Linguistic Manipulation Means in English Political Discourse
Keywords:
language strategy, manipulation, manipulation tactics, political discourse, political language.
Abstract
The scientific article presents a study of the ways of expressing manipulation in politics, which is performed in English political discourse by means of language. Carefully selected language units, used by politicians in public speaking, in combination with social factors, can be a powerful instrument for managing public opinion, i.e. manipulation. The authors analyze public speeches delivered by English politicians. Manipulation is an integral part of American political discourse, all speech strategies of which are aimed at one purpose: to influence a recipient, persuade him or her to make a decision that will be beneficial for a politician. The article considers the main strategies, tactics and types of manipulation used in the modern political sphere. An analysis of public speeches of English politicians proves the importance of speech manipulative techniques for successful achievement of political goals.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Antropova, L., Zalavina, T., Polyakova, L. & Yuzhakova, Y. (2020). Extralinguistic Conditions of Language Variability in National Languages. Amazonia Investiga, 9(25), 266-273. Retrieved from https://amazoniainvestiga.info/index.php/amazonia/article/view/887
Chernyavskaya, V.E. (2006). Discourse of power and power of discourse. Speech Impact Problems [Discourse of power and power of discourse. Problems of speech impact], Moscow, Nauka Publ., 136 p.
Chilton, P. (2008). Political Terminology. In Karlfried Knapp and Gerd Antos (eds.). Handbook of Communication in the Public Sphere. Handbooks of applied linguistics Vol.4. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH& Co.
Day, N. (1999). Advertising: Information or Manipulation?, Springfield, NJ: Enslow.
Dyorina, N., Savinova, T., Zalavina, T., Zerkina, N., Kisel, O., et al. (2017). Polydiscursive Space: the Word, the Text, the Communication. Magnitogorsk: NMSTU.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman.
Gevorgian, M.V. (2011). Actualization of the tactics of language manipulation in mass media political discourse. Political linguistics. 4 (38). 76-78.
Kintsch, W. (1998) Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge, University Press.
Kress, G. (1990). Critical discourse analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. Vol. 11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp.3-9, 11-13
Maillat, D. (2013). Constraining context selection: on the pragmatic inevitability of manipulation. Journal of Pragmatics (special issue Biases and constraints in communication: argumentation, persuation and manipulation). 59, Part B, 190-199
O’Keefe, D.J. (2002). Persuasion: Theory & Research. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage
Parshin, P.B. (1986). Linguistic methods in conceptual reconstruction. Systems research. The annual review 1986. Moscow. pp. 398-425.
Polyakova L.S. & Yuzhakova Yu. V. (2017) The peculiarities of mediatext translation (on the example of “Daily Mail” article “Tsar Harry!”) Humanitarian and pedagogical researches, V.1, № 1, pp. 136-143
Polyakova, L.S. (2010). Speech Infuence: Theoretical aspects. Actual problems of philology and pedagogical linguistics, 12, 118-121.
Solovyova, E.V. (2014). Communicative strategy of manipulation in modern German political discourse (on the example of a speech act of indignation). The Herald of Nizhny Novgorod University. No 2. 403-406.
Sperber, D , and Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.2
Suvorova, E.V. & Polyakova, L.S. (2018). Types of inferences in discourse. Arab World English Journal, 9 (1), 294-306.
Van Dijk, T. (1996) `Discourse, Opinions and Ideologies', in C. Schäffner and H. Kelly- Holmes (eds) Discourse and Ideologies, pp. 7-37. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Van Dijk, T. (2001). Multidisciplinary CDA: A Plea for Diversity. In Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, ed. by Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer, 95–120. London: Sage.
Van Dijk, T. (2006). Discourse and Manipulation. Discourse and Society, 17 (2), 359–383.
Yuzhakova, Yu. V. (2007). Implicit expression of negative evaluation as a manifestation of tolerance. Proceedings from the 10-th International Conference: Issues of Modern Philology and Methods of Language Teaching at University and School. Penza: RIO PGSHA, 109-111.
Yuzhakova, Yu. & Polyakova, L. (2018). Ethnic stereotypes in English political discourse. Philological Science. Questions of theory and practice, 199-202.
Yuzhakova, Yu., Polyakova, L., Dyorina N. & Zalavina, T. (2018). Peculiarities of ethnic stereotypes usage in English political discourse. Arab World English Journal, 9 (4), 464 - 472.
Zakharova, V.A. (2009). The means of actualizing the target of "fear" of manipulation in political discourse. The system of values of modern society, 5 (1), 102-107.
Chernyavskaya, V.E. (2006). Discourse of power and power of discourse. Speech Impact Problems [Discourse of power and power of discourse. Problems of speech impact], Moscow, Nauka Publ., 136 p.
Chilton, P. (2008). Political Terminology. In Karlfried Knapp and Gerd Antos (eds.). Handbook of Communication in the Public Sphere. Handbooks of applied linguistics Vol.4. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH& Co.
Day, N. (1999). Advertising: Information or Manipulation?, Springfield, NJ: Enslow.
Dyorina, N., Savinova, T., Zalavina, T., Zerkina, N., Kisel, O., et al. (2017). Polydiscursive Space: the Word, the Text, the Communication. Magnitogorsk: NMSTU.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman.
Gevorgian, M.V. (2011). Actualization of the tactics of language manipulation in mass media political discourse. Political linguistics. 4 (38). 76-78.
Kintsch, W. (1998) Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge, University Press.
Kress, G. (1990). Critical discourse analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. Vol. 11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp.3-9, 11-13
Maillat, D. (2013). Constraining context selection: on the pragmatic inevitability of manipulation. Journal of Pragmatics (special issue Biases and constraints in communication: argumentation, persuation and manipulation). 59, Part B, 190-199
O’Keefe, D.J. (2002). Persuasion: Theory & Research. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage
Parshin, P.B. (1986). Linguistic methods in conceptual reconstruction. Systems research. The annual review 1986. Moscow. pp. 398-425.
Polyakova L.S. & Yuzhakova Yu. V. (2017) The peculiarities of mediatext translation (on the example of “Daily Mail” article “Tsar Harry!”) Humanitarian and pedagogical researches, V.1, № 1, pp. 136-143
Polyakova, L.S. (2010). Speech Infuence: Theoretical aspects. Actual problems of philology and pedagogical linguistics, 12, 118-121.
Solovyova, E.V. (2014). Communicative strategy of manipulation in modern German political discourse (on the example of a speech act of indignation). The Herald of Nizhny Novgorod University. No 2. 403-406.
Sperber, D , and Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.2
Suvorova, E.V. & Polyakova, L.S. (2018). Types of inferences in discourse. Arab World English Journal, 9 (1), 294-306.
Van Dijk, T. (1996) `Discourse, Opinions and Ideologies', in C. Schäffner and H. Kelly- Holmes (eds) Discourse and Ideologies, pp. 7-37. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Van Dijk, T. (2001). Multidisciplinary CDA: A Plea for Diversity. In Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, ed. by Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer, 95–120. London: Sage.
Van Dijk, T. (2006). Discourse and Manipulation. Discourse and Society, 17 (2), 359–383.
Yuzhakova, Yu. V. (2007). Implicit expression of negative evaluation as a manifestation of tolerance. Proceedings from the 10-th International Conference: Issues of Modern Philology and Methods of Language Teaching at University and School. Penza: RIO PGSHA, 109-111.
Yuzhakova, Yu. & Polyakova, L. (2018). Ethnic stereotypes in English political discourse. Philological Science. Questions of theory and practice, 199-202.
Yuzhakova, Yu., Polyakova, L., Dyorina N. & Zalavina, T. (2018). Peculiarities of ethnic stereotypes usage in English political discourse. Arab World English Journal, 9 (4), 464 - 472.
Zakharova, V.A. (2009). The means of actualizing the target of "fear" of manipulation in political discourse. The system of values of modern society, 5 (1), 102-107.
Published
2020-10-16
How to Cite
Polyakova, L., Yuzhakova, Y. V., Zalavina, T., & Dyorina, N. (2020). Linguistic Manipulation Means in English Political Discourse. Amazonia Investiga, 9(33), 27-36. https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2020.33.09.3
Issue
Section
Articles
.gif)
