Suchergebnisse

This article deals with the study and analysis of the role of media as a tool for influencing mass consciousness during the COVID-19 pandemic. Media researchers attempted to analyze the extent of media's impact on recipients' decisions, such as vaccine refusal, non-compliance with quarantine measures, and violation of other restrictions imposed during the global health crisis. One of the reasons for the destructive behavior of citizens in different countries was the infodemic – the oversaturation of the global media landscape with unreliable and unverified information. In these circumstances, the media had various tasks, from informing the audience about processes related to the new disease to promoting vaccination. This led to the media resorting to various models of influencing the audience, described in both classical theories of media influence and modern ones. The author of the article analyzed publications from the perspective of media influence, as well as research aimed at identifying the mechanisms of media influence on society during the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result of the study, the author concludes that the influence of media on society is a structurally and functionally complex process influenced by numerous factors such as the information policies of specific media outlets, individual characteristics of journalists and information recipients, the political environment, etc. It was also established that during the pandemic, distortions in the communication process occur not randomly but according to specific models described in various theories of strong media influence, including the magic bullet theory, framing, agenda-setting, and others.

Translation of a poetic text has always attracted the eye of translators and poets who wanted to present the best works of foreign cultures to their compatriots. Due to that the folklore text, which reflects the distinctive features of a different culture, its history and beliefs, long ago became a special object of attention. At different stages of the development of translators' art, there were different approaches to the interpretation of a literary text. In some eras, the translation was word for word, during other periods it was considered correct to improve the original text. Some linguists believed that literary text was untranslatable. However, in the 20th century, translation finally evolved into a science and the foundations of a systematic approach to translation were developed. The history of ballad translations in Russia goes back two centuries. Various poets worked with these texts and their approaches were often different. In some cases, translators transformed realities which they met int elements of their own culture, changed the rhythmic and organizational structure of the text, and even removed a few couplets. This approach is characteristic of the entire 19th century. Then the paradigm changes: other specialists try to preserve the original sound of the ballads, the archaic language and the syntax characteristic of ballads. Poetry translators of the 20th century set and gradually reach these goals, although some of them still translate within the framework of the approach of the period of classicism and make their own improvements to the text. The last stage is the latest translations. The disappearance of strict censorship gives the translator the opportunity to translate folk poetry using folk, colloquial, sometimes obscene words, although the appropriateness of their use should be carefully weighed in each case. Our investigation allows us to conclude that the development of approaches to ballad translation follows the traditional periodization of paradigms and yet some problems of poetic translation are still open.

The article discusses the results of a study on the image of Boris Yeltsin as it was presented in the American weekly magazine Time in the period 1986 – 1991. Applying the methods of content analysis, quantitative analysis, and imagological analysis, the author focuses on the specific formation features of the image of the USSR and its leader in the foreign (American) culture. The author determines the peaks of interest in the personality of Yeltsin in the American press, draws historical parallels explaining this phenomenon, proposes thematic groups that reflect the focus of American journalists' interest. These groups are presented by the categories 'appearance', 'personality', 'politics', and 'relationships with Mikhail Gorbachev'. A frequency analysis of lexemes reveals that the image of Boris Yeltsin was mainly positive. American journalists emphasize his special strength, 'monumentality', and outstanding oratorical skills. The most frequent characteristics of Yeltsin in the Time magazine are 'oppositionist', 'maverick', 'reformist', 'populist'. The press also emphasizes such his qualities as 'energetic', 'impulsive'. An analysis of the empirical material in the diachronic perspective revealed the dynamics of the representation of Boris Yeltsin and Mikhail Gorbachev from 'close allies' to 'irreconcilable enemies'.

The article deals with, mostly, three interconnected issues. First, an attempt is made to come to terms with a certain reaction against the overwhelming interest in dialogue in general and Bakhtin's concept of dialogue in particular, after the end of the modern times, or modernity, both in Russia and in the West. Sec­ondly, the social-cultural situation in the 21st century, it seems, provides an op­portunity to pose anew and in a new way the old question in the Bakhtinian stud­ies: "Where did Bakhtin come from?" with the primary stress on Bakhtin's philosophical origins. Thirdly, the new interest, in contemporary Bakhtinian crit­icism, in his early (programmatic) texts between 1919 and 1924, seems, to per­ceive more productively Bakhtin's idea of dialogue and dialogism with the help of some earlier terms, particularly his concept of "participative autonomy" taken in the double perspective: from the point of view of the inner unity of Bakhtin's authority, on one hand, as well as from the point of view of the circumstances his project of "participatory thinking" itself participated in the turn to the "new thinking" in the 1920s. In this event of the radical transformation of the tradition of the "first philosophy" (mostly in the West), the Russian thinker, in fact, took part both participatively and originally, in the sphere of "in-between", i.e. among his contemporaries.