Deconstruction of the semantic opposition the leader vs the led in terms of the conflict potential of media discourse (analysis of an interview with D. Trump)

Purpose of research. The paper analyses a televised interview with the American presidential candidate D. Trump at the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) with the aim of revealing the role of conflict behavior of a TV journalist in deconstructing the semantic opposition “the leader – the led” which is regarded as the basic principle of TV interviews, and in emotionally destabilizing the opponent with a view to manipulating him into making frontpage news.
Methods. The main research method is structural analysis which reveals the role of the semantic opposition “the leader – the led” in constructing the communicative space of media discourse. Methods of linguo-stylistic and linguo-semiotic analysis serve to identify the role of verbal and non-verbal means in bringing to the surface the hidden emotions of the participants in the media event, and to identifying the contribution of emotional manifestations to deconstructing the underlying opposition and changing communicative roles.
Results. The article proves that in media discourse the situational semantic opposition “the leader – the led”, with the journalist playing the main role, can be reversed due to its conflict with the social status opposition, where the lead is played by a statesman or a politician. Deconstruction of the opposition “the leader – the led” can be provoked by the presenter’s aggressive behavior as he/she refuses to take into account the high status of the guest trying to trick him into some scandalous confession or statement.
Conclusion. The emotional field of the media space is structured so as to provide conditions for scandalous statements and unexpected revelations. Investigations into the ways of structuring the media space with regard to the means of its emotionalization is important for a deeper understanding of the underlying processes. This knowledge has practical value as it can be used in the course of preparing and holding interviews, debates, PR campaigns, and while analysing various social events.

1. Bystrov M.V. Cerebral foundations of the binary culture. Voprosy kul'turologii = Cultural issues. 2008;(9):13-17. (In Russ.).

2. Volkova P.S. Binary as universal principle of the universe. Gumanitarnye, social'noekonomicheskie i obshchestvennye nauki. Seriya: Istoricheskie nauki. Kul'turologiya. Politicheskie nauki = Humanities, socio-economic and social sciences. Series: historical sciences. Cultural science. Political sciences. 2019;(3-4):25-30. (In Russ.).

3. Wittgenstein L. Culture and Value. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1980. 94 p.

4. Horina G.P. Ideology in the system of culture. Moscow; 2007. (In Russ.).

5. Voevodina L.N. Culture as the ideological foundation of society. Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta kul'tury i iskusstv = Bulletin of Moscow state university of culture and arts. 2010;(3):20-25. (In Russ.).

6. Shahovskij V.I. Linguistic theory оf emotions аnd its foundations. Voprosy psiholingvistiki = Journal of psycholinguistics. 2019;(1):22-37. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.30982/2077-5911-2019-39-1-22-37.

7. Ionova S.V. Emotional dominant of the text: some linguistic aspects of research. Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya 2. Yazykoznanie = Science journal of Volgograd State University. Linguistics. 2023;22(1):13-27. (In Russ.).

8. Dmitrieva D.D. Concepts of emotionality, expressivity and evaluation in communicative linguistics. Regional'nyj vestnik = Regional journal. 2018;(6):27-29. (In Russ.).

9. Troiano E. Where are Emotions in Text? A Human-based and Computational Investigation of Emotion Recognition and Generation. 2023. Available at: https://elib.uni-stuttgart.de/bitstream/11682/13671/1/Troiano.pdf (accessed 01.09.2024)

10. Wierzbicka A. Emotional Universals. 1999. Available at: http://elies.rediris.es/LanguageDesign/LD2/wierzbicka.pdf (accessed 01.09.2004)

11. Komalova L.R. Aggressogen discourse: the multilingual aggression verbalization typology. Moscow: Sputnik+; 2020. 277 p. (In Russ.).

12. Sedov K.F. Aggression and manipulation in daily communication. Yurislingvistika = Juridical Linguistics. 2005;(6):87-103. (In Russ.).

13. Prokof'eva V.Yu. Synergistic strategies of television interview. In: Sovremennye SMI v kontekste informacionnyh tekhnologij: Sbornik nauchnyh trudov 5-oj Vserossijskoj nauchnoprakticheskoj konferencii = Collection of scientific papers of the 5th All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference. St. Petersburg; 2019. P. 131-134. (In Russ.).

14. Mohammed S.J., Ahmed M.B. Discourse Markers Functions in Social Interviews. Journal of Tikrit University for Humanities, 2018;25(1):353–374. Available at: https://doi.org/10.25130/jtuh.25.1.2018.14 (accessed 01.09.2024)

15. Biyumena A.A. Provocative tactics of playing by the rules in a TV interview. In: Manipulyacii i socium: yazyk, soznanie, kul'tura: Sbornik auchnyh trudov = Manipulation and society: language, consciousness, culture. Collection of scientific works. Kaliningrad: Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University; 2023. P. 93-95. (In Russ.).

16. Fu Y., Ho V. Discourse markers in TV interviews: a corpus-based comparative study of Chinese and the western media. Frontiers in Psychology. 2022. Available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1063158/full (accessed 01.09.2024)

17. Shvec A.A. Status inequality and asymmetric conflicts in international relations. Konfliktologiya = Conflictology. 2019;14(2):200-208. (In Russ.).

18. Yashina N.V. Communicative failures in tv interviews (on the material of the American variant of the English language). Verhnevolzhskij filologicheskij vestnik = Verhnevolzhski philological bulletin. 2017;(2):66-70. (In Russ.).

19. Karasik V.I. Language of social status. Moscow: Institut yazykoznaniya AN SSSR, Volgogradskij pedagogicheskij institute; 1991. 495 p. (In Russ.).

20. Lotman Yu.M. The structure of literary text. In: Ob iskusstve = About arts. St.-Petersburg; 1998. (In Russ.).

21. Markov I.V. Implementation of negative politeness strategies in American talk show discourse. In: Aktual'nye problemy lingvistiki: vzglyad molodyh issledovatelej = Current problems of linguistics: the view of young researchers. Chelyabinsk: Enciklopediya; 2018. Vol. 3. P. 65-72. (In Russ.).

22. Van Dijk T.A. Discourse and manipulation. Discourse and society. 2006;17(2):359-383.