Features of discourse interaction in political communication
https://doi.org/10.26907/2074-0239-2022-68-2-65-70
Abstract
This article studies discursive structures in politicians’ statements found in social networks. In our research, discursive heterogeneity, which actualizes the features of interdiscursivity and polydiscursivity of political communication, is demonstrated based on messages containing environmental issues.
The purpose of this study is to comprehend the process of discourse interaction in English-language political communication.
Our analysis is based on J. Biden’s messages on Twitter from January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022. We use the methods of observation and description, comparative and contextual analyses and a discourse analysis. The article analyzes the situation components of Setting and Scene, Participants, Ends, Act Sequence, Key, Instrumentalities, Norms and Genre with the help of the linguistic concept S-P-E-A-K-I-N-G of the American scientist D. Hymes. Being part of the media discourse and demonstrating the features of the Internet genre, the politicians’ messages are concise and compressed. The same communicants, depending on the context, participate in various types of discourse, their interaction occurring on the basis of the “subject of communication” component. Simultaneously, the subjective type of interdiscursivity is actualized. One of the politicians’ implicit goals is to form a certain evaluative opinion among the readership, an attitude towards ongoing events.
About the Author
N. Tribunskaya
Samara State Medical University; Samara University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Nina Alexandrovna Tribunskaya, Assistant Professor, extern
443099
89 Chapaevskaya Str.
Samara
References
1. Dijk, T. A. van. (2008). Discourse and Context. A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 267 p. URL: https://www.academia.edu/5345314/Discourse_and_Context_Teun_A_van_Dijk (accessed: 02. 04. 2022). (In English)
2. Dijk, T. A. van. (1998). What Is Political Discourse Analysis? URL: https://e-l.unifi.it/pluginfile.php/909651/mod_resource/content/1/Van%20Dijk%20Waht%20is%20political%20discourse%20analysis.pdf (accessed: 02. 04. 2022). (In English)
3. Fairclough, N., Wodak, R. (1996). Critical Discourse Analysis. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Vol. 2. Discourse as Social Interaction. L. (In English)
4. Chilton, P., Schäffner, C. (1998). Discourse and Politics. Discourse as Structure and Process. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Vol. I, еd. by Teun A. van Dijk. L., Thousand Oaks. Pp. 206–229. New Delhi, Sage Publications. (In English)
5. Karasik, V. I., Slyshkin, G. G. (2021). Tendentsii razvitiya sovremennogo diskursa [Trends in the Development of Modern Discourse]. Aktual'nye problemy filologii i pedagogicheskoi lingvistiki. No. 1, pp. 14–31. URL: http://philjournal.ru/upload/2021-1/FullVersion2021-1.pdf. (accessed: 02. 04. 2022). (In Russian)
6. Tribunskaya, N. A. and Shevchenko, V. D. (2021). Diskursivnyye struktury v politicheskoi kommunikatsii [Discursive Structures in Political Communication]. Vestnik Samarskogo universiteta. Istoriya, pedagogika, filologiya. Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 118–127. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/diskursivnye-struktury-v-politicheskoy-kommunikatsii?ysclid=ln35u1wrm3836002494 (In Russian)
7. Shevchenko, V. D. (2008). Vvedeniye v teoriyu interferentsii diskursov : monografiya [Introduction to the Theory of Discourse Interference : A Monograph]. 203 p. Samara, SamGUPS. URL: http://engphil.samsu.ru/laniuscms/docs/tipolog/shevchenkomon.pdf (accessed: 02. 04. 2022). (In Russian)
8. Beloglazova, E. V. (2010). O variativnosti proyavleniya diskursnoy geterogennosti [On the Variability of the Manifestation of Discursive Heterogeneity]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. No. 332, pp. 15 - 19. URL: http://journals.tsu.ru/uploads/import/845/files/332-015.pdf (accessed: 02. 04. 2022). (In Russian)
9. Plotnitsky, Yu. E. (2020). Realizatsiya kategorii “interdiskursivnost'” v angloyazychnom pesennom diskurse [Implementation of the Category “Interdiscursiveness” in the English-Language Song Discourse]. Evolyutsiya i transformatsiya diskursov : Sbornik nauchnykh statei. Samara, Tsentr periodicheskikh izdanii. Vyp. 5, pp. 104–115. (In Russian)
10. Sheigal, E. I. (2000). Semiotika politicheskogo diskursa [Semiotics of Political Discourse]. 174 p. Volgograd, Peremena. (In Russian)
11. Crystal, D. (2011). Internet Linguistics: A Student Guide. 192 p. NY, Routledge. (In English)
12. Akhrenova, N. A. (2016). Internet-lingvistika: novaya paradigma v opisanii yazyka interneta [Internet-linguistics: A New Paradigm of the Language Description]. Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo oblastnogo universiteta. Seriya: Lingvistika. No. 3, pp. 8–14. DOI: 10.18384/2310-712X-2016-3-8-14. (In Russian)
13. Dobrosklonskaya, T. G. (2019). Medialingvistika: sistemnyy podkhod k izucheniyu yazyka SMI [Medialinguistics: A Systematic Approach to the Study of the Media Language (Modern English Media Language)]. 264 p. Moscow. URL: https://rucont.ru/efd/244207 (accessed: 02. 04. 2022). (In Russian)
14. Kasavin, I. T. (2008). Tekst. Diskurs. Kontekst. Vvedeniye v sotsial'nuyu epistemologiyu yazyka [Text. Discourse. Context. An Introduction to the Social Epistemology of Language]. 437 p. Moscow, Canon+. (In Russian)
15. Biden, Joe “President Biden @POTUS” (46<sup>th</sup> President of the United States) Twitter.com. https://twitter.com/potus (accessed: 03. 03. 2022). (In English)
16. Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations of Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. 260 p. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania. (In English)
Review
For citations:
Tribunskaya N. Features of discourse interaction in political communication. Philology and Culture. 2022;(2):65-70. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.26907/2074-0239-2022-68-2-65-70
Views:
122
Email this article 