456
There is agreement between semantic (narrative) and audio or visual (non-narrative)
elements [5, P. 33]. In this situation, the visuals might play a supporting part in
manipulating the target's emotions. Additionally, lexical-stylistic
techniques and
language trickery influencing the listeners plays a significant role in music discourse.
Following D. Bilan's victory in Belgrade, the Eurovision Song Contest was hosted in
Moscow in 2009 [9]; however, the organization of the Contest in Russia encountered
numerous issues. The Georgian nation's decision to withdraw from Eurovision 2009
led to one of the conflict scenarios [2]. The pop ensemble Stephane & 3G was selected
by Georgia to represent the nation at the Contest.One of the sources then stated that the
group's members used the music "We don't wanna put in" to express their opposition
to Russian policy. That was closely connected to what happened in South Ossetia in
August 2008 [2]. Another account disputed the song's political allusions. The group
members denied the allegations that there was a political undertone [6]. In response,
the European Broadcasting Union conducted a linguistic analysis of the lyrics of the
Georgian song and determined that the composition broke Rule 2.6 of the Contest,
which prohibited contestants from making political or other pleas [13]. Georgia
declined to alter the lyrics so that it could take part in the competition [6]. Georgia
made the decision to leave the Eurovision Song Contest as a result.
The goal and the study strategy. The goal of the study is to conduct a comprehensive
initiative linguistic analysis [1, P. 16] and determine whether the lyrics to "We don't
wanna put in" contain any verbal violations of the Contest's rules (the
European
Broadcasting Union looked into the lyrics but withheld its findings from the audience).
The video of Georgian contestants singing "We don't wanna put in" was examined as
a multi-modal emotive text to get the full linguosemiotic image. The visual
(screenshot) and verbal content of the paper allows us to consider the authors'
intentions, identify linguistic manipulation techniques, and draw conclusions all at
once. This indicates the academic novelty of the paper in terms of linguistic study of
the text. Yevgrafova, Yu.A., in her.
However, there was an effort to take the first step in that [her] paper.
focused on
describing a limited area of study that should act as a springboard for a more in-depth
examination of the linguosemiotic characteristics of heterogeneous texts, including the
relationships between signs and codes [3, P. 242]. Consequently, integrated study
recommends using the following techniques: description, interpretation, and discourse
analysis.
Language analysis of the song's lyrics, "We don't wanna put in"
457
The following inquiries were made in order to examine the debatable words of "We
don't wanna put in":
1. Is there a connection between the words' "We don't wanna put in" and the song's
content?
2. Does the analysis of the words reveal any implicit meanings? If this is the case, what
kind of knowledge is this?
3. Does the study subject have any persuasive speech?
4. Do the song's "We don't wanna put in" images correspond to its message?
5. Was it feasible to alter the lyrics while maintaining the composition's meaning by
using different words or linguistic techniques?
In order to receive comprehensive answers, it is essential
to take into account the
lexical-stylistic, semantic, discourse, and semiotic aspects of the under consideration
composition "We don't want to put in" [7].
Uncertainty exists in the first line's assertion. The phrase "some people tell you the
stories" («екоторе лди раcскават тее (вам) истории») alludes to a group of people,
i.e., the authors of the composition want to draw attention to particular people. The
next syntactic structure refers to the subject 'you' from the first line and contains the
sentence "To drag you down to the knees" («то оставит те (вас) колени»). To "drag
sb down" is to "make sb feel miserable, sick" [12]. The musical ensemble sings "But
lemme tell you don't worry" («о овол скаат тее - не волнус») in the third line.
For the audience to fully comprehend the experience of art as well as the author's
artistic purpose, information must be conveyed from the author to the audience.
However, to our understanding, no studies have looked into how information is
transmitted from author to audience. As well as being implicit or tacit, the information
that is encoded in art and how it is received is frequently referred to as "implicit
learning" or "tacit knowledge" (Reber, 1989). Studies on neuroimaging have offered
some support for the idea that abstract art contains implicit knowledge. Kawabata and
Zeki (2004) looked at participants' brain activity while they watched representational
(like a landscape or portrait) versus abstract art in one study.
These researchers
discovered no distinction between realistic and abstract art-related brain activity.
(Kawabata & Zeki, 2004). This outcome might indicate.
The audience may also tacitly decode the information concealed in artwork,
according to Umilta, Berchio, Sestito, Freedberg, and Gallese's (2012)
study of
electrical brain activity. The findings of this study support the idea that the viewer's
458
motor areas are activated by the artist's movements on the canvas, such as brush
strokes. (Freedberg & Gallese, 2007). Researchers from Umilta et al. (2012) compared
motor cortex activity in participants viewing either high-resolution digital images or
simplified renditions of Lucio Fontana artworks by displaying cuts on the canvas.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
