Linguistic features of political discourse. Political discourse as a subject of political science philologyћ What is political discourse in simple words

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. Considering 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 called upon 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 camp of “friends”).

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, is able to 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 identifies 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 mark), 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). 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 functional triad (functions of orientation, integration and agonality) has great importance, since it is precisely these functions of PD that are implemented through language means that are directly involved in the representation of the CO "friend or 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), 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.

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.

Discourse is a text in its formation before the mind's eye of the interpreter. 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 (assigning 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 hostilities from the battlefield to the 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.

The speech of a politician (with some exceptions) operates with symbols, and its success is determined by how consonant these symbols are. 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 this or that 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 is, 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 envisaged;

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 not talking 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 the social order is most fully and naturally achieved through a critical understanding of the power of language. According to them, the feature 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 allows reconstructing 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 explained by 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 (the author of the statement). The term was introduced by the Swiss linguist F. de Saussure (1857 1913). According to Saussure, D... alternative culture. Encyclopedia

Currently, there is an increased interest of linguists in the problems of the discourse of active social groups, and above all - politicians. Political discourse is a phenomenon that has a frequent manifestation and a special social significance in the life of society. At the same time, the phenomenon of political discourse cannot be unambiguously defined.

Political discourse is a complex object of study, since it lies at the intersection of different disciplines - political science, social psychology, linguistics and is associated with the analysis of the form, tasks and content of discourse used in certain (“political”) situations.

In linguistic literature, political discourse is presented as a multifaceted and multifaceted phenomenon. In relation to this term, two main interpretations of its content have been formed.

A narrower understanding suggests that the criterion for including a certain text in the field of "political discourse" should be the identity of the intentional nature of this text with the goal of discourse, that is, the conquest, preservation and exercise of political power and which is limited to the sphere of politics. The Dutch linguist T. van Dijk also adheres to a narrow definition of political discourse. He believes 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. 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 an institutional setting such as a government meeting, a parliamentary session, a political party congress. Thus discourse is political when it accompanies a political act in a political setting. In this case, only institutional forms of communication, mainly in the form of speech genres of public policy, will be classified as political discourse.

In a broad sense, it includes such 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. Here are the statements of scientists who adhere to a broad definition of political discourse and understand it as: “any speech formations, the subject, addressee or content of which belongs to the sphere of politics”; "the sum of speech works in a certain paralinguistic context - the context of political activity, political views and beliefs, including its negative manifestations (avoidance of political activity, lack of political convictions)"; "a set of discursive practices that identify participants in political discourse as such or form a specific topic of political communication."

In our opinion, one should adhere to the definition of political discourse presented in the monograph by E.I. Sheigal: “Semiotics of political discourse”, which in a broad sense understands this term as any speech formations, subject, addressee, the content of which relates to the sphere of politics. It is also worth noting that the content of political discourse should take into account all the components present in the minds of communicants that can influence the generation and perception of speech. These are the previous texts, the content of which is taken into account by the author and the addressee of this text, taking into account the goals, political views, intentions and personal qualities of the author, the specifics of the perception of this text by different people, the existing political background, and the specific political situation in which the text was created. It also takes into account the role that this text can play in the system of political texts and, more broadly, in the political life of the country.

The purpose of political discourse is to capture, retain or redistribute power. This type of communication is characterized by a high degree of manipulation; language in political discourse is primarily an instrument of influence (persuasion and control). E.I. Sheigal comes to the conclusion that political discourse reveals "the primacy of values over facts, the predominance of influence and evaluation over informing, emotional over rational". The key concept is “power”, and the expressed values depend on the dominant ideology, being reduced, on the one hand, to the disclosure of the main concepts of this type of discourse, including the concept of power, and on the other hand, expressing the moral values of society as a whole. Among the institutional characteristics of political discourse are its functions. R. Wodak refers to the main functions of political discourse: 1) persuasive (persuasion); 2) informative; 3) argumentative; 4) persuasive-functional (creating a convincing picture of the best arrangement of the world); 5) delimitative (difference from another); 6) grouping (content and language provision of identity).

In the works of other foreign linguists devoted to the language of politics, along with the information function, there are also a controlling function (manipulation of consciousness and mobilization for action), an interpretive function (creation of a "linguistic reality" of the policy field), a function of social identification (differentiation and integration of group agents of politics) and atonal function.

Political discourse, along with religious and advertising, is included in the group of discourses for which the leading function is regulative. Based on the target orientation, the main function of political discourse can be considered its use as an instrument of political power (the struggle for power, the acquisition of power, its preservation, implementation, stabilization or redistribution). However, according to E.I. Sheigal, this function is as global as the communicative function is all-encompassing in relation to the language. In this regard, it is proposed to differentiate the functions of the language of politics as aspect manifestations of its instrumental function, by analogy with the fact that all the basic functions of the language are considered as aspects of the manifestation of its communicative function.

The characteristic features of political discourse are semantic uncertainty (politicians often avoid expressing their opinions in the most generalized form), phantom (many signs of political language do not have a real denotation), fideism (irrationality, reliance on the subconscious), esoteric (the true meaning of many political statements is clear only elected), distance and theatricality (the need for politicians to "work for the public", attracting it with their image).

Political discourse is a type of institutional discourse, a specialized kind of communication, determined by the social functions of partners and regulated both in content and form. The relevance of this issue, interest in the theory and practice of political communication, as well as the insufficient development of this problem necessitates further research in this direction.

* This work is not a scientific work, is not a final qualifying work and is the result of processing, structuring and formatting the collected information, intended to be used as a source of material for self-preparation of educational work.

Changes in the socio-political situation are the most important external factor in language development. This factor directly influenced the active processes that took place in the Russian language after 1985. Language changes have embraced vocabulary and word formation, grammar and stylistic differentiation. To the greatest extent, the changes affected those areas of verbal activity that were associated with socio-political and socio-economic transformations. These were economics and, of course, politics.

The new "conceptual political" paradigm causes a radical restructuring of political communication. Political life is changing in terms of composition of participants, in volume, in forms, in qualitative terms. During this period, a modern political discourse is formed.

In the 90s of the XX century, Russian political discourse became the object of close attention in Russian linguistics. In domestic studies, the concept of discourse was discussed, speech portraits of political leaders and various descriptions of the "language of politics" were offered. In some works, the sociological approach prevailed over the linguistic one.

By the end of the 1990s, there comes an awareness of the exhaustion of the paths already traveled, and the task of a systematic and comprehensive proper linguistic description of political discourse comes to the fore. In the 21st century, political discourse is a sought-after and prestigious area of linguistic activity, in which communicative and cognitive models are implemented that affect the modern literary language in its entirety. This paper explores political discourse as an instrument of modern politics from the standpoint of modern linguistics.

1. The concept and genesis of political discourse

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. In his introductory article to a collection of works on the French school of discourse analysis, published in Russian in 1999, P. Serio gives a list of eight different understandings that is not exhaustive, and this is only within the framework of the French tradition 1 . A kind of parallel to the ambiguity of this term is the still unsettled stress in it: the stress on the second syllable is more common, but the stress on the first syllable is also not uncommon.

Three main classes of use of the term "discourse" are most clearly distinguished, correlating with various national traditions and contributions of specific authors.

The first class includes the proper linguistic uses of this term, historically the first of which was its use in the title of an article by the American linguist Z. Harris, published in 1952. This term was in full demand in linguistics about two decades later. The actual linguistic uses of the term "discourse" are themselves very diverse, but on the whole they are seen as attempts to clarify and develop the traditional concepts of speech, text and dialogue 2 . The transition from the concept of speech to the concept of discourse is associated with the desire to introduce into the classical opposition of language and speech, which belongs to F. de Saussure, some third term - something paradoxically and "more speech" than speech itself, and at the same time - more amenable to study with using traditional linguistic methods, more formal and thus "more linguistic". On the one hand, discourse is conceived as speech inscribed in a communicative situation and, therefore, as a category with a more clearly expressed social content compared to the speech activity of an individual; according to the aphoristic expression of N.D. Arutyunova, “discourse is speech immersed in life” 3 . On the other hand, the real practice of modern (since the mid-1970s) discursive analysis is associated with the study of the patterns of information flow within a communicative situation, carried out primarily through the exchange of remarks; in this way, a certain structure of dialogue interaction is actually described, which continues the completely structuralist (although usually not called such) line, the beginning of which was laid by Harris. At the same time, however, the dynamic nature of discourse is emphasized, which is done to distinguish between the concept of discourse and the traditional view of the text as a static structure. The first class of understandings of the term "discourse" is presented mainly in the English-speaking scientific tradition, to which a number of scientists from the countries of continental Europe belong; however, outside of this tradition, the Belgian scientist E. Buissans has long spoken about discourse as the “third member” of the Saussurean opposition, and the French linguist E. Benveniste consistently used the term “discourse” (discours) instead of the term “speech” (parole) 4 .

The second class of uses of the term "discourse", which in recent years has gone beyond the scope of science and become popular in journalism, goes back to the French structuralists and post-structuralists, and above all to M. Foucault, although A. Greimas, Zh .Derrida, Yu.Kristeva; Later, this understanding was partly modified by M. Pesche et al. Behind these uses one can see the desire to clarify the traditional concepts of style (in the very broadest sense that they mean when they say “style is a person”) and individual language (cf. traditional Dostoyevsky style, Pushkin language, or Bolshevik language with more modern-sounding expressions such as contemporary Russian political discourse or Ronald Reagan discourse). The term “discourse” understood in this way (as well as the derivative and often replacing it term “discursive practices”, also used by Foucault) describes the way of speaking and necessarily has a definition - WHAT or WHOSE discourse, because researchers are not interested in discourse in general, but in its specific varieties, set by a wide range of parameters: purely linguistic distinctive features (to the extent that they can be clearly identified), stylistic specificity (largely determined by quantitative trends in the use of linguistic means), as well as specific topics, belief systems, ways of reasoning, etc. d. (one could say that discourse in this sense is stylistic specificity plus the ideology behind it). Moreover, it is assumed that the way of speaking largely determines and creates the very subject area of discourse, as well as the corresponding social institutions. This kind of understanding is, of course, also highly sociological. In fact, the definition of WHAT or WHOSE discourse can be considered as an indication of the communicative originality of the subject of social action, and this subject can be specific, group or even abstract: using, for example, the expression discourse of violence, they mean not so much what they say about violence, as much as how the abstract social agent "violence" manifests itself in communicative forms - which is quite consistent with traditional expressions such as the language of violence.

Finally, there is a third use of the term "discourse", associated primarily with the name of the German philosopher and sociologist J. Habermas 5 . It can be considered specific in relation to the previous understanding, but it has significant specifics. In this third understanding, “discourse” is a special ideal type of communication carried out in the maximum possible detachment from social reality, traditions, authority, communicative routine, etc. and aimed at a critical discussion and justification of the views and actions of the participants in communication. From the point of view of the second understanding, this can be called the "discourse of rationality", the very word "discourse" here clearly refers to the fundamental text of scientific rationalism - the Discourse on the Method of R. Descartes (in the original - "Discours de la m? thode", which can be translated as "method discourse" if desired).

All three listed macro-understandings (as well as their varieties) have interacted and interact with each other; in particular, the publication in 1969 of the French translation of the mentioned work by Z. Harris 1952 significantly influenced the formation of the French school of discourse analysis in the 1970s. This circumstance further complicates the general picture of the use of the term “discourse” in the humanities. In addition, it should be borne in mind that this term can be used not only as a generic term, but also in relation to specific patterns of linguistic interaction, for example: The duration of this discourse is 2 minutes.

The focus of this work will be on the use of the concept of "discourse" in linguistics.

According to M.V. Gavrilova “In a broad sense, political discourse is understood as “any speech formation, the subject, addressee or content of which belongs to the sphere of politics” (Sheigal 2000: 23); "the sum of speech works in a certain paralinguistic context - the context of political activity, political views and beliefs, including its negative manifestations (avoidance of political activity, lack of political convictions)" (Gerasimenko 1998: 22); “a set of discursive practices that identify participants in political discourse as such or form a specific topic of political communication” (Baranov 2001: 246). With this approach, the study of political discourse involves the analysis of all semiotic systems of art, and the linguistic material is the phenomena of politicians, political observers and commentators, publications in the media, materials of specialized publications relating to various aspects of politics” 6 .

According to A.I. Solovyov " we are talking about the fundamental increase in the political power of the media, which are gradually becoming the main spokesmen for the interests of citizens, ousting traditional organizations from the field of public policy, incl. parties and "party-journal" organizations of intellectuals (A. Zudin), which, despite outwardly active participation in discourse, have lost their former political role. The main reason for this state of affairs, apparently, is the gradual strengthening of the positions of information lobbying, which has put the main media resources under its control. It was under its influence that the transformation of representative structures ultimately led to the stratification of political discourse into public and corporate, with the latter's ever-increasing influence.

But perhaps the most serious result in terms of its political consequences of the media cratization of power in the Russian state and society has been the shift in political culture and mechanisms for identifying citizens.

This is especially important because cultural stereotypes and norms of political communication determine the framework in which mass interactive connections and semantic contacts of wide social audiences are formed, generally recognized assessments of politics and power are reproduced, and the attitude of citizens towards them is formed” 7 .

According to K.E. Petrov “According to the constructivist paradigm, the identities and interests of subjects are not given to them by nature, but are created by ideas shared by society: they, and by no means the facts of the material world, determine the structures of human associations (Wendt 1999). Constructivism is not inclined to make a meaningful distinction between a conditional fact and a conditional consideration (opinion). Being explicated, any idea becomes a fact of social reality. This pattern is most obvious when the idea is conceptualized in one word, and this word, having appeared as a term characterizing a particular situation, begins to denote a set of similar situations, and growing metaphor gradually suppresses the unambiguity of a specific meaning. This is exactly what happened with the Europa concept. The diverse options for its use can hardly be analyzed, but at least listed. The history of this concept is a continuous series of inclusions in various political projects, both purely theoretical and implemented in practice. In this regard, it is impossible to single out denotative and later connotative meanings unambiguously” 8 .

Thus, in recent years, attention to the study of the political text has increased in domestic political science. At the same time, in connection with the allocation and functioning of various types of socio-political speech, such a direction of linguistics as political linguistics has developed. The political language is “a special subsystem of the national language intended for political communication: to promote certain ideas, emotive influence on the citizens of the country and encourage them to take political action, to develop a public consensus, making and justifying socio-political decisions in a multiplicity of points vision in society” 9 .

The political language differs from the usual one in that in it: “political vocabulary” is terminological, and familiar to us, not special “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 10 .

2. Political discourse of modern times

In the study of political texts of modern times, it is worth noting the works of M.V. Gavrilova, in which she says that during the transition of Russia to a presidential system of government, the development of the information society required the development of a new political rhetoric.

In this case, M.V. Gavrilova studies the presidential discourse, which has the following characteristics:

1) the presidential speech is interpreted as a political action;

2) speech of the President;

3) the speeches of a political leader are characterized by a complex mutual influence and interdependence of oral and written forms of speech;

4) the presidential text is mediated by the media;

5) a certain thematic repertoire 11 .

The author emphasizes that in the speeches of Russian presidents we can observe the interaction of features: in form - oral (spontaneity, irreversibility, multi-channel) / written speech (text planning, clear content structure), in content - bookish style (official character, independence of the text, scrupulous preliminary preparation) / colloquial speech (depending on the situation). Colloquial vocabulary, the break of syntactic links against the background of a book text are felt as a manifestation of a personal beginning and have a certain impact on the addressee 12 .

Also, according to M.V. Gavrilova, “cognitive analysis opens the way to understanding political thinking and the logic of socially significant actions, which, in turn, allows you to model the political process, find a correlation “between the linguistic structures of the text and the structures of the ideas of its author” (Parshin 1987: 398). Cognitive modeling can be done through operational coding and cognitive mapping.

“Operational coding makes it possible to trace the ideas from which individuals proceed when evaluating political events” (Heradstveit, Narvesen 1987: 386). These perceptions are established through the study of the speech of political leaders. To determine the significance of representations, it is important to know which cognitive orientations in the political worldview are stable and which are changeable. Operational codes clarify whether the world is conflicting or harmonious in the eyes of a given politician, how he evaluates his political opponents and the prospects for reaching agreement with them, how wide or, on the contrary, limited are the goals of his activity, what methods he focuses on, etc. Such codes, according to D. Winter's just remark, are like portraits: they reflect the individuality of the depicted, and therefore it is difficult to compare them with each other (Pocheppov 1998: 228)” 13 .

According to A.I. Solovyov, “the events of the last two or three decades, which have clearly revealed the potential of the latest information technologies, force us to evaluate modern political practices primarily in the context of the onset of the “information age”. And this is clear not only to participants in theoretical disputes. After all, if we ignore the theoretically given nominations of political orders, it turns out that political communications are the most powerful tool for social change and transformation of state power structures, both institutionalized and non-institutional. It is thanks to them that new mechanisms and methods of political participation are intensively formed in the sphere of politics: media polls, Internet voting, mechanisms of cyber and teledemocracy. The traditional two- and multi-party systems are being replaced by broadcasting systems on two or more TV channels.

The distribution of power resources and state powers is increasingly subject to the laws of mass media movement, and the nature of government is increasingly dependent on the positions of media owners. Having acquired a cross-cultural and transnational character, the information space brings new ideas about national goals and interests to the decision-making procedure familiar to nation states. The dominance of media logic, which subjugates the behavior of the majority of political players, makes the political and cultural forms of regulation of public relations (as well as the influence of society on power) essentially indistinguishable.

Mediacracy as a way of organizing power, in which information relations turn into a key mechanism for formatting the political space and ensuring interaction between power and society, is gradually becoming a self-evident reality. And although at present it is still difficult to say what consequences such changes will lead to, how much the usual relations of media and political systems, the state and society are being transformed (see Gunter, Mughan 2000; Zaller 1992), one must realize that it is mediacracy that sets the vector and the nature of the functioning of power in the modern state” 14 .

According to K.E. Petrov “when creating a new political community, the need inevitably arises for the conventionalization of discourse, which will ensure its unity. The accompanying changes in the structure of the discourse can be interpreted both as subjective, directed by the will of the subject of association, and as objective, manifesting spontaneously. Be that as it may, the conventionalization of discourse occurs ideologically, i.e. as it develops, it excludes some meanings. The actions of political actors are only the actualization of ideologized arguments” 15 .

The text is a system that combines the main textual elements of the research area of science. A text is a product of a speech-creative process, which has such features as completeness and consistency. One of the main characteristics of the text is its purposefulness, pragmatic setting, initial informational message.

The test is perceived by people as a complex device that stores diverse codes that can transform received messages and generate new ones. The test is an internal closed sign-linguistic system that has integrity and incentive energy to the recipient. The dialogical nature of a text is associated with such moments as the presence of the author and the addressee, on the one hand, and the ability of the addressee to correctly decode the code originally embedded in the structure of the text.

The text is information-saturated, it is designed to be correctly interpreted, to obtain the necessary information and, in addition, the share of emotional impact: the saturation of emotional perception will be determined by a number of factors such as the emotional message of the narrator, the semantic structuring and presentation of the text, the degree of awareness and mental state of the recipient of information.

Thus, a political text is a communicative-oriented structure, organized according to the laws and rules of political communication, having open borders, built into the communicative space of socio-political activity.

The texts try to touch on both the emotional and the semantic side, appeal not only to feelings, but also to logic, to thoughts. They perform an informational, persuasive and motivating function, they use memorable slogans, they combine visual and audio information. Political texts form an idea of the subjects of the political process, the attitude of voters towards it.

3. Metaphorical structures of modern political discourse

Modern political discourse is characterized by a variety of metaphorical models that reflect modern reality and the specifics of the perception of this reality.

According to M.V. Gavrilova “in cognitive linguistics, metaphor is interpreted as a way of knowing reality. Metaphors play a special role in political decision making, as they help develop alternatives from which the choice is made in the future. In Russia, Moscow linguists (A.N. Baranov, D.O. Dobrovolsky, Yu.N. Karaulov, etc.) and a group of linguists from the Ural State Pedagogical University (p.p. Chudinov, Yu.B. Fedeneva (see, for example, Baranov and Karaulol 1994; Fedeneva 1998; Chudinov 2001) 16 .

It should be noted that the use of metaphors in politics is a sign of crisis thinking; thinking in a complex problem situation, the solution of which requires a person to turn on all his cognitive abilities. It is not surprising that the attention of representatives of this area of cognitive science is attracted primarily by periods of crisis associated with a change in the paradigm of social consciousness. It was this period that Russia experienced at the turn of the 1980s-1990s.

After analyzing the totality of domestic political texts of that time (speeches at the First Congress of People's Deputies, political discussions reflected in journalism and the media), Yu.N. Karaulov and A.N. Baranov compiled a dictionary of Russian political metaphor (Karaulov, Baranov 1991; Baranov, Karaulov 1994) 17 . The dictionary is divided into two parts. The first part, entitled "Metaphorical models of political reality", includes various political metaphors, for example: war, game, mechanism, organism, plant / tree, family relations, sports, theater, circus, etc. In the second part of the dictionary ("World politics in the mirror of metaphors") metaphors are organized according to a different principle - from political realities to metaphorical models. This included articles like: democracy, legislation, the KGB, the CPSU, perestroika, political leaders, Russia, the USSR, finance, economics, etc. Let us turn, for example, to the dictionary entry "personification", the first subparagraph of which is designated as a person / person. The union government, the USSR, the administrative system, the Academy of Sciences, the state, democracy, ideology, capitalism, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the exchange of money, the prosecutor's office, freedoms, state farms and collective farms, the USA, television, economic reform act as animated entities in the domestic political discourse. Metaphorically meaningful Russia is represented in the dictionary as a person (active or passive, as well as a person in general), a vehicle (a ship, a cart, a cart), an animal (a lizard, a horse, a bear), a puppet, a mechanism (a drive belt, a rod), an arsenal , giant, block, dialogue, idea, empire, cannon fodder, plant, building, battering ram, prison, foundation, plague house (Baranov, Karaulov 1994: 122). Obviously, such a dictionary, which allows one to get acquainted with metaphorical models of political phenomena and shows what methods of metaphorical understanding of political realities are recorded in modern Russian journalism, can be very useful for political scientists, political psychologists and consultants 18 .

The position on the crisis nature of metaphorical thinking in politics was also confirmed on the material of foreign political discourse. In 1998, a group of linguists led by Professor K. de Landsheer of the University of Amsterdam started a pilot project, during which a political-semantic analysis of the speeches of 700 members of the European Parliament from 1981 to 1993 was carried out (see Landsheer 1998).

Scientists have found a direct relationship between the socio-economic situation of the country and the frequency of the use of metaphors in its political discourse. The more difficult the situation in the state represented by the MEPs, the more often they used metaphors in their speeches, and, as a rule, live metaphors of a pessimistic or aggressive content. In other words, during economic crises, the metaphorical coefficient increases, thus indicating "social stress" (P. Fritzsche's term). In this regard, according to the authors of the project, a political metaphor can be considered an indicator of social tension (Landsheer 1998: 129-148).

As A.N. Baranov correctly notes (see Baranov 2001: 253), the study conducted by Landscher and his colleagues, which proves that an increase in the number of metaphors in political discourse is a sign of a crisis political and economic situation, has both theoretical and practical meaning. Its results can be used to fix the approach of crisis states by means of linguistic monitoring of political discourse. Thus, a purely linguistic analysis of metaphor as a way of comprehending political realities provides important material for studying the state of society” 19 .

The 'knot' metaphor, due to its mythological load, conveys a high degree of complexity of the situation: " Caucasian knot: how to untie it? (RF-today 21.11.04). This conceptual metaphor suggests options for resolving the situation. In our case, tightening the knot tighter means tightening control over Chechen gangs, untying the knot means achieving a peaceful settlement of the conflict through negotiations or granting independence to Chechnya, cutting the knot means eliminating the separatists or separating Chechnya from Russia. From this point of view, the functioning of this metaphor turns out to be akin to an ideologeme, as it gradually accustoms society to the idea of the inevitability of a forceful solution as the only way out of the current situation. " Moscow no longer offers other ways to untie the Chechen knot that swells with blood."(Izvestia 31.12.94). Such manipulation of public consciousness is, apparently, one of the functions of metaphor in political discourse.

The theatrical metaphorical model is actively functioning in modern Russian political discourse. The narrative “North Caucasian conflict” is part of the political discourse, therefore it will inevitably be interpreted as an episode of a political theatrical performance (“ chief directorsChechendramasit far away and closely monitor events"(RF-today No. 5/98). The theatrical metaphorical model was especially in demand during the coverage of a high-profile terrorist attack in the theater center on Dubrovka in Moscow in the autumn of 2002: “ yesterday the performance "Nord-Ost" was played according to the Chechen scenario ..."(Novaya Gazeta 24.10.02).

According to K.E. Petrov “let us now turn to the metaphorical models of reality representation behind the concept of Europe. Such models, as already mentioned, are built either on separation/specification ("Europe is a unique part of the world") or on reification ("Europe is a thing"). Each of the two main metaphors, in turn, can be expanded into two metaphorical systems:

(1) "Europe - the comfort of the inhabited world" and "Europe - the manufacturability of the modern world";

(2) "Europe - the value of an antique" and "Europe - the uniqueness of a functional thing." It is these four metaphorical systems that make it possible to verbally "translate" Europe into material facts. Constantly replacing one another in the course of building political arguments, they, apparently, create the very ideology of the EU, which forms the core of modern integration processes.

The two pairs of metaphorical systems outlined above not only oppose each other, but are also internally antagonistic. This antagonism is described by the relation: "Risk of the modern" versus "Eternity of the historical".

It should be noted that the discourse, as a rule, is unable to reflect this opposition, which is so clearly felt when highlighting metaphors. Within its framework, for example, the following phrases can perfectly coexist: “Today we are firmly convinced that all 10 countries are democratic nations adhering to the same values as the rest of Europe” (PM Statement 7002) and “Europe becomes Europe of 25. This is a huge change for Europe" (Doorstep interview 2003). It is possible to detect a real contradiction between these statements of British Prime Minister T. Blair only through reflecting on the metaphor. One of them emphasizes the value unity of Europe as part of the world, the other fixes the uniqueness of Europe and its ability to change ("thingness"). It is obvious that in the first case CEE is a part of "Europe" and in the second case it is not. Moreover, these metaphorical systems carry the opposite meaning: the image of the assimilated and cultivated world, which ensures the value of life, is difficult to extrapolate to the CEE countries, but they can easily acquire functional significance through participation in EU institutions. This situation allows politicians to legitimize any of their decisions by combining metaphors” 20 .

A comparative analysis of the frame-slot structure of the morbial model functioning in the French and Russian press revealed differences caused by different interpretations of the North Caucasian conflict and its consequences. Thus, in the French press, we did not find examples of the “recovery / successful treatment” frame, which are sufficiently represented in the Russian press. This indicates that the image of an incurably ill Russia is being created in the French press.

In most cases, the metaphors that function in the “North Caucasian conflict” narrative contain a vector of aggressiveness, anxiety, improbability of what is happening and deviation from the natural order of things. The reasons for this are rooted, apparently, not so much in the peculiarities of the initial conceptual spheres, but in what realities need to be identified and what emotive meanings are in demand by the political situation. In press texts, metaphorical models function simultaneously, intersect and complement each other, which only enhances their pragmatic potential.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baranov A.N. Editor's Foreword: A Cognitive Theory of Metaphor: Nearly Twenty-five Years Later // J. Lakoff, M. Johnson. Metaphors we live by. - M.: Editorial URSS, 2004. - S. 7-21.

Baranov G.S. The role of metaphor in the theory of knowledge and representation of social reality (philosophical analysis). - Dis. ... Dr. Philosopher. Sciences, Novosibirsk, 1994. Gak V.G. Metaphor: universal and specific // Metaphor in language and text. - M.: Nauka, 1988. - S. 11-26.

Gavrilova M.V. Critical discourse analysis in modern foreign linguistics. SPb., 2003.

Gavrilova M.V. Presidential discourse as a subject of political linguistics//Abstracts of reports. IV All-Russian Congress of Political Scientists "Democracy, Security, Effective Governance: New Challenges to Political Science". M., 2006. S. 64.

Gavrilova M.V. Political discourse as an object of linguistic analysis//Polis-Political Research. – 2004, No. 3

Gavrilova M.V. Semantic modernization of Russian political discourse (on the example of the explication of the concept “state”)//Polis-Political Research. – 2007, No. 3

Demyankov V.Z. Interpretation of political discourse in the media // The language of the media as an object of interdisciplinary research: Textbook / Ed. ed. M.N. Volodin. - M.: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 2003. - S. 116-133.

Kazydub N.N. Conceptual bases of discursive space modeling // Vestnik NGU. Series: Linguistics and intercultural communication / Novosib. state un-t. Novosibirsk, 2005. V.3. Issue. 1. - S. 32-35.

Kravchenko A.V. Language and perception. Cognitive aspects of language categorization. - Irkutsk: Irkut Publishing House. un-ta, 1996. - 159 p.

Lakoff J. Women, fire and dangerous things: What the categories of language tell us about thinking: Per. from English. I.B. Shatunovsky. - M.: Languages of Slavic culture, 2004. - 792 p.

Pavilionis R.I. The problem of meaning: modern logical-philosophical analysis of language. - M.: Thought, 1983. - 286 p.

PANORAMA OF RUSSIAN POLITICAL SCIENCE. Round table, Gavrilova M.V., Galkin A.A., Gaman-Golutvina O.V., Gelman V.Ya., Dakhin A.V., Ilyin M.V., Kosolapov N.A., Nikitin A. I., Smorgunov L.V., Farukshin M.Kh. “We are in the world - the world is in us”: 50 years of integration of domestic political science into world political science (Virtual round table) // Polis-Political Research. – 2005, No. 6

Petrov K.E. The concept of "Europe" in modern political discourse//Polis-Political Research. – 2004, No. 3

Petrov K.E. The Dominance of Conceptual Polysemy: “A Strong State” in Russian Political Discourse//Polis-Political Studies. – 2006, No. 3

Rogozina I.V. Functions and structure of the media-picture of the world // Methodology of modern psycholinguistics. Sat. articles. - Moscow; Barnaul, 2003. - S.121-137.

Serio P. How texts are read in France // Quadrature of meaning: French school of discourse analysis. M., 1999.

Solovyov A.I. Political Discourse of Mediacracies: Problems of the Information Age//Polis-Political Studies. – 2004, No. 2

Teliya V.N. Metaphorization and its role in creating a linguistic picture of the world // The role of the human factor in language: Language and picture of the world. - M.: Nauka, 1988. - S. 173-204.

Ulman S. Semantic universals // New in linguistics. - Issue 5. - M.: Progress, 1970. - S. 250-299.

Chudinov A.P. Cognitive-Discursive Study of Political Metaphor // Cognitive Linguistics. - 2004. - No. 1. - S. 91-102.

Chudinov A.P. Metaphorical mosaic in modern political communication. Yekaterinburg, 2003. - 248 p. http://www.philology.ru/news.htm

Chudinov A.P. National mentality and metaphorical modeling of the political situation // Conceptual space of language: Sat. scientific tr. Dedicated to the anniversary of Professor N. N. Boldyrev / Ed. prof. E.S. Kubryakova; Federal Agency for Education, Tamb. state un-t im. G.R. Derzhavin. Tambov: Publishing House of TSU im. G.R. Derzhavin. - 2005. - S. 363-373.

Chudinov A.P. Implementation of a Metaphorical Model as a Supertext // Text-2000: Theory and Practice. Interdisciplinary approaches: Proceedings of the All-Russian scientific conference. Part I / UdGU. Izhevsk, 2001a. - S. 163-166.

Chudinov A.P. Russia in a Metaphorical Mirror: A Cognitive Study of Political Metaphor (1991-2000): Monograph. - Yekaterinburg: Ural. State Pedagogical University, 2001b. - 238 p.

2 Teliya V.N. Metaphorization and its role in creating a linguistic picture of the world // The role of the human factor in language: Language and picture of the world. - M.: Nauka, 1988. - S. 173-204.

3 Baranov A.N. Editor's Foreword: A Cognitive Theory of Metaphor: Nearly Twenty-five Years Later // J. Lakoff, M. Johnson. Metaphors we live by. - M.: Editorial URSS, 2004. - S. 7-21.

4 Lakoff J. Women, fire and dangerous things: What the categories of language tell us about thinking: Per. from English. I.B. Shatunovsky. - M.: Languages of Slavic culture, 2004. - 792 p.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

GuideFoundation