Twitter-дискурс дипломатических представительств при ООН о конфликте в Донбассе (2015–2021)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu06.2022.405Аннотация
В статье представлены результаты исследования публичного дипломатического дискурса в социальной сети Twitter о конфликте в Донбассе, сформированного институциональными акторами (постоянными представительствами при ООН) и дипломатическими персонами (представителями, их заместителями и т. д.) стран — постоянных членов Совета Безопасности ООН. Хронологические рамки исследования: с января 2015 г. (эскалация вооруженного конфликта в Донбассе, начиная с обстрела остановки под Волновахой и обострения боев за Донецкий аэропорт) по 2021 г. Исследование проведено в 2021 г. Путем анализа сообщений в Twitter были выявлены некоторые тенденции развития дискурса. Автор обосновывает гипотезу о существовании двух расходящихся вариантов дискурса, которые по-разному характеризуют участников конфликта в Донбассе. Для подтверждения гипотезы мы используем технику для анализа политического дискурса, которая включает в себя два уровня анализа: выявление ключевых концептуальных метафор в обоих предполагаемых вариантах развития дискурса (положительно или отрицательно характеризующих стороны конфликта) и определение семантических оппозиций «мы — они», которые реализуются в рамках метафор. Определены метафорические образы сторон конфликта в целом и используемые понятия, а также концептуальные метафоры, которые они создают. Сделан вывод о том, что в обоих вариантах развития дискурса большинство концептуальных метафор основано на негативных концепциях, обозначающих противоположную сторону конфликта, а также о том, что дискуссия характеризуется повышенным эмоциональным напряжением.
Ключевые слова:
политический дискурс, дискурс-анализ, политические метафоры, Twitter, социальные медиа, вооруженный конфликт, ООН, Донбасс
Скачивания
Библиографические ссылки
Bolgov, R., Ermolina, M. and Vasilyeva, N. (2016), Open Budget Effects for Urban Development: Russia’s Cases, in: ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. 3rd International Conference on Electronic Governance and Open Society: Challenges in Eurasia, EGOSE 2016, pp. 184–188. https://doi.org/10.1145/3014087.3014116
Bolgov, R., Filatova, O. and Yag’ya, V. (2018), The United Nations and Russian initiatives on international information security, in: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security, ICCWS 2018, pp. 31–38.
Bolgov, R., Filatova, O. and Tarnavsky, A. (2016), Analysis of public discourse about Donbas conflict in Russian social media, in: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security, ICCWS 2016, pp. 37–46.
Dijk, T. A. van (1985), Cognitive Situation Models in Discourse Production: The Expression of Ethnic Situations in Prejudiced Discourse, Language and Social Situations, Springer Series in Social Psychology.
Habermas, J. (2008), Relationship to the world and rational aspects of action in four sociological concepts of action, Sociological Review, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 3–24.
Potapova, R. K. (2014), Social network discourse as an object of interdisciplinary research, in: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference “Discourse as social activity: Priorities and prospects”, Moscow, pp. 20–22. (In Russian)
Baker, P. and McEnery, T. (2005), A corpus-based approach to discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in UN and newspaper texts, Journal of Language and Politics, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 197–226.
Bodrunova, S. S., Litvinenko, A. A., Gavra, D. P. and Yakunin, A. V. (2015), Twitter-Based Discourse on Migrants in Russia: The Case of 2013 Bashings in Biryulyovo, International Review of Management and Marketing, vol. 5, no. 1S, pp. 97–104.
Beer, F. and Balleck, B. (1994), Realist/Idealist Texts: Psychometry and Semantics, Peace Psychology Review, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 38–44.
Yakoba, I. A. (2017), Deconstruction of Donald Trump’s discourse (cases of his 2016 elections speeches). Diskurs Pi, no. 1(26), pp. 164–169. (In Russian)
Stavrakakis, Y. (2017), Discourse theory in populism research, Journal of Language and Politics, vol. 16, iss. 4, pp. 523–534.
Aharony, N. (2012), Twitter use by three political leaders: An exploratory analysis, Online Information Review, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 587–603. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684521211254086
Bolgov, R., Chugunov, A., Filatova, O. and Misnikov, Y. (2014), Electronic identification of citizens: Comparing perspectives and approaches. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. 8th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, ICEGOV 2014, pp. 484–485. https://doi.org/10.1145/2691195.2691245
Schmidt, V. and Radaelli, C. (2004), Policy Change and Discourse in Europe: Conceptual and Methodological Issues, West European Politics, vol. 27, iss. 2, pp. 183–210.
Cameron, L. and Degnan, A. (2006), The Emergence of Metaphor in Discourse, Applied Linguistics, vol. 27, iss. 4, pp. 671–690.
Wodak, R. (2002), What CDA is About. A Summary of its History, Important Concepts and Developments, in: Wodak, R. and Meyer, M. (eds), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis: Introducing Qualitative Methods, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: Sage Publications, pp. 1–13.
Musolff, A. (2004), Metaphor and Political Discourse: Analogical Reasoning in Debates across Europe, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gibbs, R. W. (2014), Conceptual Metaphor in Thought and Social Action, in: Landau, M. J., Robinson, M. D. and Meier, B. P. (eds), The Power of Metaphor: Examining Its Influence on Social Life, Washington: American Psychological Association, pp. 17–40.
Semino, E. (2008), Metaphor in Discourse, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Charteris-Blac, J. (2006), Britain as a Container: Immigration Metaphors in the 2005 Election Campaign, Discourse and Society, vol. 17, iss. 5, pp. 563–581.
Marvick, A. and Boyd, D. (2010), I Tweet Honestly, I Tweet Passionately: Twitter Users, Context Collapse, and the Imagined Audience, New Media and Society, vol. 13, iss. 1, pp. 114–133. https://doi. org/10.1177/1461444810365313
Munson, S. and Resnik, P. (2010), The Prevalence of Political Discourse in Non-Political Blogs. Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, Menlo Park, Ca: AAAI Press, pp. 233–240.
Page, R. (2012), The Linguistics of Self-Branding and Micro-Celebrity in Twitter: The Role of Hashtags. Discourse and Communication, vol. 6, iss. 2, pp. 181–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481312437441
Woolley, J., Limperos, A. and Oliver, M. (2010), The 2008 presidential election, 2.0: A content analysis of user-generated political Facebook* groups, Mass Communication and Society, vol. 13, iss. 5, pp. 631– 652. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2010.516864
Yardi, S. and Boyd, D. (2010), Dynamic Debates: An Analysis of Group Polarization Over Time on Twitter, Bulletin of Science. Technology and Society, vol. 30, iss. 5, pp. 316–327.
Tumasjan, A., Sprenger, T., Sandner, P. and Welpe, I. (2011), Election Forecast with Twitter: How 140 Characters Reflect the Political Landscape, Social Science Computer Review, vol. 29, iss. 4, pp. 402–418. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439310386557
Fischer, E. and Reuber, R. A. (2011), Social Interaction via New Social Media: (How) Can Interactions on Twitter Affect Effectual Thinking and Behavior?, Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 26, iss. 1, pp. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.09.002
Spina, S. and Cancila, J. (2013), Gender Issues in the Interactions of Italian Politicians on Twitter: Identity, Representation and Flows of Conversation, International Journal of Cross-Cultural Studies and Environmental Communication, vol. 2, iss. 2, pp. 147–157.
Baumer, E., Sinclair, J. and Irvine, B. (2010), ‘America Is Like Metamucil’: Fostering Critical and Creative Thinking about Metaphor in Political Blogs, CHI 2010: Expressing and Under-standing Opinions in Social Media, pp. 1437–1446. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753541
Gillen, J. and Merchant, G. (2013), Contact Calls: Twitter as a Dialogic Social and Linguistic Practice, Language Science, vol. 35, pp. 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2012.04.015
Zappavigna, M. (2013), Enacting Identity in Microblogging through Ambient Affiliation, Discourse and Communication, vol. 8, iss. 2, pp. 209–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481313510816
Ausserhofer, J. and Maireder, A. (2013), National Politics on Twitter, Information, Communication and Society, vol. 16, iss. 3, pp. 291–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2012.756050
Kapranov, A. (2016), Conceptual Metaphors in British Foreign Secretary’s Twitter Discourse Involving Ukraine, Respectus Philologicus, vol. 29, iss. 34, pp. 75–86.
Su, S. and Xu, M. (2015), Twiplomacy: Social Media as a New Platform for Development of Public Diplomacy, International Journal of E-Politics, vol. 6, iss. 1, pp. 16–29.
Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T. and Hansen, D. (2012), The impact of polices on government social media usage: Issues, challenges, and recommendations, Government Information Quarterly, vol. 29, iss. 1, pp. 30–40.
Pamment, J. (2014), The Mediatization of Diplomacy, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, vol. 9, iss. 3, pp. 253–280.
Sethi, A. (2018), Media Diplomacy and Its Evolving Role in the Current Geopolitical Climate, The age of the internet: A tech savvy world and new diplomacy, IGI Global, pp. 138–153.
Duncombe, C. (2017), Twitter and transformative diplomacy: social media and Iran-US relations, International Affairs, vol. 93, iss. 3, pp. 545–562.
Tsvetkova, N. (2020), Russian Digital Diplomacy: A Rising Cyber Soft Power?, in: Velikaya, A. and Simons, G. (eds), Russia’s Public Diplomacy. Studies in Diplomacy and International Relations, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12874-6_6
Waters, R. D. and Williams, J. M. (2011), Squawking, tweeting, cooing, and hooting: Analyzing the communication patterns of government agencies on Twitter, Journal of Public Affairs, vol. 11, iss. 4, pp. 353–363.
Strauss, N., Kruikemeier, S., van der Meulen, H. and van Noort, G. (2015), Digital diplomacy in GCC countries: Strategic communication of Western embassies on Twitter, Government Information Quarterly, vol. 32, iss. 4, pp. 369–379.
Dodd, M. D. and Collins, S. J. (2017), Public relations message strategies and public diplomacy 2.0: An empirical analysis using Central-Eastern European and Western Embassy Twitter accounts, Public Relations Review, vol. 43, iss. 2, pp. 417–425.
Kampf, R., Manor, I. and Segev, E. (2015), Digital Diplomacy 2.0? A Cross-national Comparison of Public Engagement in Facebook* and Twitter, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, vol. 10, iss. 4, pp. 331–362.
Arapov, Sh. (2017), The use of digital diplomacy as a tool for symbolic violence: Framing analysis of Russian-Turkish relations on Twitter, Cambridge Journal of Eurasian Studies, 1, pp. 1–16. https://doi.org/10.22261/UZV32B
Dolinskiy, A. (2011), Discourse on Public Diplomacy, Mezhdunarodnye protsessy, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 45–55. (In Russian)
Kersaint, M. (2014), Exploring Public Diplomacy 2.0. A Comparison of German and U.S. Digital Public Diplomacy in Theory and Practice, PhD Thesis, Faculty for Cultural Studies, European University Viadrina Frankfurt.
Bolgov, R. and Filatova, O. (2018), Strategic communication in the context of modern information confrontation: EU and NATO vs Russia and ISIS, Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security, ICCWS 2018, pp. 208–218.
Etling, B. (2014), Russia, Ukraine, and the West: Social Media Sentiment in the Euromaidan Protests, Berkman Center Research Publication No. 2014–13. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2501761
Minakov, M. (2017), Novorossiya and the Transnationalism of Unrecognized Post–Soviet Nations. In: Transnational Ukraine?, in: Beichelt, T. and Worschech, S. (eds), Networks and Ties that Influence(d) Contemporarу Ukraine, Stuttgart: Ibedem, pp. 68–88.
International Organisations on Social Media. Burson Marsteller (2017). Available at: https://www.burson-marsteller.com/what-we-do/our-thinking/international-organizations-on-social-media/ (accessed: 10.08.2022).
Doroshenko, L., Schneider, T., Kofanov, D., et al. (2019), Ukrainian nationalist parties and connective action: An analysis of electoral campaigning and social media sentiments, Information, Communications & Society, vol. 22, iss. 10, pp. 1376–1395. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1426777
Demirel, S., Kahraman, E. and Gündüz, U. (2022), A text mining analysis of the change in status of the Hagia Sophia on Twitter: the political discourse and its reflections on the public opinion, Atlantic Journal of Communication, June, pp. 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2022.2093354
Hong, S. and Nadler, D. (2012), Which candidates do the public discuss online in an election campaign? The use of social media by 2012 presidential candidates and its impact on candidate salience, Government Information Quarterly, vol. 29, iss. 4, pp. 455–461.
Dijk, T. A. van (2000), Language, cognition, communication, Blagoveshchensk: BGK im. I. A. Boduena de Kurtene Publ. (In Russian)
Gumensky, A. (2016), Trolls on the March, Russia in Global Affairs, vol. 1, pp. 155–166.
* Meta признана в РФ экстремистской организацией, и принадлежащие ей социальные сети Facebook и Instagram запрещены в России.
Загрузки
Опубликован
Как цитировать
Выпуск
Раздел
Лицензия
Статьи журнала «Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Международные отношения» находятся в открытом доступе и распространяются в соответствии с условиями Лицензионного Договора с Санкт-Петербургским государственным университетом, который бесплатно предоставляет авторам неограниченное распространение и самостоятельное архивирование.
