Метафора в создании языковой картины мира на примере политической прессы
1.Арутюнова Н. Д. Метафора // Лингвистический энциклопедический словарь. - М., 1990. – С.296-297.
2.Блэк М. Метафора // Теория метафоры. - М.: Прогресс, 1990. - С. 153-172.
3.Васильев Л.М. «Стилистическое значение», экспрессивность и эмоциональность как категории семантики. // Проблемы функционирования языка и специфики речевых разновидностей. Пермь, 1985. – С. 3-22.
4.Гак В.Г. Метафора: универсальное и специфическое. // Метафора в языке и тексте. - М., Наука, 1988. -С. 11 – 26.
5.Лакофф Дж., Джонсон М. Метафоры, которыми мы живем. - М., 2004. - 368с.
6.Некрасова Е.А. Метафора и ее окружение в контексте художественной речи// Слово в русской советской поэзии. - М., 1982. –С. 53-59.
7.Никитин М.В. Лексическое значение слова (структура и комбинаторика). - М., Высшая школа
Показать все, 1983. -488с.
8.Ричардс А. Философия риторики. // Теория метафоры. - М., Прогресс, 1990. - С. 44 – 67.
9.Телия В.Н. Экспрессивность как проявление субъективного фактора в языке и ее прагматическая ориентация. //Человеческий фактор в языке. - М., 1991. -С. 36-48.
Список использованных источиков СМИ
1.BBC News - http://news.bbc.co.uk
2.Bloomberg - http://www.bloomberg.com
3.Dayly Mail - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news
4.Guardian - http://www.guardian.co.uk
5.Los Angeles Times - www.latimes.com
6.MSNBS News - http://www.msnbc.msn.com
7.Sunday Express - www.express.co.uk
8.Sunday Times - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news
9.Telegraph - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news
10.The New York Times - http://www.nytimes.com
11.The Wall street journal - http://online.wsj.com
12.Times - http://www.timesonline.co.uk
13.Washington Times - http://www.washingtontimes.com
14.World Analysis - http://worldanalysis.net/modules/news
But of course, he also wanted to set down a marker for future relations with Washington. The missiles Russia intends to deploy are short-range: they will make the Baltic States and central Europe feel very uncomfortable. There is an echo here of the old Soviet attempts to split the Europeans from the United States. That same old-fashioned thinking, though, contains hints of an old-fashioned remedy.
Presidents Medvedev and Obama could usher in a new, more trustful era, by mutually agreeing to sign away the missile facilities they have not yet installed. What might appear a threatening move by Moscow could in fact contain the kernel of a new beginning. And if neither side has yet thought of that – perhaps they should.
Dale H. Moscow's next move // The Washington Times -12 November 2010.
Показать всеhe inimitable Sen. Joe Biden has predicted that within six months of President-elect Barack Obama taking office, the world would see a major crisis, a test of the new president's leadership. Many of us, who believe that Mr. Obama's inexperience is an open invitation to the world's trouble makers, completely agree with Mr. Biden on this one point.
But as it turned out, the world may not even have to wait that long for the anticipated crisis.
In Russia, Mr. Obama's election is not being hailed as the dawn of a new age, as it is in much of the rest of the world. Instead, the media present it as evidence of America's decline, and unless some other hostile power hurries up and gets there first, the Kremlin is where Mr. Obama's first test will originate.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev threw down the gauntlet to Mr. Obama on Nov. 5th when he gave his first state of Russia address. The speech was carefully timed to coincide with Mr. Obama's acceptance speech, and while Mr. Medvedev chose not to mention Mr. Obama by name, he certainly did send him a message.
If the United States goes ahead with the installation of a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic (the so-called third missile defense site), Russia will take countermeasures, so Mr. Medvedev said. This will come in the shape of Iskander short range missiles installed by Russia in Kaliningrad, a small military outpost of Russia located right on Europe's border, between Poland and Lithuania. From this vantage point, the Russian missiles will allegedly be able to destroy the 10 American missile interceptors, which are scheduled to be deployed in Poland as part of the U.S. missile shield. Mr. Medvedev also threatened to install equipment to scramble the signals from the U.S. anti-missile system.
While the Russian leadership has previously made ominously growling noises on the subject of the "third site," the Russian threat has ever been this specific. Thus the message to Mr. Obama is clear: Pursue the course set by the Bush administration at your peril and risk a military eruption in Europe. At the same time, the Russians are pursuing military cooperation with Venezuelan strong-man Hugo Chavez and arranging joint naval exercises in the backyard of the United States. The Russian gambit is strongly reminiscent of Cold War days.
Thus, while the U.S. government has assured the Russians that the missile defenses are not aimed at them and has offered to share missile defense technology in an effort to defuse the issue, Russia has only one familiar response - confrontation and provocation. This international bullying also serves as a handy way of distracting the Russian population from the country's numerous problems.
How will the new president-elect respond?
After all, Mr. Obama has said he would talk to any world leader without precondition, so this could make for an interesting test case. Meanwhile, Mr. Obama has already talked over the phone to Poland's president, Lech Kaczynski, on the subject of missile defense.
Interestingly, the two sides have different understandings of what was said. Mr. Kaczynski understood Mr. Obama to confirm America's commitment to honor the agreement, reached only a few months back between Poland and the United States. Mr. Obama's advisors have denied he said any such thing. Given Mr. Obama's record on being on both sides of numerous foreign policy issues during the campaign, the confusion is not surprising, but it is dangerous. From now on, what the president-elect says counts as policy and will have international repercussions.
The Russians, for their part, cite as evidence of Mr. Obama's more malleable attitude his position on missile defense, as declared on his campaign website, which states that he supports missile defense if the technology is proven workable and can be demonstrated not to be threatening Russia. (In actual fact, both of these are true today, which only makes the Obama position more confusing.) If Mr. Obama stands by the Bush administration's commitment on missile defense to the Polish government, he will show that he does indeed have the spine of steel that his vice presidential choice, Mr. Biden, spoke so eloquently of. He will have demonstrated reassuring courage and resolve to America's friends and allies such as Poland.
If on the other hand, Mr. Obama backs down in the face of Russian pressure, he will have failed what will likely be his first real international test of leadership. The consequences of such a failure will be more challenges and more crises to come. The world is watching.
Russia vs. Obama // The Washington Times -12 November 2010.
President-elect Barack Obama should conduct his foreign policy in the same manner as he conducted his campaign.
Mr. Obama warned his opponents that he could be easily underestimated. "I may be skinny, but I'm tough," he said several times. His campaign strategy was to speak eloquently - and often in abstract terms - but to combine this with a shrewd, deliberate and realistic ground game that achieved record-breaking results. If he conducts his foreign policy in this manner - that is, the velvet glove atop an iron fist - he can also be a brilliant commander-in-chief.
His first test is at hand, even before he officially takes the oath of office on January 20. The ink was barely dry on the printing presses of America's papers citing Mr. Obama's historic victory when the Russians made their first move. On Wednesday, Nov. 5, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, in a Kremlin address, presented his country as the victim of an aggressive American foreign policy: "From what we have seen in recent years, the creation of a missile defense system, the encirclement of Russia with military bases, the relentless expansion of NATO, we have gotten the clear impression that they are testing our strength," he said.
He then proceeded to test the strength of the next American president by declaring that Russia will deploy missiles near Poland, as a countermove to American plans to place missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic, both NATO members. In other words, Mr. Medvedev used an old trick: Mask an aggressive policy as purely defensive.
Yet, despite such protestations, Russia is expanding its influence at the expense of its neighbors. Russian troops still have not complied with the terms of the agreement they signed with French President Nicolas Sarkozy to withdraw troops from the separatist Georgian provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Shortly after their Aug. 7 invasion of the territories, which was condemned by the international community, the Russian government also unilaterally recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent nations. These facts did not prevent Mr. Medvedev from stating the conflict resulted from "Georgia's barbaric aggression" and was also "among other things, the result of the arrogant course of the American administration, which did not tolerate criticism and preferred unilateral decisions."
Mr. Obama should announce his foreign-policy team and make an address to clarify his intentions in the region as soon as possible. In an Oct. 7 debate with John McCain, he stated that America has been "reactive for eight years" but should be "proactive with Russia." He said that American policy must be more strategic: "Part of the job of the next commander-in-chief, in keeping all of you safe, is making sure that we can see some of the 21st century challenges and anticipate them before they happen." The time for proactive action regarding Russia has arrived.
Stack M.K. In Russia's Putin-Medvedev shuffle, Putin is the lead dancer // Los Angeles Times - 14 November 2010.
Although Vladimir Putin has left the presidency and become prime minister, there's no longer any question that he's more powerful than his handpicked successor, Dmitry Medvedev.
It's been nearly a year since Putin, faced with the end of his presidency, endorsed his long-loyal underling to succeed him in the Kremlin. The speculation that once rattled around the capital after Putin restyled himself as prime minister -- whether the two men would clash, whether Medvedev would try to eclipse his onetime mentor -- has fallen away.
These days, there is a broad perception that Putin remains the dominant politician. Analysts variously describe Medvedev as a spokesman, a yes man or, more generously, a just-slightly junior partner in Russia's vertical rule.
This is all gleaned from political body language, of course. Few can say with any certainty who gives the orders behind closed doors, and many Russians now argue that it's an irrelevant question. In public, the two leaders operate in almost flawless tandem, as two complementary arms of the power structure built by Putin.
In the last few weeks, as Medvedev pushed parliament to prolong the presidential term and doled out steely threats to counter American plans for missile defense, he appeared even more Putinesque than Putin himself -- more hostile toward America, more enthusiastic about alliances with anti-American governments in Venezuela and Cuba, and less concerned with the niceties of constitutional preservation.
"Medvedev has made himself even more harsh," said Lilia Shevtsova, an analyst with the Carnegie Moscow Center. "He's following the logic of Russian power. He has to look macho and demonstrate his muscle, especially having Putin in the background, continuing to call the shots."
It was Medvedev who, during his state of the nation speech last week, unveiled plans to change the constitution. Explaining that parliament and the Kremlin need "enough time" to "maintain a high level of authority" and carry out complicated development plans, he proposed lengthening the presidential term from four years to six, and service in the ruling-party-dominated parliament from four years to five. He also suggested giving parliament more power to oversee the government.
These are not fresh ideas. The proposed changes are a resurrection of a plan that was championed in the twilight of Putin's presidency by some of his most ardent supporters, who pushed him to amend the constitution to stay in the Kremlin longer.
At the time, Putin demurred. The constitution was sacrosanct, he insisted, and should not be altered. Now it is Medvedev who is pushing the changes -- and Putin who's staying in the background, while telling reporters he supports the amendments.
Some in Moscow speculate that the two men are laying the groundwork for Putin's extended return to the Kremlin; Medvedev has made it plain that the lengthier term would not apply to his own presidency.
Others argue that it doesn't matter which of the two men occupies the presidency.
"I don't think the investigation into who's the leader in this duet is relevant," said Garry Kasparov, former chess champion and leading opposition figure. "The core message is both for a Russian audience and for the West. They're saying: 'We are staying. Forget about it -- we'll decide between us who's in charge.' "
The proposed changes carry undeniable gravitas, marking the first time the post-Soviet Russian Constitution has been amended since its adoption in 1993. But the amendments are racing through the usually laborious legislature: The first reading is scheduled to be heard this week in the State Duma, the lower house.
The changes are expected to meet little resistance in parliament, which is stacked with Putin loyalists. Still, some eyebrows have been raised even among his supporters.
Sergei Markov, a lawmaker in the ruling United Russia party, said criticism of the amendments as vehicles to harden Putin and Medvedev's hold on power was "partly true, because really it's an increase in power."
"It's a change in the constitution with unclear, uncertain purposes," he said. "I think eight years is enough for any president to change the country. It's all tactical, and that's my major point of criticism. I think to change the constitution for some small, tactical things, it's not too reasonable." Скрыть
Автор24 - это фриланс-биржа. Все работы, представленные на сайте, загружены нашими пользователями, которые согласились с правилами размещения работ на ресурсе и обладают всеми необходимыми авторскими правами на данные работы. Скачивая работу вы соглашаетесь с тем что она не будет выдана за свою, а будет использована использовать исключительно как пример или первоисточник с обязательной ссылкой на авторство работы.
Если вы правообладатель и считаете что данная работа здесь размещена без вашего разрешения - пожалуйста, заполните форму и мы обязательно удалим ее с сайта.
за 10 минут
Эта работа вам не подошла?
У наших авторов вы можете заказать любую учебную работу от 200 руб.
Оформите заказ и авторы начнут откликаться уже через 10 минут!
Заказать дипломную работу