Speech Impact in Political Discourse in Context of COVID-19 Pandemic (Speeches of B. Johnson and D. Biden)
https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2022-11-4-203-217
Abstract
The article is devoted to the study of pragmalinguistic means of political discourse. The material was transcriptions of speeches by British Prime Minister B. Johnson and US President D. Biden, published on the official websites of the governments of Great Britain and the United States. The authors set themselves the task of studying communication tactics that update the main directions of policy regarding COVID-19. The relevance of the work is due to the constructivist approach to the language. Political discourse is one of the ways to actualize power and control in society. The analysis revealed two groups of tactics that affect social consciousness and behavior: tactics of negative representation and tactics of positive representation. The tactics of negative representation of the pandemic include the following: emphasizing the threat, modeling a negative scenario, attracting negative experience. Positive representations are created through the use of tactics such as highlighting achievements, modeling a positive scenario, solidarity, appeals to duty, persuasion and appeal. It is shown that the linguistic means of updating the identified tactics have a targeted impact on the emotional sphere and on the consciousness of citizens, being a strong argument in favor of vaccination. The analysis carried out contributes to the understanding of the discursive mechanisms of influence on the mass consciousness.
About the Authors
N. S. Dankova
Penza State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Natalia S. Dankova - PhD in Philology English language Department.
Penza
E. V. Krekhtunova
Penza State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Elena V. Krekhtunova - PhD in Philology English language Department.
Penza
References
1. Bloor, M., Bloor, Th. (2007). The Practice of Critical Discourse Analysis: An Introduction. London: Hodder Arnold. 207 p. ISBN 9780340912379.
2. Chernova, O. E., Osipova, A. A., Pozdnyakova, N. V. (2021). «World will never be same»: phraseologisms during coronavirus pandemic. Nauchnyy dialog, 5: 140—153. DOI: 10.24224/2227-1295-2021-5-140-153. (In Russ.).
3. Chinarova, E. S. (2009). Tactics of manipulative influence on the addressee in political discourse. Bulletin of Chelyabinsk state university, 43 (181): 150—152. (In Russ.).
4. Efimenko, T. N. (2019). Realization of influencing function in socio-political discourse. Phi-lology. Theory & practice, 12 (12): 321—325. DOI: 10.30853/filnauki.2019.12.65. (In Russ.).
5. Gal'chuk, D. S. (2021). Strategies and tactics of verbal manipulation employed by D. Trump (on the topic of the US immigration crisis on the Southern border). Political linguistics, 4 (88): 29—34. DOI: 10.26170/1999-2629_2021_04_03. (In Russ.).
6. Issers, O. S. (2008). Communication strategies and tactics of Russian speech. (5th ed.). Moscow: Publishing house LKI. 284 p. ISBN 978-5-382-00698-7. (In Russ.).
7. Khafizova, A. A. (2020). Specificity of speech influence in the English political discourse (by the example of Boris Johnson’s speech at the 74th session of the UN general assembly). Philology. Theory & practice, 13 (6): 210—216. DOI: 10.30853/filnauki.2020.6.39. (In Russ.).
8. Kameneva, V. A., Potapova, N. V. (2021). Strategy of self-presentation of a politician (personal and official blogs on Twitter of US vice president Kamala Harris). Nauchnyi dialog, 11: 82—105. DOI: 10.24224/2227-1295-2021-11-82-105. (In Russ.).
9. Kurysheva, V. I. (2010). Communicative strategy in American electoral discourse (on the basis of Obama’s political election speeches). Herald of Vyatka State University, 1—2: 70—72. (In Russ.).
10. Mikhaleva, O. L. (2009). Political discourse: the specifics of manipulative influence. Moscow: Knizhnyy dom LIBROKOM. 256 p. ISBN 978-5-397-00227-1. (In Russ.).
11. Oshchepkova, N. A. (2020). Implementation of speech influence mechanism in political discourse. The humanities and social-economic sciences, 3: 121—132. DOI: 10.18522/2070-1403-2020-80-3-121-132. (In Russ.).
12. Parshina, O. N. (2005). Strategies and tactics of speech behavior of the modern political elite of Russia: author’s abstract of Doct. Diss. Saratov. 48 p. (In Russ.).
13. Radbil, T. B., Ratsiburskaya, L. V., Paloshi, I. V. (2021). Active processes in the vocabulary and word formation of the russian language in the era of coronavirus: linguo-cognitive aspect. Nauchnyi dialog, 1: 63—79. DOI: 10.24224/2227-1295-2021-1-63-79. (In Russ.).
14. Radbil, T. B., Jaszay, L., Palosi, I. (2022). Linguopragmatic potential of active processes in russian neological word formation of latest period. Nauchnyi dialog, 11 (1): 101—121. DOI: 10.24224/2227-1295-2022-11-1-101-121. (In Russ.).
15. Simonyan, A. A. (2009). Evaluation in terms of communication strategies (based on the Senate hearings in the USA). Moscow State university bulletin. Series 19. Linguistics and intercultural communication, 1: 114—123. (In Russ.).
16. Sheygal, E. I. (2004). Semiotics of political discourse. Moscow: Gnozis. 326 p. ISBN 5-7333-0144-9. (In Russ.).
17. Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Politics, ideology and discourse. In: Wodak, R. (ed.). Elsevier Ency-clopedia of Language and Linguistics. Volume on Politics and Language. 728—740. (In Russ.).
18. Voskresenskaya, N. A., Gulik, O. O. (2021). Prospects for Survival of Covid Neologisms in Modern English. Nauchnyi dialog, 11: 50—62. DOI: 10.24224/2227-1295-2021-11-50-62.
Review
For citations:
Dankova N.S., Krekhtunova E.V. Speech Impact in Political Discourse in Context of COVID-19 Pandemic (Speeches of B. Johnson and D. Biden). Nauchnyi dialog. 2022;11(4):203-217. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2022-11-4-203-217
Views:
476
Email this article 