Axiological aspect of confrontational communicative strategies in american political discourse

The aim of this paper is to analyze how the axiological aspect of confrontational communicative strategies is realized in American political discourse. The problem of intensified conventional and destructive elements in American political speech requires thorough linguistic investigation as political discourse is becoming more subjective and negative. The evaluation category allows discourse participants to construct some hierarchy of objects based on the “good vs. bad” predicates. The author analyzes different types of evaluations and their realizations in confrontational strategies, e.g. instrumental, technical, conductive, utilitarian, medical, hedonic evaluations. The paper puts special focus on construction of evaluation act, which includes the subject of speech, the object of speech and the predicate. The subject of speech is expressed through personal pronouns, appeals to authority or majority. The object of speech can be specified directly (using, for example, proper nouns, familiar constructions and verbal labels) or indirectly (using deixis). The predicate is expressed through nouns, adjectives, modal and emotional verbs and infinitives. The negative evaluation comprises such typical means as modified personal pronouns, contextual metaphors, pun, indexical phrases etc., which are used for confrontational speech tactics of mockery, discrediting, exposing, prosecution, negative analysis and vulnerability.

1. Arutiunova, N.D. Tipy iazykovykh znacheni. Otsenka. Sobytie. Fakt [The types of English meanings. Evaluation. Events. Fact]. M.: Nauka, 1988. 339 s.

2. Vol’f, E.M. Sub”ektnaia modal’nost’ i propozitsiia // Propozitsional’nye predikaty v logicheskom i lingvisticheskom aspekte [Subjective modality and proposition. Propositional predicates in logical and linguistic aspect]. M.: Nauka, 1987. S. 35-37.

3. Zabelo, T.V. Lingvisticheskaia spetsifika politicheskogo diskursa // Diskurs kak sotsial’naia deiatel’nost’: prioritety i perspektivy: Materialy mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii 17-18 noiabria 2011 [Linguistic specificity of political discourse. Discourse as social activity: priorities and perspectives: Proceedings of the international scientific conference 17-18 November 2011]. M.: IPK MGLU Rema, 2011. S. 111-112.

4. Issers, O.S. Kommunikativnye strategii i taktiki russkoi rechi. [Communicative strategies and tactics of Russian speech]. Omsk.: Izd-vo Omsk. gos. un-ta, 1999. 284 s.

5. Levenkova, E.R. Kontrastivny analiz natsional’no-spetsificheskikh kontseptov v institutsional’nom politicheskom diskurse Velikobritanii i SSHA [Contrastive analyze of national and specificity concepts in institutional political discourse of Great Britain and USA] // Vestnik CHelGU. 2010. №32. S. 62-70.

6. Minina, M.A. Psikholingvisticheskii analiz semantiki otsenki. Avtoref. dis…kand.filol.nauk [Psycholinguistic analysis of evaluative semantics]. M., 1995. 15 s.

7. Khlopotunov, Ya.Yu. Nasmeshka kak taktika destruktivnoi rechevoi kommunikatsii v amerikanskom politicheskom diskurse. Diskurs professional’noi kommunikatsii [Mockery as a tactic of destructive verbal communication in American political discourse]. 2019. T. 1. № 2. S. 60-70.

8. Cherniavskaia, V.E. Diskurs vlasti i vlast’ diskursa: problemy rechevogo vozdeistviia [Discourse of power and power of discourse: problems of verbal impact]. M.: Flinta: Nauka, 2006. 134 s.

9. Sheigal, E.I. [Semiotics of political discourse]. Volgograd: Peremena, 2000. 386 s.

10. Clinton, H. R. What Happened. Simon & Schuster, 2017. 512 p.