Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The article examines the media image of Crimea in regional newspaper discourse in 2013–2015, based on publications in the newspapers “Krymskaya Pravda” and “Krymskaya Gazeta”. The subject of the study is the nominative means of region representation, the ways of expressing evaluativity and the predicative structures involved in the linguistic construction of the image of Crimea. The aim of the work is to provide a comparative description of the thematic groups of nominations, evaluative means, and types of predicative constructions that form different models of region representation in newspapers. The methodological basis is formed by the principles of media linguistics, the semantics of evaluation, nomination theory, and linguostylistic analysis of newspaper text; the study applies semantic, contextual, discourse, and comparative methods of analysis. The results show that in “Krymskaya Pravda” the image of Crimea is formed primarily through nominations of state and legal status, historical memory, cultural identity, and regional community, whereas in “Krymskaya Gazet”a linguistic means related to the economy, infrastructure, tourism, the budgetary sphere, and public administration predominate. It is revealed that the difference between the two newspapers is manifested not only in the composition of nominative means but also in the nature of evaluativity and the types of predicative structures. The results of the study can be used in media linguistics, text linguistics, discourse analysis, studies of regional identity, and in research on the language of the regional press. The novelty of the work lies in considering the media image of Crimea as the result of the systemic interaction of three levels of linguistic organization of newspaper text: nominative, evaluative, and predicative. The article concludes that “Krymskaya Pravda” represents Crimea as a state-legal and historical-cultural community, whereas “Krymskaya Gazeta” constructs the image of Crimea as a region of economic, infrastructural and tourist-recreational development.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Egorova et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: