Мотрюк Н.Г.

Буковинський державний медичний університет

Political discourse as an object of linguistic research

Political discourse has become the subject of particular and detailed attention of linguists just at the time when political communication acquired features of manipulative product.

Modern linguistic research focuses on the study of different types of discourse according to communicative and pragmatic point of view, which involves consideration of language not only as a means of communication and information transmission, but also as a mechanism to influence the formation and change of views on a situation which, in return, determines the behavior of individuals and social groups [2].

In the scientific literature, first of all in linguistics, the notion discourse is mostly used as a synonym for the text. Moreover, while using “text” we can understand not only the language of a specific product, but any phenomenon of reality that has symbolic nature and structured in a certain way, for example, films, meetings, debates, etc.

The discussions whether political discourse is the field of scientific research of political scientists or linguists are still carrying on. We believe that they are both involved. Political science focuses on the thinking of politicians and its susceptibility to manipulation of the electorate, and linguistics is interested in linguistic behavior of politicians, political mechanisms of texts’ creation of different hint strategies. As a result, a new field of research in this sphere – political linguistics was created. This concept is found in the writings of L.Nagorna, N.M. and L.M. Muharyamovyh and others.

According to the latter, political linguistics is a subject that examines language of the politics and language policy. Researchers claim that political and linguistic relations form the subject of political linguistics. Linguists are believed to be the first who distinguished political discourse in the field of scientific research.They, with the help of a new term “critical discourse analysis”, promoted it in political plane . L.P. Nagorna provides us with two characteristics of the studied concept “instilling public mind with certain ideas” and “speech interaction of groups and individuals”.

Therefore, one might think that the research center of political discourse is based on the linguistic principle, which performs the manipulative function. This means that the phenomenon of language policy in speeches, his public appearances, fashion and propaganda texts and postcards can tell much more about the speaker than when expressed explicitly. In our view, the appearance of such subdiscipline as political linguistics is a certain balance in the coexistence of politics and linguistics.

Politics today is supersaturated with theoretical material and linguistics with practical one. Thematic field of political linguistics is at the intersection of language and power. Notable members of this theory are scientists J.Blummert and K. Eastman. But researcher M. Hubohlo in his study singled out such terms as “politics of language” and “political philology”. They are an investment in the field of political science and a contribution to the study of political campaigns, texts etc. [1].

According to L.P. Nagorna another field of operation of political linguistics is “the sphere intersection of politics and identity”. We think it is about a civilian identity of a country. E. Hobsbaum investigated the scope of “linguistic nationalism”, identifying the nation with the language and works of Sheyhala E., A. Baranov are thorough research on the relationship of language and politics.

V.Z. Dem'yankova mentions that political discourse can be viewed from four perspectives: political, linguistics, sociopsyholinguistics and individual-hermeneutics. Political serves as the basis for policy conclusions; philological interprets political-ideological concept; sociopsyholinguistics examines the effectiveness and achievement of hidden overt political goals of the speaker; individual axle hermeneutic political discourse reveals personal broadcasting content in certain author circumstances [3].

So, according to V.Z. Dem'yankova the emergence of “political science of linguistics” is predictable phenomenon because the ratio examines the characteristics of discourse with terms such as “power”, “impact”, “authority”. It runs through language levels of syntax and semantics.

Consequently, political linguistics, although it is not identified as a separate discipline, is a unique interdisciplinary research field of linguists and political scientists that serves as a discussion between the two sciences. But we again emphasize on it’s balancing function which certainly contributes to thorough research in related areas, namely – ethnolinguistics, anthropology linguistics, sociolinguistics, interlinguistics, text linguistics, stylistics, rhetoric, narrative analysis, cognitive politics, ethnopolitology and others.

 E. Sheyhal indicates that any material, which comes to politics, should be called “political discourse”. Modern linguists use terms “political discourse” and “political speech”. The debate in linguistics exist regarding to the use of these two concepts. Among the scientists who use the concept of “political language”, V.Z. Dem'yankov finds features that are typical for him. These are terminological vocabulary, the special structure of discourse and its implementation.

Russian researchers A. M. Baranova and E.G. Kazakevich are convinced that political language is a “special sign system designed specifically for political communication”. According to V. Petrenko, “political language” is a broader concept as it covers not only the language of public political debate, but also contains language features of policy documents [2].

L.Nagorna noted that the terms ”political discourse”, “political communication”, “political speech”, “language of public opinion”, “language public sphere”, “language policy” is often used as synonyms. However, the researcher gives his definition of political speech, which is the interpretation of it as a “set of discursive practices that shape the field of political communication”.

The so-called concept of “political language” has mainly vocabulary national patriotic character, so we share the opinion of A.P. Chudinov, who sees language as a political version of the speech focused on the political sphere. According to A. Altunian, the attention of politicians is focused not on already well-known ideological constructions, but on the the means and changes in their interpretation [4].

P.B. Parshin denies the existence of political speech. The scientist examining the scope of political speech, concluded that it differs from ordinary language only in its content. This means that linguistic phenomena that distinguish the political sphere among other public areas do exist, but this fact does not guarantee the emergence and existence of political speech as a separate phenomenon.

N.V. Kondratenko helps to confirm the fact that political discourse is not limited to purely dialogic speech communicators according to the forms of political discourse based on formal communication, intentional, and other factors. It distinguishes political discourse according to form (“oral and written”) to the speaker’ factor (“addresser direct and indirect”), to the purpose (“informative, incentive, fashion, motivational, expressive“) to the recipient’s factor (“personally or mass addressed”), to the area of operation (“TV, newspaper and magazine, radio, advertising, PR”)

After analyzing the definition of the concept of "political discourse" N.V. Kondratenko concluded that there is no clear understanding and interpretation of this notion among scientists: the concept of “political discourse” and “political communication” A. Sheyhal consider synonymous; Y. Sorokin affirms that political discourse is only a kind of ideological concept [3].

Modern American scientist E. Bush stresses the importance of using “constitutional principles”( “constitutional issues”) in political rhetoric. The very same scientist extremely accurately described the relationship between the concepts of “political communication”, “political discourse” and “political language”. The researcher concluded that ”political communication is implemented in various genre forms of political discourse and political discourse maintained by means of political speech”.

Therefore, we investigated the interpretation of the term "political language" Ukrainian and foreign scientists and concluded on the basis of the analyzed hypothesis that this phenomenon is not a separate discipline, but rather called sub discipline that appeared at the intersection of research in the fields of linguistics and politics.

We have also analyzed the common and different interpretation of the terms “political discourse” and ”political speech”. We consider it appropriate to use the term “political discourse” because we do not see the characteristic features sufficient for isolating the so-called political speech as a branch of linguistic research.

Literature:

1. Bach K. The Semantics–Pragmatics Distinction: What is it and why it matters / K. Bach // In Ken Turner (ed.), The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface from Different Points of View. – Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999. – Pp.65 – 84.

2. Semantic and pragmatic markers of discourse structure // Іноземна філологія на межі тисячоліть: Тези доповідей міжнародної наукової конференції (Харків, 25-26 квітня, 2000). – Харків: Константа. – С. 89–91.

3. Chafe W. The Analysis of Discourse Flow / Wallace Chafe / W. Chafe // The Handbook of Discourse Analysis / [eds. D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen and H. E. Hamilton]. – Malden : Blackwell Publishing, 2003. – P. 673–687.

4. Schiffrin D. Discourse Markers : Language, Meaning and Context / D. Shiffrin // The Handbook of Discourse Analysis / [eds. Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen and Heidi E. Hamilton]. – Malden : Blackwell Publishing, 2003. – P. 54–75.