SEMIOTIZATION OF POLITICAL TOXICITY IN THE MEDIA SPACES OF THE USA, GREAT BRITAIN AND UKRAINE: A MULTIMODAL ASPECT

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32589/2311-0821.1.2022.263132

Keywords:

multimodality, semiotization, toxic language, toxic political communication, verbal, paraverbal, extralingual, United States, Great Britain, Ukraine

Abstract

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

Published

2022-08-26

Issue

Section

Articles