POLEMIC DISCOURSE ONTOLOGY: COMPARATIVE ASPECT (in English and Ukrainian)

Abstract

Introduction. The paper focuses on the concept of polemic discourse as public verbalcollision in the process of which the author breaks the principles of ethical communication inorder to realize certain tasks. In verbal practice metaphor of polemics reveals its power basedon the physical collision sensory-motor experience. Purpose. The paper aims to highlight theconceptual understanding of public verbal collision that is grounded on the image schema ofBLOCKING, which means making the opponent face some obstacle, and COUNTERATTACK,that illustrates the way of collision of two equally powerful opponents whose character ofattacks is different. Methods. The methodology of the given research is based on comparative,conceptual and linguocognitive methods of characterization the mechanisms of conducting thedebate to achieve certain results in polemic discourse verbalized in English and Ukrainian.Results. Studying the mechanism of polemic discourse, the paper emphasizes that BLOCKINGpredetermines the strategy reasoning to make the opponent look like some obstacle forthe author. COUNTERATTACK reflects the interactive character of verbal collision betweenthe participants of the debate, and author and opponent change their parts from time to time.It is proved that sensory-motor factors influence the verbalization of the collision polemicpower which is realized in such notions as conflict, fight, war and aggression. During theirdebate the opponents use so called verbal collision weapons which hit but don’t kill physically.Conclusion. The paper identifies the participants of polemic discourse: sender and two addresses(opponent and listeners). The sender, who is the author of polemic discourse, stands for differentsocial institutions’ points of view. His main tasks are the following: to lower the social statusof the opponent and to get as many as possible supporters among the listeners. Like the authorthe opponent is explicated in the polemics as the person who states the opinion of differentinstitutions. Listeners become arbitrators who take the decision about the winner of the debate.