dc.contributor.author	Білоконенко, Людмила Анатоліївна
dc.date.accessioned	2021-10-04T09:06:46Z
dc.date.available	2021-10-04T09:06:46Z
dc.date.issued	2020
dc.identifier.citation	Kankash H., Cherkasova T., Novoseletska S., Shapran N., & Bilokonenko L. The Use of Linguistic Means of Figurativeness and Evaluativity to Exert Influence in the Speeches of the Chief Delegates of the Ukrainian SSR at the Sessions of the UN General Assembly. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies. 2021. Vol. 17 (Special Issue 2). Р. 1264–1274.	uk
dc.identifier.uri	http://elibrary.kdpu.edu.ua/xmlui/handle/123456789/4648
dc.identifier.uri	https://doi.org/10.31812/123456789/4648
dc.description	Abdulameer, A. H., & Noor, S. N. F. M. (2018). Appraisal analysis review of language in political speech. Opcion, 34(85), 2484-2500. Ahrens, K., Zeng, H., & Rebekah Wong, S. (2019). Using a corpus of English and Chinese political speeches for metaphor analysis. In LREC 2018 – 11th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (pp. 994-999). Paris: European Language Resources Association. Batsevich, F. S. (2004). Fundamentals of communicative linguistics. Kyiv: Akademia. Bern, E. (2016). Games that people play. Nyköping: Philosophical Arkiv. Chik, L. (2015). Means of language manipulation in modern media. Literary Process: Methodology, Names, Trends. Philological Sciences, 5, 121-123. Girnth, H., & Burggraf, S. (2019). Narration and persuasion in the political speech. Lili – Zeitschrift Fur Literaturwissenschaft Und Linguistik, 49(1), 107-119. Kachurenko, Y. K., & Nepiyvoda, I. M. (1977). Ukrainian SSR in the international arena: collection of documents and materials 1962-1970. Kyiv: Politvydav Ukrainy. Kochan, I. M. (2008). Linguistic analysis of the text: a textbook. Kyiv: Znannya. Kosmeda, T., & Haliman, O. (2011). Grammar of assessment as an urgent problem of modern linguistics. Linguistic Studies, 22, 17-23. Koval, A. P., & Koptilov, V. V. (1975). Winged expressions in the Ukrainian literary language: Aphorisms. Literary quotations. Figurative expressions. Kyiv: Vyshcha Shkola. Lakoff, J., & Johnson, M. (2004). Metaphors we live by. Moscow: URSS Editorial. Lysychkina, I. O. (2019). Mass media features of building an effective narrative as a tool of strategic communications. Psycholinguistics, 26(2), 224-242. Mada, S. (2018). Analyzing political discourse as a macro speech act. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 63(1-2), 133-146. Mala, Yu. V. (2015). Functional and stylistic types of interrogative sentences in modern political texts. Odessa Linguistic Bulletin, 6(1), 61-64. Morska, L. (2019). Linguo-stylistic tools of psychological influence on the electorate in political discourse (based on american political speeches). Analele Universitatii Din Craiova – Seria Stiinte Filologice, Lingvistica, 41(1-2), 340-355. O'Grady, G. (2017). “I think” in political speech. International Review of Pragmatics, 9(2), 269-303. Onufrienko, G. S., & Chernevych, A. O. (2010). The term communication in the conceptual dimension and linguistic context. Terminologia, 675, 154-160. Oya, E. G. (2019). Ideology in the simultaneous interpreting of political speeches in the USA. Sendebar, 30, 335-355. Parashchuk, V. Yu. (2017). Explanatory communication strategy in the professional speech of an English teacher. Kropyvnytskyi: Published by Lysenko V. F. Piddubna, N. V. (2018). Biblicalisms and religious vocabulary and phraseology: an attempt to distinguish concepts. Linguistic Studies, 47, 50-56. Pocheptsov, G. G. (1999). Twentieth-century communication technologies. Kyiv: Vakler. Posmitna, V. V. (2012). Features of manipulative language influence in military and law enforcement periodicals of Ukraine. Philological studies. Scientific Bulletin of Kryvyi Rih State Pedagogical University, 7, 245-257. Pylynsky, M. M. (1982). The art of words and language. Linguistics, 6, 46-49. Semenyuk, O. A., & Parashchuk, V. Yu. (2010). Fundamentals of the theory of language communication: a textbook. Kyiv: Akademia. Sharmanova, N. M. (2014). Cliché of Ukrainian mass media in the context of ethnosemiotics. Scientific Bulletin of the International Humanities University. Philology, 8(2), 230-233. Shkitska, I. Yu. (2012). Manipulative tactics of the positive: the linguistic aspect. Kyiv: Dmytro Burago Publishing House. Stasiuk, T. (2010). Technologies of speech influence as a component of modern communication. Ukrainska mova, 1, 82-87. Tahiri, L., & Muhaxheri, N. (2020). Stylistics as a tool for critical language awareness. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 16(4), 1735-1745. Tekşan, K., Mutlu, H.H., & Çinpolat, E. (2019). The examination of the relationship between the speech anxiety and speaking skill attitudes of middle school students and the opinions of teachers on speech anxiety. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15(4), 1395-1412. Van Dijk, T. (2015). Language. Cognition. Communication. Moscow: LENAND. Winter, D. G., & Leclerc, R. (2019). Developing a measure of generative historical consciousness from political leaders’ speeches. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(9), 1338-1351. Zirka, V. V., & Zinukova, N. V. (2014). Functions of sociolects in modern media discourse: translation issues. Linguistics of the 21st Century, 2014, 54-61.
dc.description.abstract	The purpose of the study is to identify the figurative means in the formal diplomatic texts of speeches of chief delegates of the Ukrainian SSR to exert influence at the sessions of the UN General Assembly. Based on the interpretive method of speech analysis and the method of generalisation of the data obtained, an attempt was made to identify the main figurative means and expressiveness of speech, which help to achieve the effect of influence on the reader (listener). In order to identify hidden meanings, a hermeneutic approach to understanding texts was used. According to the results of the study, the most actively used linguistic means of figurativeness in the considered texts are epithets, metaphors, phraseologies. There are many more negative epithets used in the texts of speeches than positive ones, which aim to make people aware of the idea of self-preservation, to arouse emotions of anxiety, fear, vigilance. Metaphors of positive and negative evaluation are used to verbalise mental states, social states and thought processes. Most of the epithets, metaphors, idioms represented in the text are used to denote a negative evaluation, which is perceived as a deviation from the norm and is motivated by the following factors: the reluctance of people to take positive action, irresponsible attitude of some people towards others, socially unacceptable flaws and shortcomings. A logical continuation of this study is the analysis of linguistic means of figurativeness and evaluativity of other types of texts of the official style, including statements and conventions.	uk
dc.language.iso	en	uk
dc.subject	epithets	uk
dc.subject	metaphors
dc.subject	phraseologies
dc.subject	verbalisation
dc.subject	manipulative influence
dc.subject	епітети
dc.subject	метафори
dc.subject	фразеологізми
dc.subject	вербалізація
dc.subject	маніпулятивний вплив
dc.title	The Use of Linguistic Means of Figurativeness and Evaluativity to Exert Influence in the Speeches of the Chief Delegates of the Ukrainian SSR at the Sessions of the UN General Assembly	uk
dc.title.alternative	Використання мовних засобів образності та оцінки для впливу на виступи головних делегатів УРСР на сесіях Генеральної асамблеї ООН	uk
dc.type	Article	uk