This collective monograph, written by well-known Russian linguists, tpresents a broad picture of the way the language of mass media functions. The book gives a multifaceted analysis of how politics influences the language of mass media. This is a core problem of the mass media language, as politics represents the main content in mass media. The issue is treated in a semiotic, functional-stylistic, ethical and rhetoric aspects. The monograph examines in detail the language of print and electronic media (newspapers, magazines, television, radio). The language of foreign mass media is analyzed in a comparative aspect. The monograph shows the contemporary state of the mass media language and its influence on development of the literary language.
The monograph would be useful to students, PhD students and lecturers at journalism departments and schools of language studies, as well as to a wide range of readers, who are eager to preserve the purity and expressiveness of the Russian language.
The present chapter looks at how Russia promotes its vision of modernization vai EU member states, encouraging a common position among them rather than nurturing disagreements aimed at dividing and ruling.
This note discusses one of the largely super uous conjectures unearthed by J. Diggle and given an honourable place in his otherwise very succinct and e cient apparatus criticus. Reported by none of the recent editors, and earlier by Prinz–Wecklein and Verrall, Herwerden’s μελανόσπλαγχνος in Euripides’ Medea 109 is an undesirable change of the sound, if idiosyncratic, mss. reading μεγαλόσπλαγχνος. Diggle, however, having (independently) conjectured the same word, patched together arguments for it. An additional attraction this conjecture gained in his eyes was due to his misreading of the remark (quoted in the heading) Wilamowitz made proofreading the rst volume of Murray’s OCT in 1901. While Wilamowitz discouraged Murray from reporting this conjecture with his usual “besser fort”, Diggle, on passing acquaintance with the letters, took it to mean “Herw. besser fort[asse]”, thus corroborating his point.
Since the moment Ukraine acquired independence, cooperation with the EU has been developing unevenly. In 1994 Ukraine became the first country from the former Union Republics, which signed with the EU the Partnership Agreement, Ve and cooperation. This agreement foreshadowed considerable economic benefits for Ukraine. However, the The establishment of partnership relations between Ukraine and the EU began much later. Declaration of state Managerial decisions, weak functional and institutional consolidation of the priority of the Euro- The low level of professionalism of civil servants and the lack of knowledge in the field of European integration negatively affected the implementation of the concluded agreement. The agreement signed in 1994 entered into force only on March 1, 1998, when trade relations with Ukraine Have retreated to the background. In a December 2001 European Commission statement, it was noted that priority Tasks in Ukraine is the fight against AIDS, tuberculosis, illegal migration and organized crime. Tion. By the level of social and economic development, Ukraine lagged far behind many countries of the subregion, The level of the national economy was lower not only relative to European countries, but also to many developing countries Countries. It seems that this situation is due to the fact that Ukraine in the first 10 years of independence is not Has conducted no effective economic reform. We believe that the European Union at that time was not It is advantageous to direct large amounts of money to solve the problems of the unstable Ukrainian economy.
In the United States and many Western democracies, the individual personalities of voters rather than their social locations in various interest groups are presumably becoming decisive for political choice. This shift may reflect declining distinctiveness and extremity of parties as they seek the political center, increased complexity of political issues, growing interdependence among political units, and greater concern in the electorate with social relations and intimacy.
Early research on personality in politics dealt mainly with the dispositions, attitudes, and motives of voters and leaders. A broad literature attests to the merits and limitations of these approaches. More recent studies show that basic personal values largely mediate the effects of individuals’backgrounds and personality traits on voting behavior and on their core political attitudes. The 2006 ANES Pilot Study provided the first assessment of the role of basic personal values in politics in a representative American sample.
Subnational political units are growing in influence in national and international
affairs, drawing increasing scholarly attention to politics beyond national capitals.
In this book, leading Russian and Western political scientists contribute to
debates in comparative politics by examining Russia’s subnational politics.
Beginning with a chapter that reviews major debates in theory and method,
this book continues to examine Russia’s 83 regions, exploring a wide range of
topics including the nature and stability of authoritarian regimes, federal politics,
political parties, ethnic conflict, governance and inequality in a comparative perspective.
Providing both qualitative and quantitative data from 20 years of original
research, the book draws on elite interaction, public opinion and the role of
institutions regionally in the post-Soviet
years. The regions vary on a number of
theoretically interesting dimensions while their federal membership provides
control for other dimensions that are challenging for globally comparative
studies. The authors demonstrate the utility of subnational analyses and show
how regional questions can help answer a variety of political questions, providing
evidence from Russia that can be used by specialists on other large countries
or world regions in cross-national
Situated within broader theoretical and methodological political science
debates, this book will be of interest to students and scholars of Russian politics,
comparative politics, regionalism and subnational politics
The December protests in Moscow do not represent a “Russian Spring,” “Orange Revolution,” or new version of Perestroika. Rather they have more in common with the Progressive movement that fought corruption in the U.S. during the early part of the twentieth century. The demonstrations made clear that Russian citizens now want to play an active role in their country’s political life.