Particularities of the Contrast Using in Social Advertising Discourse

Authors

  • Tatiana V. Anisimova Kaliningral Branch of the St. Petersburg University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, 30 General Galitsky str., Kaliningrad 236006
  • Svetlana A. Chubai Voklgograd State University, 100 Unersity pr., Volgograd, 400062

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24412/1811-1629-2021-3-22-31

Abstract

The article presents some linguistic forms of social advertising texts construction, which may help to realize advertising discourse’s main idea, i.e. the opposition of two semantic and logical components: a model of behavior, which is dangerous for human life and health or is not approved by the society for ethical reasons, on the one hand, and an ideal pattern approved by society, introduced as a role model, on the other hand. All this is due to the main goal of social advertising communication: to consolidate the ideas about the desired (ideal) fragment of reality in the mind of the target addressee. The means of contrast relations expression belong to many system levels, and the authors, respectively, discuss the syntactic, visual and axiological levels. Among the linguistic forms of constructing contrast, the most frequent models are making contrast by using the negation of “ne” (not): ‘chitat’’ / ‘ne chitat’’ (to read / not to read); the opposition of the direct and figurative meanings of the word, and paronomasia. The semantic core of contrast is formed by antithesis. Besides the linguistic antonyms, social advertising contains a lot of contextual antonyms that are taking part in the antithesis formation. In conclusion, the authors analyze stylistic figures that help to make antithesis more expressive, such as zeugma, amphibole, and irony.

Keywords:

social advertising, contrast, antithesis, basic alternative, antonyms, stylistic figures of speech

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
 

References

Источники

Розенталь, Теленкова 1985 — Розенталь Д. Э., Теленкова М. А. Словарь-справочник лингвистических терминов. М.: Просвещение, 1985. 543 с.

Сковородников 2005 — Энциклопедический словарь-справочник. Выразительные средства русского языка и речевые ошибки и недочеты. А. П. Сковородников (ред.). — М.: Флинта: Наука, 2005.


Литература

Анисимова, Чубай 2019 — Анисимова Т. В., Чубай С. А. Риторика социальной рекламы. Волгоград, 2019. 270 с.

Араева 2003 — Араева Л. А. Топическая категоризация мысли в языке. В сб.: Риторика в системе гуманитарного знания: Тезисы VII Международной конференции по риторике (Москва, 29–31 января 2003 г.). В. И. Аннушкин (отв. ред.). М., 2003. С. 30–33.

Корнилова 2008 — Корнилова Л. А. Структурно-функциональная классификация антитезы в англоязычной литературе и фольклоре. Ученые записки Казанского гос. университета. Серия: Гуманитарные науки. 2008, 150 (6): 260–265.

Пригарина 2013 — Пригарина Н. К. Личностные аксемы как основания риторической аргументации. Вестник Волгоградского гос. ун-та. Сер. 2, Языкознание. 2013, (2 (18)): 48–51 Скребнев 2000 — Скребнев Ю. М. Основы стилистики английского языка. М.: Астрель: АСТ, 2000. 220 с.

Степанова 2020 — Степанова Н. Ю. Реализация контраста в художественном тексте в свете диктемной теории текста. В сб.: Язык в жизни человека и общества: м-лы Международной научно-практической конференции, посвященной 95-летию М. Я. Блоха. М.: Изд. МПГУ, 2020. С. 204–209.

Perelman, Olbrehts-Tyteca 1969 — Perelman, Ch., Olbrehts-Tyteca L. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame, London, 1969.


References

Анисимова, Чубай 2019 — Anisimova T.V., Chubay S.A. The rhetoric of social advertising. Volgograd, 2019. Available at: http://scipro.ru/conf/rhetoric.pdf. (in Russian)

Араева 2003 — Topical categorization of thought in language. Ritorika v sisteme gumanitarnogo znaniya: Tezisy VII Mezhdunarodnoy konferentsii po ritorikeRhetoric in the system of humanitarian knowledge. Moscow. 2003, pp. 30–33. (in Russian)

Корнилова 2008 — Kornilova L.A. Structural-functional classification of antithesis in English-language literature and folklore. Uchenyye zapiski Kazanskogo gos. universiteta. Seriya: Gumanitarnyye nauki. 2008, pp. 260–265. (in Russian)

Пригарина 2013 — Prigarina N. K. Personal axems as the basis of rhetorical argumentation. Vestnik Volgogradskogo gos. un-ta. Ser. 2, Linguistics. 2013, (2 (18)): pp. 48–51 (in Russian)

Скребнев 2000 — Skrebnev Yu. M. Fundamentals of stylistics of the English language. Moscow: Astrel: AST, 2000, 220 p. (in Russian)

Степанова 2020 — Stepanova N. Yu. Implementation of contrast in a literary text in the light of the dictemic theory of text. Yazyk v zhizni cheloveka i obshchestva: m-ly Mezhdunarodnoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii, posvyashchennoy 95-letiyu M. Ya. Blokha. Moscow: Ed. Moscow State Pedagogical University, 2020, pp. 204–209. (in Russian)

Perelman, Olbrehts-Tyteca 1969 — Perelman, Ch., Olbrehts-Tyteca L. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame, London, 1969.

Downloads

Published

2021-09-30

How to Cite

Anisimova, T. V., & Chubai, S. A. (2021). Particularities of the Contrast Using in Social Advertising Discourse. The World of Russian Word, (3), 22–31. https://doi.org/10.24412/1811-1629-2021-3-22-31

Issue

No. 3 (2021)

Section

Linguistics

License

Articles of "The World of Russian Word" are open access distributed under the terms of the License Agreement with Saint Petersburg State University, which permits to the authors unrestricted distribution and self-archiving free of charge.