Linguistic rhetoric of Soviet discourse: official vs personal register (J. Stalin – A. Dovzhenko)

Within the conception of the Sochi Linguistic & Rhetorical School the paper discusses the diglossia of the Soviet discourse employed in the former USSR, distinguishes official and personal registers as well as shows their difference drawing on Joseph Stalin’s speech of 31 January 1944 to the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks concerning Alexander Dovzhenko’s screenplay “Ukraine in Flames” and in the writer’s diaries. The comparison reveals a few specific linguistic rhetorical features of cognitive communicative type ontologically characteristic of the Soviet linguistic personality’s communicative cognitive activity in a totalitarian state. The cognitive features of Stalin’s individual discourse representing the official register and his system of argumentation rest on the significative component of linguistic units, arguments from literature to illustrate the postulates and dogmas of Marxist-Leninist doctrine forming the foundation of the Soviet discourse. It is also found that the official register represented by Stalin’s speech is characterized by the following features: 1) repetition; 2) sarcastic remarks; 3) dramatic mutually exclusive contrast of mental spaces (“our own, true in the last resort” and destructed, represented by the opponent’s discourse); 4) rigidly adversarial characteristic of the alternative linguistic rhetorical worldview; 5) appeal to the Soviet collective linguistic personality’s opinion; 6) ideological translation from one subdiscourse into the other, from personal register into the official one; 7) biased retelling of the discourse regarded as anti-Soviet; 8) appeal to the facts lacking in the discourse under criticism; 9) “ideological editing” taking on the form of peremptory lecturing with consequences threatening the liberty of the person under criticism. The personal register of the Soviet Ukrainian writer Dovzhenko is characterized by a broad interpretation of reality devoid of the “Marxist-Leninist blinds” and a more objective interpretation of the world due to a bigger ratio of denotative references (“evidential arguments” like “I say” and “I heard” etc) and communicative cognitive activity relative to two axiological hierarchies: national and Christian, i.e. the dominance of human values over class morality. It is proved that Dovzhenko’s screenplay was criticized within Stalin’s official register for its deviation from the cognitive schemas and the model of the Soviet discourse, for the focus on Ukraine and its citizens rather than on class struggle

Дискурс коммунизма и социалистическая языковая личность: риторический аспект

Within the conception of the Sochi Linguistic & Rhetorical School the paper argues for the idea of discourse of Communism as a cover term for the «officialese» in the Soviet Union and former Socialist countries singling out four periods of its development: origin, formation, official existence, dismantling. The article pays special attention to the heterogeneity of the longest period of the discourse's official existence, which consists of the alternating stages: rise in the revolutionary and post-revolutionary years, during war and past-war time with the expansion of the discourse of Communism to other countries; and fall with the massive reprisals of 1930s and the “stagnation” epoch. During the period of its official existence three of its facets – official, public and real – reflect contradictions between the Communist ideas imposed by the authorities and the state of the Socialist linguistic personality confronting the meanness of daily life. The paper reveals those contrasts drawing on the diaries of Olga Berggolts and Alexander Dovzhenko as well as the destinies of Mikhail Prishvin, Alexey Tolstoy and Alexander Fadeyev.Dentro de la concepción de la Escuela Lingüística y Retórica de Sochi, el artículo argumenta a favor de la idea del discurso del comunismo como un término de cobertura para los «officialese» en la Unión Soviética y los ex países socialistas que señalan cuatro períodos de su desarrollo: origen, formación, oficial existencia, desmantelamiento. El artículo presta especial atención a la heterogeneidad del período más largo de la existencia oficial del discurso, que consiste en las etapas alternas: ascenso en los años revolucionario y posrevolucionario, durante la guerra y el tiempo de la guerra pasada con la expansión del discurso del comunismo. a otros países; y caer con las represalias masivas de 1930 y la época de "estancamiento". Durante el período de su existencia oficial, tres de sus facetas, oficial, pública y real, reflejan contradicciones entre las ideas comunistas impuestas por las autoridades y el estado de la personalidad lingüística socialista que confronta la mezquindad de la vida cotidiana. El documento revela esos contrastes basados ​​en los diarios de Olga Berggolts y Alexander Dovzhenko, así como los destinos de Mikhail Prishvin, Alexey Tolstoy y Alexander Fadeyev.В русле концепции Сочинской лингвориторической школы статья обосновывает идею дискурса коммунизма, обобщающую интерпретации «официолекта» в Советском Союзе и в бывших странах социализма, и выделяет четыре периода его развития: зарождение, формирование, расцвет и угасание. Отмечена неоднородность наиболее длительного и значимого периода расцвета, который состоит из чередующихся этапов: вознесения в революционные и послереволюционные годы, в военное и послевоенное время, сопровождавшееся расширением границ дискурса коммунизма на другие страны; и упадка, с которым соотносятся массовые репрессии конца 30-х годов и эпоха «застоя». На всех этапах расцвета дискурса коммунизма его три ипостаси – официальная, публичная и реальная – отражали противоречие между коммунистическими идеями, навязываемыми властями, и состоянием социалистической языковой личности, сталкивающейся с превратностями повседневной реальности. Указанные контрасты раскрываются в статье на материале дневников Ольги Берггольц и Александра Довженко, а также на примере литературных судеб Михаила Пришвина, Алексея Толстого и Александра Фадеева

A glossy magazine discourse of the early twenty-first century as a tool of globalization: Sochi school of linguistics and rhetoric

The authors consider the discourse of a glossy magazine. They highlight the glossy magazine discourse, which appears in the framework of the General media discourse as an institutional discourse from the standpoint of the linguistical-rhetorical paradigm (LRP) of the Sochi scientific school. This type of discourse is a discursive process of a special type, acts as an explicit tool of globalization. The authors emphasize the novelty of this discourse in the context of its influence on the formation and transformation of the modern linguistic personality. The relevance of the study is emphasized by the fact that the glossy magazine discourse is the latest in terms of the chronology of the historical process. In addition, he actualizes the poly-ethno-socio-cultural and educational space (PESCES) of the beginning of the XXI century, on the example of glossy magazine discourse practices in Russia. For the first time, Glossy magazine discourse stimulates transformations in line with the leading trend of the formation of the "planetary language personality (PLP)" - globalization in the value orientations of the "philosophy of glamour"