Fabricated frames as a way of erasing historical memory (based on the discourse of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine)
Abstract
This paper views the peculiarities of the use of language units as a means of waging the information aggression of Russia against Ukraine. It has been established that the use of some and, conversely, the displacement of other nouns from the social discourse can destroy established frame structures, impose false concepts that radically change the language picture of the recipient's world. The study is based on the concept of a "fabricated frame" as a way of misinterpreting events. Thus, for many years, Russian propaganda, using a well-established set of language units, has been trying to establish a false verbalization of traditional Ukrainian concepts. This causes the erasure of Ukrainian national and historical memory. The destructive influence is carried out through all possible channels of communication (mass media, social networks, books, movies, etc.). The following main ways of destroying the frame structure are identified: 1) replacement of key lexemes in the message (the term "борець за незалежніÑÑ‚ÑŒ (fighter for independence)†is replaced by “бандит (bandit)†or “фашиÑÑ‚ (fascist)â€); 2) removing lexemes from public space (for example, a ban on the use of the term “українÑький народ (Ukrainian people)â€); 3) introduction into a negative context (in particular, images of Ukrainian national heroes (including writers and scientists) with the help of words with negative, often derogatory semantics), etc. Therefore, countries that are in the potential zone of the Kremlin’s interest should timely recognize the cases of language aggression in public discourse to develop an effective system of countermeasures.
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Andreev, I. N. (1948). The letters and papers of Peter the Great. Moscow-Leningrad: AN SSSR.
Bal-Gezegin, B. (2019). Lexical bundles in published research articles: a corpus-based study. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15(2), 520-534.
Baudrillard, J. (1981). Simulacres et simulation. Paris: Galilée.
Brekhunenko, V. (2017). War for Consciousness. The Russian myths about Ukraine and its past. Kyiv: Brekhunenko N. A.
Buzina, O. (2016). The union between plough and trident: how Ukraine was invented. Kyiv: Arij.
Condufor, Yu. Yu. (1984). The Great October Socialist Revolution and the Civil War in Ukraine (1917-1920). Kyiv: Naukova Dumka.
Davies, N. (2006). Europe at War 1939-1945: no simple victory. London: Macmillan.
Fabiszak, М. (2007). A conceptual metaphor approach to war discourse and its implications. Poznan: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.
Fillmore, Ch. (1982). Frame Semantics. Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Soeul: Hanshin.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. London: Harper and Row.
Grach, L. (2008). Ukraine is not Europe. Kyiv: “Drukarnia “Biznespolihraf†LLC.
Klecel, M. (2010). Pisarze ścigani za Katyń. Biuletyn Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej, 4(111), 65 75.
Krevetsky, I. (1904). There was no, there is no, and cannot be! Literary and Scientific Bulletin, 27(7), 9-18.
Kuchma, L. (2003). Ukraine is not Russia. Moscow: Vremya.
Kungurov, A. (2010). There was no Kievan Rus, or what do historians hide. Moscow: Ehksmo.
Larnyo, P. K. A., & Glover-Meni, N. (2019). Causality related to coreferential and reciprocal structures in Ewe. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15(3), 1188-1203.
Lopatin, V. (2013). Explanatory dictionary of the modern Russian language. Moscow: Ehksmo.
Lytvyn, S. (2000). The assassination of S. Petliura and HPUâ€. From archÑ–ves of VUChK – HPU – NKVD – KHB, 2(4), 398Ë—409.
Mytrofanenko, Yu. (2015). Ukrainian otamanship 1918-1919. Kropyvnytskyi: Imeks.
Mytrofanenko, Yu. (2017). Ukrainian otamanship 1918-1919. In V. Lobodaiev (Ed.), War with the state or for the state? (pp. 100-147). Kharkiv: KSD.
Nakonechny, Ye. (2013). The stolen name. Kamianets-Podilskyi: Medobory-2006.
Rieber, A. J. (2014). The struggle for the Eurasian Borderlands: from the rise of early modern empires to the end of the First World War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sanin, G. (2006). Bohdan Khmelnytsky and Ivan Mazepa. Proceedings of the Institute of Russian History, RAS, 6, 65-90.
Semanov, S. (2001). Makhno. True story. Moscow: AST-Press.
Serhiichuk, V. (2006). Simon Petliura and Judaism. Kyiv: PP Serhiichuk M.I.
Snyder, T. (2015). A way out for Ukraine? Retrieved December 20, 2020 (https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2013/12/05/ukraine-protests-way-out/).
Sternberg, R., Sternberg, K., & Mio, J. (2012). Cognitive psychology. Belmont: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.
Turchenko, F. (2006). Mykola Mikhnovskyi: life and story. Kyiv: Heneza.
Tynchenko, Ya. (2017). Knights of the winter crusade. 1919-1922. Kyiv: Tempora.
Verstiuk, V. (2017). From the “Great October Socialist Revolution and Civil War in Ukraine (1917-1920)†to “Essays on the History of the Ukrainian Revolution†and further: transformations of the research paradigm. Ukrainian Historical Journal, 3, 8-23.
Volvach, P. (2014). How Ukraine rebuilt Crimea after the war and deportation. Retrieved December 20, 2020 (https://www.istpravda.com.ua/articles/4d61ab91438ae/).
Wierzbicka, A. (1997). Understanding cultures through the key words: English, Russian, Polish, German, Japanese. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zhabotynska, S. (2011). Lexical fields and non-linear dynamics of cognitive structures. Bulletin of the Lviv University. Series: Philology, 52, 3-11.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
ISSN 1305-578X (Online)
Copyright © 2005-2022 by Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies