, 2018 - Kulikova, E.G., Brusenskaya, L.A. (2018). Cognitive Principles and Persuasiveness of Social Anti-drug Advertising. European Research Studies Journal, 21 (1): 206-218.
Kulikova, Kuznetsova, 2015 - Kulikova, E.G., Kuznetsova, A.V. (2015). Modern Russia: Communicative Situation under Postmodern Era. Asian Social Science, 11 (7): 184-194.
Kuznetsova, 2004 - Kuznetsova, V.V. (2004). Freedom of Speech and Language of Enmity in the Russian Media. In: Kuznetsova, V.V., Sokolova, E.E. Social Variants of Language: proceedings of the international science. Novgorod: 448-450.
Mackenzie, 2018 - Mackenzie, J.L. (2018). Sentiment and Confidence in Financial English: a Corpus Study. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 22 (1): 80-93.
Malkova, 2002 - Malkova, V.K. (2002). Diagnostics of Tolerance in the Media. Moscow: IEA Russian Academy of Sciences, 105.
Nikiporets-Takigawa, 2006 - Nikiporets-Takigawa, G.Y. (2006). Language, Consciousness, Communication. Aggression in the Media Language: experience of statistical analysis. Moscow: 56-65.
On approval..., 2012 - On approval of the List of types of expertises (2012). performed in the state judicial-expert establishments of Ministry of Justice of Russia, and List of Expert Specialties, which there granted the right of self-production of legal expertise in the state judicial-expert establishments of Ministry of Justice of Russia: the Order of the Ministry of Justice of Russia dated 14.05.2003 No. 114. Moscow.
On Perpetuating..., 2012 - On Perpetuating the Victory of the Soviet people in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945 (2012). Federal Law on May 19, 1995 № 80-FLZ: (with chan. August 22, 2004, February 9, 2009). Moscow.
Sánchez-Moya, Cruz-Moya, 2015 - Sánchez-Moya, A., Cruz-Moya, O. (2015). Whatsapp, Textese, and Moral Panics: discourse features and habits across two generations. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 173: 300-306.
Saussure, 1977 - Saussure, F. (1977). Works on Linguistics. Moscow: Progress. 695 p.
Skovorodnikov, 1997 - Skovorodnikov, A.P. (1997). Language Violence in the Modern Russian Press. Theoretical and Applied Aspects of Speech Communication. Scientific and Methodical Bulletin. 2.
Soldatova, Shaigerova, 2001 - Soldatova, G., Shaigerova, L. (2001). A Superiority Complex and a Form of Intolerance. Century of Tolerance, 2: 2-10.
Speech Aggression and Humanization of Communication in the Media (1997). Ekaterinburg,
117 p.
Vorontsova, 2006 - Vorontsova, TA. (2006). Speech Aggression: invasion into communicative space. Izhevsk: Udmurt University, 252 p.
Wierzbicka, 2018 - Wierzbicka, A. (2018). Emotions of Jesus. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 22 (1): 38-53.
Yus, 2017 - Yus, F. (2017). Contextual Constraints and Non-propositional Effects in WhatsApp communication. Journal of Pragmatics, 114, 66-86. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma. 2017.04.003
Zhelvis, 2001 - Zhelvis, V.I. (2001). Field of Swear: Profanity as a Social Problem in the Languages and Cultures of the World. Moscow: Ladomir, 347 p.
