Cover Page


The article proposes a comparative analysis of language constructs representing the framework of speech strategies and tactics, the totality of which determines the arrangement of political communication in different lingual cultures. The relevance of the article is determined by the very object of research. The political field, being an integral part of the ethnic culture in any society, represents a complex conglomerate of ideas, where the goals and interests of the state and its elite groups are indicated. Evolving on the basis of linguistic material accumulated by society, the policy is implemented primarily in the process of verbal interaction which aims at forming a certain picture of the world in the society. Accordingly, a person’s linguistic activity in the sphere of politics is an acquisition, exercise and preservation of political power mediated in signs.In this regard, the entire formal organization of political discourse is subject to the need for an effective implementation of the impact function, which is instrumented by a variety of communication strategies and tactics. Intentional “message” of political discursive practice inevitably changes in the act of individual language situation. Therefore, the most “significant” figures of political interaction (in our case, the heads of foreign affairs agencies) are of scientific interest, as they largely determine the ideological position of various social groups. Accordingly, the feature characteristics of their speeches can be regarded as the dominant characteristics of national political practice and considered as basis for creating a typed communicative portrait of a political figure. Moreover, the derivative meanings generated as a result of the use of certain speech strategies and tactics by political actors, on the basis of semantic-semiotic associations, develop further and gradually pass into adjacent discursive fields establishing new semantic links. The highly complicated language (text/discursive) units structured in this way are characterized not only by the high expressive and emotional potential and the “multi-layered” semantic “message”, but also by some typification, which causes their wide distribution in the acts of political communication. Thus, the political logosphere is not so much a product of society activity as its modifier. Penetrating all layers of universal logosphere, it actively forms the speech practice of the subjects included in it, their hierarchical structure as well as the linguistic ethnic universe as a whole.

Full Text

INTRODUCTION Political interaction as a communicative sphere, with struggle for power being its main theme and motive, became the focus of Russian scientific interest mainly in the mid- 1980s. At that time, the coexistence of political elites ceased to be of a purely ritual character and transformed into one of the ways of society functioning 1 . Today, the issues of correlation between language and power, language and ideology, the role of myth in political communication and language manipulation attract the attention of an increasing number of linguists 1 . This is largely due to the fact that politics (in contrast to other areas of human activity) has an inherently discursive character, while political actions are, as a rule, actions of speech. Numerous attempts to give a correct definition to the concept of “political discourse” led to the emergence of multiple definitions. Thus, it can be defined as “the totality of all speech acts used in political discussions, as well as rules of public policy, documented by tradition and tested by experience” [1. P. 8], “a peculiar sign system in which the semantics and functions of diverse linguistic units and standard speech actions are modified” [2. P. 3], “a specific and explicitly pragmatic version of ideological discourse” [3. P. 57], or “one of the trends within applied linguistics, with the essence expressed by the formula “discourse = sublanguage + text + context” [4. P. 15]. Besides, in modern linguistics some researchers (A.P. Chudinov, M.M. Lazar, etc.) use the term “political discourse” as given a priori, while others (P.B. Parshin, Y.S. Stepanov, etc.) refuse to recognize its linguistic meaning, and still others (A.N. Baranov, Y.I. Sheigal, T.A. van Dyke, R. Vodak, etc.) use it as synonymous with the terms “the language of politics”, “political language”, “political communication”. From our point of view, political discourse represents speech activity in the spheres of political institutional communication determined by a certain social and role hierarchy and objectified in the form of politically oriented text units in their entire genre and functional diversity. Political discourse has a number of constitutive features (systemic structure, pragmatic completeness, communicative certainty, absence of strict structural limitations) and is endowed with the same functions as discourse in general. These are namely informative, argumentative, persuasive, delimitative and classifying 2 functions [5]. To the listed functions, one should add those defined by D. Graber: “information dissemination”; “agenda setting”; “projection into future and past” [7. P. 198]. The latter characteristics, expanding their effect in the framework of political communication, determine the basic feature of political discourse, namely its application as an instrument of political power (struggle for power, mastery of power, its preservation, implementation, stabilization or redistribution). One of the most important functions of political discourse in connection with the masses is to distribute information on the state of affairs in the political community. In most cases, people do not have direct access to the world of politics and their awareness in this area isn’t based on their own experience of political participation, but on the verbal “pictures” presented to them. These reports about current the state of affairs can acquire various formats: descriptions, opinions, comparisons and conclusions. They can be implemented in a wide variety of speech actions and genres, therein informal conversation, interviews, press conferences, messages to the congress, etc. Beside apparent, or explicit information, these messages may include an implicit-connotative informational level (emotive-coloured keywords which express basic political orientations and values, patriotic symbols, euphemisms, etc.). Implicit information can be also conveyed through generalization, or “reading between the lines” tactics. Thus, the chronotope of a verbal act and paralinguistic components gain particular importance. Accordingly, the political world covers a wide range of phenomena. It includes political communities; political actors (agents), institutions and organizations; normative subsystems; traditions and rituals inextricably linked with the social, historical, cultural, psychological, ideological and other factors of society as well as with the cognitive system of the addressee; methods of political activity; media, etc. In the political discourse, all constituents of the social field are actualized. They can constitute the subject of communication (its referential aspect), act as elements of a pragmatic context, or describe a propositional field. Thus, the described set of functions of the political discourse, having an unconditional relationship with the basic functions of the discourse as a whole, distinguishes it from other types of discursive communication, which allows us to consider political discourse as a systemic phenomenon. Beside the issues of the metalanguage description, a number of other unresolved problems are traced in the study of political discourse. One of them is characterizing politicians’ communicative behaviour in terms of speech impact: the need to study the language of political subjects is determined by both the increasingly expanding trend of “oralization” [8. P. 105] and the scientific significance of simulating mental structures of political communication participants. In this connection, a comparative study of linguistic facts representing strategic preferences of the Russian / American political elite is particularly interesting. PURPOSE The purpose of the research was to identify, compare and characterize subjects’ communicative strategies and tactics within contemporary political discursive practices, exemplified by various linguistic (Russian and English) systems. METHODS AND MATERIALS The methodological concept of the research was based on both humanitarian and heuristic methods (registration and instrumental methods, modeling method, taxonomic, dynamic and explanatory description), and methods of linguistics and linguoculturology, namely formalizing linguistic descriptions, contextual and categorical synchronous analysis, segmentation of verbal phenomena (facts) with their subsequent generalization, abstraction and characterization of underlying ethnic and mental essences, etc. The material of the study was the scripts of briefings by the official representatives of the foreign policy departments in Russia and the US - the D irector General of the Information and Press Department of the Russian Foreign Ministry, M. Zakharova, and US Department of State spokesman J. Kirby. The choice of subjects of political communication was determined by two factors. The state foreign policy, taking into account the modern geopolitical situation, is attracting increasing interest of researchers, including linguists. The speeches of official representatives of foreign policy departments in many ways form a global political discourse, so their analysis enables us to build a completely objective impression of the specifics of the use of various communicative strategies and tactics in various linguistic cultural universes. Another criterion for the selection of the material was the thematic similitude of the speeches. Ho wever, the correlation of text units was complicated by inconsistency of speech formats, namely frequency of briefings (in Russia briefings are held weekly, while in the US they take place on a daily basis) and specifics of speech interaction (in Russian political tradition, the major pa rt of the briefing is a monologue of the official representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, while in the United States much more time is devoted to answering journalists’ questions). RESULTS The undertaken comparative-typological description of verbal constructions, manifesting the framework of the most frequent communicative strategies and tactics within modern idiopolitical discursive acts, not only represents a certain model of the linguocultural structure in Russian and American political discourses (see Table), but it can also serve as a basis for creating a typed communicative portrait of a Russian/American politician. At the same time, comparing dominant features of certain communicative strategies and tactics in identical situations by persons performing similar social roles (according to their participation in political life) enables us to consider verbal communication in a certain social and psychological conte xt as well as to reveal some general characteristics of Russian and American political discourses, determined by their unique structure, functions and other features of political communication as a whole. DISCUSSION Political discourse as a particular form of the institutional type of communication should (in contrast to the personal type) use a specific system of professionally oriented signs, that is, to have its own unique sublanguage (vocabulary, phraseology and paremiology). According to V.Z. Demyankov [9], the specificity of political language is conditioned by the following factors: frequent use of peculiar speech techniques; expanded thesaurus of precedent texts and utterances; terminological political vocabulary and marked linguistic signs (with respect to the ordinary language); individualized structure of political discourse, which is based on the original sounding or written form. At the same time, a number of researchers deny the uniqueness and specificity of political discourse, emphasizing that its characteristic linguistic features are few in number and not easily identifiable, while i ts lexical and grammatical features, that allow researchers to consider political discourse as a specific phenomenon, “do not go beyond the corresponding languages” [10. P. 193]. Large-scale de-specialization in political communication is connected with the fact that politics is the only professional sphere, where communication is oriented toward a mass addressee. Political communication is not just mediated by the media, the media is the main medium of its existence. As a result, policy language is deprived of the corporate identity inherent in any specific language [4. P. 30]. Thus, P.B. Parshin does not consider the language of politics as a language itself, or at least not just a language. According to him, the subject of political communication is a political discourse, defined as “the uniqueness of what, how, to whom and about what a subject of political action says” [10. P. 194], since the subject’s purpose is not simply “to describe (no reference), but to persuade the addressee by awakening his intentions, to give him ground for persuasion and induce him to act” [9. P. 118]. That is why the effectiveness of political discourse is conditioned by adequate planning of subject’s communicative behaviour and skilful implementation of this plan by using various speech strategies and tactics that actualize the natural potential of the language on the intellectual, emotional and volitional sphere of the addressee. The tools of communicative strategies and tactics (hereinafter referred to as CS and CT, respectively) presented in political linguistics, despite academic unanimity concerning the main function of political interaction, are variable. Researchers identify veiling CS, depersonalizing CS and mystifying CS [2]; reificating CS, delegitimizing CS and amalgamating CS (the so-called «we»-discourse) [11]; varying, additive and introductory CS [12]; various invective CS [13; 14]; argumentative and manipulative CS [15], etc. Undoubtedly, the classification of verbal constructions that manifest various CSs can be based on any of an impressive number of criteria (or several of them) which are clearly identified as categorical attributes of imperative and political acts. These are the mechanisms of organization; linguistic level of structural components; frequency of implementation of particular verbal units; intonation conditionality of their semantic plan; genre and composition of discourse practice; the number of objects in the act of communication (mass or individual orientation), etc. However, from our point of view, it is necessary to designate the factor of author’ awareness, or reflexivity, of building and usage of an appraisal-manipulative language construction as a basic attribute, as in this case we are dealing with a strictly organized illocutionary act actualizing certain intentions. In this regard to build a taxonomy as a basic antinomy, the fundamental pragmatic ground common for the political sphere as a whole, namely the communicants’ endeavour to cooperate 1 , has been embraced. This has resulted in the division of all CSs into integrative and disintegrative, in the framework of which communicative tactics have been grouped thematically, i.e. in accordance with the communicative goal they pursue. The framework of integrative strategies includes 6 CSs (strategy of politeness, strategy of cooperation, strategy of argumentation, strategy of compromise, strategy of emotional alignment and strategy of information). The framework of disintegrative strategies counts 5 CSs (strategy of control over initiative, strategy of self-presentation, motivating strategy, manipulative and confrontational strategies). The total number of communicative tactics includes 55 units (27 and 28 CTs respectively, see Table 1). The proposed classification has become the basis for the linguopragmatic analysis of verbal formulas 2 that comprise the idiopolitical discourse of modern foreign policy. Integrative CSs 1. CS of politeness: - CT of apology: MZ 1 - «Once again begging your pardon for lyrical disgression»; «I am sorry for being this meticulous, but this is highly important»; JK - no examples. - CT of gratitude: MZ - «We are very grateful for this and totally understand that accomplishing this psychological and professional feat you basically count on protection from the foreign policy department»; JK - no examples. 2. CS of emotional alignment: - CT of compliment: MZ - «He is an outstanding ambassador and a person, who not only for his duty, but also for the human sake cares for the Russian-Armenian relations and their further development in the interests of the people in both countries»; JK - «… to provide a more secure environment for all of its citizens, one that nurtures the spirit of the people of Bangladesh and the pride with which they guard their own traditions of tolerance, peace, and diversity». - CT of compassion: MZ - «I express my deep condolences to the countries and people directly affected by this tragedy»; JK - «We share in the grief that they have had to endure». 3. CS of cooperation: - CT of participation display: MZ - «The issue of possible medical evacuation is being worked through between Russian and Egyptian specialists. Their decision will determine the exact time the girl returns to Russia. The work is under way»; JK - «That is exactly the message that the Secretary sends when he speaks to foreign leaders about freedom of expression issues and press freedom issues». - CT of proposing a solution: MZ - «We are convinced that the movement towards peace and stability in Northeast Asia should be of a reciprocal and mutual nature and be carried out with the active participation of all parties present in the region. This approach, as we have repeatedly said, would create conditions for the normalization of the DPRK’s bilateral relations with China, the United States and Japan and initiate practical work on the formation of multilateral mechanisms for ensuring security and cooperation in this region on an equal and non-discriminatory basis for all participants»; JK - «… good governance. We’ve said that many, many times. That’s the way to sustain a defeat of Daesh» - CT of proposing cooperation: MZ - «The Russian side is invariably ready for the closest interaction with all interested states in the interests of ensuring peace and stability in this region, achieving a political and diplomatic settlement of the nuclear problem on the Korean Peninsula»; JK - no examples. 4. CS of information: - CT of a direct answer: MZ - «No, I couldn’t»; JK - «So if you’re asking me can they, absolutely they can». - CT of causation: MZ - «The delays in the movement of the UN convoys are mostly caused by shelling by illegal armed groups and the fear in this regard for the lives of UN personnel»; JK - «… we also … know that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism and that they have continued to support this particular group which is a designated foreign terrorist organization. And that is exactly why … he raised very specifically our continued concerns about what Iran is doing in the region». - CT of informing: MZ - «On May 12, terrorists from Jabhat al-Nusra and its allied forces attacked the Alawi village of Zara in the province of Khama. Perhaps you know that they staged mass slaughter, sparing no children, women or old people. According to various reports, from 70 to 100 civilians were killed or tortured to death in Zara. Many women and young girls were kidnapped or taken to slavery»; JK - «The U.S. and our coalition partners conducted another 59 airstrikes and six artillery strikes against Daesh targets in northern Iraq and Anbar province just over this weekend». - CT of redirection: MZ - «... it is available on the official website of the Russian Foreign Ministry»; JK - «That’s really for Prime Minister Modi and his staff to speak to». 5. CS of compromise: - CT of compliance: MZ - «As you correctly said about the essence of the meeting, it is about continuing the discussion of the issue that is on the agenda of bilateral relations»; JK - «I recognize that»; «We fully agree». - CT of a compromise answer: MZ - no examples; JK - «I would just say that I don’t think you’re going to see the Secretary - the Secretary’s interest or energy diminished at all for as long as he is Secretary of State with respect to trying to get to a two-state solution». 6. CS of argumentation: - CT of generalization: MZ - «…we and the whole world are certainly involved in what is happening in Ukraine now»; JK - «It’s that important to us. It’s that important to the region, certainly to many other nations around the world». - CT of drawing an analogy: MZ - «On the example of a number of countries we can see, how difficult it is to restore the situation and bring it to the previous level if mutual trust has been undermined»; JK - «And look, I mean, even here in the United States there’s political tensions, right?» - CT of example: MZ - «… a large conference has been convened in Moscow»; «… for example, European institutions»; JK - «… you remember back when the cessation was first agreed to after Munich, we saw a dramatic decrease in attacks on civilians and on the opposition». - CT of opposition: MZ - «Suffice it to recall for how many years we’ve been convinced that the accession to NATO of the states of Eastern Europe and the Baltics will improve our bilateral relations, relieve them of the phobias of the “heavy historical heritage” and create the “belt” of countries friendly to Russia in the alliance. In fact, however, the expansion of the bloc only aggravated the syndrome of “front-line states”»; JK - no examples. - CT of reference to an authority: MZ - «Official representatives dealing with issues of military-technical cooperation (MTC) gave clear and absolutely exhaustive formulations»; JK - «And then I’d point you back to what the President said during his visit to India in 2015, where he reaffirmed that the U.S. view was that India, quote, “meets missile technology control regime requirements and is ready for NSG membership”». - CT of describing positive prospects: MZ - «This will allow the newly formed unified bodies of state power to start functioning in full, that is to begin restoring order and law in the country, and first of all to neutralize the activity of terrorists who are present in large numbers in Libya»; JK - «… the members of the ISSG would work together and in unison to help create the conditions for which - or under which those airdrops can be successful». Desintegrative CSs 1. Manipulative CS: - CT of shifting focus of a: MZ - «Let me please reformulate your question a little and answer how we generally see the settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh issue»; JK - «These are decisions that the - this is a French initiative and decisions that the French are making». - CT of denial: MZ - «You are very much mistaken when you say this is not a problem. Problems arise here, too»; JK - «I know we don’t believe that Pakistan hates the United States. Pakistan is a partner here in the effort to go after extremists there in the region». - CT of absolutisation: MZ - no examples; JK - «… nobody’s arguing that the political process hasn’t struggled». - CT of assessment: MZ - «We can state that it is gratifying that the alarming forecasts of possible violations of the UN Security Council resolutions by the DPRK during the Seventh Congress of the Korean Workers’ Party have not been justified»; JK - «It was a positive meeting and a step in the right direction»; «And they do that job masterfully and very competently». 2. Confrontational CS: - CT of remark: MZ - «We believe that unreasonable and politically biased criticism of Russia does not correspond to the UN level»; «Unfortunately, you were inattentive while reading what Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in an interview to the Swedish newspaper “Dagens Nyheter”»; JK - «… it hasn’t always been evident that they have been willing to use that influence in the most constructive way». - CT of reproach: MZ - «All these years OHCHR preferred to ignore the recommendations and comments in this regard by numerous international human rights structures and institutions»; «You should know that this city was not named Dnieper, but Ekaterinoslav»; JK - no examples. - CT of condemnation: MZ - «According to them, today Ankara “shows the whole world an example of how to treat refugees” (but you know, this is not the way refugees should be treated) and “opens up new opportunities and new prospects for them”. No one would desire such prospect»; JK - «… the United States strongly condemns the barbaric terrorist attacks in Iraq today that deliberately and specifically targeted civilians». - CT of accusation: MZ - «In fact, Ankara confirmed its unwillingness to take part of the blame for what has happened, given that it was Ankara’s treacherous and vile actions that led to the downing of the aircraft and thereby caused the death of a Russian pilot»; JK - «And it is in keeping with what we’ve seen as a pattern out of the regime to target innocent people». - CT of threat: MZ - no examples; JK - «… there’s going to be a limit to the international community’s patience for persistent and consistent violations of the cessation». - CT of mockery: MZ - «It is necessary to know this, otherwise you just look stupid and seem to be some kind of “zombie ignoramuses”»; «Honestly, after these decisions, which are absolutely divorced from historical realities, I started worrying for the possibility of shortening other names as well, like Kherson, Zaporozhye and Saakashvili»; JK - no examples. - CT of irony: MZ - «After all, these deputies, as they call themselves... »; «...let’s call it “the new Ukrainian democracy”»; JK - no examples. - CT of sarcasm: MZ - «That means that there was no problem of the Crimean-Tatar people for 20 years. It just appeared now»; «What is the essence of the question? When journalists talk about the Mirotvorets website, it seems to me it is time for all of us to start adding at least “the so-called” to the title “Mirotvorets”»; JK - no examples. 3. CS of control over initiative: - CT of choosing a speech object: MZ - «Let us start with something really important»; «Let me please make a digression»; JK - «Are we on Syria? I want to stay on Syria right now». - CT of refusal to act: MZ - «We can not speak about this in full since we are talking about personal data and moreover about a child»; JK - «… I’m really not at liberty to discuss this». - CT of setting up and maintaining the contact: MZ - «I am ready to answer all your questions, if you have any»; «Yes, please»; JK - «Happy Friday!»; «I’m in favor of it». - CT of ceasing the contact: MZ - «See you in Sochi»; JK - «Gotta go, thank you». 4. CS of self-presentation: - CT of competence display: MZ - «We know that elections have been held in Taiwan and tomorrow the inauguration ceremony of the new leaders of the local administration takes place»; JK - «I’ve seen reporting on that»; «I’m aware…». - CT of positive characterization: MZ - «We act openly. The main features of the Russian approach are openness and logics»; «We do not approach this issue from the standpoint of double standards and justify our position in either case»; JK - no examples. - CT of self-praise: MZ - no examples; JK - «I say this as not just the spokesman for the department, but the assistant secretary of state for public affairs». 5. Motivating CS: - CT of advice: MZ - «We highly recommend you to make them public, because it is extremely important»; JK - no examples. - CT of appeal: MZ - «In the light of the catastrophic consequences of the military operation for the population, once again we call upon the official Ankara to return to peaceful methods of settling the Kurdish question as soon as possible»; JK - «… any reconciled group must end the violence, break associations with international terrorism, and accept Afghanistan’s constitution»; - CT of demand: MZ - «We also strongly demand and actively work in the direction of blocking the remaining funding channels for these groups»; JK - no examples. This linguo-pragmatic analysis allows us to formulate a number of statements describing the general and specific features of political discursive practices in the Russian-speaking and English-speaking (American) linguistic cultures (see Table). Thus, the identifying features are the variety of CTs used within each CS; apparent diversity of the integrative CS of argumentation (6 CTs) and disintegrative CS of confrontation (8 CTs); subjects’ tendency to use CT of reference to an authority (CS of argumentation) and CT of causation (CS of information). At the same time, despite a highly correlated systemic structure, there are certain tactical and strategic preferences of the «speech framing» within communication acts. In J. Kirby’s speeches, the manipulative CS is represented by a large number of CTs (compared with M. Zakharova’s, whose statements lack CT of absolutisation); CT of redirection (CS of information) and CT of refusal to act (CS of control over initiative) are characterized by frequent usage of appropriate verbal structures; speech formulas of CT of gratitude and CT of apology (CS of politeness) haven’t been revealed, but CT of self-praise is clearly identified as a type of CS of self-presentation 1 (this CT is absent from Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs representative). M. Zakharova’s statements, on the contrary, comprise a greater variety of CTs within motivating CS (CT of advice and CT of demand, which are not used by J. Kirby); CS of argumentation includes CT of opposition (as a “soft option” to underline the correctness of ideological views of the Russian Foreign Ministry); the CS of cooperation is more extensive in its verbal embodiment and is also underpinned by the use of CT of proposing cooperation, which is absent from the speeches made by the representative of the US Department of State. The most interesting (and significant for the comparative description) is the apparent discrepancy in the ways of exemplification of the confrontational CS. The statements by the official representative of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs include 7 different CTs with graduated types of verbal acuity (an open mockery, an ironic remark and acrimonious sarcasm while CT of threat is not used), whereas J. Kirby’s speeches frequently comprise CT of condemnation, CT of accusation, CT of threat and no CT of reproach or mockery. Obviously, the identical name of this CS (as, indeed, of any other communicative strategy) does not indicate its identical semasiological embodiment in different political discursive practices. Accordingly, the entire framework of integrative and disintegrative communicative strategies and tactics correlates, in varying degrees, with ethnic and mental attitudes of the universe and can’t be interpreted in a single political coordinate system. Besides, only identification and description of the essential features of linguistic and ethno-cultural dominants in diverse political acts can make it possible to determine the stable, in-depth characteristics of discursive interaction within the political institution in the modern multilingual space.

About the authors

N A Bozhenkova

Pushkin State Russian Language Institute, Moscow, Russia

Author for correspondence.
Academician Volgin str., 6, Moscow, Russia, 117485

Natalia A. Bozhenkova, Ph.D. in Philology, Distinguished Professor, Professor at the Department of General and Russian Linguistics, Pushkin State Russian Language Institute. Fields of research: text linguistics, general discourse theory, psycholinguistics, linguoculturology, political linguistics, social linguistics and cross-cultural communication, stylistics, rhetoric, Russian speech culture, linguistic and methodological aspects of the Russian Language in a foreign society, linguistic and methodological aspects of the Russian Language and Literature in the Russian society. Professor Bozhenkova has authored over 350 scientific publications.

R K Bozhenkova

Bauman Moscow State Technical University

2nd Bauman str., 5, building 1, Moscow, Russia, 105005

Raisa K. Bozhenkova, Ph.D. in Philology, Distinguished Professor, Professor at the Department of the Russian Language, Bauman Moscow State Technical University. Fields of research: linguoculturology, general discourse theory, linguistic hermeneutics, semantics, cross-cultural communication, phonetics and accentology, stylistics, rhetoric, Russian speech culture, linguistic and methodological aspects of Russian as a Foreign Language. Professor Bozhenkova has authored over 300 scientific publications.

A M Bozhenkova

Lomonosov Moscow State University

Leninskie gory, 1, p. 51, Moscow, Russia, 119991

Alexandra M. Bozhenkova, Master of Arts, Graduate student, Faculty of Philology, Lomonosov Moscow State University. Fields of research: political linguistics, linguoculturology, cross-cultural communication, translation, interpretation and correlating studies. A.M. Bozhenkova is the author of 20 scientific publications.


  1. Baranov A.N., Kazakevich Y.G. Parliamentary debates: traditions and innovations. Moscow: Znaniye, 1991. 42 p. (In Russ.)
  2. Sheigal Y.I. Semiotics of the political discourse. Volgograd: Peremena, 2000. 386 p. (In Russ.)
  3. Sorokin Y.A. Political discourse: attempt to interpret the concept. Political discourse in Russia. Moscow, 1997. (In Russ.)
  4. Sheigal Y.I. Semiotics of the political discourse: thesis for a degree of Doctor of Philology. Volgograd, 2001. 175 p. (In Russ.)
  5. Zheltukhina M.R. Voluntative function of the comic in political discourse. Linguistic personality: institutional and personal discourse. Volgograd: Peremena, 2000. P. 71—79. (In Russ.)
  6. Parshina O.N. Strategies and tactics of speech conduct of the Russian political elite: thesis for a degree of Doctor of Philology. Saratov, 2005. 315 p. (In Russ.)
  7. Graber D. Political Languages. Handbook of Political Communication. Beverly Hills, London: Sage Publications, 1981. P. 195—224.
  8. Sternin I.A. Social factors and political discourse. Mass culture on the edge of XX—XXI enturies: Human and his discourse. Moscow: Azbukovnik, 2003. P. 91—108. (In Russ.)
  9. Demyanenkov V.Z. Interpretation of political discourse in mass media. The language of mass media as an object of interdisciplinary research. Moscow: Izdatelstvo MGU, 2001. P 116—133. (In Russ.)
  10. Parshin P.B. Research practice, concept and methods of political linguistics. Scripta linguisticae applicatae. Problems of applied linguistics. Institute Yazykoznaniya RAN. Moscow: Azbukovnik, 2001. P. 181—207. (In Russ.)
  11. Felinski A.A. Critical analysis of political discourse of election campaigns 1999—2000: abstract from the thesis for the degree of Candidate of Philology. Tver, 2002. 20 p. (In Russ.)
  12. Ivanova Y.M. Strategies of speech impact in the genre of pre-election debates: abstract from the thesis for the degree of Candidate of Philology. Volgograd, 2003. 19 p. (In Russ.)
  13. Bozhenkova N.A. The issue of category units in contemporary political logosphere. The Russian language and culture: problems of teaching in Russian universities: materials of the scientific and practical seminar. Kursk, 2008. P. 4—9. (In Russ.)
  14. Issers O.S. What politic figures say to endear themselves to the people // Vestnik Omskogo universiteta. Omsk, 1996. Vol. 1 P. 71—74. (In Russ.)
  15. Gaikova O.V. Election discourse as a genre of political communication (on the basis of the English language): abstract from the thesis for the degree of Candidate of Philology. Volgograd, 2003. 19 p. (In Russ.)
  16. Pevneva I.V. Communicative strategies and tactics in conflict situations in common and professional pedagogical discourses in Russian and American linguistic cultures: thesis for the degree of Candidate of Philology Kemerovo, 2008. 206 p. (In Russ.)
  17. Maria Zakharova, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs official spokesperson. Briefing. 12. May 2016, Moscow [Digital resource]. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia. Access mode: Od/content/id/2276895
  18. Maria Zakharova, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs official spokesperson. Briefing. 19. May 2016, Sochi [Digital resource]. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia. Access mode: Od/content/id/2287934
  19. John Kirby, Spokesperson, Daily Press Briefing, Washington, DC, May 2, 2016 [Digital resource]. U.S. Department of State. Access mode:
  20. John Kirby, Spokesperson, Daily Press Briefing, Washington, DC, May 13, 2016 [Digital resource]. U.S. Department of State. Access mode:
  21. John Kirby, Spokesperson, Daily Press Briefing, Washington, DC, May 17, 2016 [Digital resource]. U.S. Department of State. Access mode:



Abstract - 661

PDF (Russian) - 486




Copyright (c) 2017 Bozhenkova N.A., Bozhenkova R.K., Bozhenkova A.M.

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

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies