home » For garden » Political discourse as a subject of political science philology. Linguistic features of political discourse The language of politics and socio-political discourse

Political discourse as a subject of political science philology. Linguistic features of political discourse The language of politics and socio-political discourse

Discourse, speech, the process of language activity; way of speaking. An ambiguous term in a number of the humanities, the subject of which directly or indirectly involves the study of the functioning of the language - linguistics, literary criticism, semiotics, sociology, philosophy, ethnology and anthropology.

There is no clear and generally accepted definition of "discourse" that covers all cases of its use, and it is possible that this is what contributed to the wide popularity acquired by this term over the past decades: various understandings connected by non-trivial relationships successfully satisfy various conceptual needs, modifying more traditional ideas. about speech, text, dialogue, style and even language.

Discourse is a text in its formation before the mind's eye of the interpreter. The discourse consists of sentences or their fragments, and the content of the discourse is often, although not always, concentrated around some "supporting" concept, called the "discourse topic", or "discourse topic".

Discourse interpretation

Understanding the discourse, the interpreter composes elementary propositions into a common meaning, placing the new information contained in the next interpreted sentence into the framework of the already received intermediate or preliminary interpretation, that is:

Establishes various links within text

Anaphoric, semantic (such as synonymous and antonymic), referential (attributing names and descriptions to objects of the real or mental world) relations, functional perspective (the topic of the statement and what is said about it), etc.;

- "plunges" new information into the topic of discourse.

As a result, referential ambiguity is eliminated (if necessary), the communicative goal of each sentence is determined, and the dramaturgy of the entire discourse is clarified step by step.

Political science part of the discourse

The speech itself is already "politically loaded", since it is a sign of solidarity with other members of society who use the same language. It is sometimes even said that language - as an intermediary link between thought and action - has always been "the most important factor for establishing political repression, economic and social discrimination." Political language differs from ordinary language in that it:

- “political vocabulary” is terminological, and ordinary, not purely “political” linguistic signs are not always used in the same way as in ordinary language;

The specific structure of discourse is the result of sometimes very peculiar speech techniques,

The implementation of discourse is also specific - its sound or written design.

Since the terms political and moral are evaluative, non-linguistic considerations always appear in linguistic research.

Totalitarian discourse

When trying to characterize the features of the "totalitarian" discourse, ethical terms are inevitably introduced into the description, for example:

- “oratory”: the declamatory style of the appeal dominates,

Propaganda triumphalism,

The ideologization of everything that is said, the broad use of concepts, to the detriment of logic,

Exaggerated abstraction and scientism,

Increased criticality and "fiery",

Sloganism, addiction to spells,

agitator enthusiasm,

The prevalence of "Super-I",

party formalism,

Claim for absolute truth.

These properties show the polemical character that is generally inherent in political discourse and distinguishes it from other types of speech. This polemic affects, for example, the choice of words and represents the transfer of military operations from the battlefield to the theatrical stage. Such a sublimation of aggressiveness is inherent (according to some social psychologists) in human nature.

The public purpose of political discourse

The public purpose of political discourse is to impress on the addressees - the citizens of the community - the need for "politically correct" actions and / or assessments. In other words, the goal of political discourse is not to describe (that is, not a reference), but to convince, awakening intentions in the addressee, to give ground for persuasion and encourage action. Therefore, the effectiveness of political discourse can be determined in relation to this goal.

A politician's speech (with some exceptions) operates with symbols, and its success is predetermined by the extent to which these symbols are consonant with the mass consciousness: a politician must be able to touch the right string in this consciousness; statements of a politician should fit into the "universe" of opinions and assessments (that is, in the whole set of internal worlds) of his addressees, "consumers" of political discourse.

Far from always, such a suggestion looks like an argument: trying to attract listeners to their side, they do not always resort to logically coherent arguments. Sometimes it is enough just to make it clear that the position favored by the proponent is in the interests of the addressee.

Defending these interests, one can still influence emotions, play on a sense of duty, on other moral principles.

An even more cunning move is when, putting forward arguments in the presence of someone, they do not at all expect to directly influence someone's consciousness, but simply think aloud in front of witnesses; or, say, putting forward arguments in favor of one or another position, they try - on the contrary - to convince that which is completely opposite to the thesis, etc.

The success of suggestion depends, at a minimum, on attitudes toward the proponent, toward the message in speech as such, and toward the referent object.

Advocating a point of view in political discourse

So, political discourse, in order to be effective, must be built in accordance with certain requirements of "warfare". Speakers usually assume that the addressee knows which camp he belongs to, what role he plays, what this role consists of and - not least - what position he stands for ("affirmation") and against what position and which party or opinion (" negation").

Belonging to a certain party makes the speaker:

From the very beginning, indicate a specific reason for speaking, the motive “I speak not because I want to talk, but because it is necessary”;

Emphasize the “representativeness” of your speech, indicating on behalf of which party, faction or grouping this opinion is expressed,

The motive "we are many"; since collective action is more spectacular than individual performance, supportive action from like-minded people is often provided;

Avoid the manifestation of personal motives and intentions, then the social significance and responsibility are emphasized, the social engagement of the speech is the motive "I represent the interests of the whole society as a whole."

As on the battlefield, political discourse is aimed at destroying the "combat power" of the enemy - weapons (that is, opinions and arguments) and personnel (discrediting the opponent's personality).

One of the means of destroying the opponent in political debate is to ridicule the opponent. Laughter in general, according to many theorists, shows an unconscious desire to humiliate the enemy, and thereby correct his behavior. This orientation has been consciously exploited in political debate since the time of the Roman Empire.

This is evidenced by the diatribes of Cicero, in which even the intimate characteristics of the enemy are ridiculed, generally speaking, not directly related to politics. Poe, the speaker "enters into an agreement" with the listener, seeking to exclude his political opponent from the game as not deserving any positive attention. We find many instructive examples of this method of destroying the enemy in V. I. Lenin.

Since ridicule is on the edge of ethically acceptable, it can be assumed that the most offensive humor is perceived by society as appropriate only at the most critical period; and in "normal" periods such a genre is hardly acceptable.

In a milder form, they exclude the opponent from the game when they are talking not about a person (arguing ad hominem), but about erroneous views, "anti-scientific" or untenable.

Analysis of political discourse

Among researchers there is no generally accepted definition of the language of politics. In linguistic literature, along with the concept of "political discourse", the definitions of "socio-political speech", "propaganda-political speech", "language of social thought", "political language" are used.

In linguistic literature, there is a broad and narrow understanding of political discourse.

Narrow definition of political discourse

The narrow definition of political discourse is that political discourse is a class of genres limited to the social sphere, namely politics. Government discussions, parliamentary debates, party programs, politicians' speeches - these are the genres that belong to the sphere of politics.

Political discourse is the discourse of politicians.

"Critical linguists" argue that understanding of the social order is most fully and naturally achieved through a critical understanding of the power of language. In their opinion, the peculiarity of modern society is that the dominance of one social group occurs not through coercion, but through consent, through ideology, through language. "Critical linguists" believe that discourse is an integral part of social relations, because, on the one hand, it forms these relations, and on the other hand, it is formed by them. Any discourse is considered in three ways: as the use of language, as "implantation" in the public consciousness of certain ideas, as the interaction of social groups and individuals. "Critics" conduct research on social interaction, paying attention to the linguistic components of this interaction. The analysis of linguistic elements helps to identify implicit attitudes in the system of social relations and show the hidden effects of discourse on this system. method.

This method is based on the assumption that human cognitive structures (perception, language, thinking, memory, action) are inextricably linked within one common task - to explain the processes of assimilation, processing and transformation of knowledge, which, respectively, determine the essence human mind.

Linguocognitive analysis of political discourse is designed to find out how structures of human knowledge about the world are manifested in linguistic structures; political ideas inherent in a person, a social group or society as a whole. The technique of cognitive analysis makes it possible to reconstruct a person's ideas about the outside world, his likes/dislikes, value views, and also makes it possible to judge the political situation, since the internal models of the leader's world turn out to be part of an objective picture of the political situation. method.

Within the framework of this method, the rhetorical approach to the study of political discourse is most vividly and fully presented, which is probably due to the main function of a political text - the function of speech influence. Linguists are interested in what linguistic means are used by the author to impose certain political ideas. The subject of their study is all those linguistic means that can be used to control the consciousness of the interlocutor. Obviously, the wide representation of the linguistic directions of this method is explained by the variety of linguistic means of alternative representation of reality.

Content analysis

A special place is occupied by the content analysis of the speeches of political leaders. Scientists, analyzing Hitler's speeches, found that the index of military propaganda that gives out aggressive aspirations consists in an increase in statements about persecution, an increase in references to force, aggression as self-defense, while a decrease in consideration for the well-being of others. As a result of comparing the speeches of Kennedy and Khrushchev on the eve of the Caribbean crisis, the “mirror hypothesis” was confirmed, according to which the perception of America and the perception of the Soviet Union were distorted in the same way.

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010 .

See what "Political Discourse" is in other dictionaries:

political discourse is the totality of all speech acts used in political discussions. See discourse... Explanatory Translation Dictionary

- (French discours, from Latin discursus reasoning, argument) is one of the complex and difficult to define concepts of modern linguistics, semiotics and philosophy, which has become widespread in English and especially French-speaking cultures. Meaning… … Philosophical Encyclopedia

Or discourse (fr. discours) in the general sense of speech, the process of linguistic activity. In a special, socio-humanitarian sense, the socially conditioned [clarify] organization [clarify] speech systems, as well as certain principles, in ... Wikipedia

discourse- DISCOURSE (discourse (English), Diskurs (German), discourse (French)) as a term comes from the Latin "discurrere" "discussion", "negotiations", even "squabble". Attention to the term and concept of "D." was attracted in that historical era when ... Encyclopedia of Epistemology and Philosophy of Science

Television discourse- In semiotic terms, D.t. is polystructural, using sign codes of other systems: theater, cinema, painting, folklore, mass culture, colloquial speech. The situations of the viewer’s contact with the television message are diverse… Psychology of communication. encyclopedic Dictionary

Discourse- (from French discours speech, reasoning) a type of writing, text, statement, suggesting a direct appeal to the listener, coming from the speaker (author of the statement). The term was introduced by the Swiss linguist F. de Saussure (1857 1913). According to Saussure, D... alternative culture. Encyclopedia

PRAGMA LINGUISTICS

S.N. Generalova

The concept of "political discourse" in the linguoculturological paradigm

In recent decades, the study of discourse has been an important trend in modern linguistics due to the change in the scientific paradigm that has occurred in linguistics, namely: the anthropocentric paradigm comes to the place of the dominant system-structural and static paradigm. The purpose of this article is to give an overview of existing approaches to the definition of political discourse and try to formulate the characteristics of this concept from the position of the linguoculturological paradigm, which is centered on language, culture and cultural and linguistic personality.

The investigation of political discourse is an actual problem in linguistics where we can observe the shift of the static paradigm into anthropocentric one. The paper focuses on the cultural approach to the investigation of political discourse. The article reviews a number of works related to this sphere and suggests its own understanding of the question under study. As an object of linguistic-cultural study political discourse has some features which can unfold the nature of this phenomenon.

Key words: politics, discourse, political discourse, linguistic and cultural studies, language, linguistic personality, culture.

Keywords: politics, discourse, political discourse, cultural linguistics, language, language personality, culture.

A considerable number of studies are devoted to political discourse, each of which is of great interest, but, despite this, there is no generally accepted definition of political discourse, neither in foreign nor in domestic science. Perhaps it is this fact that contributed to the wide popularity acquired by this term in recent years. To understand the essence of the phenomenon of "political discourse", it is necessary, first of all, to dwell on the concept of the term "discourse" itself. In Russian linguistics, there is also no single definition of this term due to its belonging to a number of humanities. Therefore, we will try to identify the main characteristics of discourse, by which it is opposed to other speech events.

An analysis of the earliest works testifies to a formal approach to the study of discourse, which is defined as a speech product above the level of a sentence or phrase, and this phenomenon has long been neglected. Only after the appearance of the works of the Dutch scientist T. Van Dyck, discourse began to be considered “as a complex communicative phenomenon, not only including the act of creating a certain text, but also reflecting the dependence of the created speech work on a significant number of extralinguistic circumstances - knowledge about the world, opinions, attitudes and specific goals speaker." Consequently, this definition is more multifaceted and versatile, since its interpretation goes far beyond the literal understanding of the statement itself.

In modern linguistics, they continue to argue about the versatile interpretations of this phenomenon within the framework of several approaches developed by representatives of various schools. First of all, this term allows not only pronunciation options (with stress on the first or second syllable), but also many scientific interpretations. E.S. Kubryakova gives the following classification of approaches to the definition of the concept of "discourse":

1. structural-syntactic approach: discourse as a fragment of the text, that is, education above the level of the sentence (superphrasal unity, complex syntactic whole);

2. structural and stylistic approach: discourse as a non-textual organization of colloquial speech, characterized by fuzzy division into parts, the dominance of associative links, spontaneity, situationality, high contextuality, stylistic specificity;

3. communicative approach: discourse as verbal communication (speech, use, functioning of language), either as a dialogue, or as a conversation, that is, a type of dialogical statement, or as a speech from the position of the speaker, as opposed to narrative, which does not take into account such a position.

Of the proposed classification of approaches, the communicative approach, in our opinion, is fundamentally important for its analysis from the point of view of the linguoculturological aspect. First of all, the author shifts the focus to the human factor, presenting discourse as speech from the position of the speaker, and at the same time, the discourse is presented from the position of the language system. Thus, the communicative approach presents discourse as the functioning of language in speech from the standpoint of the speaker.

From the point of view of M.L. Makarov, who correlates this term with such related concepts as text, speech and dialogue, discourse

can be interpreted as "text plus situation". Secondly, discourse can be carried out by means of the text implemented in the message. Thirdly, discourse can be understood as speech activity, which is at the same time linguistic material (according to L.V. Shcherba), and text is understood as linguistic material, that is, discourse is considered in the interaction of speech and text. In other words, discourse is understood by the author as the realization of a text in speech in a specific situation of communication.

The idea of the interaction of speech and text also lies in the concept of such an authoritative scientist as V.I. Karasik, who defines discourse as ""a text in a situation of real communication"". IN AND. Karasik identifies 4 types of discourse features:

1. constitutive features, which are a combination of 5 components:

People considered from the standpoint of communication in their status-role and situational-communicative roles;

Spheres of communication and communicative environment;

Motives, goals, strategies, deployment and division of communication;

Channel, mode, tone, style and genre of communication;

The sign body of communication (texts with non-verbal inclusions);

2. signs of institutionalization concretize the constitutive signs of discourse along the lines of communication participants, according to the goals and conditions of communication, fix the context in the form of typical chronotopes, symbolic and ritual actions, stencil genres and speech clichés;

3. signs of the type of institutional discourse characterize the type of public institution according to its key concept;

4. neutral signs include 3 heterogeneous components:

Building material of discourse;

Person-oriented fragments of communication;

Moments of institutional discourse that are more characteristic of other institutions.

Upon closer examination of the listed features, we can conclude that the discourse by its nature is of a cultural nature: for example, in person-oriented communication, the awareness of the meaning by the addressee depends on the form of the sign and the personal concept sphere of the addressee. Or, for example, the key concept of the institution, designated in the mind by a special name, is associated with ""certain functions of people,<...>, public rituals,<...>, stereotypes and texts produced in this social

education" (ibid., p. 56). These examples show that the codes of culture and its components are fundamental factors in the formation of discourse.

In view of the foregoing, the discourse in the further presentation is proposed to be understood as a text that has its own author and was created to achieve certain goals in real communication, which reflects the way of seeing the world inherent in this society.

Political discourse is a special kind of discourse in terms of its institutional affiliation. To understand the essence of this phenomenon, let us dwell on the concept of "politics". An analysis of the approaches of specialists in the field of political science and philosophy according to Internet resources and dictionaries shows that this term is not interpreted in the same way by different authors. Compare the definition given in the Big Philosophical Dictionary, on the one hand, and the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, on the other hand: "Politics is the field of activity associated with the relations between classes, nations and other social groups, the core of which is the problem of conquering, retaining and using the state power; participation in the affairs of the state; determination of the forms, tasks and content of its activities. "Politics is a process by which group of people make decisions. The term is generally applied to behavior within civil governments, but politics has been observed in all human group interactions, including corporate, academic and religious institutions. It consists of social relations involving authority or power and refers to the regulation of a political unit, and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy" . But in the above definitions, despite a number of differences, one should pay attention to the key units used in them: social groups and relations between them, power, state, tactics and methods of activity. Since they are interconnected with each other, the socio-cultural relations between them are realized through the language, which is "" the most important repository of collective experience", and in this sense, culture. is a process of encoding-decoding information related to defending the interests of a certain class using the apparatus of power. Through language, a politician imposes his point of view, he builds his speech in accordance with the psychological laws of controlling the consciousness of the audience, organizes and formalizes it depending on the participants, goals, social norms and cultural traditions. Thus, politics, power have linguoculturological

dimension, since they allow interpretation in the signs of the culture of a particular community.

The vast majority of authors of works in the field of political discourse research set themselves the task of considering the features of the politician's discourse and the communication carried out by him. To characterize the political communication of A.P. Chudinov distinguishes the following antinomies: rituality - informativeness, institutionality - personal character, esotericism - general availability, reductionism - the multidimensionality of information in a political text, authorship - anonymity of a political text, intertextuality - autonomy of a political text, aggressiveness - tolerance in political communication. Political discourse has a system of constitutive features that determine its essence and is endowed with a number of functions.

In foreign linguistics "" political discourse is the formal exchange of reasoned views as to which of several alternative courses of action should be taken to solve a societal problem. It is intended to involve all citizens in the making of the decision, persuade others (through valid information and logic), and clarify what course of action would be most effective in solving the societal problem"" . In this definition, political discourse is considered as communication not only in the socio-political sphere (search for the most effective way to solve a social problem), but also in the public sphere of communication (influencing the audience with the help of solid information), that is, the relationship between social groups is emphasized.

According to the authoritative opinion of E.I. Sheigal, political discourse has two dimensions: real and virtual. Under the real dimension, the author understands the immediacy of speech activity and its emotional and valuable coloring, as well as speech works (texts) resulting from this activity, taken in the interaction of linguistic, paralinguistic and extralinguistic factors.

The virtual dimension of discourse, the researcher believes, is a semiotic space that includes verbal and non-verbal signs, the total denotation of which is the world of politics, a thesaurus of statements, a set of models of speech actions and genres specific to communication in this area.

For us, it is of interest to study political discourse in real terms, since it shows the essence of the features that form political discourse. Speech activity is carried out in a certain context in which the subject of speech and the addressee are endowed with certain social roles

according to their participation in political life, as a result of which texts arise, taking into account the influence of linguistic and non-linguistic factors on them. The author (in this case, a politician), before imposing his opinion on the addressee, tries to "move" into a foreign mental world, where he takes into account the personal characteristics of the actor, place, time, and circumstances. Behind the discourse, one can see a fragment of the author's mental world, his way of seeing the world that he himself creates. Consequently, political discourse in different societies is characterized by features of cultural specificity.

Thus, in the political discourse, its linguoculturological essence comes to the fore. In terms of their significance, such concepts as "politics", "power", "social class", "strategies", "tactics", "relationships between classes and groups" approach the constants of culture in the understanding of Yu.S. Stepanova: "Concepts exist in different ways in their different layers, and in these layers they are differently real for people of a given culture." Therefore, these concepts are widely and diversely represented in the language system. Through language, a person (in this case, a politician) not only expresses his attitude to the world, his inner intention and readiness for action, but also “language itself imposes on a person a certain vision of the world”, “including national traditions, language, history, a model formed and polished for centuries political communication, interaction with other national cultures, etc. "". Culture is a fundamental factor in the formation of a language, but the role of language, according to E. Sapir, in the accumulation of culture is obvious and significant. Secondly, these concepts are reflected in speech ( texts) and discursive practices that are built in accordance with certain psychological laws of controlling the minds of the audience.

In addition, political discourse is always ideologically colored, that is, determined by the most important and major ideologies, such as conservatism, liberalism, fascism, anarchism, etc., which form social positions. The ideological component of political discourse is the conquest and preservation of power, and ideological beliefs manifest themselves in political discourse at the content level, through various methods of speech influence (argument), linguistic means (consciousness manipulation), etc.

So, in the linguistic literature, political discourse is presented as a multifaceted and multifaceted phenomenon, as a complex of elements that form a single whole. One cannot but agree with Baranov A.N. and his co-authors that political discourse -

it is "the totality of all speech acts in political discussions, the rules of public policy, consecrated by tradition and tested by experience" "and reflecting the specific features of the politician's mental world. Accepting this definition as a whole, I would like to make a significant addition to it in the form of a factor in the functioning of political discourse in a certain linguocultural space, which reflects the specific features of the politician's personal concept sphere.

Thus, as an object of linguoculturological analysis, political discourse has a number of essential features that determine its essence: purposefulness and dynamism of character, situational confinement, momentary (spontaneity) of speech activity, attachment to a certain context, belonging to a whole layer of culture, as well as genre or ideological affiliation.

Bibliography

1. Baranov A.N., Kazakevich E.G. Parliamentary debates: traditions and innovations. - M.: Knowledge, 1991.

2. Wikipedia (materials: Big Philosophical Dictionary, Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics). Free Internet Encyclopedia // D. Wales, L. Sanger. - USA, 2001. http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/

3. Dyck Van T. Towards the definition of discourse. //www.hum.uva.nl/-teun.

4. Karasik V.I. Ethnocultural types of institutional discourse // Ethnocultural specifics of speech activity: collection of reviews. - M., 2000.

5. Kubryakova E.S. On the concepts of discourse and discursive analysis in modern linguistics // Discourse, speech, speech activity: functional and structural aspects. - M., 2000.

6. Makarov M.L. Fundamentals of the theory of discourse. - M., Gnosis, 2003.

7. Malysheva O.P. Political Communication as a Phenomenon of Ethno-Culture // Political Linguistics. - No. 3. - 2008. - Yekaterinburg.

8. Sapir E. Selected works on linguistics and cultural studies / E. Sepir - M., 1993.

9. See e.g. Sorokin Yu.S. Political discourse: an attempt to interpret the concept // Political discourse in Russia. - M., 1997; Zheltukhina M.R. The comic in the political discourse of the late 20th century. Russian and German politicians. Volgograd, 2000; Demyankov V.Z. Political discourse as a subject of political science philology. M., 2002

10. Stepanov Yu.S. Constants. Dictionary of Russian culture. Research experience. - M., School "Languages of Russian culture", 1997.

11. Ter-Minasova S.G. Language and intercultural communication: textbook. allowance. - M., 2000.

12. Chudinov A.P. Political linguistics // General problems, metaphor: textbook. allowance. - Yekaterinburg, 2003.

13. Sheigal E.I. Semiotics of political discourse. - Volgograd, 2000.

Let us consider in more detail what functions are inherent in PD. As mentioned above, scientists who study PD agree that its basic instrumental function is the struggle for political power (R. Vodak, A.P. Chudinov, E.I. Sheigal, etc.). The remaining functions of PD are subordinate to this main function, which is the main specificity of PD. Taking into account that the concept of struggle presupposes the presence of opposing sides, supporters and opponents, friends and enemies, it is obvious that the PD is built around the opposition “friend or foe”, which, as one might assume, will manifest itself in one way or another in its functions.

There are several approaches to the classification of PD functions, however, despite the different names, in essence they coincide or complement each other to one degree or another. We will consider two approaches to the PD functions developed by A.P. Chudinov and E.I. Sheigal, since, without conflicting with each other, these two systems together reveal the fullest functionality of the PD and can serve as the basis for the study of "friend or foe" CR.

A.P. Chudinov considers six language functions (communicative, metalinguistic, motivational, emotive, phatic and aesthetic) identified by R. Yakobson in relation to PD [Chudinov 2006: 81-88].

The communicative function of PD implies the possibility of communication between a politician and citizens and is focused on the transfer of information about events in the political sphere. Here it is necessary to make a reservation that the transmission of information in its pure form in political discourse is impossible, given its focus on the struggle for power. Communication of information is almost always carried out using such strategies as transferring information in a favorable light for the speaker or writer, that is, in such a way that “ours” are presented positively, and “strangers” - negatively; bringing to the fore the necessary information that meets the interests of the speaker; and vice versa, suppression of information that does not contribute to a positive self-presentation.

The metalinguistic function is aimed at explaining special political or economic terms and concepts to ordinary citizens. A subjective interpretation is superimposed on such an explanation, as in the transfer of information, and quite often techniques are used that work to evaluate the interpreted concept and contribute to the perception necessary for the author.

Another function, which is also noted by most authors as inherent in PD, is incentive (also known as the function of mobilization or vocative), that is, the impact on the addressee, involving him in active political activity [Glukhova 2001: 69], the ability to stimulate voters to take specific actions, to attract supporters. PD is designed to form a certain political picture of the world in the public mind, to emotionally influence the population, to impose that view of political reality that will correspond to the picture of the world of the speaker or writer and his supporters (that is, the “friends” camp).

The emotive function is aimed at expressing the author's emotions and creating the necessary emotional background, which helps to convince the addressee and encourage him to take the necessary actions.

The phatic function is intended to establish and maintain contact with the reader - in PD it can be expressed in the use of ideologemes that serve as a kind of signal about the political views of the speaker or listener, as well as in the use of colloquial lexemes and syntactic structures to create the effect of informal friendly communication.

The aesthetic function considered by A.P. Chudinov, as another of the functions of PD, is focused on attention to the form of the message, on the creation of an expressive political statement, which, due to its originality and expressiveness, can interest the addressee and attract more supporters.

In addition to the six functions identified in the language by R. Jacobson, A.P. Chudinov notes a cognitive function that is inherent in any kind of discourse, including political. The cognitive function is embodied in the use of language to conceptualize the world, to create both a personal and a group political picture of the world.

E.I. Sheigal singles out a group of functions (orientation, integration and atonality) that are of particular importance for PD, due to the fact that the implementation of these functions is associated with the use of specific signs that make up the semiotic base of political discourse [Sheigal 2004]. These functions are closely related to the dichotomy "friend or foe", which is archetypal for PD. In the course of this study, it was revealed how these functions are implemented in the English-language PD (in the work of E.I. Sheigal, the object of analysis is mainly the Russian-language PD).

The orientation function serves to identify policy agents, to indicate their political position, and marks the object as "one's own" or "alien". In English PD, this function is represented by an explicit or hidden opposition, realized, for example, through deictics (we - they, our - theirs, this - that) or political vocabulary (left - right, liberal - authoritarian).

The function of integration essentially coincides with the phatic function in the terminology of A.P. Chudinov and consists in finding and rallying supporters, joining the speaker / writer to the group of “friends”. This function is carried out through the use of language means that mark the author as “one of their own”. In the English-language PD, the linguistic means that are used to implement the integration function include linguistic units that have a positive meaning or connotation (in particular, political vocabulary with a positive evaluative sign), as well as linguistic means that help establish contact with the addressee, such as deictic signs we, our, you and I, colloquial vocabulary, various colloquial syntactic constructions (ellipses, question-answer units). By emphasizing belonging to the same group as the addressee and creating the appearance of common interests, the author thus enlists the solidarity of the reader and uses this technique for manipulative influence.

essence the agonal function is reduced to the overthrow of the opponent and the lowering of his political status. This function is mainly carried out through the use of language means with a negative appraisal. These include some deictic signs (those, that) political labels (totalitarian, fascist, racist), negative evaluative vocabulary (stupid, corrupt), pejorative colloquial vocabulary (daft, fat cat, rubbish, talking shop), dysphemisms, etc.

For the present study, the above-mentioned functional triad (functions of orientation, integration, and agonality) is of great importance, since it is these functions of PD that are implemented through linguistic means that are directly involved in the representation of KO "friend - foe". How and by what language means these functions are carried out will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.

As for other PD functions given by A.P. Chudinov, communicative, incentive, emotive, metalinguistic, aesthetic and cognitive (except for phatic, which is identical to the function of integration), then they characterize the entire PD, and their selection seems appropriate when considering political communication as a whole. Due to the fact that these functions do not play a classifying role for linguistic means directly involved in the representation of the "friend or foe" dichotomy, they are of less interest for this study.

Political discourse determines the linguistic picture of the world and the linguistic consciousness of modern society. Political thinking, political communicative action and linguistic form are in close unity, which makes political discourse an object of interdisciplinary research. Currently, political scientists, psychologists, philosophers, sociologists, economists, specialists in communication theory are studying political discourse. In recent decades, this area of knowledge has become the object of close attention of linguists. Interest in the study of political discourse led to the emergence of a new direction in linguistics - political linguistics.

Where did this interest come from? According to A.N. Baranov, it is based on three main factors. The first of them is the internal patterns of development of the linguistic theory itself, which could not ignore such a sphere of the functioning of the language system as politics. The second factor is the need for political science in the methods of analysis of political texts and media texts to monitor various trends in the public mind. The third is a social order associated with attempts to save political communication from the manipulations of unscrupulous politicians.

In linguistic literature, the category of political discourse is used in two senses: narrow and broad. In a broad sense, this concept includes such forms of communication in which at least one of its components belongs to the sphere of politics - the subject, the addressee or the content of the message. This point of view is shared, in particular, by Russian scientists E.I. Sheigal and A.N. Baranov.

So, A.N. Baranov defines political discourse as "a set of discursive practices that identify participants in political discourse as such or form a specific topic of political communication" .

E.I. Sheigal considers political discourse in two dimensions - real and virtual, while in the real dimension it is understood as "a text in a specific situation of political communication, and its virtual dimension includes verbal and non-verbal signs oriented to serving the sphere of political communication, a thesaurus of precedent statements, and also models of typical speech actions and an idea of typical genres of communication in this area.

With this approach, the study of political discourse involves the analysis of all semiotic systems, and the language material is the statements of politicians, political observers and commentators, publications in the media, materials of specialized publications relating to various aspects of politics.

But many researchers consider political discourse as a phenomenon of an exclusively public sphere. Political discourse is understood as the actual use of language in the socio-political sphere of communication and, more broadly, in the public sphere of communication.

This approach is followed by one of the leading researchers of this issue, the famous Dutch scientist T. van Dijk. He believes that political discourse is a class of genres that is quite clearly limited to the social sphere, namely politics. Government discussions, parliamentary debates, party programs, politicians' speeches - these are the genres that belong to the sphere of politics. Thus, political discourse is understood exclusively as the discourse of politicians. Limiting the political discourse to the professional framework, the activities of politicians, the scientist notes that political discourse is at the same time a form of institutional discourse.

This means that the discourses of politicians are considered to be those that are produced in such an institutional environment as a government meeting, a parliamentary session, a political party congress. The utterance must be delivered by the speaker in his professional role as a politician and in an institutional setting. Thus discourse is political when it accompanies a political act in a political setting.

As you can see, the differences in the interpretation of the concept of political discourse are quite significant. However, most of the researchers dealing with the problem of political discourse are unanimous that the main goal of political discourse, which predetermines its use as an instrument of political power, is the struggle for power. As noted by V.Z. Demyankov, the public purpose of political discourse is to inspire the addressees - the citizens of the community - with the need for "politically correct" actions and / or assessments, since this is beneficial to those who seek power.

Thus, political discourse can be attributed to a special type of communication, which is characterized by a high degree of manipulativeness.

The question of the boundaries of political discourse and its genre varieties is associated with the problem of the institutionality of political discourse.

With a narrow understanding, political discourse will be limited only to institutional forms of communication (for example, an inaugural speech, a decree, a report, a party program, a presidential address on the situation in the country, etc.), i.e., those that are carried out in public institutions, where communication is an integral part of their organization.

The broad approach is based on two levels in the definition of policy: the first level is represented by institutional forms of communication, the second - by non-institutional ones. It seems that political discourse cannot be limited only to status-oriented communication, therefore, it is open to all members of the language community (not bound by certain role relations) and is focused on the specific use of language as a means of not only control and persuasion, but also manipulation. With this approach, the political discourse should include political rumors, and memoirs of politicians, and chanting of slogans, as well as many other things that belong to the sphere of politics in any of its three components.

Accepting a broad understanding of political discourse, which includes both institutional and non-institutional forms of communication, we, following E.I. Sheigal, we believe that, like any other, political discourse has a field structure, in the center of which are those genres that correspond to the maximum extent to the main purpose of political communication - the struggle for power: parliamentary debates, speeches of political figures, voting.

In peripheral genres, the function of the struggle for power is intertwined, as the researcher shows, with the functions of other types of discourse, while the characteristics of different types of discourse are superimposed in one text. For example, legal discourse intersects with political discourse in the sphere of state legislation, political advertising is a hybrid genre of political and advertising discourse, and memoirs of politicians are political and artistic discourses.

Based on a broad understanding of political discourse, the following varieties can be distinguished:

* institutional political discourse (pre-election campaign, parliamentary debates, official speeches by the leaders of the state and its structures, designed for a mass audience, interviews of political leaders, etc.);

* mass media (media) political discourse, which uses texts created by journalists and distributed through the press, television, radio, Internet; examples are an interview, an analytical newspaper article written by a journalist, political scientist or politician (often with the help of a media specialist). Journalists in this case draw the attention of the audience to the problem, offer ways to solve it, report on the attitude of political organizations and their leaders towards it, help politicians in achieving their goals;

* official business political discourse, within which texts are created intended for employees of the state apparatus;

* texts created by "ordinary citizens" (letters and appeals addressed to politicians or government agencies, letters to the media, etc.);

* "political detective stories", "political poetry" and texts of political memoirs;

* political texts of scientific communication.

The boundaries between the six named varieties of political discourse are not quite clear, it is not uncommon to observe their mutual intersection.

Another classification of sources for studying political communication is based on the distinction between oral and written speech. Oral sources include, in particular, materials of parliamentary debates, speeches of political leaders at meetings with voters, rallies, official ceremonies, etc.

Written sources are programs of political parties and movements, leaflets, slogans, presidential messages to parliament, speeches by politicians in the press, etc.

In terms of volume, among the genres of political speech, small (slogan, slogan, speech), medium (speech at a rally or in parliament, leaflet, newspaper article, etc.) and large (party program, political report, book of political journalism, etc.) are distinguished.

Belonging to a particular genre largely determines the choice of language means, which is also determined by the goals of political discourse, the specific intentions of the speaker, the situation of communication, and the nature of the recipient.

The main theme of political discourse is politics, political struggle, which predetermines the use of a special group of words in it - political vocabulary (parliament, deputy, head of administration, voting, voter, mayor, opposition, decree, etc.). As noted by A.P. Chudinov, one should distinguish between political vocabulary and political science terminology. Political science terminology, like any terminology, is fully known only to specialists.

Political vocabulary is a thematic association of commonly used words that should be understood by everyone (the absolute majority of citizens).

Political vocabulary is constantly enriched by political science terminology: for example, a few years ago such words as consensus, impeachment, summit were understood only by specialists, but now they have become well-known, that is, there has been a despecialization of the term. Another feature of political speech is the widespread use of speech cliches (gloomy forecasts, a crisis of confidence, behind-the-scenes deals, a responsible post, political will, a pyramid of power, an effective management system, serious work experience).

In addition, political texts are characterized by the use of words and phrases with evaluative semantics, high, solemn vocabulary (especially in such genres as inaugural speech, speech at a rally, in parliament, political advertising). A characteristic feature of the political discourse of recent years is also the use of rude colloquial and slang vocabulary, sometimes even invective. This is explained by the fact that strict regulation remained in the past, which determined the strict adherence to all kinds of norms (language, speech, genre, ethical, compositional, and others), which in some cases played a positive role.

Metaphor is an important language tool that allows realizing such functions of political discourse as persuasion and manipulative influence.

A.P. Chudinov distinguishes four types of models of political metaphor: anthropomorphic (for example, the metaphor of family, illness), sociomorphic (criminal metaphor, militaristic metaphor, metaphor of the game, theater, sports), nature-morphic (zoomorphic metaphor, phytomorphic metaphor, metaphor of inanimate nature) and artifactual (metaphor house, household, mechanism). Here are some examples

such metaphors from the statements of Ukrainian politicians and political scientists presented in the media: a militaristic metaphor: “The defeat of the opposition camp in the presidential elections last year severely crippled its “fighting spirit,” political analysts say. ", - says V. Kornilov"; a metaphor for the disease: "According to a number of authoritative experts, this can greatly undermine the already "unhealthy" economy of the country"; "We should not work as a speed pedal. Regulators should work as a speed pedal."

The semantic coherence of political discourse is largely determined by the fact that it uses a certain set of ideologemes. An ideologeme is a linguistic unit whose semantics covers the ideological denotation or is layered on the semantics covering the non-ideological denotation. Semantic strategies include the use of lexemes associated with traditional ideologemes of political discourse and their rethinking (people, party, power, freedom, patriotism), as well as new ideologemes of consciousness (honesty, decency, dignity, well-being). Traditional and new ideologemes differ in frequency of use, in the degree of lexical diversity, in the selectivity of addressing them, depending on the subject of political activity.

If traditional ideologemes are concepts of socio-political consciousness, then new ideologemes refer to the private world of a person, his psychological characteristics, his ideas about a worthy existence.

The intimization of political discourse is a semantic strategy aimed at ensuring that an idea is formed in the mind of the addressee: the subject of political activity has the same system of values as the addressee.

The following argumentative strategies are presented in modern political discourse:

Definition of a problematic situation, formulated as the need for a change of power;

The choice of a way to achieve a result, which is the declaration of oneself as an effective force capable of changing power;

The choice of action that is creative in nature (we are ready to defend the ideals; we will seek victory; change the anti-people policy);

Determining the end result (either gaining power or the ability to influence power can be considered such).

The argument uses rhetorical figures. The logic of argumentation is often only imitated and does not meet the requirements of the formal logic of building logical structures, which makes it possible to evaluate political argumentation not on the scale of logic / illogicality, but on the scale of effectiveness / ineffectiveness.

The temporal and causal sequence is imitated, arguments are drawn, calculated on the ignorance of the reader.

A wide palette of syntactic resources also has a manipulative potential, and therefore is actively used in political discourse. Political discourse is characterized by the use of:

* exclamatory sentences (especially for such genres as speech at a rally, slogan): "Do not be silent! Do not be afraid! We will win!";

* an inversion that makes it possible to highlight the main point in the sentence: "Six years after our revolution, not only is the democracy of my country under threat, but also the rule of law is systematically distorted and our national independence is being sold";

* various rhetorical devices, for example, such as a rhetorical question, syntactic parallelism: “How can one put up with such a situation? It is clear that there are no objective grounds for debt. gas?"; “My “fault” is only that in a difficult crisis we held the country together with you. My “fault” is only that I paid pensions and wages on time during the crisis, did everything to make the country feel stable and reliable” .

So, in the linguistic literature, the term "political discourse" is used in two senses: narrow (the discourse of politicians) and broad (forms of communication in which at least one of the components belongs to the sphere of politics: the subject, the addressee or the content of the message). Based on the fact that the goal of political discourse is the struggle for power, the success of which depends on the support of the majority of the population, it must be open to all members of the linguistic community and cannot be limited by institutional forms of communication. The multidimensionality and complexity of political discourse are manifested in the possibility of differentiating its genre space according to a number of parameters:

a) prototyping - the marginality of the genre in the field structure of the discourse;

b) institutionality;

c) the distinction between oral and written speech;

Genre affiliation largely determines the choice of language tools that allow you to realize the goals and functions of political discourse.