Truth / Falsity as Properties of Advertising Discourse: AddresseeCentered Aspect

The research featured the problem of truth / falsity as properties of advertising discourse. Advertising is described both within the linguistics of lying and the interpretive linguistics. The paper introduces a linguistic study of the phenomenon of lying from the subjectivist positions, i.e. as the interaction between two communicants: the liar and the recipient of the lies. Subjectivists interpret the text as compliant or non-compliant to one’s idea of reality, i.e. the conformity to the world of thought. Advertising discourse is the object of the recipient’s receptive and interpretive activity. The authors studied the speech behavior of the interpreter of the false discourse, i.e. how the lies affected the addressee. The research objective was to prove the thesis statement that discourse of lies is determined not only by the liar and their speech behavior, but also by the recipient of the lies. The study featured two texts that differed in the extent of false and reliable information. The lying potential of the advertising discourse was studied by the method of linguistic experiment. Each advertisement was evaluated by the recipient as containing information of various degrees of falsehood. The interpretation depended on the presumptions of the recipient and their choice of either rational-logical or emotional-sensual interpretive strategy.

1. Weinrich H. Linguistics of lying. Language and modeling of social interaction, ed. Petrov V. V. Moscow: Progress, 1987, 44–87. (In Russ.)

2. Zemskova N. A. Concepts "true", "truth", and "lies" as factors of verbalization of reality: cognitive-pragmatic aspect (based on the material of Russian and English languages). Cand. Philol. Sci. Diss. Krasnodar, 2006, 200. (In Russ.)

3. Tarski A. The semantic conception of truth and the foundations of semantics. Philosophy and Phenomenological Reseach, 1944, 4(3): 341–375.

4. Shakhovsky V. I. The lying man in real and artistic communication. Man in communication: research aspects, ed. Shakhovsky V. I. Volgograd: Peremena, 2005, 173–204. (In Russ.)

5. Lenets A. V. Pragmalinguistics theory of lie. Vestnik Irkutskogo gosudarstvennogo lingvisticheskogo universiteta, 2013, (1): 86–90. (In Russ.)

6. Ford Ch. The psychology of deception. How and why do honest people lie? Moscow: Eksmo, 2013, 400. (In Russ.)

7. Lenets A. V. The pragmatics of lies. Rostov-on-Don: IuFU, 2008, 284. (In Russ.)

8. Glagolev N. V. False information and ways of expressing it in the text. Philological Sciences, 1987, (4): 61–67. (In Russ.)

9. Litvinova T. A., Litvinova O. A. A study of linguistic features of deceptive texts with the use of the program Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count. Bulletin of the Moscow Region State University. Series: Linguistics, 2015, (4): 71–77. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.18384/2310-712X-2015-4-71-77

10. Kim L. G. The discourse of lie in the aspect of the addressee interpretation activity. Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University, 2012, (5): 80–84. (In Russ.)

11. Golev N. D., Kim L. G. Linguapersonology and everyday metalinguistic consciousness (variants and invariants of the interpreting linguistic personality of an ordinary Russian speaker). Linguistic personality: modeling , typology, and portraiture. Siberian linguapersonology, ed. Shpilnaya N. N. Moscow: Lenand, 2014, vol. 1, 81–94. (In Russ.)

12. Golev N. D., Kim L. G. Ordinary Internet political commentary in the mirror of conflict of interpretations. Social and cognitive functioning of language, eds. Golev N. D., Kishina E. V. Kemerovo: KemGU, 2017, 19–34. (In Russ.)

13. Aroutiounova N. D. Addressee factor. Izvestiia AN SSSR. Seriia literatury i iazyka, 1981, 40(4): 356–367. (In Russ.)

14. Krapivkina O. A. Two edges of discourse – two guises of the subject. Siberian Journal of Philology, 2016, (1): 137–143. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.17223/18137083/54/16

15. Kim L. G., Golev N. D. On the relations of an addressee, author and text in the paradigm of linguistic interpretativism. Siberian Journal of Philology, 2008, (1): 144–153. (In Russ.)

16. Kim L. G. Variational-interpretational functioning of the text, 3rd ed. Kemerovo: KemGU, 2012, 72. (In Russ.)

17. Kokhtev N. N. Advertising: the art of word. Moscow: MGU, 1997, 96. (In Russ.)

18. Livshits T. N. Specificity of advertising in pragmatic and linguistic aspects). Cand. Philol. Sci. Diss. Taganrog, 1999, 354. (In Russ.)

19. Pirogova Yu. K., Baranov A. N., Parshin P. B. Promotional text: linguistics and semiotics. Moscow: Izd. dom Grebennikova, 2000, 270. (In Russ.)

20. Mokshantsev R. I. Psychology of advertising. Moscow: INFRA-M; Novosibirsk: Sibirskoe soglashenie, 2007, 228. (In Russ.)

21. Strelnikova E. S. Advertising as an object of study in modern linguistic literature. Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya 2. Yazykoznanie, 2006, (5): 62–68. (In Russ.)

22. Terpugova E. A. Advertising text as a special type of imperative discourse. Cand. Philol. Sci. Diss. Irkutsk, 2000, 181. (In Russ.)

23. Fedotova L. N. Advertising in the communication process. Moscow: Kameron, 2005, 464. (In Russ.)

24. Perfilyeva N. P. Metaconstructions: the semantic-pragmatic aspect. Siberian Journal of Philology, 2018, (4): 195–204. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.17223/18137083/65/18