Implementing Consolidation Strategies in Institutional Discourse: Modeling Concept of COOPERATION

This study is situated within the framework of contemporary linguopolitics. It identifies the means of representing consolidation strategies in institutional discourse texts. Utilizing lexicographic analysis, the research reveals words that convey the semantics of unity. Through the application of the Voyant Tools program for automated data processing (corpus analysis), the frequency of these terms is determined, allowing for the ranking of lexemes and highlighting the dominant unit of cooperation. An examination of collocations with this lexeme (contextual analysis) reveals the primary semantic constructs of the concept of COOPERATION that enact consolidation strategies (cognitive-propositional analysis): the subjects of cooperation and their attributive characteristics (ideological stance, localization), as well as the attributive features of joint action (spheres of cooperation). The study uncovers both commonalities and differences in interpreting consolidation strategies as articulated in key documents that reflect the specifics of institutional discourse, where political actors may be either a single state (Russia), an international organization (SCO), or an intergovernmental association (BRICS). It is emphasized that the foundation of contemporary understanding of unity in international political discourse is not ideological proximity, as was the case during the Cold War, but rather the potential for mutually beneficial cooperation. Various models of consolidation are identified (multilevel and scalable, vector-based regionally-oriented, alternative globally-oriented), as reflected in different documents.

1. Akbari Hamed, L. A., Behnam, B. (2020). Linguistic Devices of Identity Representation in English Political Discourse with a Focus on Personal Pronouns: Power and Solidarity. The Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice, 13 (26): 205—229. DOI: 10.30495/JAL.2020.677911.

2. Chudinov, A. P. (2006). Political linguistics. Moscow: Flint: Nauka Publ. 256 p. (In Russ.).

3. Cioce, G., Korczynski, M., Però, D. (2022). The improvised language of solidarity: Linguistic practices in the participatory labour-organizing processes of multiethnic migrant workers. Human Relations, 76 (12): 1855—1880. DOI: 10.1177/00187267221119775.

4. Dubrovskaya, T. V. (2022). Lexical markers of unity in Russian government policy documents: words with the morpheme -one-. Bulletin of St. Petersburg University. Language and literature, 19 (4): 740—759. DOI: 10.21638/spbu09.2022.406. (In Russ.).

5. Dubrovskaya, T. V., Yuskaeva, E. I. (2020). Pragmalinguistic means of constructing the collective past in British political speech. Bulletin of Voronezh State University. Series: Linguistics and Intercultural communication, 1: 94—102. DOI: 10.17308/lic.2020.1/2737. (In Russ.).

6. Dzhioeva, V. P., Tamerian, T. Y. (2017). Realization of concepts unity / Judeo-Genocide in South Ossetian political discourse in the situation of Russian-Ossetian bilingualism. Political linguistics, 4: 53—59. (In Russ.).

7. Frolova, A. V. (2023). Metaphorical modeling of the image of the future of Russia in the noninstitutional political Internet discourse of the USA and China. Author’s abstract of PhD Diss. Yekaterinburg. 24 p. (In Russ.).

8. Galimova, H. N. (2021). Semantic syntax and proposition as a unit of propositional analysis of texts. Baltic Humanitarian Journal, 10 / 3 (36): 249—252. DOI: 10.26140/bgz3-2021-1003-0062. (In Russ.).

9. Gavrilova, M. V. (2010). Gavrilova, The development of meaningful forms of the concept of “unity” in the Russian Political Discourse of the XX—XXI centuries. Political Linguistics, 4 (34): 13—18. (In Russ.).

10. Gromyko, S. A. (2023). Speech Representations of Unity in Early 20th Century Russian Parliamentary Discourse: A Study of Lexemes ‘Edinstvo’ [Unity] and ‘Edinenie’ [Unification]. Nauchnyi dialog, 12 (5): 39—54. https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2023-12-5-39-54. (In Russ.).

11. Kushnereva, D. A. (2021). Tactics of cooperation in Eva Peron’s political speeches. Scientific Notes of the Novgorod State University, 4 (37): 431—436. DOI: 10.34680/2411-7951.2021.4(37) .431-436. (In Russ.).

12. Lapteva, M. L., Urazgalieva, O. A. (2016). Features of the construction of the lexico-semantic field of the concept of “cooperation” in political discourse. Bulletin of Voronezh State University. Series: Philology. Journalism, 3: 56—59. (In Russ.).

13. Leontieva, T. V. (ed.). (2022). Faces of unity in language and discourse: a monograph. Yekaterinburg: Azhur. 292 p. ISBN 978-5-91256-571-7. (In Russ.).

14. Norman, B. Y., Plotnikova, A. M. (2016). Constructions with the pronoun WE: the formation of an actual or occasional collective identity. Bulletin of Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University, 6 (34): 126—138. DOI: 10.15293/2226-3365.1606.10. (In Russ.).

15. Peled, Y. (2024). Solidarity and/in Language. Global justice: Theory, Practice, Rhetoric, 14 (01): 79—102. DOI: 10.21248/gjn.14.01.261.

16. Pentegova, A. V. (2019). The concept of humanitarian cooperation in the modern system of international relations. Bulletin of the Trans-Baikal State University, 25 (4): 54—60. DOI: 10.21209/2227-9245-2019-25-4-54-60. (In Russ.).

17. Raevskaya, M. M., Selivanova, I. V. (2021). Institutional discourse of the modern Spanish monarchy: strategies and tactics of influence in public speeches of Philip VI. Bulletin of St. Petersburg University. Language and literature, 18 (4): 810—830. DOI: 10.21638/spbu09.2021.411. (In Russ.).

18. Wilk, P., Molek-Kozakowska, K. (2024). Constructing solidarity in discourse: a pragma-linguistic analysis of selected speeches by President Zelensky addressed to international community. East European Review, 15 (2): 151—162. DOI: 10.31648/pw.10870.

19. Yu Danhong. (2021). Chinese “culture of harmony” and Russian “conciliarity”. Problems of the Far East, 5: 149—157. DOI: 10.31857/S013128120016372-0. (In Russ.).