LINGUISTIC AXIOLOGICAL MODELING OF CONFLICTBETWEEN PROPONENTS AND OPPONENTS OF THE PEACEINITIATIVES BY PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE VOLODYMYRZELENSKY

Abstract

The article is devoted to the discursive projections of the discussion about President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky and his peace initiatives. The articles about these initiatives published in the internetnewspaper «Ukrainska Pravda» were analyzed. It was selected for investigating the preparing for the Paris Summit on 9th December 2020 and reactions to its results. This discourse attracts attention due to the huge number of negative evaluations given to the traditionally positive value PEACE and to the actions directed towards gaining of it.

The research has been carried out in the cognitive discoursive paradigm and critical discourse analysis. Those are approaches which let us open the meanings input by a speaker in the text sometimes unconsciously. It should be noted that investigation of hybrid wars highlights the great role of hided meanings in it. The original method of axiological dynamic modeling has been used to open these meanings. With its help, process and results of axiological categorization can be presented as an axiological propositional structure. Thus, the denoted situation «Peace initiatives by President of Ukraine Zelensky at the Paris Summit 2019» has been modeled with the propositional axiological frame.

This frame contains such structural components:

the subject of evaluation – Ukrainians, whose articles or comments were published in the internet-newspaper «Ukrainska Pravda»;

the predicate of evaluation – «I think that my opinion is reliable and socially acceptable enough to become public»;

the object of evaluation – President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky, his political power and party, his peace initiatives and the value Peace as such;

the predicate of evaluation: (1) positive and negative valences for the same objects, that give the reasons to say about axiological conflict; (2) criteria of evaluation – ACKNOWLEDGMENT, DEMOCRACY, JUSTICE, PATRIOTISM, POWER (SOCIAL STATUS), RESULT, SECURITY.

As far as criteria of evaluation correlate with the value concepts of a speaker, one can say that those are the value concepts which become the basis for categorization of this situation. As regards the reason of the conflict, its sources can be such: (1) participants of the conflict share similar values but put them on different places in their hierarchical value systems; (2) different opinions about denotative meanings of mentioned values, first of all about meanings of the concepts SECURITY and PEACE.