Speech means of implementing orienting influence in English and Russian-language political discourse in a television talk show
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52575/2712-7451-2021-40-2-153-162Keywords:
discourse, strategies, impact levels, suggestive impactAbstract
Political discourse is a significant phenomenon in the life of society. The global goals of political discourse are the seizure, retention or redistribution of power. These goals are achieved by informing, persuading and motivating the audience. Political discourse is a rather complex object of research. Despite the fact that political discourse is in the focus of attention of many scholars, the conflict political discourse of talk shows is insufficiently researched from the point of view of a practical approach to analyzing the effectiveness of suggestive influence on the addressee. The aim of our research is to analyze effective means of speech interaction at various functional levels of the language. To conduct a qualitative assessment of the orienting speech impact, an analysis of illustrative material was carried out, which includes 100 Russian-language and 100 English-language discursive acts (DA) that implement non-cooperative speech strategies. As a result of the study, the means of implementing the main communication strategies that have an orienting influence on the audience in political talk shows were identified. The research results contribute to the study of manipulative technologies of political discourse.
References
Арутюнова Н.Д. 1990. Дискурс. Лингвистический энциклопедический словарь. М., Сов. Энциклопедия: 136–137.
Вольф Е.М. 1986. Оценочное значение и соотношение признаков «хорошо»/«плохо». Вопросы языкознания, 5: 98–106.
Диманте И.В. 2015. Инструментарий профессионального коммуникатора (приёмы ре-чевого воздействия). Коммуникативные исследования, 4 (6): 52–64.
Желтухина М.Р. 2004. Специфика речевого воздействия тропов в языке СМИ: автореф. дис. … докт. филол. наук: 10.02.19 М., Ин-т языкозн. РАН, 42 c.
Кара-Мурза, С. Г.2009. Манипуляция сознанием. М., Эксмо, 528 с.
Карасик В.И. 2002. Языковой круг: личность, концепты, дискурс. Волгоград: «Пере-мена», 477 с.
Кохтев Н.Н., Розенталь Д.Э. 1988. Искусство публичного выступления. М., Москов-ский рабочий, 221 c.
Кубрякова Е.С. 2005. О термине «дискурс» и стоящей за ним структуре знания. Язык. Личность. Сборник статей к 70-летию Т. М. Николаевой. М.: Языки славянских куль-тур: 23–33.
Шейгал Е.И. 2004. Семиотика политического дискурса, М., Гнозис, 326 c.
Chilton P. 2004. Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. L.: Routledge, 240 p.
Fairclough N. 2004. Critical Discourse Analysis in Researching Language in the New Capi-talism: Overdetermination, Transdisciplinarity and Textual Analysis. In: Harrison (C.) & Young (L.) eds. Systemic Linguistics and Critical Discourse Analysis. London, Continuum, 688 p.
Pecheux, M. 1982. Language, Semantics and Ideology. In book: The Language, Discourse, Society Reader. London, Macmillan: 51–61.
Teun A. van Dijk. 2008. Discourse and power: New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 303 p.
Wodak R. 2006. Mediation between discourse and society: assessing cognitive approaches in CDA. Discourse and society, 8(1):179–190.
Dr Louise J. Phillips, Marianne W. Jorgensen, 2002, Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd, 240 p.
Abstract views: 367
Share
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2021 Наталия Анатольевна Жихарева, Елена Павловна Яковлева

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