Прикладная и математическая лингвистика | Филологический аспект №02 (130) Февраль 2026

Реализация аксиологической антитезы в политическом дискурсе (на примере инаугурационных речей Дональда Трампа в 2017 и 2025 гг.)

Деревянко Алина Александровна
старший преподаватель кафедры «Теория и практика перевода и зарубежная филология», Севастопольский государственный университет, РФ, г. Севастополь, dalixa90@yandex.ru
Нечипорук Татьяна Викторовна
старший преподаватель кафедры «Теория и практика перевода и зарубежная филология», Севастопольский государственный университет, РФ, г. Севастополь, tatjanenet@yandex.ru
Верба Мария Александровна
старший преподаватель кафедры «Теория и практика перевода и зарубежная филология», Севастопольский государственный университет, РФ, г. Севастополь, masha.virchenko@mail.ru

Аннотация: В данной статье изучается феномен реализации аксиологической антитезы в инаугурационных выступлениях Дональда Трампа. Статья раскрывает содержание понятия «аксиологическая антитеза», предлагает анализ понятий ценности и оценки в ракурсе лингвистического исследования, а также обозначает и описывает аксиологические антитезы в инаугурационных выступлениях Д. Трампа. Авторы дают обобщённую характеристику инаугурационных выступлений и выделяют специфику выступлений современного американского президента как нацеленных на эксплицитное обозначение жёсткого противостояния между прежней и новой администрациями и имплицитное манипулирование понятиями «патриотизм» и «бог». Дискуссионным продолжает оставаться вопрос о субъективности и объективности оценки, обозначенной Д. Трампом в отношении народа США.
Ключевые слова: политический дискурс, аксиологическая антитеза, инаугурационное выступление, объективная оценка, субъективная оценка, манипуляция.

Derevyanko Alina Aleksandrovna
senior lecturer at the Department of Theory and Practice of Translation and Foreign Philology, Sevastopol State University, Russia, Sevastopol
Nechiporuk Tatyana Viktorovna
senior lecturer at the Department of Theory and Practice of Translation and Foreign Philology, Sevastopol State University, Russia, Sevastopol
Verba Maria Aleksandrovna
senior lecturer at the Department of Theory and Practice of Translation and Foreign Philology, Sevastopol State University, Russia, Sevastopol

Abstract: The given article is concerned with the phenomenon of the implementation of the axiological antithesis in Donald Trump's inaugural addresses. The article reveals the essence of the concept of “axiological antithesis”, touches upon an analysis of the concepts of value and evaluation, or assessment, from the perspective of linguistic research, and also identifies and describes axiological antitheses in D. Trump’s inaugural addresses. The authors give a generalized description of the inaugural addresses and highlight the specifics of the speeches of the current American president as aimed at explicitly denoting the fierce confrontation between the previous and the new administrations and the implicit manipulation of the concepts of “patriotism” and “god”. It should be noted that the issue of the subjectivity and objectivity of the assessment outlined by D. Trump regarding the people of the United States continues to be debatable.
Keywords: political discourse, axiological antithesis, inaugural address, objective assessment, subjective assessment, manipulation.

The issues of value orientations in the field of political relations now seem to be the most relevant, since they do not only directly affect the formation of the political course of a particular country, but also determine an individual’s view of the moral dominants in a particular society, on the prevailing mental and spiritual type of a representative of a certain society during the specified period of its historical development. Today, political institutions are attracting close attention due to the intensification of interstate conflicts, and political discourse is becoming particularly important in the process of building effective intercultural communication. Thus, the relevance of the given article lies in an attempt to decipher the axiological essence of modern political discourse using the example of public speeches by one of the distinguished political figures in the modern world, US President Donald Trump, namely, using the example of his two inaugural addresses. The purpose of our research is to identify the main axiological antitheses in these two speeches.

Axiological linguistics (linguistic axiology, linguoaxiology), to which we refer in this article, is a relatively new field in linguistics, although the very concept of axiology cannot be considered completely new, since separate philosophical movements seeking to study the essence and nature of values have existed since the time of Confucius and Socrates. The term “axiology” was introduced into scientific application by the French philosopher Paul Lapie in 1902 and, in general, is understood as the doctrine of values: “Axiology is a philosophical discipline that explores the category of ‘value’; characteristics, structures and hierarchies of the value world, ways of its cognition and its ontological status, as well as the nature and specifics of value judgements” [13]. In the 20th century, the verbal reflection of values and value meanings in speech communication attracted the attention of some linguists; I. Galperin, among the first researchers in this field, indicated the importance of the aesthetic value of some texts directly related to their enduring informative value [1, p. 27]. Further works by N. Arutyunova, E. Wolf, T. Markelova, E. Serebrennikova, V. Karasik, J. Thompson, S. Hunston et al. consolidated the category of value in linguistic science [2], [3], [4].

Axiological linguistics exists at the intersection of several sciences: philosophy, religion, ethics, logic, psychology, sociology, cultural studies, etc. In its turn, the axiological function is one of the components of the cognitive function of language, along with the predicative, nominative and generalization functions (i.e., the function of mastering socio-historical experience and knowledge). In the process of implementing the axiological function, the author of almost any text inevitably sets value orientations, models linguistic and cultural priorities, in which they display both subjective value specification, based on personal characteristics and experience, and simultaneously indicates an objective value vector aimed at common, universal ideas about good and evil. As E. Tumbasova points out accurately, along with other researchers, “values are of a dual nature, they are social because they are historically conditioned, and individual because they focus on the experience of a particular subject” [5, p. 11]. On the other hand, “values are a social phenomenon that exists in a dialectical subject–object relationship, which is an important link between a person, their inner world and the surrounding reality” [6, p. 12]. Consequently, the value categories and value meanings reflected in speech indicate the nature of the speaker’s relationship with reality and are directly correlated with the nature of their behaviour, with the motivation of their actions and with the mechanisms of implementing value ideas in practice. 

The concept of “value” gets its explication in language through evaluation, i.e. through a subjective representation of the significance of objects and phenomena, a subjective attitude to the phenomena of reality. “... Evaluation is an axiological term reflecting the effective aspect of the process of establishing a relationship between the subject of evaluation and its matter ... Evaluation becomes possible if there is an object of evaluation (i.e. the object to which a particular value is attributed in the broadest sense), the subject of evaluation (the person expressing a positive or negative assessment) and the basis of the evaluation marker (the position or arguments of the subject when approving or censuring)” [7, p. 233]. In other words, “the evaluated object has various properties with which a person can determine the positive and the negative value of the assessment. The assessment includes the meaning about the subject, which is characterized through a relationship with the category of value. It is determined by the existing standards in the field of intellectual, moral and social phenomena, the prevailing ideas about the bad and the good. The study of evaluation involves the examination of the properties of reflection in the language of value judgements, emotions, notions and feelings of the speaker” [8, p. 266].

The discursive projection of opposing assessments in their subjective antagonism, i.e. in the subjective-individual view of good and evil, can become the background of interpersonal conflicts when the individual value “picture of the world” comes into dissonance with the value “picture of the world” of the opponent / opponents in the communicative process. The axiological function of language, therefore, is determinative in shaping the outcome of discourse, which is important to take into account in the process of analyzing discourse in a political context.     

With the existing variety and versatility of interpretations of the term “discourse”, we single out the conceptual essence of this phenomenon as a complex communicative process of text generation and its perception. If we abide by the logic of this formulation, it seems obvious to assume that the integral components of any discourse are the participants with their individual assessment system of the components of the discourse. In the field of political discourse, the axiological function of language is realized, in particular, in the monologues of political figures, where the author pursues the goal of having an impact on the audience through value judgements, forming a positive image of his or her own self and the party, the political course, the political programme, as well as establishing psychological power over the supporters, who must establish themselves in the correctness of the political choice without hesitating in a negative assessment of the political opponents of the elected leader. Consequently, the axiological function of language in political discourse is closely related to the manipulation of evaluation, with the manipulation of value orientations in favour of the speaker. “Thus, manipulation in this context should be considered a sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic phenomenon. At the same time, linguistic means used for manipulative purposes are an important component of manipulation as a method of influence" [9, p. 98]. Linguistic means, acting as an integral part of political discourse, function as carriers of assessment (objective and subjective), since it is assessment (assessment of the opponent’s personality, assessment of the current situation, assessment of the audience, assessment of the mechanisms of influence on the listener / listeners, etc.) that inevitably determines the choice of linguistic means in discourse.

We consider the axiological antithesis, i.e. the opposition based on value orientations, the subject of this research. In the field of axiology, antithesis refers to a conflict of values, acting as an integral part of a dilemma that requires making a choice between the moral and the immoral. For example, in an article by Yu. Nazarova, we can become acquainted with a detailed analysis of possible conflicts of values in the aspect of educational digitalization; the issue of choice in the context of value contradictions is raised [10]. In fiction, the axiological antithesis reveals a contradiction of moral principles or a psychological crisis of a character who suffers difficulties in choosing a moral guideline, as, for example, L. Kalashnikova and R. Kudryavtseva represent it in their article [11]. The novelty of our research lies in an attempt to define an axiological antithesis in political discourse with the use of the example of public speaking, namely in the inaugural addresses of one of the American presidents. In the course of the study, we applied the following methods: the descriptive method, the structural method, the comparative method, the continuous sampling method.

The axiological antithesis in D. Trump's inaugural addresses is based on the opposition between the administration of the previous president and the upcoming administration of D. Trump, which would seem to be quite natural for any inaugural address, where the incoming president inevitably reveals their superiority over the predecessor. However, the inaugural address is subject not only to certain structural, but also semantic rules, according to which the inauguration address, namely at its beginning, should express gratitude to the previous president and give a positive assessment of their administration [12]. D. Trump in the first inaugural address, after brief words of gratitude to President Barack Obama and First Lady M. Obama, immediately discovers the first contradiction, preceded by the conjunction of contrast “however”. Unlike the policy of the previous president and his team, the policy of D. Trump’s administration will be entirely focused on restoring power to the people:

“Today's ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one administration to another or from one party to another, but we are transferring power from Washington, DC, and giving it back to you, the people” [15]. 

Thus, the previous government of Washington, headed by Barack Obama, is presented as the opposite of the United States’ people. According to D. Trump, the administration of the previous president did not care about the needs of common citizens, and further in the next speech segment D. Trump describes such a contrast between the affluent elite and the destitute population of the country in detail:

“For too long, a small group in our Nation’s Capital has reaped the rewards of Government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished, but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered, but the jobs left, and the factories closed. The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our Nation’s Capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land” [15]. 

Thus, from the first sentences of D. Trump’s 2017 inaugural address, the axiological antithesis of the immoral administration of the country and citizens suffering from lawlessness and poverty is outlined. The first half of D. Trump’s inaugural address is mainly devoted to this opposition. Let us follow the choice of some linguistic means made by D. Trump in assessing the activities of the Obama administration and other similar administrations before him:

“politicians prospered”, “the establishment protected itself”, “they celebrated in our Nation's Capital”, “American carnage”, “politicians who are all talk and no action, constantly complaining, but never doing anything about it” [15].

The Obama administration, like the administrations that preceded it, is represented by devotees of power and wealth who are detached from the common people and indifferent to their needs. In contrast to this image, D. Trump portrays the people of the United States as virtuous though robbed and neglected:

“the forgotten men and women”, “righteous people”, “mothers and children trapped in poverty”, “our young and beautiful students deprived of all knowledge”, “the wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes” [15].

In the second inaugural address of D. Trump in 2025, the antithesis “administration – people” is even more clearly delineated; the previous administration of Joe Biden is assessed as militant, thirsty for violence, devoid of common sense, mired in corruption and unable to solve the accumulated problems within the country:

“the vicious, violent, and unfair weaponization of the Justice Department and our Government”, “a radical and corrupt establishment”, “a Government that cannot manage even a simple crisis”, “illegal and unconstitutional Federal efforts” [16].

In the second inaugural address, the people are assessed as excellent, law-observant, but suffering from the abuse of power and lack of professionalism of the Washington authorities:

“magnificent, law-abiding American citizens”,  “the wonderful people of North Carolina who have been treated so badly”, “they don't have a home any longer” [16].

In the second speech, attention is drawn to the strengthening of the opposition between patriots (i.e. the people and the new administration headed by D. Trump) and traitors of the country represented by the previous administration. In his first inaugural address, D. Trump also refers to the topic of patriotism, but not in the axiosphere of conflicting values; it is likely to be an indication of the unity of the people:

“When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice”; “we all bleed the same red blood of patriots” [15].

In the inaugural address of 2025, the axiological antithesis “patriots – traitors” is completely developed as a tool for exposing the antipatriotic, treasonable, and destructive actions of the Joe Biden administration. The Joe Biden administration does not act in the interests of its own citizens, but follows the interests of foreign corporations, associations and groups that destroy the well-being of U.S. residents and are interested in weakening the institution of the American state in all areas:

“it… provides sanctuary and protection for dangerous criminals many from prisons and mental institutions, that have illegally entered our country from all over the world”;

“we have a Government that has given unlimited funding to the defense of foreign borders, but refuses to defend American borders or, more importantly, its own people”;

“… and we have an education system that teaches our children to be ashamed of themselves, in many cases, to hate our country despite the love that we try so desperately to provide to them”;

“a horrible betrayal and all of these many betrayals” [16].

Unlike Joe Biden’s unpatriotic administration, the Trump administration is seen as a union of patriots aimed at restoring the greatness of the United States:

“…each day under our administration of American patriots, we will be working to meet every crisis with dignity and power and strength” [16].

Moreover, the people of the United States are also opposed to the previous administration in their ability to be patriots, continuators of the deeds of their strong-minded ancestors, and D. Trump draws an obvious parallel between their ancestors –  hard workers, warriors, heroes – and contemporary US citizens with similar characteristics, with which D. Trump identifies himself through the possessive pronoun “our” and the personal pronoun “we” (i.e. projects his assessment of the people of the United States onto his personality and his team):

“…our country was forged and built by the generations of patriots who gave everything they had for our rights and for our freedom.

They were farmers and soldiers, cowboys and factory workers, steelworkers and coal miners, police officers and pioneers who pushed onward, marched forward, and let no obstacle defeat their spirit or their pride.

Together, they laid down the railroads, raised up the skyscrapers, built great highways, won two world wars, defeated fascism and communism, and triumphed over every single challenge that they faced.

… With your help, we will restore America promise and we will rebuild the nation that we love, and we love it so much” [16].

Semantically, the axiological antithesis “patriots – traitors” is closely connected with the antithesis “creators – annihilators” as, in the context of the analyzed inaugural addresses, D. Trump emphasizes the constructive and generative constituent of the patriotic nature (which D. Trump, again, attributes to the virtues of his own personality as well as to the virtues of his team’s personalities):

“We will build new roads and highways and bridges and airports and tunnels and railways…” [15]

 “We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones…” [15]

“We will build automobiles in America again…” [16]

 “Like in 2017, we will again build the strongest military…” [16]

Thus, here we can observe the highly positive assessment of those who vindicate their country through the endorsement of D. Trump’s candidacy as they all strive to restore their country’s greatness through creation. In contrast with that assessment, the previous administration is pictured through the prism of destruction and decay:

“…Rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our Nation…” [15]

“One by one, the factories shuttered and left our shores…” [15]

“…The pillars of our society lay broken and seemingly in complete disrepair” [16].

‘It [Government]… provides sanctuary and protection for dangerous criminals, many from prisons and mental institutions, that have illegally entered our country from all over the world” [16].

“We have a public health system that does not deliver in times of disaster…” [16]

At this point of our reasoning, we cannot help assuming the intentionally designed parallel between the heroic ancestors of the American people who were creative, that is patriotic, and the modern day common people who are eager to reconstruct the USA, thus they cannot avoid being of the same patriotic nature. American society in its majority, especially those who are located in small towns and in the province, has always demonstrated the traits of deeply rooted conservatism. Therefore, any address to their origins, to their unity with the ancestors inevitably resonates with their mental code. Their evident contradiction with adherent demolishers of the nation (Washington administration) highlights the semantic belonging of the administration to the category of traitors.    

The use of the axiological antithesis “God – devil”, in which the Trump administration speaks on behalf of God, and, accordingly, previous administrations are meant to be forces objectionable to God and serving evil, is not so obvious in the inaugural addresses of 2017 and 2025. Actually, in his first speech, D. Trump implicitly points to the divine election of his party and the American people only once: “… we will be protected by God”. In the second speech, D. Trump uses the appeal to God as the defender of the American people and himself three times: “I was saved by God to make America great again”; “… we will not forget our God”; “we are one people, one family, and one glorious nation under God”. It is worth noting that the appeal to religious concepts is one of the characteristic features of American political discourse. Suffice it to recall the famous speech of M.L. King “I Have a Dream” in 1963 [14] and the traditional conclusion of the inaugural addresses of American presidents, in which the speaker asks God to bless their country and people: “God bless America”, “God bless the United States of America”, “God bless you”. It should also be emphasized that the idea of the unity of the American people under divine auspices and the need to remember the divine covenants was pointed out by many American presidents in their inaugural addresses, such as R. Nixon in 1969 [17], R. Reagan in 1981 [18] or B. Obama in 2009 [19].

However, it is D. Trump who, in the course of his speeches, turns to analogies that bring the former administration closer to the embodiment of evil, an instrument of forces opposed to God, and the American people and his own personally to the chosen God, the embodiment of the bright forces of goodness and reason. Trump chooses to structure his inaugural address in such a way that he devotes about half of his first speech and about a fifth of his second speech (and chooses the beginning of the inaugural address for this, almost immediately after the welcoming part) to the previous administration, whose actions are evaluated from an exceptionally negative perspective, with extensive use of words with negative connotation (“rusted-out”, “deprived", “robbed", “carnage", “depletion", “vicious, violent, and unfair", “radical and corrupt"). After broadcasting a negative assessment and continuing to maintain this evaluative parallel, D. Trump switches to a positive characterization of the American people, who in this context act as the opposite of the American administration (“wonderful people”, “people of religion, faith, and good will”). As a result, the listener develops the axiological antithesis “administration – people” mentioned above. Along with this, D. Trump resorts to the frequent use of the verb “will” (43 cases of use in the first speech, 94 in the second), which performs the functions of both an auxiliary verb of the future tense and a modal verb with the meaning of promise and will. By voicing his intentions to free the American people from the catastrophic consequences of the administration of the previous president and his team, D. Trump implicitly reveals a projection on his own “I” and on his team as carriers of opposite values and opposing value orientations in the implementation of a political course. For instance, promising in his first speech, “We will bring back our jobs. We will bring back our borders. We will bring back our wealth. And we will bring back our dreams” or in the second one “I will declare a national emergency at our southern border. All illegal entry will immediately be halted, and we will begin the process of returning millions and millions of criminal aliens back to the places from which they came”, D. Trump implicitly assesses the actions of previous administrations as the opposite, i.e. exceptionally harmful, destructive for the country and the people. The sentence “We will bring back our jobs”, for example, can be semantically interpreted as follows: “we will bring back jobs” – “we care about the unemployed” – “we care about the common people” – “the previous administration took jobs away from the common people” – “the previous administration is cruel and indifferent to the people”.

Similarly, the semantic chain of the following sentence “I will declare a state of emergency on the southern border” is disclosed this way: “I will declare a state of emergency on the southern border” – “I care about the security of our country” – “I care about the common citizens of our country” – “the previous administration did not care about the southern borders of our country” – “the previous administration endangered the lives of ordinary citizens of our country” – “the previous administration showed criminal cruelty and indifference to its citizens”. Gradually introducing into the context of the axiological antithesis “administration – people” the concept of God as the supreme power on the side of the newly elected president and the entire American people, D. Trump creates a new antithesis “God–chosen / pleasing to God – displeasing to God / the embodiment of evil,” or, resorting to metonymic connections, “God – devil”. In other words, through the chosen structure of the inaugural address, the speaker distributes value orientations in such a way that a preliminary negative assessments of the opponent’s characteristics, decisions, and actions, as well as references to religious concepts that are popular in American discourse and that reveal the God-chosen nature of the new president and the American people, make it possible to implicitly identify the former administration as a supporter of evil forces, and the new administration as a supporter of goodness and light.

Thus, in the course of our analysis of D. Trump’s two inaugural addresses, we can identify four axiological antitheses:

1) “administration – people”;

2) “patriots – traitors”;

3) “creators – annihilators”;

4) “God – devil”.

In our opinion, these axiological antitheses should not be considered as examples of an exclusively objective or exclusively subjective assessment, since in any case, D. Trump, like most major political figures, effectively combines a subjective value approach with an objective value system when appealing to voters. The choice of these antitheses undoubtedly reveals the ability of D. Trump to both explicitly identify the enemies of the American state and give them an unambiguous, harsh description, and, simultaneously and implicitly, use the cultural code of the American people who are historically receptive to the concepts of religion and faith and, logically, are seeking for the admiration for their forefathers at the given moment of the social, economic and political crisis, i.e. that discloses D. Trump’s ability to effectively manipulate the consciousness of the audience.

One way or another, understanding the axiological aspect of political discourse contributes to a more accurate decoding of its components, including an understanding of motivation, strategy, and mechanisms of political action. The conclusions of this study can be used in subsequent works devoted to axiological linguistics and related disciplines.

1. Гальперин И.Р. Текст как объект лингвистического исследования. – М.: КомКнига, 2007. – 144 с.
2. Коробчак В.Н. Аксиология в системе лингвистических исследований / В.Н. Коробчак, Р.Ю. Слепенчук // Актуальные научные исследования в современном мире. – 2021. – № 11-13(79). – С. 204-207. – URL: https://elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_47498834_39053017.pdf (дата обращения: 24.02.2026).
3. Ваганова Т.П. Категория ценности в аксиологической лингвистике // Актуальные проблемы германистики, романистики и русистики. – 2024. – № 2. – С. 20-25. – URL: https://elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_70349562_88948800.pdf (дата обращения: 24.02.2026).
4. Голуб И.А. Сущность понятий "ценность" и "ценностные ориентации" в психологии и лингвистике // Восток - Запад: теоретические и прикладные аспекты преподавания европейских и восточных языков : Материалы VII Международной научно-практической конференции, Новосибирск, 06 марта 2023 года. – Новосибирск: Сибирский государственный университет путей сообщения, 2024. – С. 57-63. – URL: https://elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_68368810_94981667.pdfhttps://elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_68368810_94981667.pdf (дата обращения: 24.02.2026).
5. Тумбасова Е.Р. Особенности образа «я» и ценностных ориентаций личности при переходе к взрослости: автореф. дис. … канд. псих. наук. Магнитогорск. 2012. 24 с. – URL: https://www.susu.ru/sites/default/files/dissertation/tumbasova_ekaterina_rahmatullaevna.pdf (дата обращения: 24.02.2026).
6. Байтуганов В.И. Формирование ценностных ориентаций обучающихся на традициях народной культуры в условиях сетевого взаимодействия организаций общего и дополнительного образований: автореф. дис. … канд. пед. наук. Барнаул. 2025. 25 с. – URL: https://www.dissercat.com/content/formirovanie-tsennostnykh-orientatsii-obuchayushchikhsya-na-traditsiyakh-narodnoi-kultury/read (дата обращения: 24.02.2026).
7. Старостина Ю.С. Интерпретация лингвистической оценки в терминах аксиологических суждений // Вестник СамГУ. – 2007. – № 3 (53). – С. 232-241. – URL: https://vestniksamgu.ssau.ru/gum/2007web3/yaz/200730601.pdf (дата обращения: 24.02.2026).
8. Рябко Е.И. Аксиологический подход как способ интерпретации текста // Язык и культура: вопросы современной филологии и методики обучения языкам в вузе : Материалы VIII Всероссийской научно-практической конференции с международным участием, Хабаровск, 20 мая 2021 года. – Хабаровск: Тихоокеанский государственный университет, 2021. – С. 264-269. – URL: https://elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_46533626_29163949.pdf (дата обращения: 24.02.2026).
9. Долгова Е.В. Лингвистические средства языкового манипулирования в англоязычном медийном дискурсе / Е. В. Долгова, Т. А. Кудинова // Вестник филологических наук. – 2025. – Т. 5. – № 2. – С. 96-103. – URL: https://elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_80621410_73333108.pdf (дата обращения: 24.02.2026).
10. Назарова Ю.В. Дилеммы цифровизации в культурной парадигме образования: аксиологический контекст // Манускрипт. – 2024. – Т. 17. – № 4. – С. 649-653. – DOI 10.30853/mns20240096. – URL: https://elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_79492827_86329934.pdf (дата обращения: 24.02.2026).
11. Калашникова Л. В. Аксиологическая антитеза в образной системе марийского нравственно-психологического рассказа второй половины ХХ века / Л. В. Калашникова, Р. А. Кудрявцева // Вестник угроведения. – 2019. – Т. 9. – № 3. – С. 427-438. – DOI 10.30624/2220-4156-2019-9-3-427-438. – URL: https://elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_41135451_53228127.pdf (дата обращения: 24.02.2026).
12. Юдина О. А. Роль инаугурационной речи в политической коммуникации: характеристики, функции и особенности перевода // Молодой ученый. — 2019. — № 5 (243). — С. 310-313. — URL: https://moluch.ru/archive/243/56284 (дата обращения: 24.02.2026).

Список источников
13. Институт Философии Российской Академии Наук [сайт]. – URL: https://iphras.ru/page47086732.htm (дата обращения: 24.02.2026).
14. I Have a Dream // Famous Speeches in History [сайт]. URL: https://www.emersonkent.com/speeches/i_have_a_dream.htm (дата обращения: 24.02.2026).
15. Inaugural Address. January 20, 2017 // The American Presidency Project [сайт]. URL: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/inaugural-address-14 (дата обращения: 24.02.2026).
16. Inaugural Address. January 20, 2025 // The American Presidency Project [сайт]. URL: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/inaugural-address-54 (дата обращения: 24.02.2026).
17. Inaugural Address. January 20, 1969 // The American Presidency Project [сайт]. URL: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/inaugural-address-1 (дата обращения: 24.02.2026).
18. Inaugural Address. January 20, 1981 // The American Presidency Project [сайт]. URL: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/inaugural-address-11 (дата обращения: 24.02.2026).
19. Inaugural Address. January 20, 2009 // The American Presidency Project [сайт]. URL: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/inaugural-address-5 (дата обращения: 24.02.2026).