Abstract:
This article is devoted to the study of the discursive structures of political texts published on Twitter of the President of the United States. The material of the study was the statements of Donald Trump and Joe Biden during the period from November 1, 2019 to August 31, 2021. Its multimillion audience of subscribers makes Twitter a powerful political tool with the ability to influence public opinion. The purpose of this article is to identify the discursive structures arising in political communication as a result of the actualization of the category of discursive heterogeneity, which includes elements of interdiscursiveness and polydiscursiveness. The authors use various methods: descriptive, contextual analysis, comparative, methods of observation, content analysis and discourse analysis. Using the linguistic concept of the American scientist D. Himes S-P-E-A-K-I-N-G, the analysis of the situation components Setting and scene, Participants, Ends, Act Sequence, Key, Instrumentalities, Norms, Genre is carried out. Being a part of the media discourse and demonstrating the features of the Internet genre, the written messages of politicians are laconic, expressive, and tend to economize on linguistic means. The same communicants, depending on the context of utterances, become participants in different types of discourses. The study analyzes the foreign and domestic political discourses, the security discourse, as well as a number of accompanying special discourses that constitute political communication. The choice of the subject matter of the messages is due to the high degree of importance of issues of foreign and domestic policy, as well as stability and security.
Keywords: political discourse; situation model; discursive structures; interdiscursiveness; polydiscursiveness; discursive heterogeneity
For citation: Shevchenko V.D., Tribunskaya N.A. Features of Discursive Structures in Political Communication. Current Issues in Philology and Pedagogical Linguistics. 2021, no 4, pp. 38–50 (In Russ.)
Bionote:
Vyacheslav D. Shevchenko1*, Nina A. Tribunskaya2
1, 2Samara National Research University, 34 Moskovskoye shosse Str.,
Samara, Russian Federation, 443086;
1ORCID ID: 0000-0001-6357-2477; Researcher ID: I-8620-2018;
Scopus Author ID: 57203173126
2ORCID ID: 0000-0002-6012-3016;
*e-mail: slash99@mail.ru
References:
1. Dobrosklonskaya TG. Medialinguistics: a systematic approach to learning the language of the media. M., 2008: 203. Available at:http://www.ffl.msu.ru/research/publications/dobrosklonskaya/dobrosklonskaya-medialingvistika.pdf. Accessed September 28, 2021. (In Russ.).
2. Shevchenko VD., Mamet P. Realization of “Food as a Source of danger” Cognitive Model in the Russian Media Discourse. Current Issues in Philology and Pedagogical Linguistics, 2020. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342885136_Realization_of_Food_as_a_Source_of_danger_Cogniti.... Accessed September 28, 2021. (In Eng.).
3. Chernyavskaya VE. The discourse of power and the power of discourse. M.: FLINTA; 2017: 134.
4. Bakhtin MM. Aesthetics of verbal creativity. M.: Art; 1986: 445. Available at: https://runivers.ru/upload/iblock/94e/bahtin.pdf. Accessed September 28, 2021 (In Russ.).
5. Beloglazova EV. Discourse Heterogeneity of Literature for Children: Cognitive and Linguo-Pragmatic Aspects (Doctoral dissertation). St. Petersburg; 2010: 253.
6. Arnold IV. Stylistics. Modern English. M.: Flinta; 2002: 384.
7. Sheigal EI. Semiotics of political discourse. Volgograd: Peremena; 2000: 174.
8. Fairclough N., Wodak R. Critical Discourse Analysis. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Vol. 2. Discourse as Social Interaction. L., 1996.
9. Chilton P., Schäffner C. Discourse and Politics. Discourse as Structure and Process. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Vol. I / еd. By Teun A. van Dijk. L., Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1998: 206–229.
10. Karasik VI., Slyshkin GG. Trends in the development of modern discourse. Actual problems of philology and pedagogical linguistics. 2021;1:14–31. Available at: http://philjournal.ru/upload/2021-1/FullVersion2021-1.pdf. Accessed September 28, 2021 (In Russ.).
11. Karasik VI. Language circle: personality, concepts, discourse. Volgograd: Peremena; 2002: 477.
12. Hymes D. Foundations of Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania; 1974: 260.
13. Trump, Donald “President Trump @POTUS” (45th President of the United States) Twitter.com. Available at: https://twitter.com/potus. Accessed November 30, 2020. (In Eng.).
14. Biden, Joe “President Biden @POTUS” (46th President of the United States) Twitter.com. Available at: https://twitter.com/potus. Accessed September 28, 2021 (In Eng.).
15. Kasavin IT. Text. Discourse. Context. An introduction to the social epistemology of language. М., 2008: 437.
16. Dijk TA. van. Discourse and Context. A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008: 267. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/5345314/Discourse_and_Context_Teun_A_van_DijkAccessed September 28, 2021. (In Eng.).
17. Dijk TA. van. What is Political Discourse Analysis? – Available at: http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/What%20is%20Political%20Discourse%20Analysis.pdf Accessed September 28, 2021. (In Eng.).
18. Sidorova IG. Communicative and pragmatic characteristics of genres of personal Internet discourse (website, blog, social network, commentary). Volgograd, 2014: 249. Available at: https://vspu.ru/sites/default/files/disfiles/dissertations/sidorova_ig_kd_0.pdf. Accessed September 28, 2021. (In Russ.).