Preview

NSU Vestnik. Series: Linguistics and Intercultural Communication

Advanced search

The Political Marginalization as a Communicative Strategy of Power Domination in Political Discourse

https://doi.org/10.25205/1818-7935-2022-20-1-96-111

Abstract

The article is dedicated to the study of political marginalization viewed as a communicative strategy, aimed at retention or attainment of political power. Political discourse, despite the perceptible tendency towards personalization of the political communication particularly noticeable in politainment, is defined as a predominantly institutional type of discourse in which the dyad ‘agent – client’ plays an important role. From the traditional standpoint of view, it is believed that agents have discursive power while clients have none. However, as the undertaken research shows, it is quite difficult to draw a distinct line between agents and clients in political discourse. The point is that using the strategy of marginalization, politicians can present themselves as non-politicians (i.e. non-agents), untypical (atypical) politicians, for example women politicians, politicians holding on to minority political views, etc. At the same time, the strategy in question is most likely unrestricted by political forms of marginalization in the sense that it can correspond to the politician’s search for selfidentification with marginal social groups whose rights are infringed upon, including national minorities and LGBT. Furthermore, even those social groups which, in fact, have long ceased to be marginal in the Western world (e.g. women) can be exploited by marginal politicians who prefer to characterize them as people who are not enjoying equal rights with elite, privileged representatives of the society (e.g. men). Thus, the study of marginalization presupposes the analysis of the complex structure of social relationships, unveiling manipulative aspects of marginalization (NB: the politician’s self-representation as the non-politician should almost always be considered as an instance of manipulation) and exploration of linguopragmatic aspects of marginalization.

About the Author

A. B. Alexeyev
Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
Russian Federation

Alexander B. Alexeyev, Candidate of Sciences (Philology)

Moscow



References

1. Beilison, L. S. The functions of the institutional discourse. Vestnik IGLU, 2009, no. 3, pp. 142–147. (in Russ.)

2. Bogolyubov, A. F. Bring Us Deliverance, Spy! (Interpretations of The Spies’March in Time of the Media War and Pandemic). Vestnik NSU. Series: Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, 2020, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 132–153. (in Russ.) DOI 10.25205/1818-7935-2020-18-2-132-153

3. Erlikh, S. E. The war of myths. The memory about Decembrists on the millennium frontier. St. Petersburg, Nestor-Istoria, 2016, 552 p. (in Russ.)

4. Fairclough, N. Language and power. London, Longman Group, 1989, 259 p.

5. Fefelov, A. F. Dialectics of race and racism markers in ‘The Adventures of Tom Sawyer’ and ‘The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn’. Vestnik NSU. Series: Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, 2014, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 40–49. (in Russ.)

6. Foucault, M. The archeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. New York, Pantheon, 1972, 254 p.

7. Foucault, M. The history of sexuality: an introduction. Hammonsworth, Penguin, 1978, 168 p.

8. Gilyard, K. True to the language game. African American discourse, cultural politics and pedagogics. New York, Routledge, 2011, 320 p.

9. Janich, N. Handbuch Werbekommunikation. Sprachwissenschaftliche und interdisziplinäre Zugänge. Darmstadt, Francke Verlag, 2012, 508 S.

10. Kameneva, V. A., Potapova, N. V. Authority-Based Strategy of (De)legitimization in American Electoral Discourse: A Case Study. Vestnik NSU. Series: Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, 2021, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 84–97. (in Russ.) DOI 10.25205/1818-7935-2021-19-3-84-97

11. Karasik, V. I. The language of social status. Moscow, Gnozis, 2002, 333 p. (in Russ.)

12. Kasatkina, E. A. The concept ‘power’ in the Russian linguoculture: phraseological and phraseosemantic aspects. Cand. of Philol. Diss. Rostov on Don, 2012, 222 p. (in Russ.)

13. Khrabrova, E. S. Constructing of alarmist discourse in the UK media (on the basic of COVID-19 pandemic media coverage). Actual Issues of Modern Philology and Journalism, 2020, no. 2 (37), pp. 152–161. (in Russ.)

14. Kiose, M. I. Linguistic creativity in discourse: the research perspective of cognitive semiotics. Germanistika, 2020: Nove et Nova, 2020, pp. 40–41. (in Russ.)

15. Kopnina, G. A. Verbal resistance ton political labeling as a defensive means in information-psychological war. Gramota, 2020, vol. 13, iss. 11, pp. 248–253. (in Russ.)

16. Krapivkina, O. A. On the ways of verbalization of the subject in the legal discourse. Vektor nauki Tolyattinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2015, no. 2-1 (32-1), pp. 111–114. (in Russ.)

17. Kravchenko, T. Yu. Political discourse as a variant of the institutional discourse. In: Herzen’s lectures. Foreign languages. St. Petersburg, 2020, pp. 79–82. (in Russ.)

18. Kujawa, I. Der politische Diskurs als Gegenstand der linguistischen Analyse am Beispiel der Integrationsdebatte in Deutschland 2006–2010. Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang Edition, 2014, 234 S.

19. Liotar, J.-F. The postmodern state. Trans. from French. St. Petersburg, Aleteiya, 1998, 160 p. (in Russ.)

20. Locher, M. Power and politeness in action. Disagreements in oral communication. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter, 2004, 385 p.

21. McEnery, T. Swearing in English. Bad language, purity and power from 1586 to the present. London, Routledge, 2009, 276 p.

22. Nilogov, A. S. (ed.). Who makes philosophy in Russia. In 2 vols. Moscow, Pokolenie, 2007, vol. 1, 576 p. (in Russ.)

23. Nye, J. Soft Power. The means to success in world politics. New York, Public Affairs, 2004, 191 p.

24. Popova, T. I. The interview with the politician from the standpoint of view of the personal and instructional political discourses. In: Medialingvistika: Proc. I International Sci. Conf. St. Petersburg, 2016, pp. 170–172. (in Russ.)

25. Ratmair, R. The Russian speech and the market: traditions and innovations in everyday business communication Moscow, Yazyki slavyanskoi kul'tury, 2013, 456 p. (in Russ.)

26. Ravochkin, N. N. Language games in the domain of politics and law: analytic philosophers vs postmodernists. Vestnik MSPU. Series: Philosophical Sciences, 2020, no. 2 (34), pp. 46–53. (in Russ.)

27. Shherbinina, Yu. V. The main directions of harmonization of the pedagogical discourse. Teacher 21st Century, 2009, no. 1, pp. 162–169. (in Russ.)

28. Shmelyova, E. S. Cognitive Mechanisms and Pragmatic Potential of Linguistic Creativity (As Exemplified in The Economist). Vestnik NSU. Series: Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, 2020, vol. 18, no. 3, p. 78–86. (in Russ.) DOI 10.25205/1818-7935-2020-18-3-78-86

29. Shrouf, A. Sprachwandel als Ausdruck politischen Wandels: am Beispiel des Wortschatzes in Bundestagsdebatten 1949–1998. Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang, 2006, 349 S.

30. Smith, C. Modes of discourse. The local structure of texts. Cambridge Uni. Press, 2005, 320 p.

31. Sokolova, M. A. Polysemy of the English political terminology (on the example of consubstantial term power). Cand. of Philol. Sci. Diss. Moscow, 2016, 176 p. (in Russ.)

32. Solomonovskaya, A. L. Translators’ Prefaces in Germanic and Slavic domains of the ninth century: traditional topoi and new elements. Vestnik NSU. Series: Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, 2018, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 63–75. (in Russ.)

33. Styazhkina, L. A. Conflict of dominant and alternative discourse (by the example of “Nane Russia” TV project). Vestnik NSU. Series: History and Philology, 2013, vol. 12, no 6: Journalism, pp. 48–56. (in Russ.)

34. Stoet, G., Geary, D. Gender differences in the pathways to higher education. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2020, vol. 117 (25), pp. 14073–14076.

35. Styrina, E. V., Martirosyan, A. A. Elements of Fictionality in Media Texts: Facts vs Fiction. Vestnik NSU. Series: Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, 2021, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 92–105. (in Russ.) DOI 10.25205/1818-7935-2021-19-1-92-105

36. Torfing, J. Discourse theory: achievements, arguments and challenges. In: Howarth, D., Torfing, J. (eds.). Discourse Theory in European politics. Identity, Policy and Governance. London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2005, pp. 1–31. DOI 10.1057/9780230523364_1

37. Trubetskova, E. G. Medical discourse and / or morbual code: problems of terminology of modern literary criticism. Izvestiya Saratovskogo universiteta. New Series. Series: Philology. Journalism, 2021, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 186–191. (in Russ.)

38. Tsutsieva, M. G. Actualization of the language personality of the politician in the modern German discourse. Abstract of the Cand. of Philol. Diss. St. Petersburg, 2019, 40 p. (in Russ.)

39. Wodak, R. Discourse. Politics. Trans. from English and German. Volgograd, Peremena, 1997, 139 p. (in Russ.)


Review

For citations:


Alexeyev A.B. The Political Marginalization as a Communicative Strategy of Power Domination in Political Discourse. NSU Vestnik. Series: Linguistics and Intercultural Communication. 2022;20(1):96-111. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.25205/1818-7935-2022-20-1-96-111

Views: 332


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 1818-7935 (Print)