Rhetorical Risk Zones in Mediatexts of Turbulent Times
https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2024-13-4-132-151
Abstract
The concept of rhetorical risk is introduced and actualized within the framework of the rhetorical decoding of the text concept aimed at studying the mechanisms of effective text formation. The phenomenon of textual effectiveness gains particular significance in turbulent periods of human existence. The research material consists of a corpus of mediatexts created during the COVID-19 pandemic and in April 2024 during the devastating flooding in the Southern Urals and Western Siberia. The aim of the article is to identify the zones of rhetorical risks in the text and to identify their indicators. In accordance with the methodological principles of linguorhetorical reconstruction, the zones of rhetorical risks in the text were identified as inventive, dispositival, and elocutive. Indicators of the inventive zone include the implicitness of the speaker’s practical goal-setting and the orthodoxy of the thesis put forward. Indicators of dispositival risk zones include one-dimensionality of argumentation, excessive use of statistical data as arguments, and frequency of related reasoning. The elocutive zone of rhetorical risks arises due to the speakers’ neglect of such a significant communicative criterion for turbulent times as dialogism. The research results can have broad professional applications — from educational activities to mass media and linguo-expert practices.
About the Author
L. A. Morina
Novosibirsk State Technical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Lyudmila A. Morina, PhD in Philology, Associate Professor, Department of Philology, Faculty of Humanities Education
Novosibirsk
References
1. Anisimova, T. V., Gimpelson, E. G. (2004). Modern business rhetoric. Moscow: MPSI. 432 p. ISBN 5-89502-632-H. (In Russ.).
2. Bezmenova, N. A. (1991). Essays on the theory and history of rhetoric. Moscow: Nauka. 215 p. ISBN 5-02-011087-6. (In Russ.).
3. Duskaeva, L. R. (2019). Vectors of praxiological analysis in media linguistics. Media linguistics, 6 (1): 4—18. DOI: 10.21638/spbu22.2019.101. (In Russ.).
4. Golyshkina, L. A. (2020). Decoding Rhetoric: Theoretical and Methodological Substantiation of the Scientific Direction. Nauchnyi dialog, 5: 9—24. https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2020-5-9-24 (In Russ.).
5. Gordon, D. (1985). Postulates of speech communication. In: New in foreign linguistics. Linguistic pragmatics, XVI. Moscow: Progress. 276—306. (In Russ.).
6. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In: Syntax and Semantics, 3. New York: Academic Press. 41—58.
7. Habermas,Yu. (1989). The concept ofindividuality. Questions of philosophy, 2: 35—40. (InRuss.).
8. Ivin, A. A. (2003). Rhetoric: the art of persuasion. Moscow: FAIR PRESS. 304 p. ISBN 5-8183-0390-X. (In Russ.).
9. Katyshev, P. A. (2002). Rhetorized interaction. In: Rhetoric: an educational and methodological complex for students of humanities faculties. Kemerovo: KemGU. 123—140. ISBN 5-8154-0060-2. (In Russ.).
10. Kormilitsyna, M. A. (2007). Rhetorical organization of speech (addressing of speech). In: Good speech. 2nd edition. Moscow: LKI Publishing House. 211—222. ISBN 978- 5-382-00205-7. (In Russ.).
11. Krongauz, M. A. (2020). Screenlife in the era of quarantine. Communicative research, 4: 735—744. DOI: 10.24147/2413-6182.2020.7(4) .735-744. (In Russ.).
12. Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. Lоndon: Longman. xii, 250 p. ISBN 0582551102.
13. Morina (Golyshkina), L. A. (2022). Mental text-sample as a guideline for rhetorical decoding. In: Cognitive studies of language. Cognition, culture, and communication in modern humanities, 3 (50). Moscow; Tambov; Novosibirsk: NSTU Publishing House. 305—308. ISBN 978-5-7782-4730-7. (In Russ.).
14. Osadchy, M. A. (2020). The Russian language in the judicial process: A book for forensic linguists, experts, journalists, politicians, advertising and PR specialists. 2nd edition, stereotype. Moscow: LENAND. 256 p. ISBN 978-5-9710-7519-6. (In Russ.).
15. Paducheva, E. V. (2019). Egocentric units of language. 2nd edition. Moscow: ID YASK. 440 p. ISBN 978-5-907117-23-5. (In Russ.).
16. Polulyakh, D. S. (2017). Turbulence as a characteristic of the modern world order. Political science. Special issue. 245—60. (In Russ.).
17. Rozhdestvensky, Yu. V. (1997). Theory of rhetoric. Moscow: Dobrosvet. 482 p. ISBN 5-7913- 0031-8. (In Russ.).
18. Sirotinina, O. B. (2007). Basic criteria of good speech. Moscow: LKI Publishing House. 16— 28. ISBN 978-5-382-00205-7. (In Russ.).
19. Snook Henkemans, F. (2006). Structures of argumentation. In: The most important concepts of the theory of argumentation. St. Petersburg: Faculty of Philology of St. Petersburg State University. 123—61. ISBN 5-8465-0396-9. (In Russ.).
20. Ukhova, L. V. (2013). Theoretical problems of researching the effectiveness of an advertising text. Doct. Diss. Yaroslavl. 452 p. (In Russ.).
21. Van Dijk, T. A. (2015). Cognitive models of ethnic situations. In: Language. Cognition. Communication. 2nd edition. Moscow: LENAND. 161—189. ISBN 978-5-9710-1387- 7. (In Russ.).
22. Zemskaya, Yu. N. (2000). Fundamentals of general rhetoric. Barnaul: Publishing House of Altai University. 110 p. ISBN 5-7904-0132-5. (In Russ.).
23. Zolotova, G. A. (2004). Communicative grammar of the Russian language. Moscow: V. V. Vinogradov Russian Academy of Sciences. 544 p. ISBN 5-88744-050-3. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Morina L.A. Rhetorical Risk Zones in Mediatexts of Turbulent Times. Nauchnyi dialog. 2024;13(4):132-151. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2024-13-4-132-151
Views:
237
Email this article 