RHETORIC OF NARRATIVES ABOUT SIDE EFFECTS FROM VACCINATION IN MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS DURING THE PANDEMIC

The rhetorical specificity of narratives devoted to the problem of side effects and complications from vaccination is used to show that the discussion of the topic of COVID-19 vaccination in social media is a vivid example of polarized discourse. The study material includes 40,303 messages relevant to the topic of side effects and complications from vaccination, published during the COVID-19 pandemic by users of the social network VKontakte. The methods of automated data processing (clustering, sentiment analysis, quantitative-statistical method), lexical and rhetorical analysis are used. The studied text collection clearly shows pro-vaxxer and anti-vaxxer narratives. The rhetoric of most texts is categorical and peremptory. The authors are little inclined to dialogue and perceive the arguments of opponents. The high emotional degree of communication is maintained by the actualization of personal stories, "real cases" from the lives of acquaintances and friends. The anti-vaxxer narrative particularly actively exploits the rhetoric of vulnerability of children and people with severe chronic diseases. Pro-vaxxers mainly appeal to ethics (rhetorical "arguments to duty," accusations of selfishness, references to respect for the work of medical personnel), and also ridicule and discredit opponents. Users with an unambiguous position on the issue of vaccination are more active; their posts are addressed not so much to direct interlocutors as to the readership, including those who have not yet decided on vaccination. The results of the study can be taken into account when studying the specifics of polarization of opinions, developing strategies to prevent its causes and consequences, as well as when analyzing the communicative behavior of actors in situations of crisis and social tension, predicting reactions and adjusting behavioral attitudes of the population related to public health.