Russian Journal of LinguisticsRussian Journal of LinguisticsRussian Journal of Linguistics2687-00882686-8024Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba (RUDN University)1515210.22363/2687-0088-15152ArticlesСтатьиArticlesResearch ArticleMovements and Meanings: Towards an Integrated Approach to Political Discourse AnalysisСлова и жесты: интегративный подход к анализу политического дискурсаPontonDouglas MarkПонтонДуглас Маркdmponton@hotmail.co.ukUniversity of CataniaУниверситет Катании15122016204Discourse Analysis in the 21st Century: Theory and Practice (I)Дискурс-анализ в 21 веке: теория и практика (I)12213908022017Copyright ©; 2016, Ponton D.M.Copyright ©; 2016, Понтон Д.М.Copyright ©; 2016, Ponton D.2016Ponton D.M.Понтон Д.М.Ponton D.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0https://journals.rudn.ru/linguistics/article/view/15152This chapter has two principal focuses; firstly backwards in time, across some of the high points in the development of political discourse analysis, in order to assess the current state of the field. It also has a future focus, as it attempts to integrate insights from some emerging fields, such as Multimodality, with more consolidated approaches. It has been argued, in many accounts (e.g. Fairclough and Fairclough 2012), that persuasion is the most pervasive function of all political discourse, and most authors agree that the processes involved encompass both textual and non-textual features. An influential early attempt, for example, to describe some non-verbal aspects of persuasive rhetoric was Atkinson (1984), who identified features like the speaker’s voice quality, intonation, posture, body language, eye movements, and so on, as well as some other non-linguistic ‘tricks’. As influential as this work was, however, these features have tended to be omitted from many subsequent accounts of persuasion in political rhetoric, which have concentrated on features of argumentation operating at a strictly textual level.The overall aim of this work is to suggest pathways towards the ambitious goal of developing a usable, integrated model for analysing political discourse. Instead of analysing a single feature such as metaphor (Charteris-Black 2006), parliamentary insults (Ilie 2004), evaluative language or humour (Swain 1999, 2002), the model attempts to combine descriptions of textual and non-verbal/multimodal features of political discourse, in order to provide a practical tool for analytical purposes, and a coherent account of their possible pragmatic effects.В данной статье проведено исследование по двум главным направлениям: первое - ретроспективный обзор, описание значимых моментов в истории развития анализа политического дискурса с целью оценить данную сферу исследования на современном этапе; второе - обзор перспектив развития данной исследовательской области. В статье предпринята попытка обобщить исследования в рамках появившихся недавно направлений, таких как мультимодальность, и других, уже утвердившихся, подходов. Во многих исследованиях утверждается (например, I. Fairclough и N. Fairclough 2012), что убеждение является самой распространенной стратегией в политическом дискурсе, и многие авторы признают, что этот процесс охватывает как вербальные, так и невербальные средства. Например, Аткинсон (1984) предпринял успешную попытку описать некоторые невербальные средства убеждения, такие, как тембр говорящего, его интонация, поза, язык тела, взгляд, и т.д., а также некоторые другие невербальные приемы. Несмотря на значимость данного исследования, невербальные средства убеждения не получили достаточного внимания в политической риторике, которая сосредотачивается исключительно на языковых средствах аргументации. Главная цель данной работы - наметить пути для разработки интегрирующей модели анализа политического дискурса. Вместо того, чтобы анализировать отдельные языковые средства, такие как метафора (Charteris-Black 2006), оскорбление (Ilie 2004), оценочная лексика или юмор (Swain 1999, 2002), предлагается соединить описание вербальных и невербальных особенностей политического дискурса с целью создания практического инструмента анализа политического дискурса для выявления возможных прагматических эффектов.political discourse analysismultimodalitypersuasiontextual and non-textual featuresанализ политического дискурсамультимодальностьубеждениевербальные и невербальные средстваAristotle. (1954). The rhetoric and the poetics of Aristotle. New York: Random HouseAtkinson, M. (1984). Our masters’ voices. London and New York: MethuenBaldry, A., & Thibault, P. (2006). Multimodal transcription and text analysis. London and Oakville: EquinoxBrown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCastells, M. (2009). Communication Power. Oxford, New York: Oxford University PressCharteris-Black, J. (2014). Analysing political speeches: rhetoric, discourse and metaphor. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave MacMillanCharteris-Black, J. (2005). Politicians and rhetoric: the persuasive power of metaphor (1 ed.). Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave-MacMillanChilton, P. (2004). Analyzing political discourse: theory and practise. London and New York: RoutledgeChilton, P., Tian, H., & Wodak, R. (2012). Discourse and socio-political transformations in contemporary China. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsChouliaraki, L. (2005). Spectacular ethics: on the television footage of the Iraq war. Journal of Language and Politics, 4 (1), 43-59Conley, T.M. (1990). Rhetoric in the European tradition. Chicago and London: ChicagoCook, N.D. (2002). Tone of Voice and Mind. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John BenjaminsFairclough, I., & Fairclough, N. (2012). Political discourse analysis: a manual for advanced students. London: RoutledgeFairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity PressFoucault, M. (1981). History of sexuality (Vol. 1). Harmondsworth: Penguin BooksGraham, P., Keenan, T., & Dowd, A.-M. (2004). A call to arms at the end of history: a discourse-historical analysis of G.W. Bush’s declaration of war on terror. Discourse and Society, 15 (2-3), 199-221Halmari, H. (2005). In search of “successful” political persuasion. A comparison of the styles of Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. In H. Halmari, & T. Virtanen, Persuasion across genres: a linguistic approach (pp. 105-134). London: John BenjaminsHalmari, H., & Virtanen, T. (2005). Persuasion across genres: a linguistic approach. London: John BenjaminsJaworski, A., & Galasin, D. (2002). The verbal construction of non-verbal behaviour: British press reports of President Clinton’s grand jury testimony video. Discourse and Society, 13 (5), 629-649Kennedy, G.A. (1994). A new history of classical rhetoric. New York: PrincetonKress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: the grammar of visual design. London: RoutledgeLakoff, G. (2002). Moral politics: how Liberals and Conservatives think. Chicago: University of Chicago PressMartin, J., & White, P.R. (2005). The language of evaluation: the appraisal framework. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave MacmillanMast, J.L. (2006). The cultural pragmatics of event-ness: the Clinton / Lewinsky affair. In J.C. Alexander, B. Giesen, & J.L. Mast, Social performance: symbolic action, cultural pragmatics, and ritual (pp. 115-146). Cambridge: Cambridge University PressPartington, A.S. (2015). Corpus-assisted comparative case studies of representations of the Arab world. In A. McEnery, & P. Baker, Corpora and discourse studies: integrating discourse and corpora (pp. 220-243). London: Palgrave MacmillanPartington, A.S. (2009). Evaluating evaluation and some concluding reflections on CADs. In P. Bayley, & J. Morley, Corpus assisted discourse studies on the Iraq conflict: wording the war (pp. 261-303). London: RoutledgeReisigl, M. (2009). Rhetorical tropes in political discourse. In J. L. Mey, The concise encyclopedia of pragmatics (pp. 882-890). Oxford: ElsevierReisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2001). Discourse and discrimination. London and New York: RoutledgeSchiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Cambridge, MA and Oxford: BlackwellSwain, E. (1999). Disagreeing, but doing it in style: humour in a British parliamentary debate. In M.M. Mechel, N. Vasta, & C. Chiaruttini Leggeri, Rappresentazioni dell’identità: la dimensione linguistica del conflitto. Padova: CedamToulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressVan Dijk, T.A. (2011a). Discourse and ideology. In T.A. Van Dijk, Discourse studies: a multi-disciplinary introduction (pp. 379-407). London: SageVan Dijk, T.A. (2011b). Discourse, knowledge, power and politics. Towards critical epistemic discourse analysis. In C. Hart, Discourse, knowledge, power and politics (pp. 27-63). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John BenjaminsVan Dijk, T.A. (1995). Elite discourse and the reproduction of racism. In R.K. Slayden, & D. Slayden, Hate speech (pp. 1-27). Newbury Park: SageVan Dijk, T.A. (2000). Ideologies, racism, discourse: debates on immigration and ethnic issues. In J. Ter Wal, & M. Verkuyten, Comparative perspectives on racism (pp. 91-116). Aldershot: AshgateVan Leeuwen, T. (1999). Speech, Music, Sound. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave MacmillanWilson, J. (1990). Politically speaking. Oxford and Cambridge, Massachusetts: BlackwellWodak, R. (2001). The discourse-historical approach. In R. Wodak, & M. Meyer, Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 63-95). London: SageWodak, R. (2010). The Haiderisation of Europe. In A. Landwehr, Diskursiver Wandel (pp. 355-373). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für SozialwissenschaftenWodak, R. (2015). The politics of fear: what right-wing populist discourses mean. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi: SageWodak, R. (2009). The semiotics of racism- a critical discourse-historical analysis. In J. Renkama, Discourse, of course (pp. 311-326). Amsterdam: John BenjaminsLakoff, George 2016. “Obama Reframes Syria: Metaphor and War Revisited”. The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, n.d. Web. 20 Sept. 2016. Wodak, Ruth 2016. “Green against Blue” - Reflections on the 2016 Austrian Presidential Election’. International Relations. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Sept. 2016.