QUANTITATIVE AND LINGUOAXIOLOGIC ANALYSIS OF SPEECHES IN THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL (RUSSIAN DIPLOMATIC DISCOURSE)

Aim. Analysis of some speeches of Permanent representatives of the Russian Federation to the UN Security Council from the view of linguoaxiology and quantitative linguistics for revealing formal and axilogic characteristics of speeches, on the one hand, and the pragmatic extralinguistic purposes of the speeches on the other. Methodology. The article considers the axiological approach to texts in general and ways of expressing evaluation in diplomatic speeches, linguistic and conceptual problems arising from the interpretation of evaluation words and constructions in the perception of diplomatic discourse texts. The study is conducted by computer content analysis. The sample of speeches by S.V. Lavrov from the archive of the UN Security Council was studied by means of computer content analysis, a concordance was obtained for each text of the speech, allowing semantic and linguo-axiological analysis, followed by lemmatization of word forms and a list of hyperlexemes. Results. The conclusion is made about the degree of evaluative emotion of speeches in the UN Security Council, the use of communicative strategies and tactics to achieve the pragmatic goal of resolving complex conflict issues within the framework of diplomatic discourse. Research implications. The suggested analysis algorithm allows processing of the big text files of speeches for consecutive studying a diplomatic discourse of long periods of time. In the final part of the article views on other ways of text computer research, in particular, automated sentiment-analysis, for more full and objective analysis of diplomatic discourse are formulated.

UN, Security Counsil, quantitative analysis, axiology, estimation, Permanent Representative, diplomatic discourse

1. Арутюнова Н. Д. Типы языковых значений. Оценка. Событие. Факт. М.: Наука, 1988. 341 с.

2. Беляков М. В. Характер эмотивности дипломатического дискурса // Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Лингвистика. 2015. № 2. С. 124-132.

3. Беляков М. В., Максименко О. И. Академический аспект дипломатического дискурса // Социальные и гуманитарные науки на Дальнем Востоке. 2019. T. 16. № 1. С. 61-67.

4. Водак Р. Язык. Дискурс. Политика. Волгоград: Перемена, 1997. 139 с.

5. Карасик В. И. Дискурсивное проявление личности // Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Лингвистика. 2016. Т. 20. № 4. С. 56-77.

6. Кожин А. Н., Крылова О. А. Функциональные типы русской речи. М.: Высшая школа, 1982. 224 с.

7. Красина Е. А. Дискурс, высказывание и речевой акт // Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия Лингвистика. 2016. Т. 20. № 4. С. 91-103.

8. Никольсон Г. Дипломатия. М.: ОГИЗ политической литературы, 1941. 154 с.

9. Сатоу Э. Руководство по дипломатической практике / пер. С. А. Панафидина, Ф. А. Кублицкина. М.: Госполитиздат, 1961. 496 с.

10. Brown P., Levinson S. C. Politeness: some universals on language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. 346 р.

11. Huang Y. Pragmatics: Language use in context // Routledge Handbook of Linguistics / ed. A. Keith. London, New York: Routledge, 2016. Р. 205-220.

12. Johnstone B. Discourse Analysis. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford Blackwell Publishing, 2008. 336 р.