Мовні засоби творення образу ворога в умовах інформаційної війни

Abstract

(ua) Статтю присвячено вивченню лексем, використовуваних для маркування опонента в інформаційній війні. Досліджено особливості асоціативно-семантичного поля “ворог”, зокрема структуру мікрополя “вороже суспільство”. Результати пропонованої розвідки дають підстави виокремити 5 асоціативно-семантичних груп: “п’ята колона”, “псевдоетноніми”, “вигадані істоти”, “путіністи”, “сепаратисти”. Також зосереджено увагу на мотивах вибору лексем та особливостях контекстів, у яких вони вживаються. Вивчено мовні засоби дегуманізації ворога.

(en) The paper is devoted to the study of lexemes which are used by the society to mark an opponent in the information war. The peculiarities of associative-semantic field “enemy” are investigated, in particular the structure of microfield “hostile society”. It has been established that linguistic marking of enemies is a common phenomenon that, in difficult circumstances, integrates a society against an “enemy” – real or imagined The results of the suggested study make it possible to isolate five associative-semantic groups of lexemes for the designation of the enemy within the discourse of the Russian-Ukrainian information war: “fifth column”, “nationality”, “fictional beings”, “putinists”, “separatists”. The first group unites the lexemes that are used by the society in order to designate persons who, being in Ukraine, act in favour of the aggressor state: “fifth column”, “collaborators”, “tamzhenashiliudi” “yazykobortsi”. The second group is represented by the words associated with the ethnonym “Russian” by reference to traditional Russian concepts: “balalaiechnyky”, “chervonopasportni” and others. The third group is represented by the lexemes that impersonate the opponent. Such words assist to use the method of a fictional being, which is an effective way of propaganda. When a person imagines an opponent not as a similar one, but as some funny character, it gives the opportunity to perceive his physical destruction positively. The following names are defined: “vatnyk”, “vata”, “bavovna” etc. The fourth group is represented by the words formed by the name of the Russian president: “putintsi”, “puteniata”, “putinisty”. The fifth group combines the lexemes indicating the opponents' commitment to the ideas of separatism: “separy”, “separatysty”, “separiuhy”. Thus, the use of “hostile language” is a natural process of the information warfare. The topicality of the suggested research is the possibility to establish linguistic identifiers of the war period, as well as to study linguistic response of the society to the armed aggression.