LINGUISTIC REALIZATION OF COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES AND INFLUENCE TACTICS IN POLITICAL DISCOURSE

Authors

  • Ya. V. Byalkivska National Technical University of Ukraine “Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute”, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6481-3583
  • A. I. Piddema National Technical University of Ukraine “Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute”, Ukraine

Keywords:

political discourse, communicative strategy, communicative tactics, figures of speech

Abstract

This paper is dedicated to the study of strategies and tactics that are realized in the English political discourse by means of a definite set of speech figures, including the metaphor, repetition, neologisms, euphemisms, phraseological units, rhetorical questions, paraphrases, antithesis and hyperbole. In the modern era of political campaigns no candidate enters political debate without having duly considered if and how such debate benefits his or her candidacy. Politics is a multifaceted phenomenon that involves a quest for power and influence where language plays an essential role. Research in the domain of political discourse is of paramount importance since it is with the help of the language that millions of people all over the world are imposed views on by elected officials. With influence taking place on so many levels, it is practical to consider political communication from all possible angles of view. Thus this research examines oral and written texts produced within the framework of political discourse not only from a linguistic standpoint, defining the exact speech figures employed by politicians, but aims at discovering what strategies and tactics are pursued with the help of stylistic, syntactic and lexical devices which create ideas and form opinions amongst the electorate.

References

Beketova, O.V. (1997a). Figures of repetition and organizational forms of argumentation in public speech texts. Movoznavstvo, 4/5, 32-37 [in Ukrainian].

Beketova, O.V. (1997b). Figures of repetition as linguostylistic means of argumentation. Vzaiemodiia odynyts riznykh rivniv hermanskykh ta romanskykh mov: Visnyk KNLU, 3, 3-7 [in Ukrainian].

Bielova, A.D. (2004). Communicative strategies and tactics: systematization challenges. Movni i kontseptualni kartyny svitu. Kyiv, Ukraine: Logos, 10, 11-16 [in Ukrainian].

Karasik, V.I. (2000). On types of discourse. Jazykovaja lichnost': institucional'nyj i personal'nyj diskurs. Volgograd, Russia: Peremena [in Russian].

Kozub, L. (2011). Language means of influence in modern English discourse. Studia Methodologica 32, 50-53 [in Ukrainian].

Kuzmyn, P.V. (2006). The discourse as a means of political activity. Uchenye zapiski Tavricheskogo nacional'nogo universiteta im. V.I. Vernadskogo. Serija: Filologija, 2, 222-227 [in Russian].

Mihaleva, O.L. (2004). Political discourse as a sphere of realization of the manipulative influence (Unpublished candidate dissertation). Irkutsk, Russia [in Russian].

P'janzina, I.N. (2005) On the subject of euphemization in political discourse. Aktual'ne problemy germanistiki i romanistiki, 9, 39-44 [in Russian].

Surovcev, V.A, Syrov V.N. (1998). Metaphor, narrative and language game. Once more on the role of metaphor in scientific cognition. Metodologija nauki, 3, 186-197 [in Russian].

Formanovskaja, N.I. (1989). Speech etiquette and communication standards. Moscow, Russia: Vysshaja shkola [in Russian].

Downloads

Published

2017-07-24

Issue

No. 5 (II) (2015): Special Issue

Section

Philology

License

Copyright (c) 2015 Journal of the National Technical University of Ukraine “KPI”: Philology and Educational Studies

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.