Understanding and dissociation in the language of media as a result of the
“own vs. alien” confrontation
Mariya
M. Bicharova, Candidate of Science (PhD, Philology), senior lecturer
Irina V.
Priorova, Doctor of Philology, Associate Professor
Astrakhan State University, Russia
The
given article is written with the support of the Russian Foundation for
Humanities, project ¹ 11-33-00395à2 «“The Other” in the Family».
In the conditions of active integration in XX–XXI centuries every country
faces the problem of realization of its place in the world community and
self-determination in its relations with other countries and cultures. The
expansion of economic, political and cultural ties between the states is
reflected in the interpretation of the image of the “other”, created in the
mass-information discourse. As a result of this interpretation the knowledge
about the “other” based on ethnic and cultural codes form the awareness of national,
social, and political characteristics of the partner countries.
At the beginning of the XXI century in the making of innovative inter-state
relations in the world of politics, increasing transparency and openness in the
interaction between countries, creating a single information space, many
researchers show considerable interest in the specifics of national mentality.
The main issue is the study remains the existence of two opposing trends in
politics and culture: on the one hand, – the universal globalization,
integration and unification, but on the other – cultural differentiation and
autonomy of peoples, the search for and protection of their own identity, which
sometimes takes the extreme form of separatism and nationalism.
In this new historical context the related concepts of “alien”, “other”,
“different”, embodied in the relevant conceptual spheres, come to the fore,
becoming the basis for the understanding of these opposing tendencies. The main
role in the identification of the selected concepts belongs to the typical
patterns of representation of “alien”, “other” and “different” in the media.
Influence on the overall information culture of the society is reflected in
social behavior, in the popular attitude to the “alien” from the position of “own”.
The linguistics interest in contemporary publicism, the language of media
continues unabated. There have been changes in mass consciousness in the
direction of increasing “to the public, creative, interactive, self-confidence
communication in the media”[*].
This leads to the popularity of the media language. The attention of scientists
today is more focused on the field of mass communication, to its individual
forms and genres, but not to specific literary and artistic texts, as the media
more flexibly reflects trends in society[†].
Moreover, “the language of media becomes a reference, standard-setting factor
which influences on shaping the norms of the modern literary language, as well
as the level of ethical language culture as a whole”[‡].
Today the media are one of the most important public institutions, which
have a decisive influence on the formation of both attitudes and perceptions of
society and ethics of its members[§].
Therefore, in the era of globalization, the media are called to be “catalysts
for integration in all spheres of human activity and at the same time, careful
to preserve the national uniqueness of the countries and peoples”[**].
Thus, the information space more than ever is the link between a person and
surroundings. Discover the language of another people, the representative of a
culture is necessarily immersed in another culture,
and comprehends the experimental paradigms encoded in the language that make
national differences. The mentality is understood in different ways in science.
In philosophy, mentality is a definite internal willingness of social actor to
think, to feel, to act and to perceive the world in accordance with a kind of
national attitudes and predispositions. For psychologists true to say that
mentality is caused by changes in consciousness and the realities of being a
modern man, which leads to the study of psychological mechanisms of
representation of reality in the minds of people belonging to historically
specific community. For cultural studies of this concept the principle factor
is in the impact on the customs, traditions, beliefs, knowledge, methods and
techniques, and other components of the spiritual and material culture.
We study the reflection of the mentality of the mass-information discourse
through the strategy of use in it a number of similar concepts of “alien”,
“other” and “different”, while tracing the influence of behavior and culture of
the people on the interpretation of these concepts in the language by which the
communication is made and a picture of the world is created.
The concepts of “alien”, “other” and “different”, as well as the opposition
of “own vs. alien” are the fundamental and most controversial for a number of
humanities: philology, cultural studies, philosophy, sociology and psychology.
A complex multi-level nature of these concepts leads to a variety of aspects of
their study. Thus, in philosophy these concepts are studied in the most general
form, their social and psychological components are considered. In cultural
studies the concepts of “own vs. alien” are used when describing the dialogue
between cultures, in the rapidly developing theories of intercultural
communication, cultural anthropology, ethnoculturology, in particular
cross-cultural studies. In our study, the investigation of the concepts of
“alien”, “other” and “different” lies in the interdisciplinary humanities
research at the intersection of linguistics and discourse theory.
The problem of determining the structure and content of the terms “alien”,
“other” and “different” is aimed primarily at identifying the language and
national-cultural specificity of perception of these concepts, since it is
constructed through language dialogue of cultures. The study of the concepts of
“alien”, “other” and “different” results from the need to understand the
variability in the interpretation of these concepts of cultural linguistics. In
the present study the internal perception of the prevailing world view of a
particular national community, as well as the interpretation developed by
philosophy, cultural studies and linguistics (W. von Humboldt, A. Schleicher,
M. Muller, F. de Saussure, M. Bakhtin, E. Cassirer, M, Foucault, L.
Pushkarev, etc.) are taken into account.
Many authors relate the concepts of “alien”, “other” and “different” to
meanings in Russian “ñòðàííûé – strange”, “íåïîíÿòíûé – incomprehensible”,
“áëàæåííûé –
blessed”, “÷óäíîé – queer”, “èíîçåìíûé – exotic”, “÷óæåñòðàííûé – outlandish”
and in English “another”, “strange”, “unfamiliar”, “foreign”,
“incomprehensible”, “unaccountable”, “inaccessible to understanding”, “odd”,
“simple-minded”, “simple”, “alien”, “an alien from another planet”. The problem
of opposition of “other’ with “other” and the collision of “different” with
“different” are not always covered from the perspective of why “alien”, “other”
and “different” are seen in the paradigm of international relations issue with
negative implications. For example:
Greenberg writes: “Suddenly every point of connection between us had
vanished. It didn't seem possible. She had learned to speak from me; she had
heard her first stories from me. Indelible experiences, I thought. And yet from
one day to the next we had become strangers” (The Sidney Morning Herald,
April, 2009).
Often these concepts are treated
very negative, even hostile, for example:
Ëóêüÿíåíêî îòìåòèë, ÷òî
«Óêðàèíà ñòîèò íà ïîðîãå íà÷àëà íîâîãî êðóãà áîðüáû, öåëüþ ýòîé áîðüáû äîëæíî
áûòü óñòðàíåíèå ÷óæîé âëàñòè è Óêðàèíà äîëæíà äîáûòü ñåáå óêðàèíñêóþ âëàñòü»
(Ðîññèÿ, ìàðò, 2011).
Lukyanenko noticed that “The
Ukraine is on the verge of beginning a new circle of struggle, the aim of the
struggle is the elimination of a foreign power, and Ukraine should get the
Ukrainian authorities” (Russia, March 2011) (Hereinafter, translation – M.
Bicharova).
The concepts of “alien”, “other”
and “different” are ideological in nature, they represent the value of life due
to cultural and historical heritage of the people. At the level of ordinary
people identify significant similarities and differences, giving them the
emotional evaluation. In this sense, “own” is recognized the norm and “other”
gets a critical assessment as a strange, dangerous, stupid and even absurd:
Candidates backed by the
teachers union won Tuesday's contested races for the Los Angeles Board of
Education, but they will answer to not only the union but other powerful
political forces, including the city's mayor and backers of charter schools.
(Los Angeles Times, March, 2009).
Here's another example:
×óæîé áîëüíîé. Èìåþò ëè
ïàöèåíòû ïðàâî ñàìîñòîÿòåëüíî âûáèðàòü ïîëèêëèíèêó, ðåøèò Âåðõîâíûé ñóä ÐÔ
(Ðîññèéñêàÿ ãàçåòà, íîÿáðü, 2008).
An alien invalid. Do the
patients have the right to choose their own clinic, the Supreme Court will
decide (Rossiyskaya Gazeta, November, 2008).
Sometimes the concepts of “alien”,
“other” and “different” can be seen as instruments of harmonization of the
contradictory relationship between the opposing meanings of “own” and “alien”,
for example:
And no, my mother loves us
dearly and I do believe and know this is mostly due to her faith, may be
different for others, but I know my mama as I am her baby and she tells us that
we were the VERY BEST thing that ever happened to her. (Boston Globe, September,
2009).
The chosen concepts exhibit
recognizable trends in comparative aspect of two or more cultures: on the one
hand it’s universalism, and on the other it’s personalization. These trends are
evident in the historical development of world nations and are clearly seen on
the example of Russia and the English speaking countries: the similarity of
pluralism and polymorphism of cultural life in different societies. Any
rational explanation of the differences in no way elevates or diminishes the
dignity of the culture, which explicitly or implicitly compared to another. At
the present stage of studying communicative space the need for cultural
analysis of concepts of “alien”, “other” and “different” inevitably arises,
because in the process of intercultural communication, as a rule, there is a
collision problem, misunderstanding the rules, values and
behaviors of people belonging to different cultures:
Äëÿ ßïîíèè íå äîñòóïíà òîëüêî
îäíà ñóøè (î ñóøå Êóðèëüñêèõ îñòðîâîâ)
(«ÌÈû, 2011)
Only one sushi is available for
Japan (the English “sushi” sounds like the Russian “ñóøà – dry land”, so it’s
pun which implies the dry land of the Kuril Islands) (“MIG”, 2011)
Here's another example:
Äðóãèå ïðåäëîæåíèÿ ïî îðãàíèçàöèè è ïðîâåäåíèþ ïðåäâûáîðíûõ
ìåðîïðèÿòèé ê ðàññìîòðåíèþ íå ïðèíèìàëèñü â ñîîòâåòñòâèè ñ ðîññèéñêîé «äåìîêðàòèåé» («ÌÈû, 2011).
Other suggestions for
organizing and conducting election activities shall not be considered in
accordance with the Russian “democracy” (“MIG”, 2011)
Thus, the verbalized concepts of
“alien”, “other” and “different” act as dynamic cultural constructs of human
consciousness and language. Actively used in the media, they represent such
basic meanings, as in Russian “ñòðàííûé – strange”, “íåïîíÿòíûé –
incomprehensible”, “áëàæåííûé – blessed”, “÷óäíîé – queer”, “èíîçåìíûé –
exotic”, “÷óæåñòðàííûé – outlandish” and in English “another”, “strange”,
“unfamiliar”, “foreign”, “incomprehensible”, “unaccountable”, “inaccessible to
understanding”, “odd”, “simple-minded”, “simple”, “alien”, “an alien from
another planet”, and can be presented in relation to the Russian- and
English-speaking world images. The concepts of “alien”, “other” and “different”
can be successfully used as key concepts for comparing two or more cultures in
the study of differences in the mentality of peoples. Reflecting the specifics
of Russian- and English-speaking linguocultures, they concentrate
confrontation, which in the long term perspective can be taken to neutralize
the emerging oppositions.
References:
Antoshintseva, M. Non-verbal
component and its function in the communicative and pragmatic organization of
discourse (based on the genre of the interview): Thesis. – St. Petersburg,
2004. – 328 p.
Bakhtin, M. The problem of speech
genres // Aesthetics of verbal creativity. – M.: Iskusstvo, 1986. – Pp.
250–296.
Karasik, V. Linguistic Circle:
Personality, Concepts, Discourse. – Volgograd: Peremena, 2002. – 477 p.
Karaulov, N. The Russian language
and the linguistic personality. – M., 1987. – 220 p.
Mikhailov, N. Media in the
globalization era: topical issues // Journalist. – 2008. – ¹ 6. – P. 26.
Neschimenko, G. The dynamics of
the speech standard of the modern public verbal communication: issues and
trends // Problems of Linguistics. – 2001. – ¹ 1. – Pp. 98–103.
Priorova, I. Functional and
communicative properties of indeclinable names in language and speech:
Monograph. – Astrakhan. – 2010. – 162 p.
Rarenko, M. Speech in the Media
(Summary abstract) // Social Sciences and Humanities. Linguistics: GC / RAN.
INION. Humanitarian Center. Linguistics dep. – M., 2008. – ¹ 4. – Pp. 101–105.
[*] Antoshintseva, M. Non-verbal
component and its function in the communicative and pragmatic organization of
discourse (based on the genre of the interview): Thesis. – St. Petersburg,
2004. – p. 70
[†] Priorova, I. Functional and communicative properties of indeclinable names in language and speech: Monograph. – Astrakhan. – 2010. – 162 p.
[‡] Neschimenko, G. The dynamics of the
speech standard of the modern public verbal communication: issues and trends //
Problems of Linguistics. – 2001. – ¹ 1. – P. 101.
[§] Rarenko, M. Speech in the Media
(Summary abstract) // Social Sciences and Humanities. Linguistics: GC / RAN.
INION. Humanitarian Center. Linguistics dep. – M., 2008. – ¹ 4. – P. 101.
[**] Mikhailov, N. Media in the globalization era: topical issues // Journalist. – 2008. – ¹ 6. – P. 26.