CZY POTRZEBUJEMY POSTPRAWDY? WYRAŻENIE POSTPRAWDA NA TLE GŁÓWNYCH OPOZYCJI W PODSYSTEMIE POLSKICH WYKŁADNIKÓW FAŁSZU
Do we need postprawda (post-truth)? The expression postprawda against the main oppositions in the subsystem of Polish exponents of falsehood

Summary/Abstract: This paper is dedicated to the noun postprawda (post-truth), which is entering the Polish language. The author discusses the place of the neologism in the class of falsehood exponents relying on the analysis of ‘falsehood’ presented by A. Bogusławski (2007). The main methodological assumptions, apparent already in the title of the study, are formulated on the grounds of structuralism. The principal oppositions in the described set of lexis are based on five properties, namely: 1. the number of subjects engaged in the described communication event; 2. the mood of speaking determined by the predicate, 3. the implication of the current act of speech (or its absence); 4. the responsibility for falsehood; 5. disapproval. Due to its semantic properties, postprawda is one of the assertoric multi-subject discursive exponents containing an element of disapproval. Against other falsehood exponents, such as: przesąd (a superstition), mit (a myth), propaganda, ściema (a whopper), this lexeme is distinguished by thematisation of an ascription described as false and circulating in public, one that is less significant in terms of communication than another unspecified ascription. The falsehood of ascription is known to both the post-truth initiator and the recipient. The instances of using the noun postprawda imply the nonconfrontational and innovative nature of the phenomenon to which the word refers.

• Details
• Contents