Verbal-representative characteristics of «Civil War» conceptual field as a linguistic analysis (textual level)

Bystrov Nikita Aleksandrovich ORCID: 0009-0005-9683-7116 Postgraduate student; Department of English Linguistics; Lomonosov Moscow State University 121615, Russia, Moscow, Rublevskoe, 18k1 nikbyst.notabene@yandex.ru

The political text stands out among all texts of other genre orientations by the significant role of the influence function. In addition, politicians and journalists strive to create a complex system of images and associations in order to influence their audience with its help. These features reveal the need to study political discourse from communicative, pragmatic and conceptualogical positions.

The linguistics of the text is closely related to the concepts of "cohesion" and "coherence". The phenomenon of cohesion is understood by many linguists as the interconnection of elements within the text itself, whereas coherence is such an organization of the elements of discourse that the author's intention is understandable to the addressee ^{[1, p. 2]}. In other words, "we are talking about internal (structural) and external (pragmatic) connectivity" ^{[2, p. 40]}.

This judgment illustrates the strong links between the concepts of cohesion and coherence and the field of linguopragmatics. As a field of research, "pragmatics" arose in the second half of the 20th century, when Charles Morris introduced this concept into scientific circulation, separating pragmatics from semantics and syntactics and indicating that it concerns the relationship of signs and their interpreters, that is, the speaker and the perceiver ^{[3, p. 6-7]}. Indeed, the question of interpretation is extremely important when analyzing the pragmatic aspects of a text. As the researchers note: "the same event can be verbalized in different ways, which subsequently affects how the event is remembered and then recalled" ^{[4, p. 702]}. From the point of view of the theory of speech acts ^{[5; 6]}, the research importance is acquired by "what action the speaker performs or tries to perform using an utterance, what goals he wants to achieve at the same time" (from I. M. Kobozev, Intentional and cognitive aspects of semantic utterance: dis. Doctor of Philology, p. 112). Such statements, or speech acts, from the point of view of their target setting are units of pragmatic research ^{[7, p. 106]}

There are different opinions on whether pragmatics should be considered an independent discipline or should be included in linguistics. Thus, I.P. Susov introduced the term "pragmalinguistics", the field of study of which is defined by the researcher as the study of the use of natural human language by people as an instrument of social action and interaction in specific communication situations based on social postulates and strategies ^{[8, p. 5]}. On the other hand, proponents of the idea of distinguishing pragmatics and linguistics argue that the object of pragmatics research cannot be reduced only to linguistic material ^[9], the social, cultural and emotional sides of communication should also be taken into account ^{[10, p. 50; 11, p. 14-15]}.

Despite all the discrepancies, one way or another, researchers agree that pragmatics aims to explore the patterns of language use in real communication situations. The object is also considered to be for what purposes and under what conditions a particular utterance was generated, as well as how the signs are interpreted by both the speaker and the recipient/recipients.

Let's turn to the term "concept". Specialists in the field of conceptology define the concept as "the main cell of culture in the mental world of man" ^{[12, p. 40]}. There are different views on the structure of the concept. On the one hand, researchers identify the conceptual, metaphorical and value sides of the concept ^{[13, p. 3325]}. On the other hand, the concept has a nuclear peripheral structure with basic (nuclear), near-nuclear and peripheral semantic elements ^{[14, p. 96]}.

The concept includes "synthesis of language and ethnic identity, language and society, language and culture" ^{[15, p. 122]}. This statement illustrates the close relationship between concept and language, expressed in the fact that many phenomena of conceptualization are reflected in language ^{[16, p. 756]}. Some researchers point out that "a language sign can also be likened to a switch – it turns on a concept in our consciousness, activating it as a whole and "triggering it in the process of thinking"" (from Z. D. Popov, I. A. Sternin. Cognitive Linguistics: educational edition, p. 38).

And although concepts, as facts of consciousness and culture, manifest themselves in language, they may not find a one-word expression ^{[17, p. 17]}. For this reason, the representation of the concept can occur in different forms of linguistic expression: individual lexemes, phraseological formations, as well as entire texts ^{[18, p. 90]}.

It can be concluded that behind the concept there are always verbally inexpressible associations and images with which the language system interacts. At the same time, such images and associations often belong to the entire ethnic group. Social reality is conceptually mediated and does not exist without various interpretations and interpretations ^{[19, p. 9]}.

As mentioned earlier, the concept can be expressed in linguistic units of different volumes. Let's illustrate this judgment with examples of the verbal representation of the concept of "Civil War" in the article "Trump Voters Are America Too", published in the American magazine "The Atlantic" (from Leibovich M. Trump Voters Are America Too. The Atlantic).

The concept of "Civil War" is one of the key concepts of the American conceptual sphere. Let us explain that researchers call the concept sphere a set of national concepts ^{[20, p. 150]}. The modeling of the concept consists in the analysis of "dictionary interpretations of units representing the concept, and taking into account speech contexts" ^{[21, p. 1223]}.

Let's analyze the dictionary definitions of the phrase "civil war" in the dictionaries Cambridge Online Dictionary, Britannica, Dictionary.com , Oxford Learners Dictionary, Collins Dictionary. For example, the Cambridge Online Dictionary offers the following definition: "a war fought by different groups of people living in the same country" (Cambridge Dictionary Online: civil war), which generally coincides with the definitions given by other dictionaries. Let's also turn to specialized dictionaries. Thus, The Concise Dictionary of Politics and International Relations defines: "state violence should be sustained and reciprocated, with significant numbers of accidents" (from Brown G. W., McLean I., McMillan A. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics and International Relations. Civil War). These definitions allow us to identify the following, but, of course, not the only components of the content side of the concept that can be defined as nuclear: "division" (which is due to the division within one national community) and "violence" (which is motivated by a large number of civilian casualties). The absence of significant differences in definitions indicates that the concept has high conceptual stability, that is, "in the communicative space, the probability of mismatch of associative connections in the conceptual apparatus of the addressee and the addressee is extremely low and, as a result, erroneous interpretation" ^{[22, p.12]}.

To identify ways of verbal representation of the concept in the text, it is necessary to analyze individual structural and substantive elements of the text: the title of the article, lexical and lexical-phraseological means, as well as various intertextual inclusions. For ease of analysis, all examples will be numbered.

The title of the article, "Trump Voters are America Too" (1), speaks about the implicit division of modern American society, implying that some part of American society is not "America". Thus, this structural element is a representative of the component of the linguistic meaning "division".

Let's consider examples of the use of lexical structural elements in terms of their conceptual content. So, in the text of the pronoun "they" in all its invariants (2). In the text, the pronoun "they" is used six times, the pronoun "them" twice, and "their" five times to describe supporters of ex-President Donald Trump. Phrases like "they're every bit as American" and "their noisy new savior" allow the author to distance himself and his audience from those people to whom the article is dedicated, contrasting himself with them. Such distancing "depersonalizes" opponents, turning them into a faceless mass of "they", which can lead to even greater alienation in society. Such use of pronouns allows us to conclude that this structural element is a means of representing the concept of "Civil War" and its component of the content area "division".

The component of the meaning of "division" is also implicitly expressed in the text by other lexical means. So, the verb "to reconcile" can serve as a means of expressing such an opposition (3): "If Trump wins in 2024, his detractors will have to reckon once again with the voters who got us here – to reconcile what it means to share a country with so many citizens who keep watching Trump spiral deeper into his moral void and still conclude, "Yes, that's our guy"". According to the Cambridge Dictionary, the analyzed verb has two meanings: «1. to find a way in which two situations or beliefs that are opposed to each other can agree and exist together; 2. to adjust the way you think about a fact or situation that is opposed to another fact or situation so that you can accept both» (Cambridge Dictionary Online: to reconcile). It can be said that with the help of this verb, the author conveys the idea of the need to reconcile opposing ideas, which indicates the existence of a division according to certain parameters. However, it is also important to take into account the third dictionary meaning of the verb: "to reconcile yourself to a situation is to accept it even if it is unnecessary or painful, because it cannot be changed." This definition suggests that the proposed reconciliation is unpleasant, and draws a conclusion about the agonal nature of the lexical means used.

In addition to the lexical units themselves, more complex means can be used to express the components of the content field of the concept (4): "When political elites insisted "We're better than this!" – a close cousin of "This is not who we are" – many Trump disciples heard "We're better than them"". In this passage, there is a transmission of direct speech simulating a hypothetical dispute between supporters of two political parties. The juxtaposition of two almost identical phrases "We're better than this!" and "We're better than them" allows us to talk about creating an image of a divided society where two opposite sides are antagonistic and even hostile to each other. Thus, it can be concluded that in this passage, through imitation of direct speech, the components of "division" and "confrontation" find their representation.

Now let's turn to examples of the use of intertextual inclusions, which also represent the concept of "Civil War". First of all, the case-law texts taken as sources of such inclusions are interesting.

The text uses the phrase "That's not who we are" (5), which was often used by former President Barack Obama in his political speeches. At the same time, the frequency of use was so high that a video appeared on the YouTube video hosting where the 44th president of the United States utters it 46 times in total (from the Washington Free Beacon Youtube channel, 46 Times President Obama told Americans 'That's Not Who We Are'). With this phrase, the speaker clearly separates the actions that are peculiar to the American nation (i.e. related to "we") and actions that are uncharacteristic for it, which means that the people who commit them are implicitly excluded from "we" and become "they". Many Americans, opponents of the policy of the Obama administration, considered this an attempt to label them in the eyes of the public as "non-Americans" (from Scalia, C.J. Why Obama says 'That's not who we are': Column. USA Today). By itself, the phrase creates a split in society, divides it into categories. It is also interesting that in response to such a division, some opponents of the politician began to exacerbate the split, manifesting their even greater distance from a certain stratum of American society (6): "I am not sure who the "we" is that he constantly refers to. Does he mean the Muslims, the Liberals, the Pro-Abortion crowd, the Climate Change nazis…who? Because as a president who is anti-Israel, anti-America, pro-Muslim and pro-abortion, I am certainly not part of any "we" crowd that includes him" (from Grider, G. Mind Control: 46 Times President Obama Repeated the Phrase 'That's Not Who We Are'. Now The End Begins).

Another phrase that is used in the analyzed article is the phrase "When they go low, we go high", said by Michelle Obama in support of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016. Her full version was as follows (7): "When someone is cruel or acts like a bully, you don't stoop to their level. No, our motto is: 'When they go low, we go high'" (from Ng, K. Michelle Obama explains her catchphrase 'When they go low, we go high'. Independent). In this context, it becomes clear that the pronouns "their", "our", "they" and "we" are designed to demonstrate the differences between the two political poles of American society, to separate them and distance them from each other. The latter purpose is also served by the highly evaluative adjective "cruel" and the noun "bully", which stigmatize opponents and increase antipathy between the parties. The verb "to stoop" is also evaluative here, which, according to the Cambridge Online Dictionary, means "to bend the top half of the body forward and down." Thus, the reader gets the impression that one part of American society seems to rise above the other, while the actions of the opponents of the speaker and her entourage are a downward movement, and their actions are a upward movement.

Thus, it can be concluded that the sources selected for the article perform pronounced agonal and divisive functions designed to show the division of American society.

It is necessary to pay attention to the author's reaction to the second statement (8): "In retrospect, so many of the high-minded appeals of the Obama era – "We are the ones we've been waiting for"; "When they go low, we go high" – feel deeply naive." It uses an adjective with an extremely positive connotation of "high-minded", which the Cambridge Online Dictionary defines as "having very high moral standards of behavior". From this definition, it can be concluded that the author supports the meanings inherent in the quoted phrases and retransmits them to his audience, although he admits their naivety and inconsistency with reality.

Despite the fact that this work pays primary attention to the conceptual structure of "Civil War", we note that the text presents a whole conceptual complex (i.e., "a set of interacting concepts implemented within this discourse in order to solve a common conceptual problem" ^{[23, pp. 88-89]}), as indicated by the presence of The text of the examples contains the deployment of the meanings of other conceptual structures. For example, the text contains vocabulary related to religious practices (9): "their noisy saviour", "many Trump disciples", "portent", "thoughts and prayers". In these lexical means, the conceptual structure of "Faith" finds its representation, which hides a figurative series associated with the Christian faith, Jesus Christ (saviour) and his disciples-apostles (disciples).

In addition, the text contains the deployment of the component of the "confrontation" value, implemented using the phrase (10) "murder weapon" repeated twice. This component is located at the intersection of the content areas of two concepts: "War" and "Civil War", which differ in a set of nuclear components, but nevertheless are in close semantic kinship.

The set of examples of verbal unfolding of conceptual structures present in the text is aimed at fulfilling a single communicative and pragmatic task of conveying the central idea of the entire text: the division of American society into antagonistic groups. At the same time, the author's intention is to show one group better than the other, for which the means shown in examples 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are used. Thus, the verbal representation of the conceptual structure serves the purposes laid down in the text by the author, and also contributes to the correct and initially conceived interpretation on the part of the recipient. In addition, the agonal potential of the text (that is, to inspire readers of the publication with an aggressive attitude towards representatives of the opposite camp) helps to reveal the means described in examples 4, 7, 10.

The influence of the communicative and pragmatic parameters of the text on the interpretation of what is written can be illustrated using example 9, where the author laid down religious images. This figurative series is used to describe the US presidential candidate Donald Trump and his supporters, whom the author implicitly compares to the Christian Messiah and his flock, who are driven not by reason, but by blind faith in their "savior". Thus, the described part of American society in the eyes of the readers of the publication is represented by a journalist in the form of "fanatics" with whom one cannot have anything to do, but with whose existence one will have to put up and with whom one will have to share the country (example 3). This image also contributes to the representation of the "division" component, which is the nuclear element of the semantic field of the Civil War concept. This example clearly illustrates the ability of the components of the semantic field of concepts to intersect within the framework of discourse, creating a complex picture or hierarchy of images in the mind of the addressee of the text.

In conclusion, for an adequate analysis of the verbal and representative characteristics of conceptual structures at the textual level, it is necessary to analyze individual structural and substantive elements of the text. The conceptual content of each of the elements creates in the addressee's mind a complex system of images and associations, including overlapping conceptual areas. Thus, the verbal representation of such a complex is aimed at achieving a certain communicative and pragmatic effect, through which the communicant seeks to inspire his audience with the desired meanings and influence their behavior and interpretation of events.