1. SHV
  2. All Volumes and Issues
  3. Volume 6, Number 2, 2020
  4. Emotionality and Intertextuality in Official Discourses of Post-Soviet Authoritanian States (Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Russia) [Research Article]

Emotionality and Intertextuality in Official Discourses of Post-Soviet Authoritanian States (Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Russia) [Research Article]

SHV.
2020;
Volume 6, Number 2
: 21-27
https://doi.org/10.23939/shv2020.02.021
Received: July 01, 2020
Accepted: September 27, 2020
Authors:
  1. Nataliia Steblyna
1
Vasyl Stus’ Donetsk National University

Official discourses of Kazakhstan, Belarus and Russia are discovered with formal analysis in the article. The official discourses were represented with presidents’ web-sites. With the help of computer programs (Python language) the indicators of emotionality, direct and indirect intertextuality were calculated. The low emotionality and direct intertextuality are characteristic features of all three discourses. This underlines low intensity (or formality) of political interrelations. Average indicators of Kazakhstan and Russia discourses emotionality are (0,26; 0,24), for Belarus (0,39). These indicators are almost two times smaller, than in countries with more democratic regimes. Additionally, two types of authoritarian discourses are differentiated: more emotional and sporadic (Belarus) and less emotional stable (Kazakhstan, Russia). The positive correlation between the discourses of Kazakhstan and Russia (0,84) is discovered. Thus, similar periods of the discourses development are found: with more salient emotionality (before 2013) and unemotional period afterwards. For Belarus and Russia the periods with high indicators for indirect intertextuality (2012-2014, 2016-2017; and 2005-2010 – respectively) are discovered. The indicators’ values are explained with political interrelations imitation. The big amount of political texts (more than a half, sometimes – 80-90%) are congratulations and commemorations of authoritative leaders towards political actors’ form international community. The small period of such texts domination for Kazakhstan (2011-2012) is differentiated. Thus, the imitation of political interrelations with communication for Russia and Belarus is studied; however, this feature is not a characteristic one for Kazakhstan discourse. It’s concluded that all three discourses have artificial character of political interrelations in official discourses, which can be discovered with clear templates usage for all the political texts.

діджиталізація
official discourse
Kazakhstan
Belarus
russia
authoritarism
  1. Akhmetova, L. (1997). On the Patriotism and the Ideology of the National Political System. Bulletin KSNU, 1, 79-86.
  2. Balzer, H. (2003). Managed Pluralism: Vladimir Putin's Emerging Regime. Post-Soviet Affairs, 19(3), 189-227. https://doi.org/10.2747/1060-586X.19.3.189
  3. Biryukov, N., & Sergeev, V. (2018). Russian Politics in Transition Institutional Conflict in a Nancent Democracy. Abingdon: Routledge.https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429424977
  4. Dvorak, J. (2019). Belarus. In D. Merskin (Ed.). The SAGE International Encyclopedia of Mass Media and Society, 160-162. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.
  5. Evans, A. B. (2008). Power and Ideology: Vladimir Putin and the Russian Political System. Pittsburgh: The Carl Beck Papers.https://doi.org/10.5195/CBP.2008.139
  6. Hutchenson, D., & Korosteleva, E. A. (2006). Preface. In D. Hutchenson, E. Korosteleva . (EDs.).The Quality of Democracy in Post-Communist Europe, 8-12. Abingdon: Routledge.https://doi.org/10.1002/masy.200690130
  7. Il’chenko, M. (2012). Inertia in Russian Politics. Russian Politics and Law, 50(3), 70-81.https://doi.org/10.2753/RUP1061-1940500305
  8. Isaacs, R. (2011). Party System Formation in Kazakhstan: Between Formal and Informal Politics. London: Routledge.https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203826003
  9. Junisba, B. (2010). A Tale of Two Kazakhstans: Sources of Political Cleavage and Conflict in thePost-Soviet Period. Europe-Asia Studies, 62(2), 235-269. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668130903506813
  10. Khamutovska, S. (2013). Politic and ideologic preferences of Belarussian Republic’ population: sociological analysis. [In Ukrainian]. Sociology: Theory, Methods, Marketing, 4, 166-179.
  11. Kjaernet, H., Satpaev, D., & Torjesen, S. (2008). Big Business and High-level Politics in Kazakhstan: An Everlasting Symbiosis? Political Science, 6(1), 95-107.
  12. Linz, J., & Stepan, A. (1996). The Problems of “Stateness” and Transitions: The USSR and Russia. In J. Linz & A. Stepan. (Eds.). Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post_communist Europe, 366-400. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.
  13. McAllister, I., & White, S. (2015). Electoral Integrity and Support for Democracy in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine. Sociology, 25(1), 78-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2014.911744
  14. Nedokus, I. (2013). Police in Political Processes of Belarussian Republic. [In Ukrainian]. Istoryko-politychni problemy suchasnogo svitu, 25-26, 103-107.
  15. Ostrowski, W. (2010). Politics and Oil in Kazakhstan. London: Routledge.
  16. Pospieszna, P. M. (2010). When Recipients Become Donors Polish Democracy Assistance in Belarus and Ukraine. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama.https://doi.org/10.2753/PPC1075-8216570401
  17. Sakwa, R. (2012). Democratization. In G. Gill, J. Young. (Eds.). Routledge Handbook of Russian Politics and Society, 33-44. Abington: Routledge.
  18. Schatz, E. (2004). Modern clan politics: the power of “blood” in Kazakhstan and beyond. Washington: University of Washington Press.
  19. Sikevich, Z. V. (2017). Russians, Ukrainians, Belorussians: together or apart? (Saint-Petersburg representations dynamics, 2006-2016). Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya 7, 88-98. 
  20. Steblyna, N. (2020). Official Discourses of Post-Soviet Countries Transformations in the Dsigital Reality (2005-2019). European Political and Law Discourse, 7(4), 110-115.https://doi.org/10.46340/eppd.2020.7.4.16
  21. Stent, A. (2007). The Lands In Between: The New Eastern Europe in the Twenty-First Century. In D. Hamilton, & G. Mangott. (Eds.). The New Eastern Europe: Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, 1-21. Washington: Center for Transatlantic Relations.
  22. Titarenko, L. (2011). Post-Soviet Belarus: The Transformation of National Identity. International Studies. Interdisciplinary Political and Cultural Journal, 1, 6-18. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10223-011-0002-4
  23. Way, L. (2005). Authoritarian State Building and the Sources of Regime Competitiveness in the Fourth Wave: The Cases of Belarus, Moldova, Russia, and Ukraine. World Politics, 57(2), 231-261. https://doi.org/10.1353/wp.2005.0018
  24. Zamyatin, K. (2016). Russian Political Regime Change and Strategies of Diversity Management: From a Multinational Federation towards a Nation-State. JEMIE, 15(1), 19-49.
  25. Zhukova, E. (2018). Chernobyl, Responsibility and National Identity: Positioning Europe and Russia in the Media of Belarus and Ukraine (1992–2014). Europe Asia Studies, 70(7), 1055-1082. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2018.1499876