Arguments vs emotions: Argumentative models as a tool of ideological confrontation in the mass media

Abstract

The article analyzes the texts covering the special military operation (SVO) of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine in the modern media discourse. The question of language strategies and tactics used in media texts belonging to authors professing different ideological positions is considered. By means of linguistic-stylistic, functional-grammatical and comparative analyses, it is concluded that in the texts, on the one hand, pro-Russian-minded, and on the other — liberal-minded journalists and bloggers, different argumentation methods are chosen as language strategies. As a result of the study of texts devoted to the topic of SVO, the author of the article comes to the conclusion about the predominantly reasoned nature of the speech of pro-Russian authors and, conversely, about the predominantly evaluative and hypothetical, i. e., in general, the emotional type of speech in the texts of liberal-minded authors. It is argued that the main method of argumentation of “pro-Russian texts” is the factual method, whereas the main methods of argumentation in “liberal texts” are evaluative and hypothetical methods. Special attention is paid to the question of the place and role of argumentation in texts representing new knowledge. In this regard, the problem of logical and cognitive actions relevant to substantiating truth in scientific communication is considered. Based on a comparative analysis of the logic of argumentation in journalistic and scientific communication, a conclusion is made about the similarity of communicative and cognitive strategies of science and quality journalism. The description of argumentative actions representing the position of journalists and bloggers belonging to the liberal wing of the media sphere allows the author to speak about the low-quality nature of liberal journalism.