Linguistic Discussion In The Context Of The Soviet Journalese Discourse

Linguistic and pragmatic characteristics

The rhetoric of the speeches of both parts has some common linguistic and pragmatic features which display close connection of the present discussion with the Soviet journalese polemical discourse. The genre of the discussion accounted for the abundance of the lexical means which express the evaluative meanings, among which the rational ones dominate: utilitarian, teleological, intellectual, true-false, quantitative (this classification is based on the theory by N.D. Arutyunova, 1988). As a rule, the object of evaluation is the teaching of N.Y. Marr, his friends and opponents, the figure of N.Y. Marr himself, the Soviet and western (“bourgeois”) linguistics, the teaching of the fathers of Marxism-Leninism. Below are the examples of the evaluative lexical units in the materials of the discussion:

• utilitarian evaluation: … надежная теоретическая база [… nadezhnaya teoreticheskaya baza…] … reliable theoretical base; … основополагающие утверждения Маркса, Энгельса, Ленина, Сталина [… osnovopolagayushchie utverzhdeniya Marksa, Engel'sa, Lenina, Stalina…]… basic premises of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin; …статья проф. Арн. Чикобава очень острая, резкая и нужная […stat'ya prof. Arn. Chikobava ochen' ostraya, rezkaya i nuzhnaya ] … the article by prof. Arn. Chikobava is very poignant, acute and necessary;

• teleological evaluation : исследовательские приемы академика Н.Я. Марра не отвечают требованиям марксистского диалектического метода… [issledovatel'skie priemy akademika N.Ya. Marra ne otvechayut trebovaniyam marksistskogo dialekticheskogo metoda…] … the research methods of N.Y. Marr don’t meet the requirements of the Marxist dialectical method …; … изжившие себя каноны буржуазного языкознания перестали удовлетворять наиболее мыслящих языковедов…[… izzhivshie sebya kanony burzhuaznogo yazykoznaniya perestali udovletvoryat' naibolee myslyashchikh yazykovedov…] outdated canons of the bourgeois linguistics have stopped to satisfy the needs of the most reflecting linguists …;

• intellectual: … бесспорная заслуга, роль акад. Марра огромна и неоспорима … [ besspornaya zasluga, rol' akad. Marra ogromna i neosporima ] … the achievement is undoubted , and role of acad. N.Y. Marr is great and undeniable; … особый интерес представляет та часть работ Н.Я. Марра … [ osobyy interes predstavlyaet ta chast' rabot N.Ya. Marra…] this part of the works by N.Y. Marr is of special interest; точные языковедные указания Маркса, Энгельса, Ленина и Сталина… [… tochnye yazykovednye ukazaniya Marksa, Engel'sa, Lenina i Stalina…]… exact linguistic instructions by Mrx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin …; … прекрасно изложены в гениальном произведении товарища Сталина… [… prekrasno izlozheny v genial'nom proizvedenii tovarishcha Stalina…]… beautifully stated in the genius work by comrade Stalin …; …… самое удивительное в поведении наших языковедов заключается… [… samoe udivitel'noe v povedenii nashikh yazykovedov zaklyuchaetsya…]… the most curious fact in the behaviour of our linguists is that; застой , в состоянии которого оказалось наше языкознание… [… zastoy , v sostoyanii kotorogo okazalos' nashe yazykoznanie…]... the stagnation in which our linguistics found itself …; застойность нашего советского языковедения… [… zastoynost' nashego sovetskogo yazykovedeniya…] the stagnation state of our Soviet linguistics …;

• true-false: понятие классового языка внутренне противоречиво , научно несостоятельно… [ponyatie klassovogo yazyka vnutrenne protivorechivo , nauchno nesostoyatel'no…] the notion of the class language is intrinsically contradictory , scientifically invalid …; принципиальные ошибки теории Н. Я.Марра… [printsipial'nye oshibki teorii N. Ya.Marra…] the fundamental errors of N.Y. Marr’s theory …; … неправильные положения лингвистической теории акад. Н.Я. Марра [… nepravil'nye polozheniya lingvisticheskoy teorii akad. N.Ya. Marra]… wrong issues of the linguistic theory by acad. N.Y. Marr; ошибочные высказывания… [oshibochnye vyskazyvaniya…] erroneous statements …;… ошибочные построения… [… oshibochnye postroeniya…]… erroneous arguments …; … лженаучные построения… [ lzhenauchnye postroeniya…] pseudoscientific arguments …; лицемерие и лживость буржуазной терминологии [ litsemerie i lzhivost' burzhuaznoy terminologii] … hypocrisy and falsehood of the bourgeois terminology …;

• quantitative: … грандиозное языковое строительство [… grandioznoe yazykovoe stroitel'stvo] … grand language construction; исключительный теоретический интерес… [ isklyuchitel'nyy teoreticheskiy interes …] outstanding theoretical interest …; …нельзя не удивляться великому дерзанию советского ученого… грандиозности его замыслов и значительности достигнутых им результатов […nel'zya ne udivlyat'sya velikomu derzaniyu sovetskogo uchenogo… grandioznosti ego zamyslov i znachitel'nosti dostignutykh im rezul'tatov] … one can’t but admire the great endeavour of the Soviet scientist … the immensity of his ideas and the magnitude of the achieved results.

The emotional evaluation is expressed inconsistently, in the structure of ideological metaphors: … сияющие своды марксистско-ленинской науки о языке… [… siyayushchie svody marksistsko-leninskoy nauki o yazyke…]… shining arches of the Marxist-Lenin language science; … затхлое болото буржуазного языкознания… [… zatkhloe boloto burzhuaznogo yazykoznaniya…] … stuffy bog of the bourgeois linguistics … ( Discussions, 2009; G. Sanzheev. Pravda. May 23, 1950).

The axiological ‘friend-foe’ opposition is the characteristic feature of the polemical discourse (Chernyavskaya & Molodychenko, 2014; Karasik, 2015; Koshkarova, 2017). We consider this opposition to be the key one for this discussion. The ideologemes, “the verbally shaped politically charged issues” (Kupina, 2014: 55), serve as the main means of the verbal representation of the above-mentioned opposition. These ideologemes are always connected with the definite general evaluative meaning. The following words and expressions belong to these ideologemes: Soviet, Marxist, Leninist, materialistic (“friend” → “value” → positive evaluation), bourgeois, western, idealistic, comparative and historical linguistics (“foe” → “anti-value” → negative evaluation). In the speeches of the discussion’s participants this lexis labels the defined object as belonging to the circle of “friends” (which is good) or, on the contrary, to the circle of “foes” (which is bad) rather than expresses the relevant notion, e.g.: Борясь с лженаучными построениями буржуазной идеалистической лингвистики, советские ученые строят подлинную науку о языке, материалистическое языкознание на основах диалектического и исторического материализма (Дискуссии, 2009: И. Мещанинов. Правда. 16.05.1950). [ Boryas' s lzhenauchnymi postroeniyami burzhuaznoy idealisticheskoy lingvistiki, sovetskie uchenye stroyat podlinnuyu nauku o yazyke, materialisticheskoe yazykoznanie na osnovakh dialekticheskogo i istoricheskogo materializma (Diskussii, 2009: I. Meshchaninov. Pravda. 16.05.1950)] . Fighting with the pseudoscientific arguments of the bourgeois idealistic linguistics the Soviet scientists build a genuine science about language, materialistic linguistics on the principles of the dialectical and historical materialism (Discussions, 2009: I. Meshchaninov. Pravda. May 16, 1950); Он первый из лингвистов дореволюционной формации освободился от многих предрассудков буржуазно-идеалистической науки о языке и вступил в ожесточенную, непримиримую борьбу с ними во имя материалистической лингвистики (Дискуссии, 2009: В. Виноградов. Правда. 06.06. 1950). [ On pervyy iz lingvistov dorevolyutsionnoy formatsii osvobodilsya ot mnogikh predrassudkov burzhuazno-idealisticheskoy nauki o yazyke i vstupil v ozhestochennuyu, neprimirimuyu bor'bu s nimi vo imya materialisticheskoy lingvistiki (Diskussii, 2009: V. Vinogradov. Pravda. 06.06. 1950)] . He was the first among the linguists of the pre-revolutionary breed who got rid of the majority of prejudices of the bourgeois and idealistic science about language and entered the desperate and irreconcilable struggle for the sake of the materialistic linguistics (Discussions, 2009: V. Vinogradov. Pravda. June 6, 1950).

In the framework of the ‘friend-foe’ opposition the usage of the ideologemes could serve as a manipulative means of the opponent’s discreditation not only as a scientist but also as a trustworthy citizen. Academician I.I. Meshchaninov’s statement about the scientific viewpoint of the principles N.Y. Marr’s opponent A.S. Chikobava could serve as an example in this context: Советский период творчества Марра, характерный наиболее важными для нас творческими трудами уже сложившегося советского ученого, оценивается лишь отрицательно (Дискуссии, 2009: И. Мещанинов. Правда. 16.05.1950). [ Sovetskiy period tvorchestva Marra, kharakternyy naibolee vazhnymi dlya nas tvorcheskimi trudami uzhe slozhivshegosya sovetskogo uchenogo, otsenivaetsya lish' otritsatel'no (Diskussii, 2009: I. Meshchaninov. Pravda. 16.05.1950)]. The Soviet period of Marr’s activity which is characterised by the most important works by the mature Soviet scientist is estimated only negatively (Discussions, 2009: I. Meshchaninov. Pravda. May 16, 1950) .

Metaphor usage

In the process of labeling of the ‘friend-foe’ opposition, metaphors, namely the metaphor of language construction (“friends” − build, “foes” − ruin), play a great role: задач языкового строительства нашей Родины [zadach yazykovogo stroitel'stva nashey Rodiny]urgent tasks of language construction of our Motherland; советское языкознание… будет строиться на основополагающих указаниях Маркса, Энгельса, Ленина, Сталина о языке [sovetskoe yazykoznanie… budet stroit'sya na osnovopolagayushchikh ukazaniyakh Marksa, Engel'sa, Lenina, Stalina o yazyke] Soviet linguistics … will be built on the basic instructions about language of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin; советские ученые строят подлинную науку о языке, материалистическое языкознание [sovetskie uchenye stroyat podlinnuyu nauku o yazyke, materialisticheskoe yazykoznanie] Soviet scientist build true science about language, materialistic linguistics and so on. In the context of discussion this metaphor has an evaluative function which is to a great extent determined by extra-linguistic factors. During the country’s revival after the devastating war the vocabulary of the thematic group “construction” acquires positive connotation which, in its turn, is transmitted from the words of target sphere to the metaphor.

The usage of the metaphor of the language construction in the context of the cognitive metaphor of war contributed to the forming of the evaluative semantics. The metaphor of war symbolises the search of the only right vector of the Soviet linguistics’ development: по этому пути, по пути исторического и диалектического материализма, и должно идти далее советское языковедение [po etomu puti, po puti istoricheskogo i dialekticheskogo materializma, i dolzhno idti dalee sovetskoe yazykovedenie ] the Soviet linguistics should go further along this road, along the road of historical and dialectical materialism; освободив его высказывания от ошибочных отклонений от правильно взятого им пути [osvobodiv ego vyskazyvaniya ot oshibochnykh otkloneniy ot pravil'no vzyatogo im puti] having unchained his statements from the erroneous deviations from the correctly taken track and so on. Both the metaphor of the language construction and the metaphor of way turn out to be ideologically determined because the label the “friend’s” position. On the whole, this system of images coincided with the epistemological scientific paradigm of that time.

The ‘friend-foe’ opposition whose implication is the ideological confrontation is also reflected in the destructive metaphors of war, struggle, and restrain which are also coherent with the rhetoric of the Soviet discourse: Весь огонь своей критики направили на дискредитацию всей фактической стороны исследований акад. H. Я. Марра (Дискуссии, 2009: Ф. Филин. Правда. 30.05.1950) [ Ves' ogon' svoey kritiki napravili na diskreditatsiyu vsey fakticheskoy storony issledovaniy akad. H. Ya. Marra (Diskussii, 2009: F. Filin. Pravda. 30.05.1950)]. The fire of criticism was aimed at the discreditation of acad. N.Y. Marr’s scientific position (Discussions, 2009: F. Filin. Pravda. May 30, 1950); Таким построениям буржуазной лингвистики Н. Я. Марр наносит решительный удар и опрокидывает одну за другой все ведущие установки идеалистической науки о языке (Дискуссии, 2009: И. Мещанинов. Правда. 16.05.1950). [ Takim postroeniyam burzhuaznoy lingvistiki N. Ya. Marr nanosit reshitel'nyy udar i oprokidyvaet odnu za drugoy vse vedushchie ustanovki idealisticheskoy nauki o yazyke (Diskussii, 2009: I. Meshchaninov. Pravda. 16.05.1950)] . N.Y.Marr makes a determined attack at such arguments of the bourgeois linguistics and overthrows one by one the leading guideposts of the idealistic science (Discussions, 2009: I. Meshchaninov. Pravda. May 16, 1950); Широкий размах научно-исследовательской мысли Марра в подавляющем большинстве случаев оказывается скованным железным обручем весьма немногочисленных основополагающих теоретических положений (Дискуссии, 2009: Б. Серебренников. Правда. 23.05.1950). [ Shirokiy razmakh nauchno-issledovatel'skoy mysli Marra v podavlyayushchem bol'shinstve sluchaev okazyvaetsya skovannym zheleznym obruchem ves'ma nemnogochislennykh osnovopolagayushchikh teoreticheskikh polozheniy (Diskussii, 2009: B. Serebrennikov. Pravda. 23.05.1950)]. A vast scale of the scientific-research thought predominantly turns out to be chained by the hoop of the rare fundamental theoretical points (Discussions, 2009: B. Serebrenninkov. Pravda. May 23, 1950).

Syntactic level

The common linguistic and pragmatic features of the speeches are also demonstrated on the syntactic level. The question-answer complexes, negative and adversative constructions are actively used in the participants’ speeches and perform important text functions. Interrogative sentences determining the topic of the speech and highlighting the main semantic part of the text stir up and guide the reader’s attention. The range of interrogative sentences in the beginning of the text performs two functions: they convey the essence of the text in the form of an abstract and outline the structure of the speech: В этой связи необходимо разобраться в вопросе: что собою представляет теория акад. Н. Я. Марра? Насколько правомерно замещать марксизм-ленинизм в языкознании теорией Н. Я. Марра? Что требуется для развития советской лингвистики, основанной на подлинно научных принципах марксизма-ленинизма? (Дискуссии, 2009: Арн. Чикобава. Правда. 09.05.1950). [ V etoy svyazi neobkhodimo razobrat'sya v voprose: chto soboyu predstavlyaet teoriya akad. N. Ya. Marra? Naskol'ko pravomerno zameshchat' marksizm-leninizm v yazykoznanii teoriey N. Ya. Marra? Chto trebuetsya dlya razvitiya sovetskoy lingvistiki, osnovannoy na podlinno nauchnykh printsipakh marksizma-leninizma? (Diskussii, 2009: Arn. Chikobava. Pravda. 09.05.1950)] . In this connection we must see into a matter: what do the works by acad. N.Y. Marr correspond to? How appropriate is it to substitute Marxism-Leninism in linguistics by N.Y. Marr’s theory? What is necessary for the development of the Soviet linguistics which is based on the truly scientific principles of Marxism-Leninism? (Discussions, 2009 : Arn. Chikobava. Pravda. May 9, 1950).

In the conclusion of the text the interrogative sentences briefly refresh the author’s position and perform a pragmatic function determined by the genre of the discussion, namely they outline the polemic bitterness of the article and an open, unfinished character of the discussion: Означает ли все вышесказанное то, что Н. Я. Марр должен быть совершенно отброшен и советское языкознание должно строиться совершенно заново? Думается, что такой вывод был бы неверным (Дискуссии, 2009: Б. Серебренников. Правда. 23.05.1950). [ Oznachaet li vse vysheskazannoe to, chto N. Ya. Marr dolzhen byt' sovershenno otbroshen i sovetskoe yazykoznanie dolzhno stroit'sya sovershenno zanovo? Dumaetsya, chto takoy vyvod byl by nevernym (Diskussii, 2009: B. Serebrennikov. Pravda. 23.05.1950)]. Does it mean that N.Y. Marr should be rejected and the Soviet linguistics must be built from the very beginning? It seems that such a conclusion would be wrong (Discussions, 2009: B. Serebrenninkov. Pravda. May 23, 1950).

But it should be noted that interrogative sentences are more often used as a constructive element of the question-answer complexes the aim of which is the explication of the author’s position. The evaluation of the other’s point of view is expressed with the various degree of categorical wording at that, hence the manipulative character of these question-answer complexes is manifested to different extents.

The interrogative sentences which include the ideologemes demonstrate the highest degree of categorical wording. The aim of such sentences is to discredit the other’s point of view by means of expression doubt in the ideological coherence of the scientist’s position to “right way” of linguistics’ development: Если исследовательские приемы академика Н. Я. Марра не отвечают требованиям марксистского диалектического метода, то где искать выход? Этот выход состоит в применении в языковедческих исследованиях марксистско-диалектического метода, основные черты которого прекрасно изложены в гениальном произведении товарища Сталина «О диалектическом и историческом материализме» (Дискуссии, 2009: Б. Серебренников. Правда. 23.05.1950). [ Esli issledovatel'skie priemy akademika N. Ya. Marra ne otvechayut trebovaniyam marksistskogo dialekticheskogo metoda, to gde iskat' vykhod? Etot vykhod sostoit v primenenii v yazykovedcheskikh issledovaniyakh marksistsko-dialekticheskogo metoda, osnovnye cherty kotorogo prekrasno izlozheny v genial'nom proizvedenii tovarishcha Stalina «O dialekticheskom i istoricheskom materializme» (Diskussii, 2009: B. Serebrennikov. Pravda. 23.05.1950)]. If N.Y. Marr’s research techniques don’t meet the requirements of the Marxist dialectical method where should we find the way out? The way out is in the usage of the Marxist dialectical method in the linguistic research the main points of which are stated in the genius work “Dialectical and Historical Materialism” by comrade Stalin (Discussions, 2009: B. Serebrennikov. Pravda. May 23, 1950).

The categorical wording is achieved by means of the general negative sentence which is used in response. The negation in this general negative sentence applies to the predicate and is updated by a range of specific negative components: Где, когда и кем доказано, что все слова всех языков земного шара восходят к четырем элементам (Сал, Бер, Йон, Рош)? Нигде, никем и никогда это не было доказано (Дискуссии, 2009: Арн. Чикобава. Правда. 09.05.1950). [ Gde, kogda i kem dokazano, chto vse slova vsekh yazykov zemnogo shara voskhodyat k chetyrem elementam (Sal, Ber, Yon, Rosh)? Nigde, nikem i nikogda eto ne bylo dokazano (Diskussii, 2009: Arn. Chikobava. Pravda. 09.05.1950)]. Where, when and who proved the fact that all the words of the world languages trace their origin to the four elements (Sal, Ber, Yon, Rosh)? It hasn’t been proved by nobody and anywhere . (Discussions, 2009: Arn. Chikobava. Pravda. 09.05.1950).The stylistic device of incomplete syntactic parallelism alongside with the lexical and root repetitions adds to the categorical wording and expressive character of evaluation. The manipulative potential of such constructions is rather strong as they “signal about the active interference of the author into argumentation. It is expressed in the categorical imposing of the author’s point of view and in the addressee’s “pressure” (Nephyodov, 2015).

The less categorical evaluation is expressed in such question-answer complexes where the response has a supposition modality: Мы не можем поэтому не спрашивать себя, чему мы объективно служим, отстаивая значение именно сравнительно-исторического метода, хотя бы как одного из методов языковедения в области истории языка? Что говорит в нас? полученная ли школа? привычка? инерция? неумение оценить перспективы, открывающиеся с других позиций? неспособность преодолеть пережитки буржуазного сознания? Вряд ли (Дискуссии, 2009: Л. Булаховский. Правда. 13.06.1950). [My ne mozhem poetomu ne sprashivat' sebya, chemu my ob"ektivno sluzhim, otstai¬vaya znachenie imenno sravnitel'no-istoricheskogo metoda, khotya by kak odnogo iz metodov yazykovedeniya v oblasti istorii yazyka? Chto govorit v nas? poluchennaya li shkola? privychka? inertsiya? neumenie otsenit' perspektivy, otkryvayushchiesya s drugikh pozitsiy? nesposobnost' preodolet' perezhitki burzhuaznogo soznaniya? Vryad li (Diskussii, 2009: L. Bulakhovskiy. Pravda. 13.06.1950)]. We can’t but ask ourselves what kind of things we serve, defending the meaning of exactly the comparative and historical method which can be at least one of the linguistics method in the area of the history of language? What motivates us? received education? habit? inertness? the inability to estimate the perspectives from other points of view? the failure to overcome the remnants of the bourgeois consciousness? Hardly. (Discussions, 2009: L. Bulakhovskiy. Pravda. June 13, 1950). The constructions of this kind perform several functions which are determined by the genre specifics and the discursive conditions in which the discussion took place. The discussion on the issues of linguistics which was held on the pages of the mass Soviet newspaper includes the elements of the scientific and mass-media discourse. It should be underlined that in the conflict discourse of the mass-media the interrogative constructions “let the author convey the negative information quite safely for himself” (Popkova, 2015: 163). In the scientific discourse one of the functions of the question-answer complexes is “notional catching or generalization of what was said before with the aim of the following disputing and reinterpretation but from the alternative point of view” (Nephyodov, 2015).

The latter can be applied to the adversative constructions with the conjunctions но (but), однако (however) which are used to introduce the “foe” position (in the first part of the construction) and “friend” position (in the second part of the construction). In our opinion, such constructions are relevant to the constructions of concessive assumption when the speaker in the first part “intentionally makes a concession, agrees with somebody’s opinion, has to put up with something”, and in the second part he expresses his “true point of view” (Toptygina, 2011): Все сказанное выше, конечно, не означает, что в теории Н. Я. Марра нет ошибочных и спорных положений. Но из этого отнюдь не следует вывод, который делает проф. Чикобава, что теорию Н. Я. Марра надо отбросить (Дискуссии, 2009: Н. Чемоданов. Правда. 23.05.1950). [ Vse skazannoe vyshe, konechno, ne oznachaet, chto v teorii N. Ya. Marra net oshibochnykh i spornykh polozheniy. No iz etogo otnyud' ne sleduet vyvod, kotoryy delaet prof. Chikobava, chto teoriyu N. Ya. Marra nado otbrosit' (Diskussii, 2009: N. Chemodanov. Pravda. 23.05.1950)]. The above-mentioned facts don’t mean that N.Y. Marr’s theory doesn’t contain erroneous and contradictory points. But it doesn’t ensure the conclusion made by prof. Chikobava that N.Y. Marr’s theory should be rejected (Discussions, 2009: N. Chemodanov. Pravda. May 23, 1950); Советские лингвисты так или иначе продолжают дело акад. Марра, когда они в борьбе с буржуазно-идеалистическим языкознанием строят материалистическую лингвистику, опирающуюся на марксизм-ленинизм. Однако установить исторические закономерности семантических изменений слов на разных стадиях развития языка и связать эти закономерности с законами истории общественной жизни, открытыми марксизмом, Н. Я. Марру не удалось (Дискуссии, 2009: В. Виноградов. Правда. 06.06.1950). [ Sovetskie lingvisty tak ili inache prodolzhayut delo akad. Marra, kogda oni v bor'be s burzhuazno-idealisticheskim yazykoznaniem stroyat materialisticheskuyu lingvistiku, opirayushchuyusya na marksizm-leninizm. Odnako ustanovit' istoricheskie zakonomernosti semanticheskikh izmeneniy slov na raznykh stadiyakh razvitiya yazyka i svyazat' eti zakonomernosti s zakonami istorii obshchestvennoy zhizni, otkrytymi marksizmom, N. Ya. Marru ne udalos' (Diskussii, 2009: V. Vinogradov. Pravda. 06.06.1950)]. The Soviet linguists in this or that way continue hand on the lamp of prof. Marr when they struggle with the bourgeois and idealistic linguistics, build the materialistic linguistics which is based in Marxism-Leninism. However, N.Y. Marr didn’t manage to establish the historical regularity of the words’ semantic changes on different stages of the language development; he didn’t manage to connect these regularities with the history laws of the social life opened in Marxism (Discussions, 2009: V. Vinogradov. Pravda. June 6, 1950).

The antitheses without conjunctions means but with the juxtaposition also contain emotional evaluation and are highly expressive. Such constructions very often contain metaphors and repetitions on different levels: В свое время элементный анализ загнал в тупик лингвистическую теорию акад. Н. Я. Марра. Ныне – с восстановлением в правах элементного анализа – в тупик попадает вся лингвистическая работа (Дискуссии, 2009: Арн. Чикобава. Правда. 09.05.1950). [ V svoe vremya elementnyy analiz zagnal v tupik lingvisticheskuyu teoriyu akad. N. Ya. Marra. Nyne – s vosstanovleniem v pravakh elementnogo analiza – v tupik popadaet vsya lingvisticheskaya rabota (Diskussii, 2009: Arn. Chikobava. Pravda. 09.05.1950)]. In due time the element analysis got N.Y. Marr’s linguistic theory into a tight place. Now – alongside with the rehabilitation of the element analysis – the whole linguistic work is in a tight place (Discussions, 2009: Arn. Chikobava. Pravda. May 9, 1950).

We strongly believe that question-answer complexes and adversative constructions which represent contradictory points of view, expressive character of some parts of the discussion perform, alongside with the ideologemes, perform a manipulative function. In this respect we stand in full solidarity with T.V. Romanova who thinks that even amid overt criticism and evaluation some speech devices and language means “play an important role in imposing your own point of view on a reader” (Romanova, Malafeev, Morozova, Klimova (Fokina), 2017: 70).