Political discourse in English-speaking culture

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Political discourse in English-speaking culture

Ishchenko V.I.

Политический дискурс в англоязычной культуре

Ищенко В.И.

Аннотация

В данной статье раскрывается понятие политический дискурс. Понятие политический дискурс предполагает знание социокультурного фона, скрытых мотивов, ораторского искусства, сюжетных схем в современном мире. Политический дискурс рассматривается как оружие политической борьбы посредством анализа лингвистических особенностей английского дискурса.

Ключевые слова: политический дискурс, гендер, язык, коммуникация, речь, общество.

Abstract: This article reveals the concept of political discourse. The concept of political discourse presupposes knowledge of the socio-cultural background, hidden motives, oratory, plot schemes in the modern world. Political discourse is considered as a weapon of political struggle by analyzing the linguistic features of English discourse. political discourse gender language

Keywords: political discourse, gender, language, communication, speech, society.

Every day our life directly depends on the language and participants of speech acts, their models of communicative behavior, because we exist in the language sphere, which determines the models of development of our personal life and the life of society as a whole. The political sphere is of particular interest here. This is explained by the prevailing meaning of such concepts as "state", "society" and "personality". Thanks to the analysis of the interaction of language and politics, we can study more deeply the mechanisms of the influence of speech acts on the political and personal worldview of an individual, as well as understand the essence of what is happening in the world of politics, which is directly related to the world around us and the world inside us. The relevance of the topic under development is to present the results of gender research of political discourse as a special communicative mechanism of influence on the subconscious of each individual. Such a study will help to determine the levels of interaction between language and politics, expressed in the semantic features of American and Russian political discourse, as well as to identify the features of their formation and functioning. Its anthropocentric orientation in the circle of linguistic problems also makes the work relevant.

Currently, political discourse and issues related to it are the subject of study by many linguists and researchers. The interest in it is due to the widespread use of political discourse, its influence on every member of society. Over the past decades, political issues have been actively discussed on television, in the press and on the Internet, affecting all aspects of human life, so the study of the peculiarities of political discourse has become a necessary phenomenon in everyday life. This problem is not only a necessity for study, but also of great interest to any philologist, political scientist and linguist, as it concerns every sphere of human life. The main question that arises when trying to give an accurate definition of the concept of political discourse is why do we say "political discourse" and not "the language of politics", "political speech" or "political communication"? To understand this, let us turn to the definition of discourse. The meaning of this term for many linguists is not completely clear, for some it still remains a mystery. The word discourse (translated from English discourse - "speech, utterance") has been familiar to us since ancient times and was used in ancient treatises on rhetoric, which are more than two thousand years old [6]. However, the term "discourse" gained its popularity in the humanities only in the 60-70s of the XX century. Having considered several dozen definitions of discourse given by various scientists in the field of linguistics and linguistics, we chose the most complete and reflecting the whole essence of this concept: discourse - "a coherent text in combination with extralinguistic - pragmatic, socio-cultural, psychological and other factors; text in the event aspect; speech ... as a purposeful action, as a component involved in the interaction of people and the mechanisms of their consciousness (cognitive processes)" [1].

In general, the term "discourse" is prescribed primarily the sema of speaking, utterance, since its origin from the French discourse is indicated. In fact, many researchers use the terms "language of politics", "political speech", "political discourse" as synonyms, but still the latter most accurately reflects the meaning and features of this phenomenon. The most general and understandable, in our opinion, definition of the political discourse of N.N. Mironova as a set of texts that reflect the political and ideological practice of some state, individual parties and trends in a certain era [2].

Linguistics specialists should take into account both extralinguistic factors and linguistic factors themselves when considering political discourse in a comprehensive manner. The communicative and pragmatic basis of political discourse is the struggle for power, which determines its main functions and ways of their implementation. The main functions of political discourse include: integration and differentiation of group agents of politics; conflict development and consensus building; implementation of verbal political actions and informing about them; creation of the "linguistic reality" of the field of politics and its interpretation; manipulation of consciousness and stimulation of the actions of the electorate. The distinctive features of the language of politics are semantic ambiguity, phantomness, irrationality, esotericity, remoteness from the addressee and excessive affectation. Political discourse is considered from at least three positions: philological; sociopsycholinguistic; hermeneutical. It follows from all the above that the study of political discourse lies at the junction of many disciplines - philology, semiotics, history of language, psychodidactics, general linguistics, etc.

Political discourse in the field of the latest interdisciplinary knowledge - genderology - constructs and exploits gender identity, as well as creates new models of gender relations. That is why the political field in which gender relations are formed, maintained and regulated is considered as a resource for creating gender. First of all, it reflects and preserves the gender asymmetry of power and the gender separation of public and private areas, confirms the separation of masculine feminine features of language. At the same time, political discourse introduces new gender models of masculinity and femininity. As is known, the models of masculinity themselves form a complex system of relationships; according to R. Connell, competition of various types of masculinity is characteristic for any historical period; gender should be considered not only as a state, but also as a process in which the very meanings of gender concepts are modified and this provokes a struggle between different types of masculinity. If the masculinity model of those who hold political power in the country is perceived as masculinity "with a quality mark", then it will reproduce itself at other levels of government and in society as a whole [3]. It follows from this that the appeal to a person's gender identity is that component of political discourse that establishes the relationship between the forms of a person's political orientation and certain models of masculinity and femininity.

So, how is gender discourse used in the field of politics to argue claims to power by various political parties, to provide ideological and psychological support for the authorities, as well as to discredit a political opponent? Starting to analyze these issues, we will outline a number of theoretical prerequisites for the study. We share the point of view that gender discourse can be considered as a form of "symbolic violence" [5]. In the social theory of P. Bourdieu understands symbolic violence as a kind of symbolic struggle, the purpose of which is symbolic power and symbolic capital. Gender discourse acts as a means of conditional organization of the world in binary oppositions, parts of which are associated with a clear division into male and female. This division system underlies gender metaphorization, that is, the transfer of qualities attributed to men and women to nations, social groups, political institutions and other social or natural phenomena. As you know, this kind of transfer is not evaluatively neutral. Defined as masculine is considered as positive and dominant, defined as feminine - as negative and secondary. That is, with the help of gender discourse, the relations of gender inequality and control are confirmed and confirmed [4].

One of the basic metaphors of political discourse is the metaphor of personalization and the tendency to present political struggle as a contest of personalities, which are also factors of the masculinization of the political sphere. As a result of such metaphorical imagery, the entire political process, with its male and female heroes, is presented as a rivalry of male politicians. The use of fist fights in political debates fully meets the expectations of some of the electorate and their ideas about the ethics of male rivalry. Also, do not forget that the public and private spheres of life have a high gender marking, which significantly contributes to the displacement of women from the political life of society. The relationship of masculinity and femininity with the public and private spheres is expressed in a clear division of men and women into alternative areas of public activity. The first is given an economic niche, a niche of international politics and agriculture, while the second is education, health, social issues, environmental protection. So, the gender asymmetry of power suggests that the master is a "real man" who has great power. Consequently, proof of a politician's masculinity is a condition for substantiating his claims to power - and vice versa.

References:

1. Arutyunova, N.D. Discourse / N.D. Arutyunova // Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. 1990. - C. 136-137.

2. Mironova, N.N. Discourse analysis of evaluative semantics / N.N. Mironova. - M.: NVI-THESAURUS, 1997. - 158 p.

3. Connell, R.W. Men and boys / R.W. Connell. Cambridge, Connell, 2000. - 215 p.

4. Kunin, A.V. Course of phraseology of modern English / A.V. Kunin. - M.: Phoenix +, 2005. - pp. 110-115.

5. Ryabov, O.V. Russian philosophy of femininity (XI-XX century) / O.V. Ryabov. - Ivanovo, 1999. - 189 p.

6. Sheigal, E.I. Semiotics of political discourse: monogr. / E.I. Sheigal. - Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Volgogr. state Pedagogical Institute. un-T. - Moscow; Volgograd, 2000. - 368 p.

Размещено на Allbest.ru