Guild of linguistic experts on documentary and
informational disputes
Reg. #14127 of the Central office of the
Ministry of Justice of Russian Federation in Moscow of 15.02.2001
129164 Moscow, PO Box 110. Tel.: (095) 201-3242, Fax: (095)
201-49-47, E-mail: mivigo@dol.ru
INN 7717118908, Internet:
www.expertizy.narod.ru
EXPERT EXAMINATION # 28/5
Moscow May 30, 2002
Commission of experts consisting of: chairman of the
Board of the Guild of linguistic experts on documentary and
informational disputes, Doctor of philological sciences, professor
Gorbanevskiy Mikhail Viktorovich (scientific linguistic research
experience is 26 years), deputy chairman of the Board of the Guild
of linguistic experts on documentary and informational disputes,
Doctor of philological sciences, professor Shaklein Viktor
Mikhailovich (scientific linguistic research experience is 33
years), actual member of the Guild of linguistic experts on
documentary and informational disputes, Doctor of philological
science, professor Belchikov Yuliy Abramovich (scientific linguistic
research experience is 49 years), actual member of the Guild of
linguistic experts on documentary and informational disputes,
candidate of philological science, Senior lecturer Kara-Murza Yelena
Stanislavovna (scientific linguistic research experience is 22
years), actual member of the Guild of linguistic experts on
documentary and informational disputes, Doctor of philological
science, professor Mamontov Aleksandr Stepanovich (scientific
linguistic research experience is 26 years) on the basis of the
request of the director of the representative office of “Internews
Network” in Kazakhstan O. Katsiyev of May 24, 2002 conducted
psychological linguistic examination of the publication
“Khabarization of the entire country. Part 2”, placed on the
web-site of the representative office of “Internews Network” in
Kazakhstan in the electronic newsletter #23 (117) for 2001, in
connection with the lawsuit of Aliyev Rakhat Muhtarovich against the
representative office of “Internews Network” in Kazakhstan.
Rights and obligations of experts, provided for by
the article 82of the Criminal Procedural Code of Russian Federation
were explained to us. We were warned regarding criminal
responsibility for giving false conclusion by force of the article
307, 308 of the Criminal Code of Russian Federation.
The examination began on May 24 2002. The
examination ended on May 30 2002. Experts received the following
materials at their disposal:
1. Copy of the publication “Khabarization of the
entire country. Part 2”, signed by Svetlana Dylevskaya and placed on
the web-site of the representative office “Internews Network” in
Kazakhstan in electronic newsletter #23 (117) for 2001 on 6 pages
(pages 2-7).
2. Copy of lawsuit Aliyev Rakhat Mukhtarovich (by
proxy - LRP “legal center”) on protection of honor, dignity and
business reputation of December 5, 2001 on 2 pages.
3. Copy of expert conclusion #2561 of the Central (Almaty)
scientific production laboratory of judicial examination of March
21, 2002 on 20 pages.
Facts of the case: the commission of experts is
informed in the volume of materials presented. Scientific research
in the course of the examination was conducted in Moscow in the
Guild of linguistic experts on documentary and informational
disputes; trial participants were not present during execution of
the examination. The following issues were put for expert
resolution:
What types of vocabulary of modern Russian language
Russian scientists of linguistics attribute to offensive vocabulary?
Does the publication “Khabarization of the entire
country. Part 2” contain words or phrases, related to one or several
types of offensive vocabulary?
Does the publication “Khabarization of the entire
country. Part 2” contain slander statements or fabrications
addressed to R. M. Aliyev?
Does the disputed fragment “Khabarization of the
entire country. Part 2” contain evaluation of personality and
activity of R. M. Aliyev?
Does the publication “Khabarization of the entire
country. Part 2” contain statements giving negative evaluation of
personality of R. M. Aliyev?
What is the semantic context of the fragment of
publication disputed by R. M. Aliyev:
“D. Nazarbayeva and her husband - first deputy of
the chairman of the Committee of National Security of the Republic
of Kazakhstan Rakhat Aliyev, own or control (directly or indirectly)
several television and radio networks, informally unified into a
media holding (television channels Khabar, KTK, NTK,
“ORT-Kazakhstan”, radio station “Yevropa plus Kazakhstan”, “Hit FM
Khabar”, “Russkoye radio”, “Radio Retro-Karavan; newspapers “Novoye
pokoleniye”, “Karavan”, “Karavan” publishing house, information
agency “Kazakhstan today”, advertising agency “TV-Media and etc.).
Telecommunication company KATELKO is in the same
row, “Kazakhstan’s broadcasting corporation. In winter of 2000 by
the decree of the government two organizations, who controlled
television and radio transmitting means (transmitters, television
towers, television centers and etc.), were reorganized and rights of
property and use over the state package of stocks of the
newly-fledged organization were handed over to “KVK - Kazakhstan’s
Broadcasting Corporation”, founder of which is a group of legal and
physical entities. Experts ask themselves a question: who would
benefit from privatization of state property?”.
What are the most substantial and significant genre,
psycho-linguistic stylistic peculiarities of the text of the
publication “Khabarization of the entire country? Part 2”?
What are, based on analysis of the stylistics,
composition of the publication “Khabarization of the entire country?
Part 2” and semantics of its lexical components, the aims of the
given publication - as a text, addressed through electronic mass
media towards numerous readers?
As a result of the conducted research experts made
the following conclusions:
1. What types of vocabulary of modern Russian
language Russian scientists of linguistics attribute to offensive
vocabulary?
In linguistic examinations on lawsuits on protection
of honor, dignity and business reputation, as a rule, the key link
is detailed examination of meaning and stylistic coloration of words
and phrases of modern Russian language, contained in presented for
examination texts, considering their possible use for abasement of
honor and dignity of another person, expressed in improper form
(insults).
Upon insulting unlike slander defamatory data, which
should be known false, veracity and falsity of disseminated data are
of no importance. In practice there are specific categories of words
of literary and colloquial languages, use of which in regard to
specific person (first of all, physical entity), as a rule, is
insulting. These are the following categories:
1. Words and expressions, implying anti-public,
socially condemning activity: swindler, cheater, prostitute.
2. Words with pronounced negative evaluation,
virtually composing their main meaning, also implying socially
condemning activity or position of characterized individual:
racist, double-dealer, traitor.
3. Names of some professions, used in figurative
sense: hangman, butcher.
4. Zoo-semantic metaphors, referring to names of
animals and emphasizing negative qualities of a person: grubbiness
or ingratitude (pig), stupidity (donkey), awkwardness, clumsiness
(cow) and etc.
5. Verbs with condemning meaning or direct
negative evaluation: to steal, to grab.
6. Words, containing expressive negative
evaluation of a person’s behavior, qualities of his personality
and etc., without relation to indication of specific activity or
position: scoundrel, rascal, cad.
7. Euphemisms for words of the first category,
nevertheless preserving their negative evaluative character: woman
of easy virtue, inter-girl.
8. Special negative evaluative punning formations:
komunyaks, scambackrats. Moreover, insulting, as a rule, is use of
unquotable words as characterization of a person.
2. Does the publication “Khabarization of the entire
country. Part 2” contain words or phrases, related to one or several
types of offensive vocabulary?
The analyzed publication “Khabarization of the
entire country. Part 2” does not contain offensive vocabulary.
3. Does the publication “Khabarization of the entire
country. Part 2” contain slander statements or fabrications
addressed to R. M. Aliyev?
The question is beyond scope of linguistic experts.
Slander presupposes direct intent of falsehood (when speaker/writer
primordially strives to discredit another individual, knowing, that
he is not right, but anyway speaks or writes, reporting false
information, while related to specific facts, not representing
evaluative judgments). In this aspect of law theory linguistic
expert doe not have an opportunity to define presence/absence of
intent.
4. Does the disputed fragment “Khabarization of the
entire country. Part 2” contain evaluation of personality and
activity of R. M. Aliyev?
The disputed fragment does not contain evaluation
itself. The fragment contains information that Rakhat Aliyev (and
his spouse D. Nazarbayeva) “own and control (directly or indirectly)
several television and radio networks, formally unified into a media
holding”.
This information (data) cannot be recognized as
positive or negative, as the ownership of something or controlling
of something in itself cannot characterize a person from good or bad
side. While information on ownership of something or about direct
controlling may be checked (verified); it is difficult to prove by
documents data on indirect controlling, thus, it is difficult to
verify information in the text on indirect controlling.
What is evaluation of personality from linguistic
point of view? It implies arrogation to person of qualities and
virtues in perspective of the Good or the Evil, Benefit or Damage,
Beauty or Ugliness, Nobility or Meanness and similar evaluative
categories or presentation of his actions and deeds as subject to
evaluative description. From the point of view of language form this
is expressed in use of stylistically colored, expressively
evaluative vocabulary (not stylistically neutral synonymous
versions). Let’s give an example of neutral and evaluative
denomination of a person, his qualities and actions. One may say
that he is not good-looking, and one may also say that he is ugly.
In the last case degree of survival of a quality, meaning
expressiveness of the word, is high. One may say that a person took
something without permission and reason, and one may say that he
stole or lifted it. If in the first case the wording contains
non-emotional non-evaluative verification of the event, than the in
the second case meaning of the word has pronounced evaluation of
action as illegal, inapplicable to law or moral criteria. In the
third case negative meaning is so strong that is found beyond the
verge of permissible speech behavior. Such words are called
non-normative (in the given case it is expressively low colloquial
word), and their use is not recommended in official situations, and
generally is not welcomed, as their use in itself may be evaluated
as illegal speech behavior - abasement of honor and dignity of a
person as well as object of evaluation.
The fragment of the publication “Khabarization of
the entire country. Part 2”, which became the basis for the lawsuit,
entirely is lacking evaluative nominations of actions and states of
the plaintiff. All verbs, which describe these actions and states,
related to stylistically neutral non-evaluative vocabulary of
Russian language: “D. Nazarbayeva and her husband - (..) Rakhat
Aliyev own or control (...) several television and radio networks
(...)". Another matter is that this phrase has grammatical stylistic
error: upon use of similar predicates, expressed by verbs with
various dirigible cases (it is proper to write “own several
television and radio networks and control them”). But in the given
lawsuit situation this stylistic error has no significance
whatsoever, as it does not affect meaning of the phrase.
5. Does the publication “Khabarization of the entire
country. Part 2” contain statements giving negative evaluation of
personality of R. M. Aliyev?
The publication does not have statements (in the
form of assertion, assumption), containing negative information
personally about R. M. Aliyev or negative evaluation of R. M. Aliyev.
The publication “Khabarization of the entire
country. Part 2” is dedicated to “details about Closed Joint-stock
Company “Khabar” Agency”. Purpose of the article is defined by the
author in the beginning of the publication. The details presuppose
description (information) regarding the object (“Khabar” Agency”).
The article is consistent “story of the issue of “Khabar” Agency”.
The author accompanies these details (facts) with large number of
quotations, which allows readers answer the questions that interest
the journalist. Therefore, stating “the issue of state support of
the channel”, the author quotes interview of D. Nazarbayeva; also
look “To the journalist’s question, who is the founder of the
channel and how did he receive this frequency “ - the answer (in the
statement) of the minister of culture A. Sarsenbayev.
The journalist, certainly, analyzes all cited facts,
however, the main element of the analysis are rhetorical questions,
asked by the author, since the main task of the author - is to
compare and comprehend the facts (the sources were always specified)
and interpretation of these fatcs. Let’s also note that the entire
analysis is given in the form of assumptions: “I suppose that what’s
been said” - the parenthetic word suppose; “Seemingly, having
decided to secure themselves” - the parenthetic word seemingly;
“mass media experts say” - the sentence, denoting the source of
opinions. The author of the given publication actively uses data and
opinions, formulated by other journalists or other subjects of
informational and political activity, including her own agency as
the whole. Compare: authorized statement with two subjects: one - is
collective subject of speech-activity predicate (“Mass media, close
to governmental circles”), and another subject - is the actual
author of the statement (journalist S. Dylevskaya), expressing her
negative evaluation of way of actions of these mass media: “they
present” - this is ironic synonym of stylistically neutral verb
“they write” - dominates of synonymous row, which is among big
lexicological-semantic field with general meaning “delivery of
information” (say, write, narrate). Moreover, sources of information
and opinions, mentioned in the article, are also D. Nazarbayeva (“By
the way, D. Nazarbayeva herself numerously stated about ideas to
create number of “Khabars” and about retransmission pf “cloned”
channels throughout the entire republic: (interview to the newspaper
“Novoye pokoleniye”: “Today it is clear that”), the government (“And
earlier, in the Spring of (on April 22) 1998 the government issued
decree # 380”), the aforementioned “Kazakhstanskaya Pravda” and some
others (Poly-subjectivity of the text as the linguistic
problem was investigated in the number of works of
Professor G. A. Zolotova). Big revelatory passage regarding role of
D. Nazarbayeva belongs to communist of Kazakhstan’s press Andrey
Sviridov. Let’s us cite (in brief, preserving author’s orthography)
his opinion, as it was also formulated with use of number of
rhetorical techniques of indirect negative evaluation, which the
author was forced to use, as D. Nazarbayeva - daughter of the
President of Kazakhstan N. Nazarbayev: “If a person wants and can
run electronic mass media and he is good in it, then let him do it,
independent of whose offspring he happened to be born. Even more so,
that initial informational programs of “Khabar”, when it was one of
KazTV’s editorial offices, they showed noticeable progress in
comparison with former products of state television company, which
stiffened in the hopeless “Soviet union”. If the new television
company would actually develop in this way only, it would be only
welcomed. If the media-empire headed by the “daughter of Kazakhstan”
could and desired to play by general rules, and not to establish
them for it! And even more so would not strive to keep on changing
these rules during the course of the game…”
6. What is the semantic context of the fragment of
publication disputed by R. M. Aliyev:
“D. Nazarbayeva and her husband - first deputy of
the chairman of the Committee of National Security of the Republic
of Kazakhstan Rakhat Aliyev, own or control (directly or indirectly)
several television and radio networks, informally unified into a
media holding (television channels Khabar, KTK, NTK,
“ORT-Kazakhstan”, radio station “Yevropa plus Kazakhstan”, “Hit FM
Khabar”, “Russkoye radio”, “Radio Retro-Karavan; newspapers “Novoye
pokoleniye”, “Karavan”, “Karavan” publishing house, information
agency “Kazakhstan today”, advertising agency “TV-Media and etc.).
Telecommunication company KATELKO is in the same
row, “Kazakhstan’s broadcasting corporation. In winter of 2000 by
the decree of the government two organizations, who controlled
television and radio transmitting means (transmitters, television
towers, television centers and etc.), were reorganized and rights of
property and use over the state package of stocks of the
newly-fledged organization were handed over to “KVK - Kazakhstan’s
Broadcasting Corporation”, founder of which is a group of legal and
physical entities. Experts ask themselves a question: who would
benefit from privatization of state property?”.
The fragment, cited in the statement of claim, was
quoted partially, taken out of the context. In the publication
itself, this fragment is a part of a paragraph, beginning with the
phrase: “Mass media experts say that today all large mass media of
Kazakhstan actually passed into the ownership of members of the
family of the president of the country, or private individuals,
close to presidential circles”. It is important to note that this is
not the opinion of the author of the article, but mass media
experts, which is denoted by the introductory sentence “Mass media
experts say”. Fragment of the lawsuit statement from the statement
of claim and the paragraph of the publication following the cited
above sentence, thus, may be attributed to confirmation of experts’
opinion. Content of the final phrase (question) of the paragraph:
“Experts ask themselves a question: who would benefit from
privatization of state property?” also denotes that the fragment
cited in the lawsuit, is an argument in favor of correctness of
opinion of mass media experts.
The mentioned fragment lacks evaluative nominations,
regarding personality of the plaintiff. Vocabulary of compatibility
of words in Russian language (edited by P. N. Denisov, V. V.
Morkovkin, edition 2, Moscow 1983) gives such definitions to the
word “personality”, as “human, individual, historic” and some other
non-evaluative definitions, as well as “outstanding, heroic, bright,
dark, suspicious” and etc., giving evaluative qualification. The
aforementioned list demonstrates that composition of lexical meaning
of evaluative adjectives includes categorical axiological component
“good” and “bad”, containing obvious ethical element. Let’s us note
that according to the opinion of the outstanding modern specialist
in Russian philology, corresponding member N. D. Aruyunova,
evaluation as the phenomenon of human perception and attitude toward
the world always contains more or less ethical, moral aspect.
According to the vocabulary of P. N. Denisov and V. V. Morkovkin
PERSONALITY - is “person as a member of society and a bearer of
personal, individual principles; totality of qualities, inherent in
the given person”, and according to - “Explanatory dictionary of
Russian language” S. I. Ozhegov and N. Y. Shvedova it is “A human as
a bearer of some qualities, person (with 3 meanings). 2. pl.
Insulting insinuations, remarks”. The cited abstract doe not have
any of these definitions of personality, as the author of the
article S. Dylevskaya did not set the task of giving evaluation of
personality of R. M. Aliyev - neither in the cited fragment, nor in
the article as a whole.
Let’s us note such textual subjects, as “observers
and television experts” and “Mass media experts”. Trusting them to
express the expert opinion, author of the publication S. Dylevskaya
uses the well-tried rhetoric technique of appealing to authorities
for making her position more persuasive in the eyes of the readers
of the Internet edition. Moreover, thus the author decreases chances
of persecution for criticism, since she uses thoughts from respected
intellectual sources and creates a basis of validity of her
journalist position. Particularly “Mass media experts” are subjects
of opinion in the fragment, which became the reason for the given
lawsuit. It represents one of the last paragraphs of the publication
“Khabarization of the entire country. Part 2” and immediately
follows the paragraph, which contains formulation of the key problem
of the article. Let’s cite the fragment, but not like it was done by
the plaintiff. Let’s break it down to logical-compositional elements
and comment logical structure of the same fragment from point 1 to
point 9. Having cited both paragraphs, already having examined the
entire article in the course of expert analysis, we will try to
understand what character is the main object of criticism in the
given work:
1. Unfortunately, issue on actual owners of the
biggest Kazakhstan’s mass media remains to be top secret. 2. There
is a paradoxical situation, when 3. when from one hand, mass media
are formally independent (meaning non-state, private), and on the
other hand - there is obvious closeness between state structures and
largest television and radio networks. 4. In these conditions
control of society over legality of use of state funds, legality of
receipt and distribution of profits, tax payments and etc. is
impossible. 5. Mass media experts say that 6. today all large mass
media of Kazakhstan actually passed into the ownership of members of
the family of the president of the country, or private individuals,
close to presidential circles. 7. D. Nazarbayeva and her husband -
first deputy head of the Committee of National Security of the
Republic of Kazakhstan Rakhat Aliyev, own or control (directly or
indirectly) several television and radio networks, informally
unified into a media holding ().Telecommunication Company KATELKO is
in the same row, “Kazakhstan’s broadcasting corporation (). 8.
Experts ask themselves a question, 9. who would benefit from
privatization of state property?
The given textual fragment consists of two
paragraphs and is located in the final part of the article. It
contains main observations and conclusions of the author of the
article regarding situation in Kazakhstan’s mass media. Point 1
contains formulation of the main problem of the article regarding
general object of the text. Point 2 evaluates the situation, meaning
contains formulation of the main thesis of the given final fragment
of the article, and point 3 contains arguments to this thesis. Point
4 represents conclusion-consequence from this argument. Points 5 and
8 represent authorized constructions, which contain special speech
subject - “experts”, while this subject is called upon strengthening
by its authority impression made on audience, and disseminate
responsibility for critical opinions, expressed regarding the
general object of the text - “largest mass media of Kazakhstan”.
This is one of techniques “of Aesopian language” in conditions of
limitation of freedom of speech. Point 6 - is the basis for critical
pathos of the article, factitive thesis. Here information is
presented in specific syntactic position. However suggestibility
(non-criticality of perception) of this information is softened by
the verb in modus framework (performative, meaning speech verb “to
say” has less verifying, truth strength, than, for instance, the
verb “to report”). Point 7 is argument-example for the thesis in the
point 6 and personally represents subject for the statement of
claim. It contains information, which the plaintiff considers
untrue. And, finally, point 9 represents indirect statement, made in
the form of rhetoric question. The formulation “Who would benefit
from privatization of state property?” in the suggested
circumstances implies only one thing: “Privatization of state
property was profitable for those who received it”, and from the
previous statements the reader clearly understood: it was the
members of the President Nazarbayev’s family, first of all, D.
Nazarbayeva, not at all R. Aliyev is the main object of criticism of
the analyzed article in the information Internet-based newsletter of
Internews Network in Kazakhstan, which opinion if represented by the
author of the article - journalist S. Dylevskaya.
On the basis of the analysis conducted we may
discover what in this passage (meaning in the point 7) caused the
plaintiff, in his opinion, “irremediable moral damage, expressed in
discomfort, nervous state”. This statement disseminates as something
already known, as an argument to the thesis, data, which he
considers to be untrue. And the plaintiff himself, in his words, is
presented in this phrase as subject of untrue action. Reason of such
perception of the given phrase by the plaintiff as well as by the
potential audience is purely linguistic, but it lies not in the use
of negatively evaluative vocabulary, which is called upon insulting
the personality of the subject and abasement of his honor and
dignity, discrediting him in the eyes of the potential audience.
There is nothing like this. The reason lies in specific syntactic
organization of the phrase, which is typical for Russian language as
a whole and often used in journalist texts of news as well as
analytical character, possessing positive as well as negative
pathos. The analyzed phrase is built so that the data, contained in
it, are perceived as true, although this may be different. Here
linguistic examination is on the border of its application, since
proving truth or untruth of the data contained in the text is beyond
its competence.
However it necessary to add that linguistics
distinguishes event and evaluation of the event, opinion regarding
the event. In addition, if the phrase, containing information on the
event is not subject to linguistic judgment, than this cannot be
said about the phrase, containing evaluative judgment. From the
linguistics’ point of view this is an opinion, meaning statement,
not subject as such to procedure of verification, truth
qualification. In addition, from journalist theory and practice
point of view opinion - is unalienable component of mass media
texts, right to formulate and disseminate which for journalists as
well as other categories of citizens is guaranteed by the
Constitution and national and international legislations on mass
media.
7. What are the most substantial and significant
genre, psycho-linguistic stylistic peculiarities of the text of the
publication “Khabarization of the entire country. Part 2”?
The text was written in genre of the critical
article, essential characteristics of which include presence of
opinions on various important issues of the present. To express
one’s thoughts about on these issues, raise them, provoke interest
of the public to them - is the professional task of the journalism.
Nobody, no official persons can hinder it. Opinions are not
cognizable, and freedom of expression and dissemination of opinions
is recorded in Constitutions of majority of democratic countries as
one of the founding civil liberties and one of the basic rights of
persons. However, information in any journalist text should be
authentic, and opinions verifiable. This is also professional duty
of the journalism, and in case of its non-fulfillment, it should
correct the errors according to the rules, set by the laws and
professional codes. Incorrect information is refuted, and incorrect
opinions are disputed.
We can say with certainty that the text of the
publication does not contain insulting evaluation of the plaintiff’s
personality, and in general of other acting characters of the
publication. We can say with confidence that regarding the plaintiff
and other acting individuals data were disseminated, according to
which the have committed deeds, which may and should become object
of criticism and further investigation (for the plaintiff this
participation of high-ranked state employee in privatization and
utilization of official and marital status). Degree of authenticity
of particularly these data is not defined by linguistic way. Factual
evidences are needed for this purpose, which are not cited in the
article. Information is formulated with support from statements of
various individuals of Kazakhstan’s media process and insufficiently
specifically. Data, disseminated by a journalist, should be true,
and opinions - substantiated by persuasive facts. In case of the
analyzed publication, linguistic experts have some doubts, connected
with language from of presentation of information. What does it
mean, “control directly or indirectly” - what are the “forms” of
this indirectness, what is the degree? What is the meaning of the
definition “unified informally into media-holding” - there is no and
was no documents regarding their unification? Or journalists could
not get them at the right time? In any case validity of actually
serious claims addressed towards D. Nazarbayeva , R. Aliyev and
other characters of the publication (by the way, nameless) should
become the basis for further journalist investigation and be clearly
presented in the text of the publication. Explicitness of evidence
basis of the journalist text allows authors of similar critical
articles to avoid initiation of lawsuits against them.
In general the article “Khabarization of the entire
country. Part 2” makes it its aim based on big factual material and
within the framework of linguistic correctness to draw public
attention to number of problems of media business and activity of
media companies of Kazakhstan. The analyzed text by the expert
committee is very weighted, emotionally reservedly, statement has
objectively establishing character. The author strived to
substantiate logically her statements, as well as evaluative
judgments (which are also reserved, mainly rationally expression) or
with quotes from interviews of official individuals, newspaper
materials, official documents. Confirmation of the given thesis of
experts is the condition that 37 percent of the six-page text
consists of direct quotes and references to documents or their
statement. S. Dylevskaya shows prudence in formulating her
statements, expressing some of them in hypothetical form:
“Seemingly”, “I believe”, “Observers suppose that most likely” etc.
The text of the publication does not have
groundlessly harsh, in terms of expressive evaluation of negative
evaluations of official persons, institutions, mass media bodies.
Doubtlessly the title of the given publication is expressive,
forcing to draw attention to journalist, clearly correspondent to
its content and focusing attention of readers on processes, taking
place in the system of Kazakhstan’s mass media (moreover - local
reader, owning actual fund of background knowledge). At the same
time, the experts consider the title of the publication the only
harsh, journalistically loaded component of the publication, not
transgressing the bounds of linguistic correctness. Expressive
speech means in the analyzed publication are presented extremely
decently and in its majority are attributed to the sphere of
rational evaluations; their expressiveness is characterized by
reserve, peculiar balanced bookish speech, style of statement of
objectively analytical character. Even reservedly-skeptic attitude
(the most dramatic statement that the author permitted herself to
use) is expressed with assistance of expressive speech means of
frugal, “placid” key: “one should not flatter himself in regard to
“modest appetites of the RGP”, “about retransmission of “cloned”
channels”, “Radio “Khabar” as they say “pegging” the plot”,
“gradually training listeners to “the coming” of the media holding”.
Many of similar “expressions” represent figurative-metaphoric use or
neutral words, or stable word-combinations of more narrow meaning
(such as “star hour” or “pegging the plot”) in literature speech.
8. What are, based on analysis of the stylistics,
composition of the publication “Khabarization of the entire country.
Part 2” and semantics of its lexical components, the aims of the
given publication - as a text, addressed through electronic mass
media towards numerous readers?
Influential modern theory of speech acts states that
one of constituting peculiarities of statement as unit of speech
communication is index of elocutional power, meaning that task,
which is realized by speaker concerning listener in order to deliver
necessary information in specific key. The speaker, for instance,
may make it his aim to report information on some event, and may -
show his attitude towards the event, having evaluated it as “good”
or “bad”, meaning to criticize severely or praise it highly, and may
discover special sense of the event - and them interpret it, and if
it is some secret, hidden sense harmful to society - then to
disclose it. Both single statements (minimal speech work) and
full-scale statement - meaning text, have elocutional power. As a
rule, it is formulated as its genre name or its typological position
in the system of journalist genres. In case of the publication
“Khabarization of the entire country. Part 2”, we have a text, which
belongs to genre of the article within the limits of the group of
analytical genres. We define as critical article its specific
(subgenre) attribution. The task (aim, elocutional power) of this
text is formulated by the author on two levels, according to two
objects of publicistic research (singular - Closed Joint-stock
Company “Khabar” Agency” and summarized on republican scale, general
- entire information market of Kazakhstan). Aim of the first level
(specific) is formulated on the very first page in clear form with
the help of the verb, implying specific aspect professional activity
of a journalist: “In this issue we publish details in the closed
joint-stock company “Khabar” Agency”. Aim of the second level
(summarized) was not explicitly (clearly) formulated in the text,
however the reader may formulate it himself. To do this he, first of
all, has the formulation of the main problem, which is raised in the
article on the last page and sounds as deductive conclusion
regarding media situation in the country on the basis of the number
of the aforementioned examples: “Unfortunately, issue on actual
owners of the biggest Kazakhstan’s mass media remains to be top
secret. There is a paradoxical situation, when from one hand, mass
media are formally independent (meaning non-state, private), and on
the other hand - there is obvious closeness between state structures
and largest television and radio networks. In these conditions
control of society over legality of use of state funds, legality of
receipt and distribution of profits, tax payments and etc. is
impossible.” (orthography of the original is retained).
Correspondingly, we define aim of the article as constructive
criticism from the position of interests of the society and in
protection of constitutional regulations. Second of all, critical,
revelatory pathos of the article follows from active use of
evaluative nominations with reference to situation and actions of
number of players of Kazakhstan’s media field, who participate,
judging from, what events are described in the article, in specific
privatization of state mass media illegal financing of private mass
media through the budget of the republic. Here are of course there
are actually verbal evaluations, first- of all, evaluations not of
the plaintiff R. M. Aliyev, but other (although close to him) people
and, second of all, evaluations, formulated quite correctly, within
the limits of norms of literature language, meaning undoubtedly not
insulting.
Example of negative evaluation of situation - is use
of introductive construction “Unfortunately”. In modern syntactic
terms, such construction is defined as modal framework of statement
and as a method of authorization, meaning specific grammatical
method of revelation of speaking subject - creator of the given
statement. This subject is able not only to describe state of
affairs in the world (offer a listener, audience - in general, so
called dictum information), but also to uncover one’s attitude
towards it (offer modus information audience). Journalist as the
author always expresses not only his personal attitude, not so much
personal interests, as attitude and interests of some group of
people. The key phrase of the entire article that we have cited
clearly distinguishes this group - it is the “society”, meaning
civil society, which control over activity of Kazakhstan’s mass
media is impossible, according to the opinion of the editorial
office as collective author (collective orator, according to the
term of the famous philologist, rhetoric theorist and problems of
mass media Y. V. Rozhdestvenski).
Web-site users (which include audience of Internet
newsletter of the representative office of “Internews Network” in
Kazakhstan) on post-soviet space certainly do not belong to mass
reader. This is intellectual elite, which reads almost all of what
has been said in journalist texts (at least almost everything that
was put in there by journalists) even in implicit, underlying form.
Therefore, the audience certainly received information regarding
continuation of privatization of Kazakhstan’s mass media and who are
the present owners of mass media. However, what conclusions were
drawn by it (those that were suggested by the editorial office and
which the plaintiff fears, or some independent conclusions), need to
be investigated independently as this audience has quite high
barriers of perception criticality.
The entire publication of S. Dylevskaya represents
journalist investigation based on data, which the editorial office
possesses, as well as other representatives of media space of
Kazakhstan. Topic of this research is of vital importance, the
problem represents important public interest, and therefore,
addressing it is more than natural. Journalist has a right to raise
morbid themes of the present; this is its specific task, inalienable
part of professional activity.
Chairman of the Board of M. V. GORBANEVSKI
The Guild of linguistic experts on documentary and informational
disputes,
Doctor of philological sciences,
Professor of the department of General and Russian language science
At the Russian university of friendship of nations,
Vice-president of Association of amateurs of Russian philology
Deputy chairman of the Board of V. M. SHAKLEIN
The Guild of linguistic experts on documentary and informational
disputes,
Doctor of philological sciences, Member of RAEN academy,
Head of the department of Russian language and methods of its
instruction
At the Russian university of friendship of nations
Actual member Y. A. Belchikov
Of the Guild of linguistic experts on documentary and informational
disputes,
Doctor of philological sciences,
Professor of the department of General and Russian language science
At the International university,
Member of the Board of Association of amateurs of Russian philology
Actual member Y. S. Kara-Murza
Of the Guild of linguistic experts on documentary and informational
disputes,
Candidate of philological sciences,
Senior lecturer of the department of stylistics of Russian language
Of the journalism faculty at Moscow university named after M. V.
Lomonosov
Actual member A. S. Mamontov
Of the Guild of linguistic experts on documentary and informational
disputes,
Doctor of philological science,
Professor of the department of methods, pedagogics and psychology
At the State institute of Russian language named after A. S. Pushkin,
Deputy dean of the International Slavic institute named after G. R.
Derzhavin |