Strategies of Power in Political Discourse: Analysis of the Communicative Situation Between Equal Communicators

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The notion of ‘power’ is one of the most important for humanities. The article’s objective is to discover strategies of power in particular in the situation of communication between equal interlocutors. The goals of the study include: explication of terms ‘power’, ‘strategy of power’, ‘impoliteness’, ‘manipulation’, ‘language game’, critical discourse analysis taking into account social characteristics of speakers, which are not unchangeable social phenomena but are always constructed / reconstructed in discourse, finding those fragments of discourse that in this or that way demonstrate power relations and interpretation of them in accordance with linguopolitical theories, conclusions and assessing further prospects and vectors of study of power within an interdisciplinary framework. The methodology of the study is primarily based on the critical discourse analysis and kratological analysis presupposing that any communication - not just the political one - can unfold in the situation of symmetric / asymmetric power relations between communicators. The material of the research encompasses the texts of debates and rally speeches created in the American political discourse of the years of 2015-2016 and broadcast on the video platform of YouTube: 13 texts are considered, with the overall watching time exceeding 10 hours. During the research it has been found out that politicians using different types of impoliteness, for example the attack on the opponent’s face, can refuse to recognize his high social status, question his achievements and merits, come up with categorical demands. The speaker trying to present himself before the audience as a powerful man can break maxims of ethical speech behavior, not considering the interlocutor’s opinion. Following the foreign scholars, it is suggested to interpret such cases of the use of language power games in accordance with the term ‘strategy of power’.

About the authors

Alexander B. Alexeyev

The Russian Academy of Economics and State Service

Author for correspondence.
Email: neuausstatten@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2740-4649
SPIN-code: 2354-9963

PhD in Philology, Associate Professor at the Department of Professional Language Preparation

82, Vernadsky Prospekt, Moscow, Russian Federation, 119571

Yelvira A. Sorokina

Federal State University of Education

Email: ellasor@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4965-078X
SPIN-code: 2569-3236

Dr.Sc. (Philology), Professor at the Department of English Philology, the Romano-Germanic languages faculty

24, Very Voloshinoy str., city of Mytishi, Moscow Region, Russian Federation, 141014

References

  1. Mills, S. (2004). Discourse. London: Routledge.
  2. Zhunusova, Zh.N., Nugumanova, A.N. & Volkova, Ya.A. (2023). Phraseological units with an evaluative component in public speech of modern politicians. RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics, 14(1), 232–247. https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2299-202415-1-232-247 (In Russ.).
  3. Razumovskaya, V.A. (2023). “Supertext” as a form of a “strong” text existence RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics, 14(1), 262–275. https://doi.org/ 10.22363/23132299-2024-15-1-262-275 (In Russ.).
  4. Ratmair, R. (2013). The Russian speech and the market: traditions and innovations in everyday business communication. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury. (In Russ.).
  5. Nikishina, O.A. (2020). The specific features of the language of power and the language of resistance realized in the army English-language discourse. The Humanities and Education, 11, 4(44), 160–165.
  6. Alexeyev, A. & Driai, H. (2024). Bernard Shaw’s play “Pygmalion” as pedagogical discourse. I chkalat Journal. Linguistic, Literary, Critical Studies, 13(2), 333–354.
  7. Khalilova, L.A. (2020). The power of language and the language of power. RGGU Bulletin. Psychology. Pedagogics. Education, 3, 95–105. https://doi.org/10.28995/2073-6398-2020-396-105 (In Russ.).
  8. Shukurov, N.N. (2020). Concept ‘power’ in English and different-system languages. Issues of science and education, 39(123), 39–45. (In Russ.).
  9. Panchuk, I.A. (2024). Hate speech as a feature of modern communications. Humanities with the eyes of the youth, 108–111.
  10. Chikileva, L.S. & Aleshina, E.Yu. (2023). Pragmalinguistic features of contemporary Englishlanguage rhetoric of political conflict. Liberal Arts in Russia, 12(1), 46–56. https://doi. org/10.15643/libartrus-2023.1.4 (In Russ.).
  11. Selivanova, I.V. (2023). Verbal strategies for maintaining power in public discourse of the Spanish monarchy. NSU Vestnik Journal, Series: Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, 3, 45–57. https://doi.org/10.25205/1818-7935-2023-21-3-45-57 (In Russ.).
  12. General psycholinguistics: anthology (2004). K.F. Sedov (Ed.). Moscow: Labirint. (In Russ.).
  13. Nye, J. (2004). Soft Power. The means to success in world politics. New York: Public Affairs.
  14. Mihajlova, O.R. (2021). The Perspective of Ego-Network Analysis in The Maral Panic Propagation Studies on the Interpersonal Level. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes, 2, 28–47. https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2021.2.1818 (In Russ.).
  15. Locher, M. (2004). Power and politeness in action. Disagreements in oral communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  16. Witgenschtein, L. (2010). Culture and Value. On truth. Moscow: Astrel’. (In Russ.).
  17. Ravochkin, N.N. (2020). Language games in the domain of politics and law: analytic philosophers vs. postmodernists. Vestnik MGPU. Ser: Philosophical sciences, 2(34), 46–53. https://doi.org/10.23683/2227-8656.2018.1.7 (In Russ.).
  18. Liotar, Zh.-F. (1998). The postmodern condition. Moscow: Institute of experimental sociology. Saint Petersburg: Aleteyya. (In Russ.).
  19. Yerlikh, S.E. (2016). The war of myths. The memory about Decembrists on the millennium frontier. Saint Petersburg: Nestor-Istoria. (In Russ.).
  20. Alekseev, A.B. (2022). The political marginalization as a communicative strategy of power domination in political discourse. Vestnik NSU. Series: Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, 20(1), 96–111. https://doi.org/10.25205/1818-7935-2022-20-1-96-111 (In Russ.).
  21. Shirer, W.L. The rise and fall of the Third Reich. BookVooks. URL: https://booksvooks. com/nonscrolablepdf/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-third-reich-a-history-of-nazi-germany-pdf. html?page=5 (аccessed: 23.12. 2016).
  22. Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness. Using language to cause offence. Cambridge: Cambridge Press.
  23. Spencer-Oatey, H. (2008). Culturally Speaking. Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory. New-York: Continuum International Publ.
  24. Styrina, E.V. & Martirosjan, A.A. (2021). Elements of Fictionlaity in Media Texts: Facts vs Fiction. NSU Vestnik. Series: Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, 19(1), 92–105. https://doi.org/10.25205/1818-7935-2021-19-1-92-105 (In Russ.).
  25. Nigmatulina, V.N. & Galichkina, E.N. (2020) Figurative characteristics of the concept ‘cybercrime’ (on the material of Russian and English-language online mass-media). In: Creative linguistics. Astrakhan: Astrakhan State University Publ. pp. 90–95. (In Russ.).

Copyright (c) 2024 Alexeyev A.B., Sorokina Y.A.

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

This website uses cookies

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

About Cookies