Representation of Confrontational Agonal Statements in Political Institutional Discourse (Based on the Trilogy "House of Cards" by Michael Dobbs)

   Agonality is a type of communicative competition that provides an appropriate environment for an individual to establish his or her superiority over their opponent. To achieve this goal, a range of communicative strategies and tactics may be implemented. This article discusses approaches to measuring the pragmatic potential of confrontational agonal statements in political institutional discourse. The research is based on the trilogy “House of Cards” by Michael Dobbs, which includes a voluminous number of agonal communicative situations. The analysis sheds light on how verbal competitiveness in the political institutional discourse is represented through the lens of a literary work. The relevance of this study is determined by the absence of a universal system of confrontational agonal statements analysis and intensification of adversariality in the world political arena. The methods applied in the current research include descriptive-comparative, quantitative calculation and discourse analysis. The paper examines the structure of agonality, the basics of argumentation in the verbal competition and the usage of meta-discourse markers in political institutional discourse. For these purposes, a comprehensive model for analysing confrontational agonal situations is proposed, which includes agonal strategies and tactics, types of argumentation and the use of meta-discourse markers. Our findings indicate that the confrontational type of agonality is mainly implemented via theatrical strategy and downward strategy (the prevailing tactics being analysis- “minus”, differentiation, and motivation.) The classification may be extended with the tactics of criticizing (downward strategy) and boasting (upward strategy). Psychological argumentation proved to be more effective than logical argumentation (mainly realised through the motive of public interests and the motive of truth and law).The paper further pinpoints that meta-discourse markers of involvement, self-mentions, boosters, and attitude markers have an influential capacity to secure supremacy in a verbal competition.

1. Alekseyev A. P. Argumentation, cognition, communication. Moscow: Moscow University Press, 1991. (in Russ.)

2. Baranov A. N. Linguistic theory of argumentation (cognitive approach). Author’s abstract of Doctor of Philol. Sci. Thesis. Moscow: Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Institute of the Russian Language, 1990. (in Russ.)

3. Bloch M. Y. Writer’s mastery against the background of the natural bilinguality of the people (on the materials of the works by L.N. Tolstoy and I.A. Bunin). Orekhovo-Zuevo: State University of Humanities and Technology, 2016. P. 7–15. (in Russ.)

4. Gasser J. Argumentative aspects of indirect proof. Argumentation. 1992. Vol. 6. Issue 1. P. 41–49.

5. Grigoryeva V. S. Speech interaction in the pragmalinguistic aspect based on the material of German and Russian languages. Tambov: Tambov State Technical University Press, 2006. (in Russ.)

6. Hansard (British Parliament) [Online]. URL: https://hansard.parliament.uk/ (accessed on: 02/02/2024)

7. Huizinga J. Homo ludens; Articles on the history of culture. Moscow: Progress-Traditsiya Publishing, 1997. (in Russ.)

8. Hyland K. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum, 2005.

9. Kalashnikova N. L. Agonal essentials of Don Cossacks’ culture. Candidate thesis. Rostov-on-Don: Rostov State Pedagogical University, 2005. (in Russ.)

10. Klyuyev E. V. Speech communication: the success of speech interaction. Moscow: RINOL KLASSIK, 2002. (in Russ.)

11. Kuntsevich S. E. Psychological aspects of political discourse. Bulletin of the Minsk State University. 2005. Issue 4(20). P. 37–50. (in Russ.)

12. Kuzmina S. V. Political discourse as an integral part of political communication. Izvestiya Saratovskogo universiteta. Novaya seriya. Seriya: Sotsiologiya. Politologiya. 2011. Vol. 11. № 2. P. 54–56. (in Russ.)

13. Mikhaleva O. L. Political discourse: Specifics of manipulative influence. Moscow: LIBROKOM publ., 2009. (in Russ.)

14. Mikhalskaya A. K. The Russian Socrates: Lectures on Comparative Historical Rhetoric. Moscow: Publishing centre “Akademiya”, 1996. (in Russ.)

15. Petkova S. Implementation of the pragmatic potential of introductory metacommunicative units in the public dialogue context. Bolgarskaya rusistika. 2012. Vol. 2. P. 5–13. (in Russ.)

16. Pletnikov V. V. Agonality as a type of competition: characteristics and essential features. Sotsium i vlast. 2017. Issue 19 (66). P. 114–121. (in Russ.)

17. Romashko S. A. Death games: agon and agony. Logicheskij analiz jazyka: Konceptual’nye polja igry. RAN, Institut jazykoznanija. 2006. (in Russ.)

18. Sheygal E. I., Deshevova V. V. Agonality in Communication: Notion Structure. Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University. 2009. Issue 34(172). P. 145–148. (in Russ.)

19. Sidorenko A. V. Implementation of agonality in modern English-language business discourse. Bulletin of the Pushkin Leningrad State University. 2015. Vol. 1. No. 3. P. 150–157. (in Russ.)

20. Skovorodnikov A. P. On the need to differentiate the concepts of “rhetorical device”, “stylistic figure”, “speech tactics”, “speech genre” in the practice of terminological lexicography. Ritorika – Lingvistika. 2004. Issue 5. P. 5–11. (in Russ.)

21. Syresina I. O. Stylistic differentiation of English dialogic speech. Author’s abstract of Cand. of Philol. Sci. Thesis. Moscow: Moscow Pedagogical State University, 2007. (in Russ.)

22. Vereshchagin E. M., Kostomarov V. G. In search of new ways of development of linguistics: the concept of speech-behavioral tactics. Moscow: Pushkin State Russian Language Institute, 1999. (in Russ.)

23. Vinogradov V. V. Problems of russian stylistics. Moscow: Vysshaya shkola, 1981. 320 p. (in Russ.)

24. Zheltukhina M. R. Comic in political discourse (based on the material of German and Russian languages). Candidate thesis. Volgograd: Volgograd State Pedagogical University, 2000. (in Russ.)

25. Dobbs M. House of Cards. London: HarperCollins, 1990.