Семантически детерминированные единицы как средство воздействия СМИ на реципиента в условиях событий 9.11.2001

CONTENTS

Introduction

Chapter I. Pragmalinguistic Characteristics of Mass Media Texts

1.1. Media Text Pragmatics

1.2. Mass Media Text as the Persuasion Occurrence

1.3. Lexical and Semantic-Syntax Peculiarities of a Media Text

1.4. Semantically Determinated Units and their Importance in Mass Media Texts’ Pragmatic Attitude

INTRODUCTION

With the debate on globalization and integration, there is an increasing interest in media and multilingual audiences, cross-cultural and transnational perspectives, and the global-local articulation. In our ever more globalizing world, media have gained more power. The impact of media on political developments and decision making still has to be fully explored. Moreover, the influence of media on the production and reproduction of beliefs, opinions, stereotypes, prejudices, and ideologies also has to be thoroughly investigated and compared throughout different countries worldwide. Qualitative in-depth studies on audiences, reception, and perceptions of readers, viewers, or listeners are also missing.

Media is both structuring and structured. How we will understand media texts depends on the way they are presented but also it depends on our past experience. At the same time, these massages shape our future experience: depending on information we have read and heard or pictures we have seen on TV, we will understand or explain situations in our everyday life. This circle shows how media mediates our life. From the semiotic point of view, any media text can be characterized as a social text; it frames reality. Media frames are generally seen as coherent packages of information containing “a central organizing idea or story line that provides meaning to an unfolding strip of events.” (Gamson, W.A., Modigliani A. The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action, Research in Political Sociology, 1987; Vol.3: 137-177; pp. 143). Once we move beyond seeing media news as a transparent representation of the world, we need to consider some of the ways in which media texts mediate the world.

The cultural influence of the U.S. media on other media (e.g., in Europe) has slowly started to be perceived. This influence is apparent in the construction of new genres, new public spaces, new modes of advertisement, and so on. Access to media is another relevant factor. The problem of media literacy and of the comprehensibility of media poses big questions for participation in democratic societies.

From the linguistic point of view, the role of media has been a concern throughout. The scarce text-analytical studies of media show that, particularly among smaller language communities, the spectrum of topics covered has considerably narrowed, leading to a focus on questions internal to the group (Busch, 1999a).

Most of the research in these fields focuses on structural or political dimensions and/or on audience research, but there are only a few research projects concerned with media texts. Richardson and Meinhof (1999) contributed to filling the gap with a series of comparative case studies on satellite television programs proposed by news channels addressing a global audience, local TV channels, and the American TV experience, drawing on discourse analysis, applied linguistics, and social semiotics. Researchers working in linguistics and media studies point out that there is a serious lack of systematic research available on language and the media in multilingual settings (Boyd-Barrett, Nootens, & Pugh, 1996; Grin, 1996; Leitner, 1997; Robins, 1997).

The new transnational configurations of media landscapes with their particular articulations between the local and the global would thus necessitate deeper insights. The media text-oriented research mainly investigates the representation of the “Other” in mainstream media: so called representation of cultural diversity, and the reproduction of racism and xenophobia through media that have been key research topics in the past few decades. Such studies have traditionally used a (critical) discourse analysis and cultural studies approach. In the field of minority media, a shift of paradigm has occurred (Busch, 1999b). Consequently, audience-centered approaches are now dominant.

In this work we analyze semantically determinated units as mass media persuader; we discuss text pragmatics in mass media texts, describe the pragmatic potential implementation of journalistic text in system, and analyze such pragmatic aspects of media texts as intentionality, context, and the pragmatic meaning of text. The present paper, starting from the assumption that television news is «the main source» (Robinson and Levy 1986) and a key player in the process explores the media-politics interface, along with the ideological conditioning and cultural embedding of the news discourse, understood both as a process and as a product. The objective behind it is threefold. Firstly, it is to examine the media mechanisms accounting for the process of ‘infosuasion’, i.e. persuading the viewers under the guise of delivering information in the form of reporting, thereby shaping their perceptions of the self and the «Other». Secondly, it is to demonstrate the dialectics between the news media and political elites. Finally, it is to maximize the validity of an eclectic approach, combining pragmatic and semiotic perspectives, in the domain of news media discourse along with the processes within this discourse and the practices behind it.

This creates the dire need and thus the aim of this research to elaborate the procedure for the study of instances of mass media persuaders in separate spheres of communication, i.e in mediatized political discourse. Thus, criteria for detection of the transferred impulses onto the linguistic system within discursive boundaries define the subject of this research, while stages of linguistic analysis underlying the study of communicative-pragmatic intentions determine its object. Political media texts were selected as source material to meet the set objective. The topicality of this work lies in the fact that having determined contentious issues and central difficulties related to selection and analysis of instances of mass media language we suggest certain stages of analysis and guidelines to overcome the setbacks.

Chapter I. Pragmalinguistic Characteristics of Mass Media Texts

1.1. Media Text Pragmatics

Pragmatic studies of discourse with the integrated cognitive approach though diversified, centre around meaning as constructed by both an addresser and a recipient of the message and realized in a definite speech act. Bound by set conditions and presuppositions, the speech act, which is cognitively, informatively, psychologically and socially charged, constitutes a unity of form, meaning and a socially valid verbal action determined by the sphere of communication, values, social norms, social practice influenced by authority in a community and historic processes. Since we study the persuasion in political discourse of media-texts, our survey is conducted within the realms of cognitive linguistics, sociolinguistics and pragmatics, and an act of persuasion is viewed as a complex lingual, cognitive and communicative activity that is strategically defined as: a means of mind manipulation, a means of shaping convictions in the context of mediatized political communication (cognitive aspect), a means of ideological indoctrination (socio-pragmatic aspect).

Speech, in M. Bakhtin’s view, is manifested primarily in the choice of a particular speech genre. This choice is determined by the specific nature of the given sphere of speech communication, semantic (thematic) considerations, the concrete situation of the speech communication, the personal composition of its participants, and so on. And when the speaker’s speech plan with all its individuality and subjectivity is applied and adapted to a chosen genre, it is shaped and developed within a certain generic form. Such genres exist above all in the great and multifarious sphere of everyday oral communication, including the most familiar and the most intimate [11, 68]. We speak only in definite speech genres, that is, all our utterances have definite and relatively stable typical forms of construction of the whole.

1.2. Mass Media Text as the Persuasion Occurrence

The present trend in approaches to media texts can be characterized by turning away from “text-internal readings, where readers are theorized as decoders of fixed meanings, to more dynamic models, where meanings are negotiated by actively participating readers” (Meinhof, 1994, p. 212). It would be beyond the scope of this contribution to discuss the different strands that have led to a more dynamic view of the text. But we would like to emphasize that some of the works that have influenced the change of paradigms in media studies have been equally influential in critical linguistic approaches, such as aspects of the work of the Bakhtin Circle by the early 20th-century Russian semioticians, Halliday’s (1978) work on social semiotics and pragmatics, the Foucauldian notion of discourse, and argumentation theories. Van Dijk’s sociocognitive approach has also had a considerable impact.

All these approaches endorse an interactive model of communication, which is far more complex than the traditional models in mass communication. Media texts are perceived as dialogic, and the readings depend on the receivers and on the settings.

Researchers presume, therefore, that readers/listeners or viewers interact with media (not only by writing letters to the editor but also by interpreting and understanding them in specific subjective ways). Media texts also depend on intertextual relations with many other genres, diachronically or synchronically.

Texts relate to other texts, represented by the media, through quotes or indirect references, thus already adding particular meanings or decontextualizing and recontextualizing meanings. Media thus produce and reproduce social meanings.

Barthes (1966/1994), in his essay “Introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narrative,” differentiates between the work and the text. Work refers to the artifact, to the fixed pattern of signifiers on pages, whereas text refers to the process of meaning making, of reading. Fiske (1987/1989) takes up Barthes’s differentiation to distinguish between a program (on television) and a text: “Programmes are produced, distributed, and defined by the industry: texts are the product of their readers. So a programme becomes a text at the moment of reading, that is, when its interaction with one of its many audiences activates some of the meanings/pleasures that it is capable of provoking” (p. 14).

Here is an account of suggested procedure for the linguistic analysis of a persuasion communicative behavior in the mediatized political discourse:

1) an analysis of semantic potential of speech structures.

At this preliminary stage invectemes are being identified, detached from informemes [Koryakovtsev,120] and author’s predispositions analyzed. Following the contentions made by professors D. Infante, R. Gass and A. Rancer, that studied psychological and cognitive aspects of interpersonal communication, assertiveness and argumentativeness attest addresser’s constructive predispositions in favor of conflict resolutions.

Assertiveness is conceptualized as “a constructive communication trait (a personality-related trait that deals specifically with human symbolic behavior) because it involves using verbal and nonverbal symbols to exert control, to obtain justified rewards, and to avoid violation of one’s rights. Assertive individuals stand up for their rights and express their thoughts, feelings, and beliefs in an appropriate ways which do not violate another person’s rights. Other assertive behaviors include, but are not limited to, openness, refusal of unreasonable requests, absence of interpersonal anxiety, initiation of requests, spontaneous expression of one’s feelings, refusal to be intimidated, outgoingness, willingness to take initiative, and active versus passive disagreement” [Infante, 77].

Like assertiveness, argumentativeness is also considered a constructive communication trait. It involves the use of reasoning to defend personal positions on controversial issues while attacking the positions of adversaries. In their conceptualization of the trait, D. Infante and A. Rancer defined argumentativeness as “a generally stable trait which predisposes the individual in communication situations to advocate positions on controversial issues, and to attack verbally the positions which other people take on these issues” [Rancer,14].

Hostility, verbal aggressiveness and persuasion are regarded as destructive predispositions. Destructive symbolic aggression is classified as hostility. Hostility manifests itself in interpersonal communication when individuals use messages to express irritability, negativity, resentment, and suspicion and is accompanied by an aggressive speech behavior [Berger, 264], [Berkovitz, 272].

John C. Merrilland Ralph Lowenstein (1971) published the first mass media textbook in the modern era that seriously analyzed propaganda and its employment in media. The authors Merrill generalized that from the numerous definitions of propaganda they had read they discerned certain recurring themes or statements or core ideas, among them “manipulation,” “purposeful management,” “preconceived plan,” “creation of desires,” “reinforcement of biases,” “arousal of preexisting attitudes,” “irrational appeal,” “specific objective,” “arousal to action,” “predetermined end,” “suggestion,” and “creation of dispositions” (pp.221–226). It seems that propaganda is related to an attempt (implies intent) on the part of somebody to manipulate somebody else. By manipulate we mean to control – to control not only the attitudes of others but also their actions. Somebody (or some group) – the propagandist – is predisposed to cause others to think a certain way, so that they may, on some cases, take a certain action. (p. 214)

While incorporating information into the text as a structural construct with the hierarchally organized semantic structure of its components the defining role in discretization of information continuum is set hardly on the succession of information units (informemes) arranged in micro- and macrostructures of a text and viewed in itself but rather on the functional component of information units. Thus, the analysis of textual invective implies finding key semantic components, that is, generators of potentially offensive information – invectemes [Korjakovcev,120]. Noteworthy, the functional-semantic category of invectiveness provides for a varying degree of aggressiveness of destructive information. Drawing upon the study of A.Korjakovcev, we contend that invectiveness viewed as a category holds its own internally structured and organized functional unit. Having singled out invectemes in words, word combinations, sentences, mindful of their polysituational meanings within various contexts, we manage to identify “signs” of persuasion in a certain communicative-pragmatic situation.

Since communicative situation correlates with categorical means of invectiveness, the study of conflict potential of mediatized political discourse relies heavily upon the analysis of textual invectiveness. For this reason in the first stages of the study a thorough review of an internet media project inoSMI was made to pick out a range of topics that have generated wide coverage in foreign mass media. For this reason, to identify invectemes and differentiate them from other units the subsequent questions must be addressed:

— if there are any pseudo-arguments targeted at an object of an utterance;

— whether an utterance conveys any demeaning information about a person or a group.

2) Text tonality is observed, means creating negative tonality singled out.

Considering the aggressiveness of invective is an example of gradable value [Sheigal, 171], that finds its way on all language levels [Korjacovzev, 68], while the linguistic concept of the notion “offence” is far broader than its juridical counterpart [Korjakovcev, 30], we find it reasonable to study a range of means carrying invective semantics in its relation with text tonality.

Close ties between tonality of an utterance and social-communicative situation made I. Tarasov place neutral tonality and communicative situation complying with norms on the sole neutral axis. Respectively, any movement on the axis swings the pendulum towards “exalted, pathetic, familiar or further vulgar tonality” [Tarasov, 69]. Noteworthy, S. Doronina concluded in her research, that the dependence between perlocutionary effect and the level of expressiveness is hardly absolute, since texts reflecting emotionally bland tonality are reckoned as offensive [Tarasov, 69]. Following this, the decision about invectiveness of an utterance is made after the following criteria are addressed:

— if there are any units in the utterance that impinge upon social and moral norms;

— functional and semantic load of lexical units in the word combination, sentence or text;

— functional and semantic load of an utterance;

— whether information is communicated in a vulgar form;

— if language units fall into at least one group of invective lexemes.

3) components of communicative structure are analyzed

At this stage cognitive structure of utterances realizing communicative-pragmatic intentions is considered. An analysis of propositional structure of invective utterances involves marking out its components, studying peculiarities of their functioning and identifying types of invective situations. In other words, we observe components (arguments) of author’s self-identification, of object reference, components identifying the secondary addresser of persuasion and invecteme (the subject of aggression)

4) communicative structure of utterances is looked into from the perspective of their segmentation and modeling (type of invecteme (assessment, fact, opinion), the way actants are introduced, shift of actants; language peculiarities of destructive, demeaning and discrediting sentences are examined.

Thus, this way we set out to shed some light upon the ways persuasion utterances are coded in political discourse of the mass media. Having determined units of persuasion viable for the research, we set our objectives upon studying the aspects of their realization, peculiarities of their cognitive essence revealing themselves in political discourse of mass-media in a form conceptual frames.

1.3. Lexical and Semantic-Syntax Peculiarities of a Media Text

1.4. Semantically Determinated Units and their Importance in Mass Media Texts’ Pragmatic Attitude

Having analyzed 420 utterances in terms manifestations of aggressive communication in mass-media texts with account of their polyphonic structure, studied introductory syntagms pertaining to constructions with reported speech we conclude that outer addressers are less common among institutional (43,8% (184)) than non-institutional (56,1% (236)) social actors. Far less occurrent are generalized (27,8% (117)) as well as collective (31,1 % (131)) subjects of persuasion.

1.4.1. THE REPRESENTATION OF THE “OTHER”

The representation of the “Other,” the representation of cultural diversity, and the reproduction of racism and xenophobia through media have been key research topics in the past few decades. Such studies have traditionally used a (critical) discourse analysis and cultural studies approach.

All these studies focus on the production and reproduction of stereotypes through print media and the internet, as well as through TV. Van Dijk’s sociocognitive approach focuses on the schemata through which minorities are perceived and illustrated, as well as on headlines in the press.

Headlines and their syntactic and semantic configuration typically represent “others” as perpetrators and agents, as anonymous and criminal, whereas the police and victims are passivized and presented as suffering.

Jack Lule recognizes in his book Daily News, Eternal Stories: The Mythological Role of Journalism different master myths that can be read in news no matter the medium and no matter the historical, political or social context of the country.

First is the myth of the victim. In journalistic practice we can often recognize how focusing on individuals is used to represent what is happening to many people. This ‘formula’ is often used while telling stories on socially mistreated groups and minorities, on traffic or factory accidents or other unpleasant events. Furthermore, the news often elevates victims and their loved ones into heroes. Lule stresses how “one of myth’s important social roles is to reconcile people to the seeming randomness of human existence” (Lule J. Daily News, Eternal Stories. The Mythological Role of Journalism, The Guilford Press, New York, 2001.) The question is whether these individuals are real victims or media victimizes them. The question of ethics and decency often must be considered. It is not rare that news tramples upon the privacy of victims in attempts to offer dramatic, sensational stories.

Every society, every historical epoch, even every small town has its scapegoat. In many examples it was a question of religion, gender, nationality or political affiliation, when such groups or individuals had to be expelled from the social scene (e.g. blacks, Jews, women, communists, homosexuals etc.). Sometimes news depicts the degradation of a scapegoat who has chosen to challenge the established order.

The hero is probably the most common myth we find in news. Values and ideals of the society are often dramatized and personified in stories of a hero. The hero is a model for society; he embodies crucial social values (e.g. courage, hard work, talent, persistence etc.). Furthermore, it is not rare that our mass-mediated societies have transformed heroes into celebrities.

The last master myth, according to Lule, is the flood. It concerns an unpleasant, unexpectedly large storm. In such stories everyone at the same place is in the same situation, usually no one is privileged and usually at least someone survives.

This illustrates how, whenever scapegoats are needed to channel anxieties, insecurities, aggressions, or failures, racist and anti-Semitic discourses appear and are reproduced through the media.

The terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001, reinforced anti-Islamic feelings and prejudices. The representations in the media of Muslims and the Islamic religion generalized the fear of terrorism to all people who “look different.”

Usama Suleiman (2001) has analyzed the reporting in the Israeli, Palestinian, and U.S. media about a number of important events since the founding of the state of Israel. He was able to show that the representation of Israelis in the Palestinian press, of Palestinians in the Israeli press, and of both conflicting parties in the American press was significantly biased because of the interests of leading political elites. One frequently had the impression that totally different events and people were being written about.

Arab reporting about Israel has become more and more laden with old anti-Semitic stereotypes since the new wars in the Middle East of 2001–2002 (see Wistrich, 2002). Conflicts in that period also led to more anti-Semitic clichés in the European press: analogies to Nazis and to concentration camps were drawn in the French and German media. European Jews—even all Jews—were made responsible for Israeli government policies.

Overall, strategies of generalization, blaming the victims, and victim-perpetrator reversal were increasingly prominent. Stories about one bad experience with “one Jew, Roma, Arab, Turk, and so on” were generalized onto the whole ethnic group. Such “prejudice stories” characterize media reporting as well as everyday racism (Essed, 1993).

Disclaimers are another salient feature of such reporting: “Everybody has best Jewish, Turkish . . . friends, but . . . .” These clauses always introduce massive prejudices. The “denial of racism” (van Dijk, 1988a, 1988b) is another important characteristic.

Denying racist, anti-Semitic, or xenophobic attitudes while latently functionalizing them in anti-immigrant reporting is necessary in pluralistic societies that claim to be “open” and “tolerant” (see Martín-Rojo & van Dijk, 1997; Wodak & van Dijk, 2000).

ter Wal (2002) has provided an overview of research in racism and cultural diversity in the mass media for the European Union, for the European Monitoring Center on Racism, Xenophobia and Anti-Semitism (www.eumc.at). She found that in the period researched (1995–2000), the predominant methodology used was quantitative content analysis, but in many studies, two or more approaches were incorporated.

The most common combination was that of content and discourse analysis or of discourse analysis complemented by ethnographic fieldwork and semiotic analysis.

Especially in the Scandinavian countries, Spain, Italy, Austria, and the Netherlands, qualitative discourse analysis was well established in the field. Another frequent approach to media texts was the cultural studies approach, which focuses on the mythical elements on which ideological significations have been built. The majority of the research was on the press, some on television, but virtually none on radio. The perspective gradually shifted from an analysis of news production and news content to a more contextualized analysis, taking into consideration the audience perspective and the possibility of negotiating identities.

When the 15 member states of the European Union were compared, it could be shown that in all countries, a big difference existed between tabloids and more elite media, which confirms the difference in modes of expression of prejudice between elites and ordinary people (Wodak & van Dijk, 2000). On the other hand, all countries employed the linguistic features mentioned above in their reporting and news items.

Access to the media was also very difficult for minority-ethnic professionals.

1.4.2. HATE SPEECH AND WAR

After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the outbreak of armed conflicts in Southeastern and Eastern Europe, media developments in the so-called countries of transition became a focus of interest. On the level of text analysis, the questions of hate speech, biased reporting, and representation of minorities have attracted research interest.

Some of these works use quantitative content analysis; others combine quantitative aspects with qualitative text or discourse analytical approaches. The scope ranges from case studies on particular media (e.g., Kuzmanic, 1999, on racism, sexism, and chauvinism in Slovenian print media; Valic, 1997, on war reporting on local radio in Serbia) to studies on the representation of particular groups (e.g., Erjavec, Hrvatin, & Kelbl, 2000, on Roma in Slovenia).

A main focus is the discursive strategies employed in constructing new national identities in which strategies of creating in-groups and out-groups by emphasizing differences between “us” and “them” play a key role, as well as strategies of internal homogenization, such as invoking “national unity and solidarity,” and of victimizing one’s own group while accusing the other of aggression. It was striking how frequently Croatian media dwelt on locating the newly founded state on a map of the imaginary: Croatia was depicted as an integral part of Europe, and Europe, in turn, was depicted as a centuriesold

Schicksalsgemeinschaft—a community formed by historical destiny—based on Christian values.

Linguistic and sociolinguistic analysis pays attention to the linguistic detail, to the form and “texture” of the text (Fairclough, 1995, p. 21), aiming at illuminating sociocultural contexts. Garrett and Bell (1998) and Fairclough (1995) provide an overview of different text and discourse-analytical approaches and their application in media studies. Approaches situated within critical linguistics (CL) emphasize the importance of the context, the social and historical situativity of the text, and the intertextual/ interdiscursive dimension. Thus, the claim is not to unveil “hidden meanings,” as this would imply a static, reified conception of the text, but to identify and analyze discursive strategies, argumentation schemes (topoi), and means of realization (in verbal as well as in other semiotic modes), as put forward by the discourse-historical approach.

Media analysis is problem oriented and not dogmatically related to the one or other linguistic theory or methodology. What seems appropriate is a multimethod approach that combines different levels of analysis and thus different tools.

Linguistic methods are time-consuming in their detailed attention to the text, especially when it comes to audio or audiovisual texts, which necessitate accurate transcription.

In approaches to media texts, mixed methods are very often employed. Examples of such mixed approaches are the work of the Glasgow Media Group (1976, 1980, 1985) on news programs or van Dijk’s work (1998) comparing news reports in different countries. Both combine content analysis with text-linguistic and discourse analytical approaches.

As far as media are concerned, linguistic approaches have so far been focusing mainly on the moment of the text, in the sense of Fiske’s “program” or Barthes’s “work”. Although there has been increasing interest in audiences in the past years, studies that link media text and reception are still scarce (e.g., Lutz &Wodak, 1987; Meinhof, 1994; Morley, 1980; Richardson, 1998). Meinhof and Smith (2000) elaborate Kristeva’s concept of intertextuality to frame the collection of papers concerned with this link.

The news genre has been the most prominent research focus so far in linguistic approaches to texts, especially in discourse analysis. The press has received comparatively more attention than television, and outside of conversation analysis, radio has been relatively neglected, except for some studies of news programs (e.g., Lutz & Wodak, 1987).

1.4.3. THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES

Kress (1990) concentrates on what he terms the “political economy” of representational media—that is, an attempt to understand how various societies value different modes of representation and how they use these different modes of representation.

(This is a different sense of the term political economy from the one Wasko deploys in Chapter 15, this volume.) A central aspect of this work is the attempt to understand the formation of the individual human being as a social individual in response to available “representational resources.” One by-product of this research interest has been Kress’s increasing involvement in overtly political issues, including the politics of culture. Moreover, he has been concerned with multimodality and semiotics. Together with Theo van Leeuwen, Kress has developed a taxonomy that allows the precise description and interpretation of visual data (Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996). This work has influenced research on the new media (see Lemke, 2001; Scollon, 1999).

The language of the mass media is scrutinized as a site of power and social struggle, as well as a site where language is often only apparently transparent. Media institutions often purport to be neutral, in that they provide space for public discourse, reflect states of affairs disinterestedly, and give the perceptions and arguments of the newsmakers.

Fairclough shows the fallacy of such assumptions and illustrates the mediating and constructing role of the media with a variety of examples.

Van Dijk and Kintsch (1983) early on considered the relevance of discourse to the study of language processing. Their development of a cognitive model of discourse understanding in individuals gradually developed into cognitive models for explaining the construction of meaning at a societal level. Van Dijk turned specifically to media discourse, not only giving his own reflection on communication in the mass media (van Dijk, 1986) but also bringing together the theories and applications of a variety of scholars interested in the production, uses, and functions of media discourses (van Dijk, 1985). In critically analyzing various kinds of discourses that encode prejudice, van Dijk is interested in developing a theoretical model that will explain cognitive discourse processing mechanisms (Wodak & van Dijk, 2000).

Most recently, van Dijk has focused on issues of racism and ideology (van Dijk, 1998) and on an elaboration of a theory of context (van Dijk, 2001). The sociocognitive model of van Dijk is based on the assumption that cognition mediates between “society” and “discourse.” Long term and short-term memories and certain mental models shape our perception and comprehension of discursive practices and also imply stereotypes and prejudices, if such mental models become rigid and overgeneralized.

The methodology used is eclectic, based primarily on argumentation theory and semantic theories.

References

1. See Wodak, de Cillia, Reisigl, and Liebhart (1999); Blommaert and Verschueren (1998); Martín-Rojo and van Dijk (1997); Pedro (1997); many editorials in Discourse & Society over the years, specifically the debate between Michael Billig and Emanuel Schegloff (1999); Iedema and Wodak (1999); Wodak and Iedema (in press); Wodak and de Cillia (in press); and Wodak & van Dijk (2000).

2. See Hall (2000a, 2000b); Fairclough (2000a, 2000b); Wodak et al. (1990); Wodak (2001a, 2001b); Reisigl and Wodak (2001); Matouschek, Januschek, and Wodak (1995); ter Wal (2002); Suleiman (2001); van Leeuwen (2000); Wodak and van Dijk (2000); van Dijk (1997, 1998); Stern (2000); Mitten (1992); Gruber (1991); and Wodak and Reisigl (1999).

3. See Wodak and Pelinka (2002).

Anthonissen, C. (2001). On the effectivity of media censorship: An analysis of linguistic, paralinguistic and other communicative devices used to defy media restrictions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Vienna.

Balkan Neighbours Newsletter. (1994–2000). Sofia, Bulgaria: ACCESS Association.

Barthes, R. (1994). Introduction a l’analyse structurale des récits [Introduction to the structural analysis of narrative]. In Oeuvres complètes. Tome II. 1966–1973 [Complete works: Vol. 2. 1966–1973]. (Edition established and presented by Éric Marty). Paris: Éditions du Seuil. (Original work published 1966)

Baudrillard, J. (2000). The masses: The implosion of the social in the media. In P. Marris & S. Thornham (Eds.), Media studies (pp. 99–108). New York: New York University Press.

Bell, A. (1984). Language style as audience design. Language in Society, 13(2), 145–204.

Bell, A., & Garrett, P. (1998). Approaches to media discourse. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Benke, G. (2000). Diskursanalyse als sozialwissenschaftliche Untersuchungsmethode [Discourse analysis as social science methodology]. SWS Rundschau, 40(2), 140–162.

Bentahlia, A., & Davies, E. (2002). Language mixing in rai music: Localisation or globalisation? Language & Communication, 22, 187–207.

Billig, M. (2002). Critical discourse and analysis. In G. Weiss & R. Wodak (Eds.), Critical discourse analysis: Theory and interdisciplinarity. London: Macmillan.

Billig, M., & Schegloff, E. A. (1999). Debate: Critical discourse analysis and conversation analysis. Discourse & Society, 10(4), 543–582.

Blommaert, J., & Verschueren, J. (1998). The diversity debate. London: Routledge.

Boyd-Barrett, O., Nootens, J., & Pugh, A. (1996). Multilingualism and the mass media. In P. Nelde, Z. Stary, & W. Wölk (Eds.), Kontaktlinguistik. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung [Contact linguistics: An international manual of contemporary research] (Vol. 1, pp. 426–431). Berlin: de Gruyter.

Brünner, G., & Graefen, G. (Eds.). (1994). Texte und Diskurse [Texts and discourses]. Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Brunsdon, C. (1991). Pedagogies of the feminine: Feminist teaching and women’s genres. Screen, 32(4), 360–383.

Busch, B. (1999a). Der virtuelle Dorfplatz. Minderheitenmedien, Globalisierung und kulturelle Identität [The virtual village square: Minority media, globalization, and cultural identity]. Klagenfurt, Austria: Drava.

Busch, B. (1999b). Von Minderheitenmedien zu Medien in multilingualen & multikulturellen Situationen. Versuch eines Überblicks über das Forschungsfeld [From minority media to media in multilingual and multicultural context: Overview of the field of research]. Medienjournal, 23(2), 3–12.

Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.

Connerton, P. (1996). How societies remember. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1976)

de Beaugrande, R., & Dressler, W. U. (1981). Einführung in die Textlinguistik [Introduction to text linguistics]. Tübingen, Germany: Nie.

Eggins, S., & Iedema, R. (1997). Difference without diversity: Semantic orientation and ideology in competing women’s magazines.

In R. Wodak (Ed.), Gender and discourse (pp. 165–196). London: Sage.

Erjavec, C., Hrvatin, S., & Kelbl, B. (2000). We about the Roma: Discriminatory discourse in the media in Slovenia. Ljubljana, Slovenia: Open Society Institute.

Essed, P. (1993). Everyday racism. London: Sage.

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Longman.

Fairclough, N. (2000a). Critical analysis of media discourse. In P. Marris & S. Thornham (Eds.), Media studies (pp. 308–325). New York: New York University Press.

Fairclough, N. (2000b). The discourse of social exclusion. In M. Reisigl & R. Wodak (Eds.), The semiotics of racism (pp. 65–84). Vienna: Passagen Verlag.

Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Introduction to discourse analysis (pp. 258–284). London: Sage.

Fay, B. (1987). Critical social science. London: Polity.

Fiske, J. (1989). Television culture. London: Routledge. (Original work published 1987)

Fowler, R. (1991). Critical linguistics. In K. Halmkjaer (Ed.), The linguistic encyclopedia (pp. 89–93). London: Routledge.

Fowler, R. (1996). Linguistic criticism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Fowler, R., Kress, G., Hodge, R., & Trew, T. (Eds.). (1979). Language and control. London: Routledge.

Gambier, Y. (Ed.). (1997). Les transferts linguistiques dans les médias audiovisuels [Linguistic transfers in the audiovisual media]. Villeneuve d’Ascq, France: Presses universitaires du Septentrion.

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Garrett, P., & Bell, A. (1998). Media discourse: A critical overview. In A. Bell & P. Garrett (Eds.), Approaches to media discourse (pp. 1–21). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Giddens, A. (2000). Sociology. London: Polity.

Glasgow University Media Group. (1976). Bad news. London: Routledge.

Glasgow University Media Group. (1980). More bad news. London: Routledge.

Glasgow University Media Group. (1985). War and peace news. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Greatbach, D. (1986). Aspects of topical organization in news interviews: The use of agendashifting procedures by news interviewees. Media, Culture and Society, 8(4), 441–455.

Grin, F. (1996). Plurilinguisme en matière de publicité [Plurilinguism as regards advertising]. In P. Nelde, Z. Stary, & W. Wölk (Eds.), Kontaktlinguistik.

Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung [Contact linguistics: An international manual of contemporary research] (Vol. 1, pp. 438–444). Berlin: de Gruyter.

Gruber, H. (1991). Antisemitismus im Mediendiskurs. Die Affäre “Waldheim” in der Tagespresse [Antisemitism into media discourse: The “Waldheim” affair in the daily press]. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitätsverlag/Westdeutscher Verlag.

Habermas, J. (2000). The public space. In P. Marris & S. Thornham (Eds.), Media studies (pp. 92–98). New York: New York University Press.

Hall, S. (2000a). Encoding/decoding. In P. Marris & S. Thornham (Eds.), Media studies (pp. 51–61). New York: New York University Press.

Hall, S. (2000b). Racist ideologies and the media. In P. Marris & S. Thornham (Eds.), Media studies (pp. 271–282). New York: New York University Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). Introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.

Heritage, J. (1985). Analyzing news interviews: Aspects of the production of talk for overhearing audiences. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis (Vol. 3, pp. 95–119). London: Academic Press.

Hutchby, I. (1991). The organisation of talk on radio. In P. Scannell (Ed.), Broadcast talk (pp. 119–137). London: Sage.

Iedema, R., & Wodak, R. (1999). Introduction: Organizational discourses and practices. Discourse & Society, 10(1), 5–19.

Jäger, M., & Jäger, S. (1993). Verstrickungen—Der rassistische Diskurs und seine Bedeutung für den politischen Gesamtdiskurs in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. [Entangled: racist discourse and its significance for overall political discourse in the Federal Republic of Germany]. In S. Jäger & J. Link (Eds.),

Die vierte Gewalt: Rassismus und die Medien [The fourth force: Racism and the media] (pp. 49–79). Duisburg: DISS.

Jäger, S. (1993). Kritische Diskursanalyse. Eine Einführung [Critical discourse analysis: An introduction]. Duisburg, Germany: DISS.

Jäger, S. (2001). Discourse and knowledge: Theoretical and methodological aspects of critical discourse analysis. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 32–62). London: Sage.

Jäger, S., & Jäger, M. (1999). Kritische Diskursanalyse. Eine Einführung [Critical discourse analysis: An introduction]. Duisburg, Germany: DISS.

Jensen, K. B., & Jankowski, N. W. (1991). A handbook of qualitative methodologies for mass communication research. London: Routledge.

Kotthoff, H. (1997). The interactional achievement of expert status: Creating asymmetries by “teaching conversational lectures” in TV discussions. In H. Kotthoff & R. Wodak (Eds.), Communicating gender in context (pp. 139–178). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Kotthoff, H., & Wodak, R. (Eds.). (1997). Communicating gender in context. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Kress, G. (1990). Critical discourse analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 11, 84–97.

Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images. London: Routledge.

Krings, H., Baumgartner, H. M., & Wildly, C. (1973). Handbuch philosophischer Grundbegriffe [Handbook of philosophical fundamental concepts]. Frankfurt: Kösel.

Kuhn, A. (1984). Women’s genres. Screen, 25(1), 18–28.

Kuhn, A. (2000). The power of the image. In P. Marris & S. Thornham (Eds.), Media studies (pp. 62–67). New York: New York University Press.

Kuzmanic, T. (1999). Hate speech in Slovenia: Slovenian racism, sexism and chauvinism. Ljubljana, Slovenia: Open Society Institute.

Lalouschek, J. (2002). Gesundheitkommunikation im Fernsehen [Communication on health problems in TV]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Vienna.

Leitner, G. (1997). The sociolingistics of communication media. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Handbook of sociolingistics (pp. 187–204). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Lemke, J. (1995). Textual politics: Discourse and social dynamics. London: Taylor & Francis.

Lemke, J. (2001). Discursive technologies and the social organization of meaning. Folia Linguistica, 35(1–2), 79–96.

Leontjev, A. N. (1984). Der allgemeine Tätigkeitsbegriff [The general activity term]. In A. A. Leontjev, A. N. Leontjev, & E. G. Judin (Eds.), Grundfragen einer Theorie der sprachlichen Tätigkeit [Basic questions of a theory of linguistic activity] (pp. 13–30). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

Link, J. (1988). Über Kollektivsymbolik im politischen Diskurs und ihren Anteil an totalitären Tendenzen [Collective symbols in political discourses and their impact on totalitarian tendencies]. kultuRRevolution, 17–18, 47–53.

Lutz, B., & Wodak, R. (1987). Information für Informierte [Information for the informed]. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences.

Marris, P., & Thornham, S. (Eds.). (2000). Media studies. New York: New York University Press.

Martín-Rojo, L., & van Dijk, T. A. (1997). There was a problem and it was solved: Legitimation of the expulsion of illegal immigrants in Spanish parliamentary discourse. Discourse & Society, 8(4), 523–567.

Matouschek, B., Januschek, F., & Wodak, R. (1995). Notwendige Massnahmen gegen Fremde? [Necessary measures against foreigners?]. Vienna: Passagen Verlag.

McElhinny, B. (1997). Ideologies of public and private language in sociolinguistics. In R. Wodak (Ed.), Gender and discourse (pp. 106–139). London: Sage.

McQuail, D. (2000). Mass communication theory (4th ed.). London: Sage.

Meinhof, U. (1994). Double talk in news broadcasts. In D. Graddol & O. Boyd-Barrett (Eds.), Media texts: Authors and readers (pp. 212–223). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters and The Open University.

Meinhof, U., & Smith, J. (2000). Intertextuality and the media: From genre to everyday life. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.

Mitten, R. (1992). The politics of anti-Semitic prejudice: The Waldheim phenomenon in Austria. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Morley, D. (1980). The “Nationwide” audience. London: British Film Institute.

Muntigl, P., Weiss, G., & Wodak, R. (2000). European Union discourses on unemployment: An interdisciplinary approach to employment policy-making and organizational change. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

O’Connor, P. (2002). Activist linguistics: Inside our method/inside our theory. In G. Weiss & R. Wodak (Eds.), Critical discourse analysis: Theory and interdisciplinarity (pp. 223–241). London: Macmillan.

Pedro, E. R. (1997). Discourse analysis. Lisbon: Ed. Colibri/Associação Portuguesa de Linguística.

Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (Eds.). (2000). The semiotics of racism. Vienna: Passagen Verlag.

Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2001). Discourse and discrimination. London: Routledge.

Richardson, K. (1998). Signs and wonders: Interpreting the economy through television. In A. Bell & P. Garrett (Eds.), New approaches to media discourse (pp. 220–251). London: Blackwell.

Richardson, K., & Meinhof, U. (1999). Worlds in common? Television discourse in a changing Europe. London: Routledge.

Robins, K. (Ed.). (1997). Programming for people: From cultural rights to cultural responsibilities (Report for the United Nations Television Forum, New York, November 19–21, 1997). Rome: RAI.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.

Schegloff, E. (1998). Text and context paper. Discourse & Society, 3, 4–37.

Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Scollon, R. (1999). Mediated discourse analysis. London: Longman.

Scollon, R. (2001). Mediated discourse: The nexus of practice. London: Routledge.

Skiljan, D. (2000). Semantics of war. In N. Skopljanac Brunner, S. Gredelji, A. Hodzic, & B. Kristofic (Eds.), Media and war. Zagreb, Croatia: Centre for Transition and Civil Society Research.

Skopljanac Brunner, N., Gredelj, S., Hodzic, A., & Kristofic, B. (Eds.). (2000). Media and war. Zagreb, Croatia: Centre for Transition and Civil Society Research.

Squire, A. V. (2000). Prinzessin Diana [Princess Diana]. Working paper, University of Vienna.

Stern, F. (2000). The “Semitic” gaze from the screen: Cinematic discourse of the other. In M. Reisigl & R. Wodak (Eds.), The semiotics of racism: Approaches in critical discourse analysis (pp. 351–362). Vienna: Passagen Verlag.

Suleiman, U. (2001). The other-territory-peace. Working paper, University of Vienna.

ter Wal, J. (Ed.). (2002). Racism and cultural diversity in the mass media: An overview of research and examples of good practice in the EU member states, 1995–2000. Vienna: European Research Centre on Migration and Ethnic Relations.

Thompson, J. B. (1988). Critical hermeneutics (4th ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Titscher, S., Wodak, R., Meyer, M., & Vetter, E. (2000). Methods of text and discourse analysis. London: Sage.

Valic, N. D. (1997). Ricocheting words. Belgrade: Argument.

van Dijk, T. A. (1985). Prejudice in discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.). (1986). Discourse and communication: New approaches to the analysis of mass media discourse and communication. Berlin: de Gruyter.

van Dijk, T. A. (1988a). News analysis. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

van Dijk, T. A. (1988b). News as discourse. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

van Dijk, T. A. (1991). Racism and the press. London: Routledge.

van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249–283.

van Dijk, T. A. (1997). Discourse as social interaction. London: Sage.

van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary study. London: Sage.

van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Tannen, D. Schiffrin, & H. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 352–371). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

van Dijk, T. A. (2002). The discourse-knowledge interface. In G. Weiss & R. Wodak (Eds.), Critical discourse analysis: Theory and interdisciplinarity (pp. 85–109). London: Macmillan.

van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.

van Leeuwen, T. (1993). Language and representation: The recontextualisation of participants, activities and reactions. Department of Linguistics thesis, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

van Leeuwen, T. (2000). Visual racism. In M. Reisigl & R. Wodak (Eds.), The semiotics of racism: Approaches in critical discourse analysis (pp. 363–391). Vienna: Passagen Verlag.

Wetschanow, K. (2003). Vergewaltigung. Eine diskursanalytische Studie zur medialen Repräsentationspolitik in Österreich [Rape: A discourse-analytical study of the politics of representation in Austria]. Unpublished dissertation, University of Vienna.

Winship, E. C. (1986). Reaching your teenager. Munich, Germany: Reinhardt.

Wistrich, J. (2002, June). Islam, Israel and the new anti-Semitism. Paper presented at the Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, University of Vienna.

Wodak, R. (1996a). Disorders in discourse. London: Longman.

Wodak, R. (1996b). The genesis of racist discourse in Austria since 1989. In C. R. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis (pp. 107–128). London: Routledge.

Wodak, R. (2000). Recontextualisation and the transformation of meaning: A critical discourse analysis of decision making in EUmeetings about employment policies. In S. Sarangi & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Discourse and social life (pp. 185–206). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.

Wodak, R. (2001a). The discourse-historical approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 63–94). London: Sage.

Wodak, R. (2001b). What CDA is about—a summary of its history, important concepts and its developments. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 1–13). London: Sage.

Wodak, R., & de Cillia, R. (in press). Discourse and politics. In U. Ammon & K. Mattheier (Eds.), Handbuch Soziolinguistik [Handbook of sociolinguistics]. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Wodak, R., de Cillia, R., Reisigl, M., & Liebhart, K. (1999). The discursive construction of national identity. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.

Wodak, R., & Iedema, R. (in press). Communication in institutions. In U. Ammon & K. Mattheier (Eds.), Handbuch Soziolinguistik [Handbook of sociolinguistics]. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Wodak, R., Menz, F., Mitten, R., & Stern, F. (1994). Die Sprachen der Vergangenheiten: öffentliches Gedenken in österreichischen und deutschen Medien [The languages of past times. Public memory in Austrian and German media]. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.

Wodak, R., & Pelinka, A. (Eds.). (2002). The Haider phenomenon. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press.

Wodak, R., Pelikan, J., Nowak, P., Gruber, H., de Cillia, R., & Mitten, R. (1990). Wir sind alle unschuldige Täter! Diskurshistorische Studien zum Nachkriegsantisemitismus [“We are all innocent perpetrators!” Discourse-historical studies of postwar antisemitism]. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.

Wodak, R., & Reisigl, M. (1999). Discourse and racism: European perspectives. Annual Review of Anthropology, 28, 175–199.

Wodak, R., & van Dijk, T. (Eds.). (2000). Racism at the top. Klagenfurt, Austria: Drava.

Арутюнова Н. Д., Падучева Е. В. Истоки, проблемы и категории прагматики // Новое в зарубежной лингвистике. М.: Прогресс, 1985. Вып. 16. С. 3-42.

Богуславская В. В. Моделирование текста: лингвосоциокультурная концепция: анализ журналистских текстов. М.: Издательство ЛКИ, 2008. 280 с.

Дридзе Т. М. От герменевтики к семиосоциопсихологии: от «творческого» толкования текста к пониманию коммуникативной интенции автора // Социальная коммуникация и социальное управление в антропоцентрической и семиосоциопсихологической парадигмах: в 2-х кн. М.: Изд-во Института социологии РАН, 2000. Кн. 2. С. 115-138.

Дридзе Т. М. Язык и социальная психология. М.: Высшая школа, 1980. 224 с.

Коган В. З. К методологии информологического подхода // Информатика и культура. Новосибирск, 1990. С. 108-127.

References

Воронцова Т. А. Речевая агрессия (коммуникативно-дискурсивный подход) : дис. … д-ра филол. наук : 10.02.19. — Челябинск, 2006 — 296 с.

Коряковцев А.В. Инвективность как функционально-семантическая категория русского языка: дис. … канд. филол. наук – Кемерово, 2009. – 179 с.

Саржина О.В. Русская инвективная лексика в свете межъязыковой эквивалентности (по данным словарей). // Речевое общение. Специализированный вестник. – Вып. 4 (12). – Красноярск: Изд-во КрГУ, 2002. – С. 35-40.

Седов К.Ф. Речевая агрессия в межличностном взаимодействии. // Прямая и непрямая коммуникация/ Под ред. В. В. Дементьева. — Саратов: Изд-во ГУНЦ«Колледж», 2003.-С. 196-212.

Третьякова В.С. Конфликт как феномен языка и речи [Електронний ресурс]; код доступа к ресурсу: http://proceedings.usu.ru/

Шейгал Е. И. Семиотика политического дискурса / Е.И.Шейгал. – М.: ИТДГК “Гнозис”, 2004. – 326 с.

Южакова Ю.В. Толерантность массово-информационного дискурса идеологической направленности; автореф. дисс. на соискание уч. степени канд. филол. наук; 10.02.19. – Челябинск, 2007. – 23 с.

Bakhtin M.M. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. – T.: University of Texas Press, 1986 – 203p.

Berger C. Planning Strategic Interaction: Attaining Goals Through Communicative Action. –N.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1997- 162p.

Berkowitz L. Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control. — NY.: McGraw-Hill. 1993 – p.485

Infante D.A. Argumentativeness and Verbal Aggression: A Review of Recent Theory and Research. // Communication Yearbook. — 1996.-№19.-P. 319-351

Infante D., Rancer A. S, Womack D. F. Building communication theory. — Il.: Waveland Press, 2003. – 416p.

Molek-Kozakowska K. Labeling and mislabeling in American political discourse. A survey based on insights of independent media monitors. // Perspectives in Politics and Discourse/ Ed. by U. Okulska, P. Cap- Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Co, 2010. — P. 83-99

Rancer A.S. Argumentative and Aggressive Communication: Theory,

Spitzberg, B., Cupach W. Handbook of Interpersonal Competence Research. — N.: Springer-Verlag, 1989. – 180p.

Словари:

Стилистический энциклопедический словарь русского языка / Под ред. М.Н. Кожиной. – М: Изд-во Флинта, 2003 – 696с.