Address to the Nation as a Genre of Military-Political Discourse

Cover Page

Cite item


The political rhetoric prevailing in democratic countries does not allow an open demonstration of commitment to military means of conflict resolution and, therefore, naturally gives rise to a special type of discourse, the linguistic and extralinguistic contexts of which are determined by the goal of initiating a war. This study aims to analyze the components of military-political discourse, as well as the ways they are implemented in the texts and the role they play in manipulating public opinion. The authors defines military-political discourse as the discourse of political elites accompanying various stages of military operations and developed to substantiate the need for their initiation based on the fundamental values of a particular society. The relevance of this study is determined both by the increased interest in military conflicts in modern society and by the insufficient study of military-political discourse in general. Address to the nation is one of the main genres of military-political discourse. The novelty of the research is determined by the author’s approach to the analysis and interpretation of military-political discourse. The original texts of the addresses to the nation by B. Obama and D. Trump dedicated to the US military operations in Syria are used as the research material. The choice of these texts is due to their significant role in the coverage of the US Syrian campaign. Describing military-political discourse requires the use of a number of methods, namely descriptive and comparative methods, dictionary definitions and contextual analyses, as well as the method of critical discourse analysis. The authors established that, regardless of the administration in power, address to the nation as a genre of military-political discourse implies a certain scenario based on the following scheme: greeting - address to the nation agenda - description of US actions - description of violence (accusations) - description of the US role in the world - reference to previous military campaigns - call to action. The authors comes to the conclusion that each of these components plays a substantial role in the structure of military-political discourse and is realized through a certain set of discursive means that do not depend on the political preferences of a speaker.

About the authors

Olga A. Solopova

South Ural State University (National Research University)

Author for correspondence.
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4170-7267

(Advanced Doctorate) in Philology, Professor at the Department of Linguistics and Translation at the Institute of Linguistics and International Communications

76, Lenina Av., Chelyabinsk, Russian Federation, 454080

Ksenia A. Naumova

South Ural State University (National Research University)

ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1729-395X

postgraduate student, Department of Linguistics and Translation, Institute of Linguistics and International Communications

76, Lenina Av., Chelyabinsk, Russian Federation, 454080


  1. Dijk, T.A. (2008). Discourse and Racism. In: D.T. Goldberg & J. Solomos (eds.). A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 145—159. doi: 10.1111/b.9780631206163.2002.00017.
  2. Zelizer, B. (1992). CNN, the Gulf War, and journalistic practice. Journal of Communication, 42(1), 66—81. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb00769.x
  3. Deutsche, R. (2010). Hiroshima After Iraq: Three Studies in Art and War. Columbia: Columbia University Press. doi: 10.7312/deut15278.
  4. Miller, R.B. (1991). Interpretations of conflict: ethics, pacifism, and the just-war tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  5. Johnson, J.T. (2006). The just war idea: the state of the question. Social Philosophy & Policy, 23(1), 167—195. doi: 10.1017/S0265052506060079.
  6. Fiala, A. (2008). The just war myth: The moral illusions of war. Rowman & Littlefield.
  7. Gay, W. (2008). The language of war and peace. In: Encyclopedia of violence, peace, and conflict. pp. 1115—1127. doi: 10.1016/B978-012373985-8.00093-3.
  8. Gay, W. (1998). Exposing and Overcoming Linguistic Alienation and Linguistic Violence. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 24(2), 137—156. doi: 10.1177/019145379802400210.
  9. Burridge, J. (2018). The Dynamics of ‘Pacifism’ and ‘Warmongering’: The Denial of Stake in Debates Preceding the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. In: Gibson S. (eds), Discourse, Peace, and Conflict. Peace Psychology Book Series. Springer, Cham. pp. 133—148. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-99094-1_8.
  10. Goetze, C. (2008). When democracies go to war: Public debate and the French decision on war in 1999 and 2003. Global Society, 22(1), 57—74. doi: 10.1080/13600820701740738.
  11. Dunmire, P. (2009). 9/11 changed everything’: an intertextual analysis of the Bush Doctrine. Discourse & Society, 20(2), 195—222. doi: 10.1177/0957926508099002.
  12. Gavriely-Nuri, D. (2010). The idiosyncratic language of Israeli ‘peace’: A cultural approach to critical discourse analysis (CCDA). Discourse & Society, 21(5), 565—585. DOI: 10.1177/ 0957926510375934.
  13. Calhoun, L. (2002). Legitimate authority and “just war” in the modern world. Peace & Change, 27(1), 37—62. doi: 10.1111/1468-0130.00217.
  14. Lang, A. & Cian, D. (2013). Just War: Authority, Tradition, and Practice. Georgetown University Press.
  15. Lakoff, G. (2009). Metaphor and War: The Metaphor System Used to Justify War in the Gulf. Cognitive Semiotics, 4(2), 5—19. doi: 10.1515/cogsem.2009.4.2.5.
  16. Hodges, A. (2015). War discourse. The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction. pp. 1—6. doi: 10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi026.
  17. Andreev, N.I. (2011). Distinctive features of the terminology of the German military-political discourse in terms of translation into Russian. Moscow University Translation Studies Bulletin, 1, 117—125. (In Russ.).
  18. Bachurin, V.D. (2014). Manipulative technologies used in modern military media and political discourse by mass media. Political linguistics, 4, 99—104. (In Russ.).
  19. Kononova, I.V. & Lebedinskaya, Yu.V. (2016). Ironic euphemistic units of military-political discourse as a means of manipulating consciousness in news media. In: Relevant issues of modern linguistics: conference proceedings. Saint-Petersburg: Sankt-Peterburgskii gosudarstvennyi ehkonomicheskii universitet Publ. pp. 30—34. (In Russ.).
  20. Ehpshtein, O.V. & Lazareva, K.S. (2016). Verbal presentation strategies in English-language political-military discourse. Relevant issues of humanitarian and natural sciences, 3—2, 170—183. (In Russ.).
  21. Khomutova, T.N. & Naumova, K.A. (2017). Military-political discourse as a distinctive type of discourse. Bulletin of the South Ural State University. Series Linguistics, 3, 49—53. (In Russ.). doi: 10.14529/ling170307.
  22. Solopova, O.A. & Chudinov, A.P. (2018). Diachronic analysis of political metaphors in the British corpus: from victory bells to Russia’s V-Day. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 22(2), 313—337. (In Russ.). doi: 10.22363/2312-9182-2018-22-2-313-337.
  23. Olyanich, A.V. (2003). Presentation strategies in military-political discourse. Science Journal of Volgograd State University. Linguistics, 3, 119—126. (In Russ.).
  24. Mavleyev, R.R. (2016). The role of the military-political discourse in the context of information-psychological warfare (a case study of the Russian, English and Chinese languages). In: Persuasion in political discourse: international conference proceedings. Yekaterinburg: Ural’skii gosudarstvennyi pedagogicheskii universitet publ. pp. 91—94. (In Russ.).
  25. Mavleyev, R.R. (2017). The questions of conceptualization in military-political discourse. Region and the world, 1, 106—108. (In Russ.).
  26. Mishkurov, E.N. (2020). Modern military-political discourse: nominations, functions, language deviations, translation. Moscow University Translation Studies Bulletin, 2, 88—105. (In Russ.).
  27. Kurbakov, I.A. (2019). Hybrid nature of military and political discourse. In: Scientific achievements in the context of improving the quality of life and sustainable development of society: international conference proceedings. Moscow: Izd-vo natsional’nogo issledovatel’skogo instituta mirovoi ehkonomiki i mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii im. E.M. Primakova Publ. pp. 210—217. (In Russ.).
  28. Karasik, V.I. (2002). Language circle: personality, concepts, discourse. Volgograd: Peremena Publ. (In Russ.).
  29. Solopova, O.A. & Naumova, K.A. (2018). Hybrid discourse formats: classification issues. Philological Class, 4(54), 15—21. (In Russ.). doi: 10.26710/fk18-04-02.
  30. The White House. President Barack Obama [Electronic resource]. URL: (accessed: 09.11.2020).
  31. The White House [Electronic resource]. URL: (accessed: 09.11.2020).
  32. Alemi, M., Ashkan, L. & Nematzadeh, A. (2018). Persuasion in political discourse: Barak Obama’s presidential speeches against ISIS. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 22(2), 278—291. doi: 10.22363/2312-9182-2018-22-2-278-291
  33. Ruzhentseva, N.B. (2015). Speech genre: a portrait in the context of discourse (to the problem of methods of description). Political linguistics, 1(51), 44—58. (In Russ.).
  34. Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries [Electronic resource]. URL: (accessed: 10.11.2020).
  35. Kiewe, A. (1998). The crisis tool in American political discourse. Politically speaking: A worldwide examination of language used in the public sphere, 79—90.
  36. Montgomery, M. (2005). The discourse of war after 9/11. Language and Literature, 14(2), 149—180. DOI:
  37. Larina, T.V., Ozyumenko, V.I. & Ponomarenko, E.B. (2011). Language mechanism used to manipulate publics opinion in English and Russian news texts. Russian Journal of Linguistics, (2), 28—37. (In Russ.).
  38. Cambridge Dictionary [Electronic resource]. URL: (accessed: 10.11.2020).
  39. Spiridovskii, O.V. (2006). Intertextuality of Presidential Discourse in the USA, Germany and Austria. Political linguistics, 20, 161—170. (In Russ.).
  40. Biyumena, A.A. (2020). Lexical means of speech aggression in Soviet Russian-language print media. Russian Language Studies, 18(2), 164—180. (In Russ.). doi: 10.22363/2618-8163-2020-18-2-164-180
  41. Karasik, V.I. (2018). Address specialization in public political discourse. RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics, 9(1), 32—49. (In Russ.). doi: 10.22363/2313-2299-2018-9-1-32-49

Copyright (c) 2021 Solopova O.A., Naumova K.A.

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