Abstract
The present article studies peculiarities of argumentative strategies in political discourse. It is argued that as the main goal of argumentative strategies is to persuade listeners of correctness or incorrectness of certain activities or ideas, relations or values, they can be considered as a part of general persuasive communicative strategy. On the basis of quantitative and content analyses the important argumentative strategies are revealed which include the strategies of positive representation of the self and negative representation of the other. It is shown that in political discourse argumentative strategies are based on all three methods of speech influence and persuasion such as logos, ethos and pathos. The system of argumentation in political discourse includes both descriptive and value components, which lie in the basis of two main elements of persuasion—rational mechanisms and proofs, on the one hand, and irrational methods and suggestion, on the other. As a result of the study a conclusion is drawn that the persuasive potential of argumentation is enhanced by the use of both rational and irrational arguments which relate to the pragmatic goals of the speaker and the context of communication.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baranov, A. N. (1990). Linguistic theory of argumentation (cognitive approach): Extended abstract of dissertation of doctor of philological sciences. Moscow.
Carta, C., & Wodak, R. (2015). Discourse analysis, policy analysis, and the borders of EU identity. Journal of Language and Politics, 14(1), 1–17.
Chernniavskaia, V., & Molodychenko, E. (2014). History in political discourse: Linguistic image of “us” and “them”. Moscow: LENAND.
Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. London: Routledge.
Collis, H. (1994). 101 American English proverbs: Understanding language and culture through commonly used sayings. Chicago: Passport Books.
Darling, A. (2013). We belong together: The case for a United Kingdom. University of Glasgow.
van Dijk, T. A. (1995). Discourse semantics and ideology. In Discourse and society (Vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 243–289). London, Thousands Oaks, CA and New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Fairclough, N. (2004). Analysing discourse. Textual analysis for social research. London, New York: Routledge.
Freeley, A., & Steinberg, D. (2009). Argumentation and debate. Critical thinking for reasoned decision making. Wadsworth: CENGAGE Learning.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Syntax and semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 41–58).
Issers, O. S. (2002). Communicative strategies and tactics of Russian speech. Moscow: Editorial URSS.
Ivin, A. A. (1997). Foundations of the theory of argumentation. Moscow: VLADOS.
Malyuga, E. N., & Orlova, S. N. (2018). Linguistic pragmatics of intercultural professional and business communication. Monograph. Springer International Publishing AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68744-5.
Malyuga, E., & Tomalin, B. (2017). Communicative strategies and tactics of speech manipulation in intercultural business discourse. Training Language and Culture, 1(1), 28–47.
Obama, B. (2006). The audacity of hope: Thoughts on reclaiming the American dream. New York: Crown Publishers.
Ponomarenko, E. V. (2016). Functional properties of English discourse in terms of linguosynergetics. In 3rd International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on Social Sciences and Arts SGEM 2016, www.sgemsocial.org, SGEM2016 Conference Proceedings, 24–31 August, 2016 (Book 1, Vol. 3, pp. 355–362). https://doi.org/10.5593/sgemsocial2016/b13/s03.042.
Radyuk, A., & Khramchenko, D. (2014). Teaching business english: Cooperative discursive strategies and tactics. In INTED2014 Proceedings (pp. 6798–6803).
Radyuk, A., Ponomarenko, E., & Malyuga, E. (2017). Prosodic peculiarities of discursive strategies in English economic discourse: The strategy of solution search. In 4th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on Social Sciences and Arts SGEM2017, Austria, Vienna (pp. 189–195).
Rieke, R. D., et al. (2005). Argumentation and critical decision making. Boston: Pearson.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In Syntax and semantics, volume 3: Speech acts (pp. 59–82). New York: Academic Press.
Sheigal, E. (2004). Semiotics of political discourse. Moscow: Gnozis.
Sornig, K. (1989). Some remarks on linguistic strategies of persuasion. In R. Wodak (Ed.), Language, power and ideology: Studies in political discourse (pp. 95–113). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Wierzbicka, A. (2003). Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Wodak, R. (2009). Language and politics. In English language: Description, variation and context (pp. 577–593). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wodak, R., & Boukala, S. (2015). European identities and the revival of nationalism in the European Union: A discourse-historical approach. Journal of Language and Politics, 14(1), 87–109.
Zarefsky, D. (2005). Argumentation: The study of effective reasoning. Chantilly, Virginia: The Teaching Company.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Abrahamyan, S.A., Banshchikova, M.A. (2020). Peculiarities of Argumentative Strategies of Modern English Political Discourse. In: Malyuga, E. (eds) Functional Approach to Professional Discourse Exploration in Linguistics . Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9103-4_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9103-4_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-32-9102-7
Online ISBN: 978-981-32-9103-4
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)