Manipulative potential of verbal representations in American political discourse

Abstract

The paper provides a comparative analysis of quantitative and qualitative verbal representations of various population groups in American political speeches on the topic of the Palestinian-Israeli and Russian-Ukrainian conflicts in two chronological periods from February 2022 to October 6, 2023 and from October 7, 2022 to the end of November 2023. The aim of the work is to highlight manipulative tactics and methods of pragmatic influence on addressees in America in various population groups, taking into account the quantity and quality of verbal representations and means of naming over time. The scientific novelty of the work is due to the results of identifying quantitative and qualitative differences in verbal representations and means of naming representatives of population groups in four countries, manipulative techniques and means of pragmatic influence based on the material of modern public speeches of US political leaders in the two chronological periods. As a result of the study, 1) quantitative differences in names and verbal representations of various population groups were identified; 2) recurring qualitative differences in their verbal representations were discovered: “slaughtered”, “massacred”, “murdered”, “butchered” – in relation to the losses of Israelis, “killed”, “died” – those of Ukrainians, “loss of life”, “loss”, “targets”, “annihilate” – those of Palestinians; 3) typical manipulative tactics of omission, leveling of facts, contrasting “good – evil”, as well as the characteristic expressive language means of their implementation, i.e., repetitions, amplifications, superlatives, evaluative vocabulary, selective names, antithesis, were found.

References

1. Беляевская Е. Г. Концептуальный анализ: результат, на который обычно не обращают внимания // Когнитивные исследования языка. 2022. № 4 (51).
2. Карасик В. И. Адресатная специализация в публичном политическом дискурсе // Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Теория языка. Семиотика. Семантика. 2018. № 1.
3. Мищук О. Н. Речевое воздействие в политическом дискурсе // Известия Тульского государственного университета. Гуманитарные науки. 2013. № 1.
4. Степанова Н. В. Лингвостилистические средства актуализации дискредитирующих тактик в жанре американских политических дебатов // Филологические науки. Вопросы теории и практики. 2023. Т. 16. Вып. 1.
5. Сюе Ю. Методы исследования политического дискурса в контексте цифровизации гуманитарных наук // Политическая лингвистика. 2023. № 1 (97).
6. Филиппова М. А. Идеологический концепт «демократия» (на материале лингвокультуры США): автореф. дисс.. к. филол. н. Волгоград, 2007.
7. Шаховский В. И. Обоснование лингвистической теории эмоций // Вопросы психолингвистики. 2019. № 1 (39).
8. Brüggemann M., Engesser S., Büchel F., Humprecht E., Castro L. Hallin and Mancini Revisited: Four Empirical Types of Western Media Systems // Journal of Communication. 2004. Vol. 64. Iss. 6.
9. Cull N. J. Public Diplomacy: Taxonomies and Histories // The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2008. Vol. 616. Iss. 1.
10. Meadows B. Distancing and Showing Solidarity via Metaphor and Metonymy in Political Discourse: A Critical Study of American Statements on Iraq during the Years 2004-2005 // Critical Approach to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines. 2007. Vol. 1 (2).

Author information

About this article

Publication history

• Received: November 21, 2023.
• Published: January 12, 2024.

Keywords

• вербальные репрезентации
• средства номинации
• манипуляция
• политический дискурс
• verbal representations
• means of naming
• manipulation
• political discourse

Copyright

© 2024 The Author(s)
© 2024 Gramota Publishing, LLC

User license

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)