Authors
- Alexeyev Alexander B. PhD (Philology)
Annotation
The article dwells on the issue of impoliteness in political discourse. It is pointed out that to give a universal definition of impoliteness as a concept is rather problematic
but such notions as ‘face attack’ and ‘speciality rights’ may appear helpful in classifying a certain expression as impolite not only relying on the intuitive or subjective
perceptions in judgement, but on linguistic criteria. As for research methods, the general scientific method of observation, the descriptive-analytical method, the method of contextual analysis, the method of linguopragmatic analysis, and critical discourse analysis were chosen. As a result, the following functions of impoliteness in political discourse were singled out: the function of discrediting, the function of self-representation, the function of political subversion, the ludic function, the cathartic function. The principal function is discrediting. Apparently, discreditation is also the most well-studied function of impoliteness in scientific literature. Nevertheless, it is necessary to take into account that frequent use of impoliteness can also contribute to the positive image of the speaker, highlighting his or her leadership skills, toughness, intransigence, seriousness of intentions. The use of impoliteness helps grasp the audience’s attention. Furthermore, being a means of political subversion and a challenge to the authority of some official / officials, impoliteness influences social hierarchies in discourse. Bearing in mind the creative and sociotransformative nature of any communication, it is possible to claim that impoliteness impacts non-linguistic reality too. Sometimes it is possible for impoliteness to emerge not purposefully. It can be the result of emotional or cathartic outburst which is particularly traceable in the situations when one of the participants of communication interrupts another one for no obvious reason. Finally, impoliteness exerts an entertaining, or ludic impact on the audience. In this capacity, impoliteness can mobilize voters, get them interested in politics and the ongoing political events.
How to link insert
Alexeyev, A. B. (2022). ON THE FUNCTIONS OF IMPOLITENESS IN POLITICAL DISCOURSE Bulletin of the Moscow City Pedagogical University. Series "Pedagogy and Psychology", 2022, №3 (47), 118. https://doi.org/10.25688/2076-913X.2022.47.3.10
References
1.
1. Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness. Using language to cause offence. Cambridge Press.
2.
2. Ravochkin, N. N. (2020). Yazy`kovy`e igry` v sfere politiki i prava: analiticheskie filosofy` vs postmodernisty`. MCU Journal of Philology. Theory of Linguistics. Linguistic Education, 2, 46–53. (In Russ.).
3.
3. Bartoszewicz, I. (2000). Formen der Persuasion im deutsch-polnischen politischen Dialog. Wydawnictwo Uniwersetetu Wroclawskiego.
4.
4. Larina, T. V. (2009). Kategoriya vezhlivosti i stil` kommunikacii: sopostavlenie anglijskix i russkix lingvokul`turny`x tradicij. Rukopisny`e pamyatniki Drevnej Rusi. (In Russ.).
5.
5. Gofman, E. (2009). Ritual vzaimodejstviya: Ocherki povedeniya licom k licu. Smy`sl. (In Russ.).
6.
6. Spencer-Oatey, H. (2008). Culturally Speaking. Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory Continuum International Publishing Group.
7.
7. Van Dejk, T. A. (2013). Diskurs i vlast`: Reprezentaciya dominirovaniya v yazy`ke i kommunikacii. Librokom. (In Russ.).
8.
8. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. Longman Group UK Limited.
9.
9. Ionova, A. O. (2016). Sovremenny`e podxody` k analizu politicheskogo diskursa. Politicheskaya nauka, 3, 236–259. (In Russ.)
10.
10. Janich, N. (2012). Handbuch Werbekommunikation. Sprachwissenschaftliche und interdisziplinäre Zugänge. Francke Verlag.
11.
11. McEnery, T. (2009). Swearing in English. Bad language, purity and power from 1586 to the present. Routledge.
12.
12. Grinberg, T. E. (2005). Politicheskie texnologii: PR i reclama. Aspekt Press. (In Russ.).
13.
13. Ratmayr, R. (2013). Russkaya rech` i ry`nok: tradicii i innovacii v delovom i povsednevnom obshhenii. M.: Yazy`ki slavyanskoj kul`tury`. (In Russ.).
14.
14. Kondakova, E. A., Printsipalova, O. V. (2021). Lingvokognitivnaya struktura nemeczkogo diskursa o politkorrektnosti: istoriya i sovremennost`. Vestnik NGU, 2, 143–156. (In Russ.).
15.
15. Galichkina, E. N. (2019). Tipologiya rechevy`x zhanrov setevoj komp`yuternoj kommunikacii. Izvestiya VGPU, 2 (135), 97–100. (In Russ.).
16.
16. Leech, G. (2014). The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford University Press.
17.
17. Mixaylova, O. R. (2021). Vozmozhnosti primeneniya e`go-setevogo analiza dlya izucheniya rasprostraneniya moral`noj paniki na mezhindividual`nom urovne. Monitoring obshhestvennogo mneniya: e`konomicheskie i social`ny`e peremeny`, 2, 28–47. (In Russ.).
18.
18. E’rlix S. E. (2016). Vojna mifov. Pamyat` o dekabristax na rubezhe ty`syacheletij. Nestor-Istoriya. (In Russ.).