Syntactic and Phraseological Means of Speech Influence in Anti-Russian Propaganda
https://doi.org/10.18384/2949-5075-2025-S1-17-28
Abstract
Aim. To identify the most effective and frequent means of speech influence within the syntactic and phraseological levels of the linguistic hierarchy in the discourse of modern anti-Russian propaganda deployed by the Western countries and Ukraine.
Methodology. The study provides the analysis of the media articles in English, German and Ukrainian languages for the period from February 24, 2022 to August 12, 2024 related to the special military operation of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. The following general scientific methods were used in the presented scientific project: discourse analysis, content analysis, continuous sampling technique, method of linguistic description and interpretation, cognitive and contextual analysis.
Results. The study reveals that the most frequent means of speech influence in anti-Russian propaganda are units of the syntactic level on the grounds of the pragmatic influencing potential of these units, as well as their ability to influence the perception of the situation by the recipient.
Research implications. The article identifies the manipulative speech means influencing pragmatic potential of anti-Russian propaganda in the Western and Ukrainian media. The analysis has revealed that the linguistic potential at the level of syntax and phraseology is an effective means of manipulative influence. The result of this research can serve in the development of a manual on productive measures to counter anti-Russian propaganda carried out by the media of the West and Ukraine within the framework of propaganda discourse.
About the Authors
Yu. A. KuznetsovaRussian Federation
Yulia A. Kuznetsova – Senior Lecturer, Department of Foreign Languages,
Moscow
E. G. Knyazeva
Russian Federation
Elena G. Knyazeva – Dr. Sci. (Philology), Prof., Departmental Head, Department of Foreign Languages
Moscow
S. V. Shermazanova
Russian Federation
Svetlana V. Shermazanova – Cand. Sci. (Sociology), Assoc. Prof., Prof., Department of Foreign Languages
Moscow
References
1. Baranov, A. N. & Parshin, P. B. (2017). Propaganda as a Category in Forensic Text Analysis. In: Theory and Practice of Forensic Science, 12 (2), 53–65. DOI: 10.30764/1819-2785-2017-12-2-53-65 (in Russ.).
2. Achkasova, V. A. & Melnik, G. S., eds. (2023). Propaganda discourse in the context of digitalization. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg University publ. (in Russ.).
3. Kalinin, O. I. (2018). Fundamentals of linguopragmatic research of political image. Moscow: KnoRus publ. (in Russ.).
4. Akhrenova, N. A. & Orlova, A. A. (2021). Discourse characteristics of Fashion blogging. In: Bulletin of the Moscow Region State University. Series: Linguistics, 6, 6–19. DOI: 10.18384/2310-712X-2021-6- 19 (in Russ.).
5. Pocheptsov, G. G. (2001). Theory of communication. Moscow: Refl-book publ., Kyiv: Wakler publ. (in Russ.).
6. Kalinin, O. I. & Knyazeva, E. G. (2023). Cognitive-discursive approach to information war. In: Cognitive Studies of Language, 3-2 (54), 441–446 (in Russ.).
7. Sidorova, N. A. & Kurochkina, E. V. (2020). Semantics of Value-Marked Discourse. In: Vestnik of NArFU. Linguistics, 6, 63–71. DOI: 10.37482/2687-1505-V064 (in Russ.).
8. Prikhodko, M. V. (2022). Linguistic aspect in informationpsychological warfare: pragmatics. In: Kazan Science, 8, 106–109 (in Russ.).
9. Makhaev, M. R. & Sternin, I. A. (2020). The differential psycholinguistic description of the semantics of lexical units. In: Bulletin of the Academy of Sciences of the Chechen Republic, 4 (51), 114–120. DOI: 10.25744/vestnik.2020.51.4.019 (in Russ.).
10. Gut, V. V. & Dotsenko, E. L. (2023). Constructing definitions: from manipulation to adaptive intelligence. In: Modern Science: actual problems of theory & practice. Series: Cognition, 8, 50–58. DOI: 10.37882/2500-3682.2023.08.05 (in Russ.).
11. Volkov, V. S. (2016). Communicative grammar in teaching English at higher school (in the sphere of information technologies). In: Modern Science, 4, 55–68 (in Russ.).
12. Mukhortov, D. S. & Krasnova, A. V. (2016). Manipulation discourse markers within the framework of subjective evaluation. In: Political Linguistics, 6 (60), 120–125 (in Russ.).
13. Galkina, N. P. (2022). Parcelling as a tool of influence in journalism. In: Izvestia of the Volgograd State Pedagogical University, 1 (164), 193–200 (in Russ.).
14. Bogoyavlenskaya, Yu. V. (2015). Effecting potential of parceling in French and Russian media texts. In: Philology and Man, 2, 93–103 (in Russ.).
15. Zhuk, N. V. & Ivanov, V. D. (2022). The combination of question and exclamation marks (?!) in some emotive types of statements (based on the material of the German language). In: Bulletin of the Moscow Region State University. Series: Linguistics, 6, 101–108. DOI: 10.18384/2310-712x-2022-6-101-108 (in Russ.).
16. Drobot, D. S. (2018). Rhetorical question as a means of cognitive-pragmatic impact in media discourse (by the example of Cosmopolitan and Glamor magazines). In: Philology. Theory & Practice, 4-1 (82), 81–84. DOI: 10.30853/filnauki.2018-4-1.19 (in Russ.).
17. Shepeleva, E. V. (2009). To the question about differences in fixing up words in free word combinations from their organization in phraseological units. In: Izvestia Penzenskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta imeni V. G. Belinskogo, 15, 73–75 (in Russ.).
18. Surkova, E. V. (2024). Impact potential of military phraseology in mass media during armed conflict (on English media texts about the Special Military Operation). In: Journal of Military Philology, 3, 26–35 (in Russ.).
19. Grichenko, L. V. (2016). Phraseological and paroemiological units as means of ling