sign in sign up
<<
Home , Alexander Dovzhenko, Rhetoric

Vorozhbitova, A., Potapenko, S., Khachaturova, N., Khoruzhaya, Y. / Volume 9 - Issue 29: 224-233 / May, 2020 224

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.34069/AI/2020.29.05.25

Linguistic of Soviet : official vs personal register (J. Stalin – A. Dovzhenko)

Лингвориторика советского дискурса: официолект vs реалиолект (И. Сталин – A. Довженко)

Received: February 12, 2020 Accepted: March 28, 2020

Written by: Aleksandra A. Vorozhbitova105 SPIN: 5160-2150 Serhiy I. Potapenko106 Natalya Yu. Khachaturova107 Yuliya N. Khoruzhaya108 SPIN: 3441-8943

Abstract Аннотация

Within the conception of the Sochi Linguistic & В рамках концепции Сочинской Rhetorical School the paper discusses the лингвориторической школы в статье diglossia of the Soviet discourse employed in the рассматривается диглоссия советского former USSR, distinguishes official and personal дискурса, функционировавшего в бывшем registers as well as shows their СССР, дифференцируются официолект и drawing on ’s of 31 January реалиолект, показаны их различия на примере 1944 to the Politburo of the Central Committee речи Иосифа Сталина на заседании Политбюро of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks ЦК ВКП(б) (31.01.1944), посвященном concerning Alexander Dovzhenko’s киноповести Александра Довженко «Украина в “ in Flames” and in the writer’s diaries. огне», и дневников писателя. Проведенное The reveals a few specific linguistic сопоставление выявило ряд специфических rhetorical features of cognitive communicative лингвориторических характеристик type ontologically characteristic of the Soviet когнитивного и коммуникативного планов, linguistic personality’s communicative cognitive онтологически присущих речемыслительной activity in a totalitarian state. The cognitive деятельности советской языковой личности в features of Stalin’s individual discourse условиях тоталитарного государства. representing the official register and his system Когнитивные черты идиодискурса И. Сталина of argumentation rest on the significative как «персонифицированного официолекта» и component of linguistic units, from его системы аргументации базируются на to illustrate the postulates and dogmas сигнификативной составляющей языковых of Marxist-Leninist doctrine forming the единиц, на использовании примеров из foundation of the Soviet discourse. It is also художественной литературы для found that the official register represented by доказательства постулатов и догм Stalin’s speech is characterized by the following марксистско-ленинского учения – фундамента features: 1) repetition; 2) sarcastic remarks; советского дискурса. В статье показано, что 3) dramatic mutually exclusive of для советского официолекта в лице И. Сталина mental spaces (“our own, true in the last resort” характерны: 1) повторы; 2) саркастические and destructed, represented by the opponent’s замечания; 3) резкое, взаимоисключающее discourse); 4) rigidly adversarial characteristic of противопоставление двух ментальных миров the alternative linguistic rhetorical ; (своего, «истинного в последней инстанции», и

105 Doctor of , Doctor of Philology, Professor, Professor of the Department of Roman-German and Russian Philology, Sochi State . 106 Doctor of Philology, Professor, Professor of the Department of English Philology, Translation and named after Professor O.M. Morokhovsky, National Linguistic University. 107 Ph. D. of Philology, Associate Professor, Associate Professor of the Department of Roman-Germanic and Russian Philology, Sochi State University. 108 Ph. D. of Philology, Associate Professor of the Department of Roman-Germanic and Russian Philology, Sochi State University.

www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307

Volume 9 - Issue 29 / May 2020 225

5) appeal to the Soviet linguistic уничтожаемого, который представлен в personality’s ; 6) ideological translation дискурсе оппонента); 4) жестко негативная from one subdiscourse into the other, from характеристика альтернативной personal register into the official one; 7) biased лингвориторической картины мира; retelling of the discourse regarded as anti-Soviet; 5) апеллирование к мнению совокупной 8) appeal to the lacking in the discourse советской языковой личности; under criticism; 9) “ideological editing” taking 6) «идеологический перевод» с одного on the form of peremptory lecturing with субдискурса на другой, с реалиолекта на consequences threatening the liberty of the официолект; 7) тенденциозный пересказ person under criticism. The personal register of дискурса, изобличаемого в качестве the Soviet Ukrainian writer Dovzhenko is антисоветского; 8) апеллирование к characterized by a broad interpretation of фактологическим лакунам критикуемого devoid of the “Marxist-Leninist blinds” and a дискурса; 9) «идеологическое редактирование» more objective interpretation of the world due to в формате безапелляционного нравоучения, в a bigger ratio of denotative references качестве последствий угрожающего свободе и (“evidential arguments” like “I say” and самой жизни критикуемого. Реалиолекту в “I heard” etc) and communicative cognitive лице советского украинского писателя А. activity relative to two axiological hierarchies: Довженко присущи широкий взгляд на national and Christian, i.e. the dominance of реальность без «марксистско-ленинских шор» human values over morality. It is proved и более объективная ее интерпретация – that Dovzhenko’s screenplay was criticized благодаря большому количеству денотативных within Stalin’s official register for its deviation отсылок («доводы к очевидному» по принципу from the cognitive schemas and the model of the «я (сам) видел», «я (сам) слышал» и т.п.) и Soviet discourse, for the focus on Ukraine and its речемыслительной деятельности в ценностных citizens rather than on class struggle. координатах двух аксиологических иерархий: национальной и христианской, т.е. Keywords: Soviet discourse, official register, превалированию общечеловеческих ценностей personal register, Sochi Linguistic & Rhetorical над классовыми. Обосновано, что киноповесть School, Stalin, Dovzhenko. Александра Довженко подверглась критике в рамках сталинского официолекта за ее отклонение от когнитивных схем и модели советского дискурса, за сосредоточенность на Украине и ее гражданах, а не на классовой борьбе.

Ключевые слова: советский дискурс, официолект, реалиолект, Сочинская лингвориторическая школа, Сталин, Довженко.

Introduction

The rise of contemporary rhetorical approach in anthropocentric ideas about human beings as philology follows the revival of new rhetoric in linguistic personalities which has also led to the the 1970-1990s, which influenced both literary emergence of Linguistic & Rhetorical (L&R) and linguistic studies. New rhetoric claims to be of the Sochi School (Vorozhbitova, a of the dealing with the Karabulatova, Bzegezheva, Druzhinina & problems of governing society, and ethical Pyankova, 2019). education, formation, investigation into the psychology of speech production (Abbasi & The L&R Paradigm distinguishes two types of Salahi, 2019; Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca, linguistic personality: Soviet, representing USSR 1969; Aczél, 2016; Browse, 2018; Hastürk, citizens speaking a few , and Socialist, 2019; Kakasoltani & Ardalani, 2019; Marinenko, covering the population of the countries of the Kattsina, Karabulatova & Mezit, 2019). The former Socialist bloc. This division correlates integration of approaches and methods within with distinction between two types of discourse: new rhetoric was brought about by the necessity Soviet, pertaining to the former USSR, and to combine the classical theories which had been Communist, characteristic of all the countries of developing throughout a long time with new the former Socialist bloc (Vorozhbitova,

http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307

226

Potapenko, Berezovskaya, Lebedeva & Kushko, dominant discursive interpretation; appeal to 2019). These two types of discourse constrain an facts lacking in the criticized discourse; individual’s mental world and impose a ideological editing taking on the form of politically correct version of reality giving rise to “teaching”. two registers reflecting the diglossia of that type Repetition of the verbs used to defend the of discourse: official and personal. linguistic rhetorical values of the official discourse within the framework of the alternative Materials and methods mental space is exemplified by the following examples with reiteration of the verb with the The opposition between official and personal of criticism: registers in the context of an ideological in the Soviet discourse is demonstrated by the • … Dovzhenko revises the policy and comparison of two pieces: Joseph Stalin’s speech criticizes the party’s activity at routing the during the Politburo meeting of 31 January 1944 class enemies. where Alexander Dovzhenko’s screenplay • In his screenplay Dovzhenko criticizes the “” was discussed and the Party’s policy in the sphere of developing writer’s diaries of that period. collective farms.

The linguistic personality as a bearer of , The inadmissibility of that criticism is initiator and product of language encompasses underscored by the addition of two verbs: dare, three levels: verbal-semantic, or associative- e.g. Moreover, Dovzhenko dares to criticize the verbal network connecting words, grammatical activities of the Bolshevik party and Soviet structures and textual discursive models; government at preparing the Soviet people, the linguistic cognitive, or thesaurus, filled with Red Army and our state for the war; prefer, e.g. notions, , ideas, outlook foundations, Therefore he prefers to conceal this truth ideological stereotypes, contributing to human preferring to criticize the policy of our party and comprehension of reality; motivational, or our state. pragmatic, covering human needs, intentions of productive and receptive speech activities The second verb reiterated in Stalin’s text (Khachmafova, Karabulatova, Serebryakova, denotes smearing, e.g. In his screenplay Zinkovskaya & Ermakova, 2017). Dovzhenko smears the Ukrainian people. Dovzhenko also smears our party and Soviet The means of , , and activists and Red Army commanders portraying serving as the basis of ancient rhetoric are swiftly them as selfseekers, bloodsuckers and dummies returning to modern philology (Burke, 2016; removed from the ordinary people. Galinskaya, 2013). The third frequent verb refers to slander, e.g. The L&R Method of the Sochi School draws on Dovzhenko dares to slander such terms sacred the ideas of cognitive about the role of for every communist and genuine Soviet man as human faculties of perception, , class struggle against exploiters and the purity of memory, reasoning, (Potapenko, the party line. 2019) serving as the basis for the multilateral influence. In Stalin’s speech representing the official register the biggest impact is achieved by Specific methods include descriptive, combining repeated words in one context: stylistic, quantitative ; extra-linguistic correlation; methods of observation, comparison, • slander, criticize and smear, e.g. How could language and speech distribution. Dovzhenko fall down to such horrible slander at the Soviet people? Criticizing our party’s and Results government’s activity concerning the upbringing of the population, Dovzhenko dares to distort Stalin’s official discourse is characterized by a Ukraine’s history so as to smear the national number of typical rhetorical patterns: repetition; policy of Soviet state. scathing comments; direct contrast between mental spaces; negative characteristics of the Scathing comments on the lengthy quotations of alternative linguistic rhetorical worldview; the writer’s discourse manifest the system of appeal to the collective linguistic personality; values of the official mental space which is translation of one subdiscourse into the other; characterized by Stalin’s views on the following biased retelling within the framework of the excerpt from Dovzhenko’s screenplay:

www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307

Volume 9 - Issue 29 / May 2020 227

We were taught to be as calm and gentle as triumph of Leninism under whose banner the Red lambs… The main aim was cowardice. Don’t hit, Army successfully liberates Ukraine from the don’t object! The only weapon was reporting on fascist invaders; in full agreement with Lenin’s each other. Confound it! Neither fish, nor flesh immortal teaching; about our teacher, the great … Things do change. And change has come. And Lenin; sacred concepts of class struggle against judges are ahead. bloodsuckers and the purity of the party’s line.

Stalin comments on that passage in the following Sarcasm is leveled at both the foundations of the way: criticized mental space and the opponent’s personality: Dovzhenko is brave and brazen to talk like this. He must take off his hat as a of respect to • What is the source of these claims voiced by Leninism, the theory of our party, but as a Dovzhenko? What are his gains to like defender of and an outright nationalist he this? dares to attack our worldview and revise it. Appeal to the collective linguistic personality of In the cited passage Stalin frowns on the the Soviet people and to the humanity opponent’s views through the prism of the unquestionably and actively supporting the official ideology. He characterizes the writer’s official viewpoint is expressed by quantifiers and behavior as impudent, accuses him of disrespect collective nouns. The quantifiers include all, e.g. to the Bolshevik worldview, labeling him as a it is evident to all; every, e.g. for every and nationalist. Communist and genuine Soviet man; everybody, e.g. it is clear to everybody. The collective noun Direct contrast of mental spaces or their people combines with attributes Ukrainian, e.g. fragments is rendered by adversative neither will we agree with him nor the Ukrainian conjunctions: people; Soviet, e.g. the intolerant and unacceptable for the Soviet people. In certain • It is the genuine emancipation of the woman, contexts emphasis is achieved by the but not a chatter about emancipation the combination of quantifiers with collective nouns, bourgeois politician so thoroughly engage e.g. if we let the people read all the Soviet people in. would have turned away from him.

Negative characteristics of the writer’s linguistic Translation of one subdiscourse into the other rhetorical worldview and its textual within the framework of a single Soviet implementation from the standpoint of Soviet macrodiscourse is reflected in Stalin’s role as the hierarchy of values are expressed by the units “hermeneutical ruler” who uses to offer revise, gross errors, callous attack representing the only correct interpretation of the alternative the writer’s views as absolutely inadmissible: discourse from the official viewpoint. According to Stalin Dovzhenko invented the phrase “the To say the least, this screenplay revizes armor is thin” and reiterated it in his screenplay Leninism, the policy of our party on the main, to emphasize that the Soviet state hadn’t prepared fundamental issues. Dovzhenko’s screenplay for the war, and the Soviet people remained makes gross errors leveled against Leninism – it armless. is a callous attack against the party’s politics. Biased retelling of the excerpts from discourse Stalin’s axiological statements concerning the under criticism within the framework of the counterdiscourse evoke the semantic features of dominant interpretation of reality is introduced disapproval expressed by the constructions by the verbs judge, e.g. If one judges about the flagrant defamation; appalling slander on the war drawing on Dovzhenko’s screenplay, it turns Soviet people; the distortion of Ukraine’s history out that only participate in it while etc. Conversely, the evaluation of the phenomena other nations don’t. officially supported is unequivocally positive. As a rule, Dovzhenko offers his own political and unique interpretation of the depicted fragment of The typical sacred constructs of the cognitive reality turning a blind eye to other facts crucial communicative type representing the Soviet for the official view which is pointed out by linguistic rhetorical worldview are brought forth Stalin: by a number of adjectives characterizing the components of the hierarchy: comprehensive

http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307

228

Dovzhenko of all people should know the facts of In this excerpt the type of discursive Petlura’s men and other Ukrainians teaming up syntagmatics is that of self-criticism from the with the German invaders against Ukrainians viewpoint of a supposed opponent when the and Soviet people at large. <…> What does it writer’s mental space reveals the of mean that in his screenplay Dovzhenko didn’t discursive universe: between the Marxist- denounce these despicable traitors of the Leninist doctrine and the humanistic philosophy. Ukrainian people? No reference to them in the screenplay as if they didn’t exist. Dovzhenko Discussion failed to screw up courage, failed to find words to put them in the pillory. Within the framework of Soviet discourse as a constraining mental world and a politically No , appeal to facts is the most impressive correct version of reality Dovzhenko’s and powerful in general and in Stalin’s screenplay “Ukraine in Flames” appears to be a speech triggering a feeling of solidarity with him. broad interpretation of the Great Patriotic War by In case of the ideological editing the function of a linguistic personality with a worldview of a regulations underlying the totalitarian language pathetic supporter of a totalitarian political moves to the level of personal discursive textual episteme (Barabash, Kotelenets, Karabulatova, process imposing its direction on any linguistic Lavrentyeva & Mitina, 2019). personality. Text production within rigid patterns of official discourse, “sacred for every Dovzhenko’s diaries indicate that as a writer and communist and Soviet citizen”, meets the a director he was sincerely Soviet and demands of the game of Soviet society and selflessly dedicated to the so-called Lenin’s ideocratic truth: cause, he was officially recognized, fondled by Stalin which accelerated his movement up the • If Dovzhenko had wanted to write the truth, status ladder. he should also have written about it. • If Dovzhenko had an aim of a true The screenplay “Ukraine in Flames” which story he should have stigmatized these tarnished Dovzhenko’s reputation was penned in traitors in his work. the summer of 1943. The entry in the writer’s diary of 26 November 1943 runs: Stalin’s discursive text-forming corrections are made in the sense that the war is waged to defend Today I have got to know disappointing news: not only Ukraine but the whole , a Stalin didn’t like my screenplay “Ukraine in global political entity of the Great Patriotic War Flames” and prohibited both its publication and period. filming.

In Dovzhenko’s diary the personal reflexive The following entry of 28 November 1943 reads: discourse concerning the screenplay is also The ban of “Ukraine in Flames” has aggrieved heterogeneous since it rests on two axiological me. I have been gloomy and restless all the time. hierarchies: national and Christian. He writes: The verdict has been passed. I am quite aware how the officials will alter their attitude to me. I am quite aware that I will be accused of Moreover, it may bring me a lot of trouble. nationalism, Christianism and lenience, However, I believe that for all that, despite my criticized for my ignoring class struggle and “civil death” “Ukraine in Flames” has been revision of the process of upbringing youth who read and it will save several hundred people in are now heroically fighting at all the ferocious Ukraine. I have a strong conviction and nothing historical fronts – but that is not the basis of the will dissuade me. screenplay, that is not the problem. What I mean is regret: it is bad that we have surrendered our Taking into account Dovzhenko’s long-life Ukraine to the damned Hitler and liberate its service to the Soviet state expressed in his people slowly.(…)_ “I am neither bourgeois, nor nationalistic” (Barabash, Kotelenets, We are glorious warriors but we lack human Karabulatova, Lavrentyeva & Mitina, 2019), the kindness towards these people. In this ideological opposition within the linguistic screenplay I subconsciously and quite logically rhetorical conflict concerning his screenplay can defended my people sustaining considerable be regarded as an opposition between official and losses in this war. personal registers rather than Soviet and anti- Soviet . In other words, turning to the ethnic rhetorical roots of Stalin and Dovzhenko

www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307

Volume 9 - Issue 29 / May 2020 229

as speakers we have every right to distinguish regarded as a linguistic rhetorical resignation Georgian, Ukrainian and Russian discourses of from reasoning and an example of the genuine Bolsheviks. Marxist-Leninist ideology supported, if need be, by and “facts” borrowed from the The screenplay “Ukraine in Flames” deviates literary reality: from the patterns of Soviet discourse since it focuses on Ukraine and its citizens, i.e. the In his screenplay Dovzhenko slanders the writer’s intention subsumes to the national Ukrainians. The pure, poetic and noble hierarchy of values rather than that of class of the Ukrainian girl has long been struggle. Dovzhenko replaces the well-known proved by Russian and Ukrainian literature. Bolshevik “morality is subordinated to the Ukrainian girl Olesya by name addresses a tank movement towards the victory of Communism” driver whom she met in the street in the following with the morality of struggle for Ukraine. This way: change in the ethos hierarchy of linguistic rhetorical values results in the self-organization “Look here! Make love to me, – Olesya pleads. It of contrastive discursive universe triggering an is getting dark. Will you, please! alternative mental space. The axiological core of the linguistic rhetorical conflict is exemplified by She left the bucket and approached the man. the following two excerpts from the screenplay Having cited the passage Stalin queries: cited by Stalin. In this case, God as the supreme in the religious axiological hierarchy is – Where has Dovzhenko come across such replaced by two alternative discourse universals: Ukrainian girls? No doubt it is a defamation of class struggle and Fatherland: Ukrainian people and Ukrainian women.

1. “I am neither aware of any class struggle This angry question of Stalin also concerns nor reluctant to know anything about it. Dovzhenko’s story “The Unforgettable” which What I am aware of is Fatherland. The develops this episode into an overwhelming nation is being exterminated. I am a slave of ballad about the spiritual rise of a Soviet soldier German workers and peasants!” – and a Ukrainian girl amidst the horrors of war. Its Zaporozhets shouted at the extreme of his tonality is rendered by the words foregrounded in voice. “My daughter is a slave, too. Shoot, the initial phrases: classless entity! What are you waiting for?” 2. – God is gone! – shouted one of the This story must by told in the most precious deserters. words…

− It’s a lie! Fatherland is God almighty. The words cleansed in Ukrainian wells… − Previously there was no talk about it. The words embroidered like flowers on cold We were taught about class struggle. towels…

The examples cited above demonstrate a Conversely we should be aware of the diary conflict-triggering division of two mental worlds records referring to the cohabitation with fascists. with two different conceptual values as sacral The analysis of Stalin’s question “Where has and system-forming in the linguistic rhetorical Dovzhenko seen such Ukrainian girls?” against worldview. The linguistic personality’s choice of the backdrop of the writer’s diary entries yields different supreme concepts in the axiological the following conclusion: the basis for the Soviet hierarchy of values, i.e. Fatherland and nation, leader’s statements lies in the thesaurus instead of class struggle generates an opposite subconcepts from the virtual contexts of literary context. works while Dovzhenko refers to the poignant reality. Moreover, the force of Stalin’s romantic Against Stalin’s parlance Dovzhenko’s style is illusions drawn from the literary world is so associated with the personal register due to a influential that he seems to be sincere thinking bigger ratio of denotation, evidential that he is aware of genuine reality accusing the argumentation rendered by the perceptual opponent of the opposite. patterns “I saw” and “I heard” and owing to the hierarchy-forming idea of Ukraine as Mother and Due to the ratio of the referential nominations by Fatherland. Stalin’s personal judgments concrete words representing physical reality embedded into the official register are mainly Dovzhenko’s personal discourse can be regarded significative rendering the dominance of the as real while Stalin’s individual discourse should Soviet totalitarian discourse which can be be treated as a genuinely ideological

http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307

230 representation of the official register. This Consequently, the inventive-elocutionary distinction is true as long as Dovzhenko sticks to component of Stalin’s individual discourse rests the natural evidential proofs. However, his on the morphosyntactic constructions referring to personal discourse becomes vulnerable to four coordinates: Stalin’s criticism when he reveals his perceptions and impressions through the national linguistic • Lenin, e.g. in the spirit of Leninism; rhetorical worldview expressing subjective Lenin’s behests; Lenin’s immortal judgments and emphasizing one group of facts teaching; the provisions of Leninist while leaving others behind. theory; our teacher great Lenin; Lenin as leader and teacher of our party as a Drawing on the differences between words, sagacious representative of our people notions, concepts, ideas we can argue that the and connoisseur of the of society official register tends to construct discursive development and interaction of states; textual forming process at the ideal conceptual Lenin warned, prepared; level while the personal register is associated • party, e.g. theory of our Party; Party with the ideal notional level. policy; • Soviet people / state, e.g. routing the Consequently, at the level of associative-verbal class enemies of Soviet people; power network both registers are elocutionary and integrity of our Soviet state; all implemented by the lexical units differing Soviet people; according the general / concrete opposition. • class struggle, e.g. elimination of the Citing excerpts from the screenplay “Ukraine in kulaks as a class. Flames” as fragments of an alternative mental worldview, Stalin comments on its in the The use of the verb see and its synonyms in the following way: negative form in Stalin’s heterogeneous discourse, comprising two mental spaces, Here Dovzhenko opposes the ideas sacred for illustrates the idea that the category of linguistic every communist and Soviet citizen: they are rhetorical worldview sets the specificity of how class struggle and the purity of the party line. the collective linguistic personality perceives reality through the prism of a particular discourse In the Soviet discourse the concepts of class universe: struggle and the purity of the party line are regarded as fundamental, basic issues, i.e. • Dovzhenko fails to see and is reluctant to see cornerstone linguistic rhetorical values. the evident and simple truth that … • Only a person perceiving the great creative Stalin’s judgments rest on the postulates and progressive activity of our party and of our dogmas of Marxist-Leninist doctrine serving as state from the prejudiced anti-Leninist the foundation of the Soviet discourse. Analyzing position can oversee the noticeable increase the screenplay within this framework he states: in the unity, political activity, consciousness, and cultural level of the Soviet people due to Dovzhenko revises and criticizes the party’s our overall success. policies aimed at routing the foes of the Soviet • One must be able to see this difference and people. However, it is well-known that this work if one is honest it is not difficult to see it. of the party was carried out in the Leninist spirit • The nationalistic blinds covered in full correspondence with Lenin’s immortal Dovzhenko’s consciousness and he stopped teaching”. seeing the self-evident great educational

work carried out by our party with the It is noteworthy that in his turn Lenin refers to people concerning development of their Marx’s authority in the quotation “Marx’s political self-consciousness and their teaching is powerful because it is correct”. cultural level.

The supreme leader of the Soviet state highlights Conversely, in his diaries Dovzhenko noted this axiological hierarchy drawing on specific down “I was honest when I wrote the screenplay: Soviet cultural concepts: Lenin, Leninism, that is how I saw the life and suffering of my Bolshevik Party, Soviet power, Soviet people”. government, Soviet (socialist) state, Soviet people. According to R. Bartes (1994) there are “two

types of discursive (speech) weapon”: the first is transformation of speech into power

www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307

Volume 9 - Issue 29 / May 2020 231

demonstration with an application of techniques In the passages above Stalin treats the truth as an of rhetoric of struggle and victory; the second is object to capture and possess. The speech and its a strategy of eliminating the weaker participant structure demonstrate that there is not and there of the communicative situation or the whole layer cannot be anything obscure, complicated or of individuals from this of the strong. variegated.

The right to speech implies and incurs struggle Within the framework of this one-dimensional for the right to possess the ultimate, exceptional, and flat thinking generated by the Soviet truth. The personal discourse of the advocates of linguistic rhetorical worldview the truth is quite Soviet totalitarianism enriched with discursive obvious to all ordinary people. According to etymons, i.e. units which are true within a mental Stalin Dovzhenko turns out to be retarded which space, demonstrates the virtuoso use of this is underscored in the following by the weapon (Karabulatova, Vildanov, Zinchenko, negative form of the verbs referring to Vasilishina & Vassilenko, 2017). All differences comprehension: of are represented as a binary opposition of correct (our own) and wrong (other’s), truth • Dovzhenko fails to understand that this and lies with no difference of opinions. Patriotic War is also a war between classes since the most imperialists have attacked our Stalin’s first opposition turns out to be a fight socialist state to capture it, to eliminate the against German imperialists and elimination of Soviets, to enslave and decimate our people. exploitation: • Dovzhenko fails to understand and does not want to understand that only the collective Dovzhenko fails to understand this simple truth farms have made the Soviet woman free. evident to all Soviet people: our people, our • Dovzhenko fails to understand this simple army, our state wouldn’t be so mighty, ready for and evident truth that … defence and unified as we are in this difficult war • But there is a lot of fish in the sea. against the German imperialists if we hadn’t Dovzhenko’s misunderstanding is done away with the exploitation in this country. compensated by the knowledge of Ukrainian worker. <…> They understand what The second opposition Stalin draws on is the Dovzhenko fails to comprehend: all the German imperialists and industrialization: peoples of the Soviet Union fight for Ukraine. Dovzhenko is far from this simple • Dovzhenko is unaware of that simple truth and evident truth that German imperialists evident to all Soviet people that … aiming to capture other lands and enslave other nations were preparing their economy and army The specificity of linguistic rhetorical conflict for the imperialist war transforming their between Stalin and Dovzhenko consists in the industry several years before the war. that both sides use the concepts of truth as well as lie and deceit determining the boundaries The third opposition appears to concern between the alternative mental spaces, serving as collectivization and the war: markers of discursive syntagmatics.

Here Dovzhenko denies the simple and evident In Stalin’s speech the positive members of the truth that collective farms have made the Soviet opposition are represented by the linguistic state stronger both economically and politically rhetorical values of the Soviet discourse while since without collective farms we wouldn’t be the negative members are the interpretations of successful in this war. reality constructed in the framework of a different system of linguistic rhetorical values The fourth opposition is between the party and forming a worldview differing from the one army as vanguard, on the one hand, and the dominating in society. fascist invaders, on the other: The cornerstone cultural concept of truth and its Dovzhenko fails and doesn’t want to see that derivatives go through Stalin’s discourse with a evident and simple truth that our party, Soviet special rhetorical function performed by and army cadres are blood and soul of the Soviet repetition: people that they are in the vanguard of fighters against the fascist invaders, selflessly fight in the • Had Dozvhenko wanted to write the truth, he ranks of the Red Army and the guerilla groups. should have written about it. However, the

http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307

232

truth, unfortunately, is not a characteristic government. It played a progressive role in the feature of Dovzhenko’s works. period of struggle against a deadly foe • Had Dovzhenko planned to write a true impersonated by fascism and provided for the story he should have stigmatized these great Victory. traitors in his screenplay. However, Dovzhenko is unlikely to be on good terms Conclusion with the truth. • Dovzhenko is on bad terms with the truth For all seemingly homogeneity of the Soviet and he has turned everything topsy-turvy. discourse the analysis and discussion of Stalin’s • It means that Dovzhenko is on bad terms speech and Dovzhenko’s diaries its with the truth again. distinct diglossia represented by two main registers: official and personal. They are During a face-to-face Politburo meeting Stalin characterized by a few specific linguistic accused Dovzhenko of lies citing sizable rhetorical features of cognitive and excerpts from his screenplay with his own communicative type. The cognitive features of interpretation of reality. In his diary entries the official register and its argumentation following the Politburo meeting Dovzhenko exemplified by Stalin’s speech are mainly lamented that nobody needed the truth implying significative, drawing on the arguments from the that the official point of view expounded by virtual contexts of literary works as well as Stalin is false: dogmas of the Marxist-Leninist doctrine forming the foundation of the Soviet discourse (Borev, I am distressed at the awareness that “Ukraine 1990; Kharlamov, 2013). As a result, the official in Flames” is the truth. My concealed and innate register tends to construct discourse mainly at the truth about the people and their troubles. ideal conceptual level while the personal register is associated with the ideal notional level. The The truth – lie opposition is illustrated by official register is characterized by repetition; Dovzhenko’s notes about Khrushchev: scathing comments; direct contrast of mental spaces; negative characteristics of the criticized 28 July 1943: Khrushchev enjoyed the linguistic rhetorical worldview; appeal to the screenplay “Ukraine in Flames” and put Soviet collective linguistic personality; forward the idea that it should be published as a translation of one subdiscourse into the other; book. In Russian and Ukrainian languages. Let biased retelling within the framework of the everybody read. Let everybody know that dominant discursive interpretation; appeal to everything is very complicated. facts lacking in the criticized discourse; ideological editing taking on the form of The frequency of the concepts of truth and lie and “teaching”. Dovzhenko’s personal discourse their derivatives in Dovzhenko’s personal appears to be a broad interpretation of the Great discourse reveals both it heterogeneity and high Patriotic War by a linguistic personality with a polemic nature requiring detailed opposition worldview of a pathetic supporter of the between the writer’s linguistic rhetorical totalitarian political episteme (Vorozhbitova, worldview and the contrary discusivity. 2018). His discourse is characterized by evidential argumentation and a bigger ratio of Stalin’s speech is rampant with conjunctive and denotation to the poignant reality within two non-conjunctive “political connection”, one of axiological hierarchies: national and Christian. the most destructive means of the solution to the linguistic rhetoric conflict within the framework References of Soviet totalitarian discourse of the period: Abbasi, R. & Salahi, A. (2019). Illustrative It is the Soviet power and the Bolshevik party techniques of "Khavaran Hint" in relation to that solemnly guard; as a result of the party’s expression and rhetoric. Amazonia investiga, 8 and government’s appropriate policy; the policy (18), 83-93. of our party and interests of the Ukrainian and Aczél, P. (2016). Virtual rhetoric. A theoretical all the Soviet people; party and state. ; to oppose approach. Res Rhetorica, 3 (4), 1-15. the policy of the party. Barabash, V. V., Kotelenets, E. A., Karabulatova, I. S., Lavrentyeva, M. Y. & The ideological clichés of this kind seem to have Mitina, Yu. S. (2019). The confrontation cemented the feeling of unity of the enormous between the Eastern and Western in social political conglomerate known as “Soviet the conceptual space of the war people” powered by the party and the against Russia: the genesis and evolution of the

www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307

Volume 9 - Issue 29 / May 2020 233

terminological apparatus. Amazonia Investiga, 8 Estimate discourse of gender stereotypes in small (19), 246-254. forms of in a Network Discourse of Bartes, R. (1994). Selected papers: . Electronic and Information society at the Poetics. : . Beginning of 21ct Century. Pertanika Journal of Borev, Yu. B. (1990). Staliniada, Moscow: Social & Humanities, 25 (S) Jul., 137- Soviet writer. 150. Browse, S. (2018). : The Kharlamov, V. I. (2013). Concepts and Cognitive Poetics of Political Discourse. of Stalinism: Stalin and the war. Space Amsterdam (Phil.): John Benjamins. and Time, 4 (14), 155-162. Burke, M. (2016). Discourse implicature, Marinenko, L. E., Kattsina, T. A., Karabulatova, and the Lucidity Principle: rhetorical I. S. & Mezit, L. E. (2019). Historical Experience phenomena in . in Linguistics, in Dealing with Epidemics in the Yenisei 17 (1), 1-16. Province in the late XIX – early XX centuries. Galinskaya, I. L. (2013). R. Linton. Cultural Bylye Gody, 54 (4), 1737-1744. foundations of personality. Culturology. No. 4 Perelman, Ch. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). (67), 51-53. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Hastürk, M. (2019). Structural and spiritual Argumentation. Notre Dame: University of influence of music on art. Amazonia investiga, 7 Notre Dame Press. (16), 111-117. Potapenko, S. (2019). Ukrainian cognitive Kakasoltani, H. & Ardalani, H. (2019). Study the linguistics: from analytical to integrational study role of imagination and the principles of its of language. Human and cultural priorities in evaluation in cinema from the point of view of modern linguistics. Pereyaslav-Khmelnitsky: Jacques Lacan. Amazonia investiga, 8 (18), 76- University Press. 82. Vorozhbitova, A. A. (2018). Linguistic rhetoric Karabulatova, I., Vildanov, Kh., Zinchenko, A., of Soviet discourse: Stages of development and Vasilishina, E. & Vassilenko, A. (2017). typology in polyethnosociocultural and Problems of transformation matrices modern educational space. Language: history and multicultural identity of the person in the modernity, 2, 37-47. variability of the discourse of identity Electronic Vorozhbitova, A., Karabulatova, I., Bzegezheva, Information Society. Pertanika Journal of Social Z., Druzhinina, V. & Pyankova, T. (2019). A Science & Humanities, 25 (S). Jul., 1-16. glossy magazine discourse of the early twenty- Khachetsukova, Z. K. & Vorozhbitova, A. A. first century as a tool of globalization: Sochi (2019). Linguistic rhetorical parameters of school of linguistics and rhetoric. Amazonia Soviet official discourse during the period of the Investiga, 8 (24), 170-180. Great Patriotic War (a case of lead articles of the Vorozhbitova, A., Potapenko, S., Berezovskaya, Pravda newspaper). Sochi: University Publishing L., Lebedeva, E. & Kushko, N. (2019). Discourse House. of Communism and Socialist linguistic Khachmafova, Z. R., Karabulatova, I. S., personality: Rhetorical perspective. Amazonia Serebryakova, S. V., Zinkovskaya, A. V. & Investiga, 8 (23), 739-748. Ermakova, E. N. (2017). The Specifics of an

http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307