俄羅斯世界的概念化：俄羅斯和烏克蘭推 特用戶在政治話語中的隱喻和轉喻

Abstract

本論文對「俄羅斯世界」概念的隱喻和換喻表達進行了全面分析，闡明了俄羅斯影響力意識形態的範疇。此研究通過探索政治話語中大型言談社群內隱喻和換喻的動態本質，橫向及縱向地彌合了重要的研究缺口。基於新提出的建築與健康理想認知模型（ICMs）對俄羅斯世界意識形態的多面性和情感充電概念進行映射，揭示了近15年來俄羅斯與烏克蘭Twitter話語中的隱喻框架。研究聚焦於2014年這一關鍵年份，該年份劃分了兩個時間階段：俄羅斯和烏克蘭和平共處時期（2008-2014年）以及軍事和意識形態衝突時期（2014-2023年）。研究探討了在烏克蘭和俄羅斯言談社群中「俄羅斯世界」是如何被框架為建築或病毒，以及換喻如何被用來表達俄羅斯世界概念。 分析的核心假設是，如軍事衝突等社會政治事件影響了自我與他者的高層社會政治框架，這些框架隨後在語義層面塑造隱喻框架。將俄羅斯人和烏克蘭人視為自我，將烏克蘭政府和西方視為他者的社會政治框架，促進了俄羅斯世界意識形態的正面實例。這在隱喻框架中表現明顯，如2014年之前統計上更為常見的正面建築屬性，以及2014年之後在俄羅斯言談社群中統計上盛行的建設過程框架。相反，將烏克蘭人視為自我，將俄羅斯人視為他者的社會政治框架則產生了俄羅斯世界意識形態的負面實例，如在烏克蘭言談社群中2014年後統計上更為常見的負面建設過程框架。此外，對不同言談社群的探索顯示出隱喻使用上的一些相似性，表明儘管俄羅斯和烏克蘭言談社群大致持有不同的意識形態觀點，但部分俄羅斯人對烏克蘭人表示同情。這種同情反映在俄羅斯言談社群使用的負面情感建築隱喻中，受到將俄羅斯人視為自我，烏克蘭人視為他者的社會政治框架的影響。 本研究對情感的考慮凸顯了俄羅斯世界意識形態如何在語義層面利用正面和負面元素。建築領域的目的功能和構成屬性根據社會政治框架的不同而表現為正面或負面，例如燈塔或堡壘與監獄，堅固或脆弱的建設。研究還展示了俄羅斯世界意識形態如何在語義層面利用健康領域的目的功能的負面元素，如病毒的傳播、感染和變異能力。對15年期間同一言談社群的歷時變化分析顯示，俄羅斯世界意識形態的情感充電概念易受社會政治框架的影響而發生顯著變化。 本論文推進了我們對建築和病毒隱喻的理解，這些隱喻在將烏克蘭人視為自我和俄羅斯人視為他者的社會政治框架下，共享一個共同的通用空間，將意識形態的發展階段與感染或建設的發展階段對齊。這些隱喻產生了新興的意義，將「感染」對應於「洗腦」，將「建設過程」對應於「建立俄羅斯威權統治」等等。研究還揭示了這些隱喻之間的結構差異：建築隱喻在負面和正面情感中使用，具有構成屬性但缺乏主動性；而病毒隱喻則一致在負面情感中使用，展現了主動性但缺乏構成屬性。 最後，研究顯示了社會經濟和政治因素如何形成經驗性實踐連結，導致特定的「抽象整體至具體部分」換喻的發展。這些語言工具使抽象概念能夠在統一的功能領域內提供對更具體元素的心理訪問。俄羅斯世界概念涵蓋了與國家和意識形態相關的各個方面，產生了同一功能領域內的多個面向。這些面向在話語中出現，受到言談社群的地緣政治或社會經濟因素驅動的經驗影響。 總之，本論文展示了社會政治事件、意識形態、語言和認知如何在不同文化中相互連接，導致政治話語中的語言變異。這對認知語言學、社會語言學和政治話語分析領域貢獻重大。此外，研究為分析和視覺化政治話語中隱喻和換喻的使用提供了方法論上的貢獻。

This thesis conducts a comprehensive analysis of metaphorical and metonymic representations of the “Russian World” concept, primarily denoting the sphere of Russian influence ideology. This study bridges a critical research gap by exploring the dynamic nature of metaphor and metonymy within large speech communities in political discourse on Twitter, both synchronically and diachronically. It reveals metaphorical frames within Russian and Ukrainian Twitter discourses over nearly 15 years, based on the highlighted elements of the newly proposed Building and Health Idealized Cognitive Models (ICMs) mapped to the multifaceted, emotionally charged concept of the Russian World ideology. The study focuses on the pivotal year of 2014, which delineates two time frames: the period of peaceful co-existence between Russia and Ukraine (2008-2014) and the period of military and ideological conflict (2014-2023). It explores how the “Russian World” is framed as either a building or a virus among Ukrainian and Russian speech communities and how metonymy is used to represent the Russian World concept. Central to the analysis is the hypothesis that socio-political events, such as military conflicts, influence higher-level socio-political frames of Self vs. Other, which subsequently shape metaphorical framing at the semantic level. Socio-political frames mapping Russians and Ukrainians as Self, and the Ukrainian government and the West as Other, foster positive instances of the Russian World ideology. This is evident in metaphorical frames such as Positive Building Property, statistically more common before 2014, and Building Process frames, statistically prevalent in the Russian speech community after 2014. Conversely, socio-political frames mapping Ukrainians as Self and Russians as Other yield negative instances of Russian World ideology, as illustrated by Negative Building Process frames, statistically more common in the Ukrainian speech community after 2014. Additionally, the exploration of different speech communities reveals some similarities in metaphor usage, suggesting that although Russian and Ukrainian speech communities largely hold distinct ideological perspectives, some Russians sympathize with Ukrainians. This sympathy is reflected in the use of negative sentiment building metaphors influenced by the socio-political frame of Russians as Self and Ukrainian as Other. The consideration of sentiment in this study highlights how the emotionally charged concept of the Russian World ideology utilizes both positive and negative elements. At the semantic level, the building domains telic function and constitutive properties, which can vary depending on the socio-political frame, manifest as either positive or negative—examples include a lighthouse or bastion versus a prison, and strong versus weak construction. The study also demonstrates how the Russian World ideology employs negative elements of the health domains telic function at the semantic level, such as the ability of viruses to spread, infect and mutate. An analysis of diachronic changes reveals that the Russian World ideology has been prone to significant variations over a period of 15 years within the same speech community, depending on the socio-political frame. This thesis advances our understanding of how building and virus metaphors, contextualized within the socio-political frame of Ukrainians as Self and Russians as Other, share a common generic space that aligns stages of ideological developments with developments of infections or constructions. These metaphors generate emergent meanings, mapping “infecting” to “brainwashing” and “building process” to “establishing Russian authoritarian rule.” Additionally, the study reveals structural differences between these metaphors: building metaphors, used in both negative and positive sentiments, possess constitutive properties but lack agency, while virus metaphors, consistently used negatively, exhibit agency but lack constitutive properties. Finally, the study shows how socio-economic and political factors forge experiential pragmatic links, leading to the development of specific “abstract whole-to-concrete part” metonymies. These linguistic tools enable abstract concepts to provide mental access to more tangible elements within a unified functional domain. The Russian World concept, encompassing various aspects related to the state and ideology, generates multiple facets within the same functional domain. These facets emerge in discourse, shaped by the experiences driven by geopolitical or socio-economic factors of a speech community. In conclusion, this thesis demonstrates how socio-political events, ideologies, language, and cognition are interconnected across different cultures, leading to language variation in political discourse. This contributes significantly to the fields of Cognitive Linguistics, Sociolinguistics, and Political Discourse Analysis. Additionally, the study offers methodological contributions for analyzing and visualizing the use of metaphor and metonymy in political discourse.