Language and Power in Discourses of Conflict

by Marina Scharlaj (Volume editor)
©2020 Edited Collection 346 Pages
Series: Specimina philologiae Slavicae, Volume 200


The given volume provides insight into the integrated cooperation that was built in the trilateral scientific project "Aggression and Argumentation. Discourses of Conflict and their Linguistic Negotiation". Presented here are analyses of the relationship of language and power, the interplay of aggression and argumentation, as well as of cooperation and conflict. The Russian-Ukrainian conflict is an important, but not the only starting point for the analytical reflections, that are enriched through research on further conflict situations in Eastern European and (post)socialist areas like former Yugoslavia, the South Caucasus, Poland and the Czech Republic.

Table Of Contents

  • Cover
  • Title Page
  • Copyright
  • Contents
  • About the author
  • About the book
  • Introduction
  • Der Ukraine-Konflikt im Spiegel einer kontrastiv-quantitativen Diskursanalyse: methodologische Grundlagen
  • Über Partner und Brüder – diffuse Freundschaftsbekundungen in den Reden Vladimir Putins
  • Sprachliche Instrumentalisierung des Russland-Ukraine-Konflikts im gegenwärtigen Mediendiskurs
  • Krieg der Menschen, Krieg der Worte, Krieg der Massenmedien. Wie sich der Krieg in der Ukraine in der russischen Sprache widerspiegelt
  • Язык вражды и проблема номинации в конфликтном медиадискурсе
  • Этнические стереотипы украинца и русского в словарях и в речи: от XIX к XXI в.
  • Инсценированная агрессия в скандальных дискурсах (с примерами из российской и украинской политики)
  • Invectives in political TV shows
  • Речевая агрессия в интернет-дискурсе: случай группы «Buceta rosa»
  • #Россияжжет vs. #JedzJabłka – A comparative analysis of Twitter discourses on economic counter-sanctions in Russia and in Poland
  • Lachen zur Macht. Der Kaukasusdiskurs in der sowjetischen Satirezeitschrift Krokodil
  • Language Aggression as an Inherent Part of Populist Discourse
  • Russisch-ukrainischer Konflikt und Identitätskonstruktionen im benachbarten Belarus
  • Скептицизм как эпистемология примирения
  • About the Contributors

←6 | 7→


Marina Scharlaj

The given volume evolved from the project “Aggression and Argumentation. Discourses of Conflict and their Linguistic Negotiation”, funded by the Volkswagen Foundation as part of the programme “Trilateral Partnerships – Cooperation Projects between Scholars and Scientists from Ukraine, Russia and Germany” (2016–2019). The panel “Fear, Aggression and Argumentation. Discourses of the Ukraine after Euromaidan” organised by Marina Scharlaj and Holger Kuße at the 12th Day of German Scholars of Slavonic Studies (Deutscher Slavistentag) in Gießen (2015) presented important groundwork for the project. Finally, the scientific part of the project culminated four years later in the international conference “Language and Power in Discourses of Conflict” at Technische Universität Dresden (24–26 January, 2019). Thus, the given anthology is the result of almost five years’ research conducted at three universities: the aforementioned Technische Universität Dresden, Donetsk National University, which has been transferred to Vinnytsia, and Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia in Saint Petersburg.

As the project evolved, the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, as well as the problem of aggression in general, have become increasingly popular subjects in the field of linguistics, communication and media studies, which has resulted in wider involvement in the trilateral project. Ingunn Lunde (University of Bergen), Liana Goletiani (State University of Milan), Roswitha Kersten-Pejanić (University of Rijeka), Gasan Gusejnov (Higher School of Economics, Moscow), Dirk Uffelmann (Justus Liebig University of Giessen), Aleksandra Salamurovic (University of Jena), Anna-Maria Meyer (University of Cologne), as well as researchers of the Yerevan School of Argumentation and scholars of Ukrainian Studies from the University of Alberta have all contributed ideas, although their work is not included in the volume.

A close and constant exchange of thought has characterised the trilateral project. We would especially like to acknowledge the contribution of the team involved in the project “Bi- and multilingualism between conflict intensification and conflict resolution. Ethno-linguistic conflicts, language politics and contact situations in post-Soviet Ukraine and Russia”, which was established at Justus Liebig University of Giessen by Monika Wingender and also funded by the Volkswagen Foundation. Research on the difficult topic of conflict discourses was aided by cooperation within this international network.

←7 |

Therefore, the current Russian-Ukrainian conflict was an important, but not the only starting point for the analytical reflections. The analyses of the relationship of language and power, the interplay of aggression and argumentation, as well as of cooperation and conflict, was enriched through the perspective of the research partners, considering further conflict situations in Eastern European and (post)socialist areas like former Yugoslavia, the South Caucasus, Poland and the Czech Republic. Thus, the various argumentative strands and strategies articulated in national discourses and in other modes of communication were analysed within the project. Political speeches and legal documents, as well as examples from television, radio, print media, and social networks formed the source basis for the discussion of common attitudes, traditional values, historical references and images in the respective national contexts. The aim of these investigations was nothing less than the development of an integrative analytical concept in order to describe dimensions of aggression and argumentation, but also various forms of conflict and cooperation in general.

Moreover, the project aimed at the creation of an open learning and teaching platform which would guarantee the transfer of knowledge generated in the investigations. Consequently, the project participants discussed the topic of the conflict at workshops, conferences, guest lectures, and summer schools with Russian, Ukrainian and German early-career scientists, language experts, media representatives and students, visualising abstract concepts with the help of concrete examples and testing the developed analytical tools practically. This part of the project work resulted in the publication of Russian and Ukrainian handbooks of media literacy for students, early-career scientists, the interested public and teacher trainers.

The given volume provides an insight into the integrated cooperation that was built and extended between established researchers and young academics in the course of the project, trilaterally as well as multilaterally. Here, exemplary contributions, presented at the introductory panel or the final conference, are offered side by side with the translations of two Russian texts which were already published in other contexts during the course of the project.1

The contribution of Daniel Weiss is related to his scientific project “The Ukrainian conflict as a battlefield of competing legitimization discourses”. This project was concerned with the corpus-based, quantitative acquisition of ←8 | 9→data (keywords, collocations, etc.) from four countries (Russia, Ukraine, Poland and Czech Republic) and four different types of discourses (government speeches, parliamentary debates, television debates, and reports from selected print media). The article in the given volume discusses the gathered corpus data and most common keywords with critical reference to the “proximisation theory” as an instrument for analysing political discourses. It becomes evident that the current Russian-Ukrainian conflict – especially in its imagined threat scenarios – is more complex than earlier conflicts, which served as foundation for the development of the proximisation theory. For instance, from the Russian perspective the threat is perceived as twofold: a long-term threat through the NATO expansion in Central and Eastern Europe, as well as the short-term threat since the Majdan. Weiss analyses selected keywords of the conflict discourse such as war or civil war with regard to their collocations, as their usage shifts with time. Finally, two forms of argumentation are exemplified in particular: argumentation through comparison and through metaphor, while especially focusing on the striking mental correlation of politics with food.

In his article, Holger Kuße addresses the seemingly friendly expressions Vladimir Putin used in reference to his Western critics as well as Ukrainians during the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian conflict and especially after the annexation of Crimea. Western politicians and countries were called “partners” and “friends”, and Putin claimed several times that Ukrainians and Russians are not only “brothers”, but “one people”. Those expressions of “friendship”, “brotherhood” and “unity” are analysed as diffuse messages, which are characterised by an unclear propositional (often axiological) and/ or illocutionary orientation. Generally, diffuseness can be used to mislead addressees and to dominate someone by misleading them, so that the diffuse message becomes an act of aggression and linguistic violence. Against this background, Putin calling the Western opponents “partners” and “friends” at the height of the conflict can be understood as a commitment to partnership despite the conflict, but it can also be perceived as irony or sarcasm. Similarly, the commitment to “brotherhood” and “unity” of Ukrainians and Russians is diffuse, since it can be understood and treated as a commitment to peace, friendship, and respect towards the “brothers and sisters,” but also as a legitimation for the intervention and the suppression, with the underlying idea that the “stronger brother” knows better what is good for his “uneducated relatives”.

From the perspective of Journalism Studies, Elena Taranenko identifies typical stylistic devices in contemporary Russian and Ukrainian language media which led to the acceleration of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict in the recent years and until today. At the core of the analysis are manipulative strategies, which are exploited as weapons in the so-called hybrid war. These include, amongst others, euphemisms and dysphemisms, as well as the paradoxical, bricolage-style combination of both, the shifting of media messages from ←9 | 10→one context to another, the conscious (commissioned) accentuation and hyperbolisation of certain information, the exaggerated emotionality and the generalisation of judgmental statements. The author gives a thorough discussion of the usage of these manipulative strategies in media, strengthening her argumentation with visual material such as memes and (de)motivators. A remarkable example is a film still, showing a crying girl next to her dead grandmother, which became notorious for its heavy circulation on both sides of the conflict. Despite the obvious staged nature of the picture, journalists and social media users likewise claimed it to be documentary photography, attesting to the bestiality of the opposite party.

In his linguistic contribution, Boris Norman witnesses similar phenomena. He investigates the way the conflict in south-eastern Ukraine is depicted in Russian newspapers today. Thereby, a special focus lies on the lexical devices which help constructing the image of the enemy on both sides of the conflict. A predominantly semantic analysis of the examples leads to the conclusion that in the current conflict – or rather in its representation in the Russian language –, politicians and journalists actualise different fragments from two contrary linguistic worldviews, and use them for their own ends. For instance, Russian citizens show very conflicting mental images of the concept of Majdan: While the majority of Russians associate Majdan with chaos, conflict and provocation, only a small, liberal part of society links Majdan to revolution, independence and freedom. The author demonstrates, how certain manipulations enable the speakers to remove some components from the meaning of a word (like in the case of “Majdan,” “sanctions,” “Bandarlogs,” “cyborgs”) and to add other meanings, strengthening the own position and interpretation of reality. Thus, one single word may become an instrument for the revaluation and manipulation of social values.

The Ukrainian media discourse is the topic of Anna Hlushko’s paper. In the course of the project (2014–2016), the author and her colleague Alina Rudchenko created and analysed a corpus, which now forms the material basis of her investigation. Hlushko is concerned with the language of hate in Ukrainian digital media, focusing especially on the problem of nomination. The given article provides a comprehensive discussion of the scientific definition and understanding of hate speech, contrasting these findings with the journalists’ definition of the concept. Further, Hlushko presents a quantitative analysis of journalists’ usage of markers of hate speech, as well as of politically correct expressions, which are recommended by scientists and NGOs. As the analysis reveals, Ukrainian media rarely use nominations which could be classified as harsh, direct hate speech, but rather, show examples of ‘light’, indirect hate speech, which is still perceived as very offensive and is especially present in genres such as blogs or columns. Finally, the author shares meta-reflections ←10 | 11→on the possibilities and difficulties of corpus linguistics in the sphere of conflict discourse research, in general.

In her article, Elena Petrenko utilises the analysis of ethnic stereotypes to research a nationality’s perception of other nationalities as well as its self-perception. In addition, the formation of the opposition “us – them” within ethnic aspects is evaluated on the basis of the stereotypes’ analysis. The author presents her research on ethnic stereotypes about Russians and Ukrainians using 19th century Russian dictionaries and, furthermore, surveys the active use of these stereotypes in today’s digital communication in the social network “Vkontakte”. As is shown in the contribution, ethnic stereotypes strictly divide society into “us” and “them”, often associating “them” with negative characteristics. This results in the struggle of each ethnic group to distinguish themselves from “them” and to establish one’s own identity. Ethnophaulisms and ethnic stereotypes are considered as particular diachronic expressions of hate speech, which makes them relevant for hate speech research.

Staged aggressions, which represent a third category of aggression quite different from direct and indirect ones, are the focal point of Marianna Novoselova’s paper. Concentrating on two concrete examples of scandal discourses from the realm of Russian and Ukrainian political discourse – the notorious birthday party of Vladimir Zhirinovskij and the election campaign of Oleg Ljashko in the Ukrainian parliamentary election of 2012 –, the author develops a typology of staged aggressions. This suggested paradigm allows for the distinction of aggressive vs. non-aggressive form, as well as aggressive vs. non-aggressive intention, and thus for a better understanding of their interconnectedness. Furthermore, Novoselova demonstrates the relevance of the respective discursive context for the analysis of staged aggressions, as diffuseness of the communicative act can complicate the understanding.

Vladimir Karasik also focuses on staged forms of aggression, analysing the constitutive features of staged invectives performed in modern Russian political TV shows. As is argued, these shows are thoroughly devised so as to attract public attention. They are topically focused on a discussion of vital problems of society, they are operated by well-trained participants – fighters, referees and the public – and they always include the conflict agenda which makes the show attractive. This agenda is often artfully balanced between a natural desire of the politician to win and the necessity to do it in an elegant way. Thus, certain deviations from expected norms of behaviour both in topics and in presentation are inevitable. These deviations are often performed as invectives – intentional or spontaneous attempts to insult an opponent. The author identifies the main ideological presuppositions of the invectives, their speech-act structure, their typical verbal expression and their evaluation as given by a referee (a TV anchor) and the public that follows the performance.

←11 |

The study of Valerij Efremov is devoted to various types of verbal aggression relevant for the digital discourse. Based on posts and commentaries by members of the online-community “Buceta rosa: World Cup 2018”, different forms and genres of speech aggression are observed. They range from traditional types of aggression like threat, insult or humiliation to new forms like hate speech, trolling and flaming, which can be seen as conditioned by the new social reality and the digital communication itself. Recurring to theoretical considerations essential for the whole project, special attention is paid to the use of aggressive argumentations by Internet users.

Nadine Thielemann’s paper deals with the social media discourse emerging on Twitter in reaction to the sanctions concerning agricultural products in Poland and in Russia (#Россияжжет vs. #jedzjabłka), asserting that the food ban had different effects on the economy and the public opinion in both countries. As can be observed, the contributions to the hashtag #Россияжжет are characterised by a greater variety of attitudes towards the official policy and its impact on Russian society as compared to the Polish hashtag. Using the example of the two Twitter discourses, the author works on the assumption that social media, due to its participatory and interactive character, offers a discourse arena for a counter-public whose positions (may) deviate from those promoted by mass media. The analysis of the two discourses incorporates a multimodal discourse analysis in order to compare the specific evaluative status and discourse-specific conceptualisations. Finally, a computer-assisted (atlas.ti) coding procedure allows for the identification of the crucial conceptual units employed in each discourse in a bottom-up fashion.

The present contribution by Ilona Kunkel examines the Soviet Russian discourse of the Caucasus on the basis of Krokodil caricatures of the Caucasus and its peoples from 1922 until 1991. Being the most popular and most widely circulated satirical magazine in the Soviet Union, Krokodil and its caricatures can be analysed as a speaker, humorously and understandably communicating the norms and values of the society, and forging images of collective enemies. Although romantic Orientalist images of the Caucasus became a taboo in the beginning of the Soviet Era, the article witnesses a slow return to the Orientalist discourse by the thaw period, becoming more simplified and invective to the end of the Soviet Era. Moreover, the article connects the findings to Schamma Schahadat’s concept of the laughing communities, who used staged forms of collective laughter to humiliate and exclude others. Similarly, the caricatures in Krokodil are situated at an ambivalent twilight area between laughter and power and serve to articulate the own Soviet identity and values, allegedly clearly distinct from the Caucasus.

Martina Berrocal in her contribution provides a critical analysis of the populist style of communication in today’s Czech Republic, as it is represented by politicians like Miloš Zeman, Andrej Babiš or Tomio Okamura. The general ←12 | 13→shift towards populist sentiment in many European countries goes along with the promotion of a highly evaluative and emotional communicative style, exploiting negative emotions such as frustration, anger and fear. The ideas voiced by populists are mainly presented in a simplistic way relying on dichotomic thinking and rhetorical means that underline differences. Thus, the author sets out to examine how the highly critical stance towards elites, the state television and the journalists is framed and realised linguistically and what role language aggression plays in the populist language in the Czech Republic.

Marina Scharlaj concentrates on Belarus – a country, occupying a special place in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict through the constant struggle to please both conflict partners. The contribution identifies president A. Lukašėnka’s initial attempts to exploit the crisis and war between the neighbouring countries in order to secure his own political legitimacy. In the presidential elections of 2015 Lukašėnka gained approval because of the political stability and economic prosperity in his own country in contrast to the unstable situation in the Ukraine. Thus, in his official political rhetoric expressions of sovereignty, also towards Russia, have increased enormously since the Euromaidan. In the following – as a rather paradoxical result of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict – a new wave of Belarussification emerged, which, however, carries a unique feature: For the first time in the history of post-Soviet Belarus a national discourse is carried not only “bottom up” by a small group of opposition members, but also “top down”, using it as an instrument of demarcation and self-assertion against Russia. The author identifies the tendencies of this “soft Belarussification” on the basis of state and non-governmental advertising strategies. Although these strategies are merely an example of commercial nationalism at this stage, in the long term they are able to strengthen national awareness in the country.

The article by Aleksej Panich reconsiders ancient Scepticism as a philosophy of reconciliation – both internally and among arguing philosophical schools. A historico-philosophical glance at this school of thought enables the author to draw the limits of the reconciling power of Scepticism, while elucidating various attempts in the early Modern period to resolve religious and political conflicts with Scepticism’s tools. Furthermore, at the example of Anton Chekhov’s story The Duel the author shows that the sceptical postulate “nobody knows the real truth” may facilitate ethical reconciliation and help to establish an interpersonal dialogue despite all theoretical and ideological discrepancies.

The editor would like to express her gratitude to all participants and colleagues, who submitted their contributions to this publication, as well as those, who were involved in discussions on the project topic at various stages of the work. A special thanks goes out to Ilona Kunkel from the Institute of ←13 | 14→Slavic Studies at Technische Universität Dresden, as without her help with translations and her extensive and attentive support in the editing process, the volume would hardly have come about. Last but not least, we owe our gratitude to the Volkswagen Foundation mentioned in the beginning of the foreword. The project staff, the students and participants of seminars, workshops and summer schools, as well as the conference participants have benefited greatly from the financial support. The funding of the present volume is also provided by the Volkswagen Foundation.

Dresden, December 2019

1 Another important publication, summarising the results of almost five years’ project work, is Holger Kuße’s Aggression und Argumentation. Mit Beispielen aus dem russischukrainischen Konflikt (Wiesbaden 2019; Russian translation: Kusse, Kholger: Agressiya i argumentatsiya, S primerami iz rossijsko-ukrainskogo konflikta, per. s. nem. M. Novoselova, Vinnytsia, 2019). Unlike the given volume, the monograph concentrates on theoretical considerations, partly illustrating them with examples discussed here.

←14 | 15→

Der Ukraine-Konflikt im Spiegel einer kontrastivquantitativen Diskursanalyse: methodologische Grundlagen

Daniel Weiss


В статье обсуждаются сначала главные цели, теория, методы и данные, лежащие в основе научного проекта, посвященного изучению украинского конфликта как поля сражения конфликтующих дискурсов. Этот проект охватывает четыре страны (UKR, RU, PL, CZ), четыре типа дискурсов (правительственные сообщения, парламентские и телевизионные дебаты, статьи и репортажи из отдельных газет) и покрывает период с ноября 2013 по февраль 2015 г. После обсуждения основных черт, а также разных недостатков тнз. “теории аппроксимизации”, предлагаемой в работах П. Чилтона и П. Цапа, представляется лексико-статистический корпусный анализ, разработанный с помощью программы AntConc. Здесь приводится частотный рэнкинг важнейших ключевых слов в межнациональном сопоставлении. В следующей главе прослеживается судьба отдельных слов – таких, как война, гражданская война и их коллокаций; затем следует попытка объяснения полученных результатов. В последнем разделе рассматриваются два типа аналогичной аргументации: сравнения и метафоры. Аргументация посредством исторических параллелей, употребляемых конфликтующими странами, получает критическую оценку. Разбор политических метафор связан главным образом с метафорами еды; примеры подвергаются контекстуальному анализу вместе с метонимиями и блендами, построенными по принципу совмещения ментальных пространств.

1 Die “Proximisation Theory” als Instrument zur Analyse politischer Diskurse

1.1 Die Proximisation Theory und ihre Anwendung in der Forschung

Der vorliegende Beitrag steht im Zusammenhang mit einem Forschungsprojekt zu den Anfängen des Ukraine-Konflikts als Schlachtfeld konfligierender Legitimationsdiskurse.1 Dieses Projekt fokussierte die korpusbasierte quantitative Erfassung von Daten (Keywords, Kollokationen etc.) aus vier Staaten (Russland, Ukraine, Polen und Tschechien) und vier Diskurstypen (regierungsseitige Ansprachen, Interviews, Pressekonferenzen etc.; parlamentarische Debatten; TV-Debatten und Veröffentlichungen ausgewählter Presseorgane) im Zeitraum vom 21.11.2013 bis Anfang 2015, der v.a. aus arbeitstechnischen Gründen in die drei Perioden „Majdan“ bis Ende Februar 2014, „Konsolidierung“ bis zu den ukrainischen Parlamentswahlen im Oktober 2014 und ←15 | 16→„labile Stabilität” für die gesamte Folgeperiode eingeteilt wurde. Die Vorgehensweise zu diesem Teil des Projekts wird in Kap. 2 vorgestellt. Kapitel 1 steht im Zeichen der hauptsächlichen Theorievorgabe des Projekts, nämlich der sogenannten Proximisation Theory (Chilton 2004; Cap 2013). In Kap. 3 kommt eine Komponente dieser Theorie zur Sprache, die sich z. Z. einer systematischen Quantifikation entzieht: es geht um den Stellenwert von Vergleichen und Metaphern im Ukraine-Diskurs. Der Beitrag war eigentlich als Initialzündung zu einer Serie weiterer Publikationen gedacht, unterdessen hat er sich zu deren Nachzügler entwickelt, vgl. Weiss (2017, 2018 und 2019a) sowie Weiss (forthcoming). Unter diesen Arbeiten bietet Weiss (2018) den breitesten Überblick über die quantitative und qualitative Vorgehensweise und die bisherigen Resultate des Projekts. Die anderen beiden bereits veröffentlichten Studien fokussieren demgegenüber Teilaspekte wie die vergleichbasierte Argumentation (2017) und die Verbildlichung von Bedrohungsszenarien (2019a). Angesichts dieser Vorgeschichte sind gewisse Überschneidungen mit früheren Arbeiten in der vorliegenden Studie unvermeidbar.

Proximisation bezeichnet eigentlich lediglich die kognitive Annäherung eines komplexen Sachverhalts an die Vorstellungswelt des Zielpublikums. Gemäß diesem Modell gilt, dass “in processing any discourse people ‘position’ other entities in their ‘world’ by ‘positioning’ these entities in relation to themselves along (at least) three axes, space, time and modality” (Chilton 2004: 57 ff.). Dieses Drei-Achsen-Modell findet aber bei Chilton sogleich Anwendung auf den politischen Diskurs, wo es die diskursive Konstruktion einer direkten oder indirekten Bedrohung nachzeichnet, die Angst auslösen und damit dem Textproduzenten zur Legitimierung des eigenen präventiven oder reaktiven Handelns dienen soll. Eine solche Annäherung ist insbesondere dort vonnöten, wo das beschriebene Geschehen aus der Perspektive des Publikums räumlich, zeitlich und/oder nach seinem Wahrscheinlichkeitsgrad entlegen ist. Mit der Festlegung auf die Legitimierungsfunktion findet aber, auch wenn dies weder bei Chilton noch Cap je festgehalten wird, von Beginn an eine Einengung des ursprünglichen Wortsinns von proximisation statt.


ISBN (Hardcover)
Publication date
2020 (September)
Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Warszawa, Wien, 2020. 346 pp., 54 fig. col., 4 fig. b/w, 9 tables.

Biographical notes

Marina Scharlaj (Volume editor)

Marina Scharlaj is a culturologist and linguist at the Institute of Slavic Studies, Technische Universität Dresden. From 2016–2019, she was the leader of the project "Aggression and Argumentation", financed by the Volkswagen Foundation. Dr. Scharlaj works in the field of digital media and public discourse, official and unofficial culture, as well as cross-border-cultures and conflict discourses.


Title: Language and Power in Discourses of Conflict
book preview page numper 1
book preview page numper 2
book preview page numper 3
book preview page numper 4
book preview page numper 5
book preview page numper 6
book preview page numper 7
book preview page numper 8
book preview page numper 9
book preview page numper 10
book preview page numper 11
book preview page numper 12
book preview page numper 13
book preview page numper 14
book preview page numper 15
book preview page numper 16
book preview page numper 17
book preview page numper 18
book preview page numper 19
book preview page numper 20
book preview page numper 21
book preview page numper 22
book preview page numper 23
book preview page numper 24
book preview page numper 25
book preview page numper 26
book preview page numper 27
book preview page numper 28
book preview page numper 29
book preview page numper 30
book preview page numper 31
book preview page numper 32
book preview page numper 33
book preview page numper 34
book preview page numper 35
book preview page numper 36
book preview page numper 37
book preview page numper 38
book preview page numper 39
book preview page numper 40
347 pages