The legacy of al-Farabi and Abay in the media rhetoric of the twenty-first century
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26577/HJ.2020.v55.i1.07Keywords:
media rhetoric, media space, media discourse, media picture of the world, media phe- nomenon.Abstract
This year is marked by two anniversaries — the 1150th anniversary of the great scientist and philoso- pher of the medieval East Abu Nasr al-Farabi and the 175th anniversary of the outstanding Kazakh poet and educator Abay Kunanbayuly. The authors ‘ scientific observation focuses on the formation of a new socio-cultural paradigm. Modern mediadiscourse is recognized by scientists and public figures as the main cultural factor of the era, requiring a comprehensive, polyhumanistic understanding, which gives relevance to the presented study.
The purpose of this study is to establish a mechanism for reflecting a cultural event using media rhetoric tools. The legacy of al-Farabi and Abay Kunanbayuly, whose anniversaries are celebrated by the civilized world, acquires multiple resonance and modern sound thanks to rhetorical and information resources.
The originality of the research approach lies in the two-fold composition of the object of study: the heritage of the great humanists of the past and the specificity of the media space of the present. Media rhetoric as a discursive practice has a necessary tool that is involved in the formation of the media picture of the world. Thanks to mass media, universal values in the heritage of great humanists become available to modern consumers of information. Historical figures themselves are perceived as media translators of cultural achievements and civilizational ideas that are equally important for the world human commu- nity. In the course of observation and application of scientific methods, the authors come to the conclu- sion that media rhetoric techniques are productive in the formation of the modern cultural and political context. Moral lessons of great humanists, presented in the format of event marketing, contribute to the deep assimilation of national history. A rhetorical appeal to the authority of historical figures places the necessary and timely accents in accordance with the logic of the modern cultural and political context. The practical significance of the results of the work is aimed at the use of media-rhetorical tech-
niques in the Humanities and in the professional activities of practical journalists and public figures.
The value of the study is to discover and comment on the mechanism of media rhetorical techniques involved in the formation of the media picture of the world.
References
Лабиринт. – С. 15-164.
Antaki C., Leudar I. (1991). Recruiting the Record: Using Opponents’ Exact Words in Parliamentary Argumentation // Text.
Vol. 21. – № 4. P. 467-488.
Barthes R. (1977). Rhetoric of the Image // Heath S. (ed.). Image, Music, Text. New York: Hill and Wang. – P. 32-51. Bell A. Language and the Media / A. Bell // Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. – 1995. – Vol. 15. – P. 23-41.
Болотнова Н. С. Вариативность отражения новости в медиадискурсе как медийная коммуникатвная универсалия // Вестник ТГПУ, Выпуск 2 (191). – Томск, 2018. – С.61-68.
Ван Дейк Т. 2013. Дискурс и власть: Репрезентация доминирования в языке коммуникации. Пер. с англ. – М.: Книжный дом «ЛИБРКОМ», 344.
Гришанина-Мошкина О.В. Речевой оптимал в аспекте медиариторики // Международный научно-исследовательский журнал. Выпуск №4(46). Ч. 7. 2016. – С.70-72.
Лебедева А.П. Специальные мероприятия как инструмент коммуникационной политики/ А. П. Лебедева // Вестник ГУУ. – 2013. – № 23. – Минск, 2013. – С. 65-69.
Мусихин Глеб Политическая риторика как квазисимволизация?// Социологическое обозрение. 2016. т. 15. №2. – С.66-86. Скокова Т.В. Медиариторические приемы «Независимой газеты» во время освещения конституционного кризиса 1992–
1993 гг. //Научные ведомости. Серия: Гуманитарные науки. 2019. Том 38, No 2. – С.275-285.
Dryzek J. (2002). Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dryzek J. (2010). Rhetoric in Democracy: A Systemic Appreciation // Political Theory. Vol. 38. № 3. P. 319-339.
Fetzer A. Political Discourse in the Media: Cross–cultural Perspectives / ed. A. Fetzer, G. E. Lauerbach. – Amsterdam : J. Benjamins, 2007. – 379 p.
Finlayson, 2007; Finlayson, Martin, 2008). Finlayson A. (2007). From Beliefs to Arguments: Interpretive Methodology and Rhetorical Political Analysis // British Journal of Politics and International Relations. Vol. 9.
Matheson D. Media Discourses: Analysing Media Texts / D. Matheson. – London : Open Univ. Press, 2005. – 265 p. Skinner Q. (2002). Visions of Politics: Regarding Method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. 1.
Toulmin, 2003. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Valentino, N. A., & Nardis, Y. (2013). Political communication: Form and consequence of the information environment. In L. Huddy, D. O. Sears, & J. S. Levy (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political psychology (p. 559–590). Oxford University Press.
Van Zoonen L., Vis F., Mihelj S. (2011). YouTube Interactions Between Agonism, Antagonism and Dialogue: Video Responses to the Anti-Islam Film Fitna // New Media and Society. Vol. 13. №8. P. 1283-1300.
Шомова, С. А. Медиариторика как метод политической PR-коммуникации [Текст] / С. А. Шомова // Вестник Москов- ского университета: серия 10. Журналистика. – М., 2003. – №4. – С.49-60.
References
Annenkova I.V. 2012. Mediaritorika: osnovnye napravleniya isslrdovanyi. [Rhethorics of media: main ways of researches] In: Medialmanah, No1: 6-13.
Antaki C., Leudar I. (1991). Recruiting the Record: Using Opponents’ Exact Words in Parliamentary Argumentation // Text.
Vol. 21. № 4. P. 467-488.
Aristotel’, Perevod s drevnegrecheskogo N. Platonovoy, redactor Takho-Godi A. A. (1978). Ritorika [Rhetoric]. Antichnyye ritoriki, pp. 15-164
Barthes R. (1977). Rhetoric of the Image // Heath S. (ed.). Image, Music, Text. New York: Hill and Wang. P. 32-51.
Bell A. Language and the Media / A. Bell // Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. – 1995. – Vol. 15. –
P. 23-41.
Bolotnova N. S. (2018) Variativnost’ otrazheniya novosti v mediadiskurse kak mediynaya kommunikatvnaya universaliya [Variability of reflecting news in a media discourse as a media communicative universal]. Vestnik TGPU, vol. 2, pp. 61-68.
Dryzek J. (2002). Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dryzek J. (2010). Rhetoric in Democracy: A Systemic Appreciation // Political Theory. Vol. 38. № 3. P. 319-339. [Dryzek, 2010: 327] Fetzer A. Political Discourse in the Media: Cross–cultural Perspectives / ed. A. Fetzer, G. E. Lauerbach. – Amsterdam : J.
Benjamins, 2007. – 379 p.
Finlayson, 2007; Finlayson, Martin, 2008). Finlayson A. (2007). From Beliefs to Arguments: Interpretive Methodology and Rhetorical Political Analysis // British Journal of Politics and International Relations. Vol. 9.
Grishanina-Moshkina O.V. (2016) Rechevoy optimal v aspekte mediaritoriki [Optimal speech in the aspect of media rhetoric].
Mezhdunarodnyy nauchno-issledovatel’skiy zhurnal, vol. 4, pp. 70-72.
Lebedeva A.P. (2013) Spetsial’nyye meropriyatiya kak instrument kommunikatsionnoy politiki [Special events as an instrument of communication policy]. Vestnik GUU, No23, pp.65-69.
Matheson D. Media Discourses: Analysing Media Texts / D. Matheson. – London : Open Univ. Press, 2005. – 265 p. Musikhin G. (2015) Politicheskij mif kak raznovidnost’ politicheskoj simvolizacii [The Political Myth as a Kind of Political
Symbolization]. Obshhestvennye naukiisovremennost’, No5, pp. 102-117.
Shomova S.A. 2003. Mediaritorika kak metod politicheskoi pr-kommynikaczii. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seria 10.
Zhurnalistika, No4: 49-60.
Skinner Q. (2002). Visions of Politics: Regarding Method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. 1.
Skokova T.V. 2019. Mediatrices methods of “the Independent newspaper» during coverage of the constitutional crisis of 1992- 1993. Belgorod State University Scientific Bulletin. Humanities series, (38) 2: 275-285. (In Russian). DOI: 10.18413/2075-4574- 2019-38-2-275-285.
Toulmin, 2003. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Valentino, N. A., & Nardis, Y. (2013). Political communication: Form and consequence of the information environment. In
L. Huddy, D. O. Sears, & J. S. Levy (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political psychology (p. 559–590). Oxford University Press. Van Dijk.2013. Discours I vlast: Reprezentacziya dominirovaniya v yazike kommynikaczii. Per. C angl. M.: Kniznyi dom
«LIBRKOM», 344.
Van Zoonen L., Vis F., Mihelj S. (2011). YouTube Interactions Between Agonism, Antagonism and Dialogue: Video Responses to the Anti-Islam Film Fitna // New Media and Society. Vol. 13. №8. P. 1283-1300.
