Political linguistics in the
modern science of language
Shingareva M.Yu. – Candidate
of philological science, associate professor
Mamekova S.K. - candidate for
a master's degree
AIU. Shymkent
Political linguistics as
modern science of language is characterized by multidiscipline (different
science methodologies usage), anthropocentrism (a person, lingual identity is a
base point for research of lingual conditions) and interrelation with political
science, philosophy (axiology), sociology, culturology, psychology, knowledge
engineering. Formation of political linguistics as independent department of
science of language has begun in the 20 th century but its impetuous
development in the end of last century.
E.V. Bakumova, A.N.Baranov,
E.V.Budayev, V.I.Karasik, O.L.Mikhaleva, T.A.Svetonosova, A.P.Chudinov,
E.I.Sheygal, A.A.Filinsky, T.A.van Dake, N.Ferklow, R.Vodak and etc. are known
with their researches in political linguistics department.
Political linguistics is an
independent scientific discipline possessed object and subject of research,
interdisciplinary connections, directions of research.
The dominant purpose of
political linguistics is a study of various connections between language,
thinking, communication, entities of political activities and political
condition of society and also strategies and tactics of political activities
[Chudinov, 2007, p.7].
Research of works was
highlight close links with linguistics directions such as axiological
linguistics, pragmalinguistics, psycholinguistics, cognitive linguistics,
sociological linguistics, functional linguistics, rhetoric, text linguistics in
a political linguistics direction.
The most important directions
of political linguistics are researches of shared problems of political
communication, study of political media-discourse and categories of political
discourse, separate political concepts, research of communicative strategies,
tactics, procedures of political discourse, political discourse’s role
structure study.
The complement of
comprehensive study has been political discourse by the way of: 1) primary
needs of linguistic theory adverted to real facts of language system
functioning; 2) designation of political discourse’s analysis methods necessity
for showing up different tendencies in socio-political consciousness sphere; 3)
the problems of political science in a political thinking study, its connection
with political behavior. [Filinsky, 2002, p.34]
Famous linguist A.N.Baranov
calls the subject of political linguistics as a political discourse, which is a
commonality of discourse practices identified participants of political
discourse or formed concrete theme of political communication [Baranov, 2001,
p.261]
Another magisterial researcher
in a political communication field A.P.Chudinov calls more extensional term as
a subject of political linguistics – political communication representing
speech, focused on propaganda of some or other ideas, emotional impact on
citizens of the country and motivate them to definite policy decisions.
Political communication in its
turn has own research subjects: political language, political discourse and
political narrative [Chudinov, 2007, p.6]
Political language is defined
as the special semiotic system being used in a political communication with the
aim-formulation of social consensus, political decisions making and foundation
in society amid of various points of view [Baranov, Kazakevich, 1991, p.6]
There are two approaches of
political discourse research: narrow and extended. A.N.Baranov and
E.G.Kazakevich under political discourse term mean “totality of all speech acts
in political discussions use and rules of public politics were lightened by
traditions and proved by time.”[A.N.Baranov and E.G.Kazakevich, 1991, p.6]. The
extended approach was conceived by E.I.Sheygal including “not only
institutional but also non-intrusive forms of communications in which one of
three constituents belongs to: subject, addressee or content of message”
[E.I.Sheygal, 2004, p.287]
Political narrative is whole
of political texts by A.P.Chudinov, concentrating around definite political
event [Chudinov, 2007, p.79]
A lot of research works about
suggestiveness and complexity of the “discourse” term were written. Developing
of discourse concepts does not alone in linguistics but in political science,
philosophy, psychology, history, literary studies and etc.
Since research paradigm in
study of language has been changed to the anthropo-centralism the term “text”
has been inadequate for imaging of all variety constituent of event’s
communicative practice.
Native and foreign linguists
define the “texts” in different ways but all don’t concur that the “discourse”
is more volume term than “text”. For example, I.P.Susov defines “discourse” as
“connected sequences of speech acts. Delivered comment from speaker to listener
(or propositional sequences) becomes the text when it is fixed on writing (or
using recorder).In this way the text is as “informative track” of accomplished
discourse” [Susov, 2007, p.40]
T.van Dake delimits exactly the “text” and “discourse”
conceptions, defining “discourse” as articulated topical text and “text” as
abstract grammatical structure of articulated speech [Dake, 1998]
The most widespread
dichotomies in linguistics approaches to text’s and discourse’s
differentiations are presented in a E.I.Sheygal’s monography “Significs of
political discourse” [Sheygal, 2004, p.10-12]:
1. Category of discourse defines to
linguo-social sphere when the text to linguistic (N.D.Arutyunova,
A.K.Mikhalskaya, E.Benvenist, G. Brown, G. Cook, G.
Kress, G. Yule) In this approach the text is regarded as verbal image (“oral record”)
of communicative event when the discourse as “the text in eventive aspect”,
“the speech wrapped up in a life”, “function of the language in an alive
relationship” [Benvenist, 1974, p.296]. Taken as a whole approach is expressed
by the formula “discourse = text + context (linguistic and extralinguistic)”.
2.
Discourse and text are contradistinguished as a process and result (O.V.Alexandrova, M.K.Bisimaliyeva, M.Ya.Dymarskiy,
E.S.Kubryakova, G.Brown, G.Kress, G.Yule). In the given approach the discourse
is functional, processual event, which connect with real speech production and
the text is considered as a product of speech production, which has the
definite completed and fixed form.
3.
The discourse and the text are opposed in actuality and virtuality (V.Ya.Dymarsky,
V.P.Koneckaya, T.A.van Dake, D.Schiffrin). Supporters of this approach are
considered the discourse as real speech event, current speech activity in the
given sphere, connected text created in the text. The text hasn’t definite
connection with real time but presents as abstractive mental construct which
realizes in discourse.
4.
Opposition “oral<->written” (V.V.Bogdanov,
Z.Turayeva, M.Coulthard, M.Hoey). In the given approach the discourse
associates only with sounding oral speech but the text with written form. We
are in sympathy with E.I.Sheygal in a view that this approach is limited and
successful continuation the given approach gets by V.V.Bogdanov who thinks that
the terms “speech” and “text” are hyponyms with regard to “discourse” hyponym.
The speech is spontaneous, non-normative, elliptical sound substance
characterized with interlocutory while the text prepared, normative,
fully-fledged, monologic or interlocutory, is distinguished from the speech by
graphical representation of language material [Bogdanov, 1993]. Discourse in this
way includs all parameters relating to the speech and the text that correlates
with discourse’s concept is presented by E.I.Sheygal [Sheygal, 2004, p.10-12]
Professor
U.A.Dubrovsky considers four avowed parameters of the text: integrity,
coherence, visibility and irreducibility. Integrity is understood as unity of
text’s architectonics interosculant it in the form of story. Coherence
presupposes impossibility of text components’ interchange. Mostly visibility
and irreducibility are considered in connection with values of literary texts
including exposition, beginning of the action, the development of the action,
culmination, outcome, conclusion and epilogue [Dubrovsky, 2009, p.21].
Discourse doesn’t restrict to so in gathering parameters and is more volumetric
and multilevel term.
The ratio of the terms
"discourse", "text", "speech" is built as
follows: the text and the speech are result of such difficult communicative
phenomenon as a discourse.
Such types of a discourse as a
scientific, pedagogical, religious, medical, legal, art, poetic, political
discourse are investigated in modern linguistics.
A.A. Filinsky defines "a
political discourse" as speech activity of political subjects within their
institutional communication [Filinsky, 2002, page 29].
The main function of a political
discourse as E.I. Sheygal and A.P. Chudinov consider, is fight for the
political power by using of communicative activity, that is the political
discourse is used as the tool of the political power [Chudinov, 2007; Sheygal,
2004].
1.
Baranov A.N., Kazakevich E.G. Parlamentskie debaty: traditzii i
inovatzii [Parliamentary debates: traditions and novations] /
A.N.Baranov, E.G.Kazakevich – M: Znanie-Knowladge,
1991. – p.42.
2.
Baranov A.N. Vvedenie v prikladnuyu lingvistiku: Uchebnoe posobie [Introduction to applied linguistics] Training manual / A.N. Baranov. –
M: Editorial-Editorial, 2001. – p.360
3.
Benvenist E. Obsh’aya lingvistika. Per.s frantz. [General linguistics]. Transl. from French/ E.Benfist. – M: Progress-Progress, 1974. – p.447
4.
Bogdanov V.V. Tekst I tekstovoe obsh’enie
[The text and text intercourse] / V.V.Bogdanov. – St. Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo sankt-Peterburgskogo
universiteta - publishing office of St. Petersburg’s Un-ty, 1993. – p.67
5.
Dubovskyi Yu.A. O soderzhatel’nych svoistvach teksta kak yedinitzi
analiza [About informative properties of the text as the unit
of analysis] // Novie idei v lingvistike
XXI veka. Materiali I Mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentzii, posvyatshenoi
pam’ati professora V.A.Chom’akova. Chast’ I [The new ideas in linguistic of
the XXI st century]. – Pyatigorsk: PSLU, 2009. – p.21-31
6.
Susov I.P. Vvedenie v Yazikoznanie: uchebnik dl’a
studentov lingvisticheskich ifilologicheskich special’nostei [Introduction to the science of
language] / I.P.Susov. – M: Vostok-Zapad
– West-East, 2007. – p.378
7.
Filinskii A.A. Kriticheskii analiz politicheskogo diskursa predvybornych
kompanii 1999-2000gg.:dis. kand.filol.nauk
[Political discourse’s critical analysis of electioneering] / A.A.Filinsky. – Tver’ – Twer, 2002. – p.163
8.
Chudinov A.P. Politicheskaya lingvistica: uchebnoe posobie [Political linguistics] training manual / A.P.Chudinov. – 2-e izd., ispr. – M: Flinta: Nauka –
Science, 2007. – p.256
9.
Sheygal E.I., Bakumova
E.V. Ideologema as a means of politician’s identification. Materiali Vserosiiskoi nauchnoi konferentzii (Penza, 15-19 maya
2001goda) Ideologema kak sredstvo identifikatzii politika Yazik I mishlenie:
[Psychological and linguistic aspects] Institute of psychology and Study of language Institute of the Russian Academy of
Sciences; Penza, 2001 – p.227-230
10.
Dake T.A. van Discourse Semantics and Ideology [Semantika
diskursa I ideologii] Discourse and Society. Vol.6, No.2, 1995. - p. 243-285