Comparative Analysis Research Methods of Political Discourse

Introduction. The article compares the methods of researching political discourse with special attention to linguistic methods, in particular, to discourse analysis and cognitive and rhetorical approaches. These methods are widely used to study political speeches, statements, texts. Increasingly, political discourse is seen as a social phenomenon, not only at the discursive but also on the cognitive and rhetorical levels. The object of this study is methods of analysis of political discourse allowing to study the position of a politician in the discursive sphere and to identify the character of his audience. The subject of the analysis are examples from Joe Biden's political speeches, seen as an instrument of influence, persuasion in the process of speaking to the electorate. The relevance of the work is determined by the need to develop arguments to choose a particular approach to political discourse, especially cognitive and rhetorical, as well as discourse analysis, which allow to reveal veiled meanings of political statements and consider the methods of persuasion of the electorate.

Methodology and data sources. The subject of the analysis are examples of Joe Biden’s political speeches, seen as an instrument of influence, persuasion in the process of speaking to the electorate. To compare approaches the study of political discourse, descriptive and comparative methods are used, the effectiveness of different approaches and methods is illustrated by specific examples of linguistic interpretation of discursive features of publications and speeches, revealing the ambitions of the politician most fully. A method of quantitative counting is also used.

Results and discussion. The use of descriptive and comparative methods makes it possible to compare different approaches to the study of political texts and speeches, to discuss the relationship of heterogeneous methods, to identify the most effective methods of studying discourse. The result of the article was the conclusions about the effectiveness of different approaches to the study of the language of politicians at discursive, cognitive and rhetorical levels. Comparison of methods of research of political discourse distinguishes discourse-analysis among other methods of analysis. The use of discourse analysis to study political discourse reveals the functions of discourse, for example, manipulative, selective and combined functions related to political goals. The use of critical discourse analysis allows you to identify these functions most fully.

Conclusion. The study of political discourse can be carried out at different levels, but the discursive level compared to cognitive and rhetorical levels is the most effective from a linguistic point of view. Discourse analysis allows to explore political discourse at more qualitative different level than rhetorical and other linguistic methods of research. Discourse analysis is presented as a method of researching hidden meanings in politics in this article.

1. Budaev, E.V. and Chudinov, A.P. (2006), Sovremennaya politicheskaya lingvistika [Modern political linguistics], Ekaterinburg, RUS, available at: http://www.philology.ru/linguistics1/budaev-chudinov-06a.htm (accessed 22.10.2020).

2. Foucault, M.P. (1969), L’archéologie du savoir, Gallimard, Paris, France, available at: https://monoskop.org/images/b/b7/Foucault_Michel_L_archeologie_du_savoir.pdf (accessed 19.11.2020).

3. Gavrilova, M.V. (2004), “Political discourse as a linguistic analysis object”, Polis, no. 3, pp. 127–139. DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2004.03.13.

4. “Aristotle. Rhetoric” (1978), Antichnye ritoriki [Ancient rhetoric], Transl. by Platonova, N., in Takho-Godi, A.A. (ed.), Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo universiteta, Moscow, USSR, p. 15–166.

5. Karasik, V.I. (2009), Yazykovye klyuchi [Language keys], Gnozis, Moscow, RUS.

6. Lasswell, H. (1971), “The Structure and Function of Communication in Society”, The Process and Effects of Mass Communication, in Schramm, W. and Roberts, D.F. (eds.), University of Illinois Press, Chicago, USA, pp. 84–99.

7. Harris, Z.S. (1952), “Discourse Analysis”, Language, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/409987.

8. Fauconnier, G. (2009), “Generalized Integration Networks”, New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics, in Evans, V. and Pourcel, S. (eds.), John Benjamins, Amsterdam, Philadelphia, pp. 147–160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.24.

9. Petrov, V.V. (1988), “Language and logical theory: In search of a new paradigm”, Voprosy yazykoznaniya [Questions linguistics], no. 2, pp. 39–48.

10. Makarov, M.L. (2003), Osnovy teorii diskursa [Basics of discourse theory], Gnozis, Moscow, RUS.

11. Van Dijk, T.A. (1989), Yazyk. Poznanie. Kommunikatsiya [Language. Cognition. Communication], Transl. by Gerasimov, V.I., Progress, Moscow, USSR.

12. Milevskaya, T.V. (2002), “On the concept of “discourse” in the direction of the communicative approach”, Kommunikatsiya: praktika i teoriya v razlichnykh sotsial'nykh kontekstakh «Kommunikatsiya–2002» [Communication: Practice and theory in various social contexts "Communication-2002"], I Mezhdunarodnaya konferentsiya [The I International Conference], part 1, Pyatigorsk, RUS, 03–06 June 2002, pp. 188–190.

13. Luriya, A.R. (1979), Yazyk i soznanie [Language and consciousness], in Khomskaya, E.D. (ed.), Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo universiteta, Moscow, USSR.

14. Mikhaleva, O.L. (2009), Politicheskii diskurs. Spetsifika manipulyativnogo vozdeistviya [Political discourse. Specificity of manipulative effects], Librokom, Moscow, RUS.

15. Vodak, R. (1997), “Special language and jargon: about the type of text “Party Program””, Yazyk. Diskurs. Politika [Language. Discourse. Politics], Transl. by Karasik, V.I. and Troshina, N.N., Peremena, Volgograd, RUS, pp. 21–32.

16. “Joe Biden Defeats Donald Trump in 2020 Presidential Election: Artists React” (2020), Billboard, available at: https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/9479373/joe-biden-wins-president-2020-election/ (accessed 08.11.2020).