Abstract
The study explores the language of trauma by analyzing verbal and non-verbal strategies employed in recounting traumatic experiences. Using interview data from former hostages of the 2002 Dubrovka theatre siege, the research explores lexical and hesitation patterns that may serve as indicators of narratives which are distinct from everyday discourse. Methods such as frequency dictionary compilation, lexical dispersion calculation of individual word forms, and hesitation marker counts were utilized. A multi-level analysis of the subcorpus yielded empirical findings on linguistic and paralinguistic markers of trauma. At the lexico-grammatical level, the prominence of the pronoun “I” and explanatory constructions e.g., “because”, “that is”, over other function words suggests a heightened need to rationalize the events experienced. Variability in the naming of terrorists correlates with temporal distance and the speakers’ cultural context; for instance, the term “Chechens” appears in early interviews (2003–2004) and those by Russian emigrants in the USA, whereas “terrorists” dominates in later interviews (2019–2023). Indirect references to perpetrators e.g., “guys with guns”, also occur, potentially indicating a distancing strategy from the trauma. Paralinguistic analysis found that the highest density of hesitation markers occurs in descriptions of the event climax (three days in captivity), reflecting cognitive and emotional strain. Both inhalations and exhalations do not regulate speech but mark stress mid-narrative, while sighs, though less frequent, correspond to moments of crying and death descriptions, indicating peak affective intensity. The combined methodological approach proved to be effective for investigating the language of trauma.