Communicative aspect of political discourse
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to identify the specifics of political communication, following it at the level of all communicative components, and determine the features of its analysis. The leading method for the study of this problem is discursive analysis, which involves the study of speech tools in the wide non-linguistic context. In addition, the results of the analysis of speech units are obtained by means of contextual, stylistic analysis, in some cases - elements of lexical, international, derivational, grammatical, syntactic analysis. The article revealed the specifics of political communication, which is confirmed by the results of the analysis of speech means. The addresser of political communication is predominantly institutional. The addressee is characterized by a two-component (direct addressee and addressee-listener). The goal of political communication - being a means of struggle for power, is to induce active assessments and actions. Ways to achieve this goal, that is, the impact on the addressee, are primarily emotional-psychological and hidden psychological ones. The materials of the article are of practical value for the subsequent study of political discourse as a special type of communication, determining its place in the general typology of discourse, studying its features.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Alekseev, A.B. (2017). On the question of the distinction between the concepts of “text” and “discourse”. Modern problems of the ecology of language, 73-78.
Billig & Marinho (2014). Manipulating information and manipulating people. Critical Discourse Studies, 11(2), 158-174.
Charteris-Black, J. (2011). Politicians and Rhetoric. The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. Palgrave Macmillan.
Chikileva, L.S. (2018). Presidential political discourse as a means of manipulation: a pragmalinguistic aspect. Russian Humanities Journal, 7(1), 20-29.
Dake, T.A. van (2000). Language. Cognition. Communication. Moscow: Lenand.
Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology. A multidisciplinary study. London.
Dijk, T. A. van. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse and Society, 17(2), 359-383.
Dotsenko, E.L. (1997). Psychology of manipulation: phenomena, mechanisms and protection. Moscow: CheRo, Moscow State University Publishing House.
Forestal, J. (2017). Trolls, Digital Media, and Deweyan Democracy. American Political Science Review, 111(1), 149-161.
Holbert, Hill & Lee. (2014). The political relevance of entertainment media. In Reinemann, C. (Eds.). Political communication. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Johnson, M. (2015). Embodied understanding. Front. Psychol., 6, 875.
Kara-Murza, S.G. (2000). Manipulation of consciousness. Retrieved from http://www.twirpx.com/file/624713/.
Khazagerov, G. (2018). Rhetoric, grammar, discourse and homeostasis. Vestnik Rossiiskogo Universiteta Druzhby Narodov, Seriya Lingvistika, 22(2), 357-372.
Kolosov, Zotova, Popov, Gritsenko & Sebentsov. (2018). Russia’s Post-Soviet Border Zone in between East and West (Analysis of Political Discourse): Part I. Looking West. Polis, (5), 57-69
Kolosov, Zotova, Popov, Gritsenko & Sebentsov. (2018). Russia’s post-soviet border zone in an analysis of political discourse. Part II: Looking east. Polis, (5), 57-69.
Lakoff, G. (2014). Mapping the brain’s metaphor circuitry: metaphorical thought in everyday reason. Frontiers in Human Neuro-Science, 8 Art. 958. Retrieved from http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00958.
Larson, C.U. (1995). Persuasion: reception and responsibility. Belmont: Wadsnorth Publ. Company.
Lebon, G. (1995). Psychology of peoples and masses. Moscow: Layout.
Mikhalev, O.L. (2009). Political Discourse: Specificity of the Manipulative Impact. Moscow: Book House LIBROCOM.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. (2012). Galera -Masegosa A. Metaphoric and metonymic groups in phrasal verb interpretation: metaphoric chains. In Eizaga Rebollar B. (Eds.). Studies in Cognition and Linguistics. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 161-190.
Sheigal, E.I. (2000). Semiotics of political discourse: dissertation of Dr.Sc. in Philosophy. Volgograd.
Vinnik, Y.V. (2018). Political Discourse: General Characteristics and Manipulative Potential. Language and Speech in Synchrony and Diachrony, 162-163.
Weinmann, C. (2017). Feeling political interest while being? Psychology of Psychology. Popular Psychology, 6, 123-141.
Wodak, R., Weiss, G. (2003). Critical discourse Analysis theory and disciplinarity. New York.
Zolyan, T. (2018). ‘Doublethink’ and semiotics of political discourse. “Double Thinking” and the Semiotics of Political Discourse. Polis, 3, 93-109.
