SEMIOTIZATION OF POLITICAL TOXICITY IN THE MEDIA SPACES OF THE USA, GREAT BRITAIN AND UKRAINE: A MULTIMODAL ASPECT
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32589/2311-0821.1.2022.263132Keywords:
multimodality, semiotization, toxic language, toxic political communication, verbal, paraverbal, extralingual, United States, Great Britain, UkraineAbstract
The article attempts to build a multimodal model of toxic political communication and determine
common and distinctive features of the semiotization of political toxicity in the media environment of
the United States, Great Britain and Ukraine. Toxic political communication is interpreted as a type of
interaction characterized by a high degree of aggressive (verbal and/or paraverbal) behavior of various
participants in the political discourse, which causes moral harm or discriminates against the opponent
based on race, nationality or gender resulting in such politician(s) being perceived and then defined as
toxic. The constructed model of toxic political communication takes into account multimodal mechanisms
of the discursive expression of toxicity (verbal, paraverbal, extralingual), modes of expanding the toxic
effect (direct, indirect, and mediated), mechanisms of perception and image formation of politicians
(toxic vs. positive) in the media environment of the respective countries.
We determined that toxicity is manifested in derogatory statements by politicians, which contain
insults, name-calling, ridiculing, emotional and inclusive utterances aimed at polarization and causing
psychological and/or image damage to participants in the political debate (opponents). Toxic paraverbal
co-speech means are divided into prosodic and gestural-mimic forms, which include aggressive, caustic,
derogatory, paternalistic, pompous tone of speech, gestures that violate the personal boundaries of the
interlocutor, exaggerated facial expressions. Extralingual forms of toxic communication include poster
colors, electoral campaign symbols, clothing, rally sites, music, etc., which intensify the damaging effect
of actions/utterances of a politician who is defined as toxic in the media.
We found that contrasting forms of the semiotization of political toxicity in the media environment of
the United States, Great Britain and Ukraine are determined by the relevant information agendas for each
of the countries, for example, racism and intolerance towards migrants (USA), Partygate (Great Britain),
zrada (betrayal) vs. peremoha (victory) (Ukraine) and others. Common to the three linguistic cultures is
the aggressive type of politician-speaker, whose utterances/behavior are prone to dramatizing and aimed
at causing psychological damage to the opponent’s personality through direct or indirect derogatory
images accompanied by prosodic, gestural and facial emphases.
References
Шкворченко, Н. (2021a). Лінгводискурсивна модель токсичної політичної
комунікації в медіасередовищах США, Великої Британії й України. Актуальні
питання іноземної філології, 14, 125-133.
Шкворченко, Н. (2021б). Токсичные информационные контенты в политической
коммуникации США, Великобритании и Украины. Knowledge, Education, Law,
Management, 3(39) 2, 121-126.
Шкворченко, Н. М. (2021в). Токсичний політичний дискурс у США й Україні:
когнітивно-дискурсивні контрасти. Записки з романо-германської філології,
(46), 127-134.
Chipidza, W. (2021). The effect of toxicity on COVID-19 news network formation in
political subcommunities on Reddit: an affiliation network approach. International
Journal of Information Management, 61, 102397. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijinfomgt.2021.102397
Coe, K., Kenski, K., & Rains, S. A. (2014). Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants
of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication, 64(4),
-679. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12104
Coleman, P. T. (2021). The way out: how to overcome toxic polarization. New York,
NY: Columbia University Press.
Gervais, B. T. (2014). Following the news? Reception of uncivil partisan media and the
use of incivility in political expression. Political Communication, 31(4), 564-583. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2013.852640
Glass, L. (1995). Toxic people: 10 ways of dealing with people who make your life miserable.
NY: Simon & Schuster.
Haina, B. (2021). The language of outrage: defining and communicating outrage and
incivility via social media during the charlottesville protests. The Journal of Social
Media in Society, 10(2), 58-75. https://www.thejsms.org/index.php/JSMS/article/
view/733/543
Hate speech and polarization in participatory society. (2022). Pérez-Escolar, M., &
Noguera-Vivo, J. M. (Eds.). (1st ed.). London, UK: Routledge. Taylor and Francis.
Hiaeshutter, D.-R., & Hawkins, I. (2022). The language of extremism on social media: an
examination of posts, comments, and themes on Reddit. Frontiers in Political Science.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2022.805008
Kim, B. (2020). Effects of social grooming on incivility in COVID-19. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking, 23(8), 519-525. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/
cyber.2020.0201
Kim, J. W., Guess, A., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2020). The distorting prism of social media:
how self-selection and exposure to incivility fuel online comment toxicity. Journal of
Communication, 71(6), 922-946. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab034
Leite, J. A., Silva, D. F., Bontcheva, K., & Scarton, C. (2020). Toxic language detection
in social media for brazilian portuguese: new dataset and multilingual analysis. arXiv
preprint arXiv: 2010.04543. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2010.04543
Liboiron, М., Tironi, М., & Calvillo, N. (2018). Toxic politics: Acting in a permanently
polluted world. Social Studies of Science, 48(3), 331-349. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1177%2F0306312718783087
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. (s.a.). https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/
uncivil
Pavlíková, M., Šenkýřová, B., & Drmola, J. (2021). Propaganda and Disinformation Go
Online. In: Gregor, M., Mlejnková, P. (Eds.), Challenging online propaganda and
disinformation in the 21st century (pp. 43-74). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-
-9_2
Shkvorchenko, N., Cherniaieva, I., & Petlyuchenko, N. (2021). Linguistic approaches
and modern communication technologies in political discourses in Europe and the
USA (contrastive aspect). Cuestiones Políticas, 39(70), 821-837. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.46398/cuestpol.3970.49
Shkvorchenko, N. (2022). How politicians become toxic: expression of toxicity in utterance
& action & gesture. Proceedings of 2nd International Antalya Scientific Research and
Innovative Studies Conference, March 17-21, 2022, Antalya, Turkey, 156-158.
Steffan, D. (2021). Visual politics: investigating the visual communication strategies of
political parties and candidates from a longitudinal and comparative perspective.
Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Tirrell, L. (2017). Toxic speech: toward an epidemiology of discursive harm. Philosophical
Topics, 45(2), 139-162.
Toxic truths: Environmental justice and citizen science in a post-truth age. (2020). Davies,
T., & Mah, A. (Eds.). Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Xia, Y., Zhu, H., Lu, T., Zhang, P., & Gu, N. (2020). Exploring antecedents and
consequences of toxicity in online discussions: a case study on Reddit. Proceedings
of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 4(CSCW2), 1-23. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1145/3415179
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
1. Authors take full responsibility for the content of the articles as well as the fact of their publication.2. All the authors must follow the current requirements for publication of manuscripts. Plagiarism itself and its representation as the original work as well as submission to the editorial office previously published articles are unacceptable. In case of plagiarism discovery the authors of the submitted materials take all the responsibility.
3. Authors shall inform the editor of any possible conflict of interests which could be influenced by the publication of the manuscript results.
4. The editorial board has the right to refuse publication of an article in case of non-compliance with these requirements.