SHS Web of Conferences 69, 00007 (2019) https://doi.org/10.

1051/shsconf/20196900007
CILDIAH-2019

Political discourse and the study of parliamentary

communication: a comparative analysis
Anna Konstantinova1, Svetlana Anufrienko1,*, Madina Abazalieva2, Arevik Gevorgyan3, and Elena Soloveva4
1 Department of Conflict Resolution Studies, Public Relations and Journalism, Pyatigorsk State University, 9, Kalinina lane,
357532, Pyatigorsk, Russia
2
Department of Philosophy and Humanities, North Caucasian State Academy, 36, Stavropolskaya Str., 369001, Cherkessk,
Russia
3Department of European Languages, Pyatigorsk State University, 9, Kalinina lane, 357532, Pyatigorsk, Russia
4Department of International Relations, Politology and World Economy, Pyatigorsk State University, 9, Kalinina lane, 357532,

Pyatigorsk, Russia

Abstract. The article is devoted to an analytical review of the main areas of theoretical and applied
research of parliamentary communication, among which a special attention is given to the theory of
political discourse and political linguistics. The prospects for a comparative study of public
parliamentary communication are outlined as one of the comparatively not studied components of
political discourse. Today parliamentary discourse, being one of the components of political
discourse, is the subject and object of several humanitarian disciplines. The main system-forming
factor of parliamentary discourse is its institutionality, which determines both the form and the
content of parliamentary communication. The development of parliamentary communication as a
democratic form of exercising state power is influenced by historical, social and cultural progress of
mankind as a whole, and the specifics of achieving this progress in separate countries. Despite the
existence of a universal democratic framework that determines the status of parliament as a social
institution in different countries, its activities have national and cultural specifics. Comparison and
identification of universal and national-cultural-specific language features of the parliamentary
discourse in different countries are the urgent tasks for political linguistics to fulfill.

1 Introduction Temmerman, R. Moernaut, R. Coesemans, J. Mast and

others [11-14].
The intensification of political life that is currently At the present stage, political linguistics is
observed everywhere entails an increasing interest in the experiencing  a  period  of  “globalization”:  if  at  earlier  
problems of political communication, which is stages of its development, political communication was
corroborated, in particular, by numerous studies of in the attention focus only of European or North
political discourse. Among the studies devoted to the American researchers, today scientists of various fields
problem of political discourse are the works of R. are conducting scientific work on the problem. So, in the
Boatright, J. Shaffer, S. Sobieraj, D. Goldthwaite Young, late 20th - early 21st century, Eastern Europe became
W.E. Connolly, I. Fairclough and N. Fairclough, D. one of the recognized research centers of political
Howarth, A. Norval, C. Schaeffner, A. Wieczorek, A. linguistics. The main research area for the linguists of
Musolff and others [1-7]. this region is the study of political communication in
Applied problems of political communication related their countries, as well as the comparison of the domestic
to the study of its linguistic component are revealed in political discourse with the political discourse of foreign
numerous scientific monographs and articles on political countries, the analysis of new trends in this area.
linguistics. Characteristic features of political linguistics For the studies in the sphere of political
are anthropocentrism, functionalism, explanatory nature, communication, conducted by modern representatives of
which characterize the approaches presented by the Eastern European political linguistics, the following
works of L. Sriwimon, P.J. Zilli, U. Yaqub, S.A. Chun, general features are characteristic:
V. Atluri, J. Vaidya, P. Norris and others [8-10]. 1. Studying cognitive, discursive and rhetorical
As it is known, political linguistics originated in (semantic-stylistic) areas of political communication.
Europe. The most prominent representatives of European 2. Giving preference to descriptive methods rather
political linguistics are P. Chilton, J.A. Garrido Ardila, than to critical analysis of discourse (although in the
A. Albalat-Mascarell, M.L.  Carrió-Pastor, M. publications of G. Lazarovici, B. Norman and some

*
Corresponding author: [email protected]
© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
SHS Web of Conferences 69, 00007 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20196900007
CILDIAH-2019

other scientists, elements of critical analysis are To achieve the goal and the above-mentioned
presented to some extent) [15-16]. objectives of the study, the authors used comparative and
3. Primary interest in the study of media political descriptive methods, as well as the synthesis of cognitive
discourse and a relatively small research of institutional linguistics and discourse analysis methods.
political discourse. The general laws of political
communication are studied, rather than the ideologies of
certain politicians and journalists. 3 Results and discussion
4. Increased attention to the study of foreign political
discourse; interest in comparative studies, including the 1 Parliamentary communication as a subject
comparison of the post-Soviet states political discourse and object of the political discourse theory
with the Soviet, Western European and American
discourse. In modern political linguistics, there are several concepts
North America is another recognized leader in the of political communication. At the heart of the most
development of political linguistics (S. Franssila, A.L. popular one is cognitivism. According to the cognitive-
Hostetler, M.A. Nee, M.L. Pratt and others) [17-19]. The linguistic approach, speech activity is a reflection of the
characteristic features of the North American studies world picture that exists in the mind of a native speaker,
include: and the means of its linguistic representation can serve
- preference given to the study of the North American as material for studying national, social and individual
political discourse before the study of the foreign mentality.
political discourses; A significant contribution to the development of the
- studies differentiation of contemporary political methodology of the cognitive study of political
discourse and discourse of past time. linguistics belongs to D. Lakoff [20]. This approach
Thus, specialists in the field of political linguistics allows getting from the units of discourse description to
are interested in both traditional and new aspects of the modeling the structures of political communication
language, society and government interaction. Modern participants’  consciousness.  Within  this  approach,  the  
political linguistics as a field of scientific research is description of the cognitive ground of political discourse
closely connected with the theory of communication, becomes possible based on frame analysis and political
sociolinguistics, communicative linguistics, functional discourse concepts modeling, identifying metaphors and
stylistics, text linguistics. Applied research in this area stereotypes that form the base of political prejudices.
has a clearly defined interdisciplinary character and Studies in the field of political communication,
includes, along with its special methods and techniques, carried out, on the one hand, by modern representatives
elements of stylistic and rhetorical linguistic analysis. of Western European and North American science, and
Political linguistics studies the problems of language and on the other hand, by the researchers studying political
functional style of political speech, genre features of communication in the post-Soviet countries, also possess
political discourse, as well as transformations of some  signs  of  “family”  similarity. They are:
vocabulary and phraseology, determined by the features - more than 70% of studies performed in the
of political communication. cognitive research framework;
- an increase in the number of studies carried out
within the rhetorical research;
2 Materials and methods - an interest in identifying ways of demonstrating
citizenship and political position by communicators;
The main goal of this research is to identify the problems
- increased attention to the study of institutional
of political discourse and identify the main approaches to
political discourse, including texts created by well-
the study of parliamentary communication at the present
known political leaders;
stage of science development:
- focus on the development of cognitive-oriented
To achieve this goal, the authors are to:
metaphorical models of political communication, the
- study the concepts of political communication in
basis for the identification of which is the specificity of
the works of leading researchers;
the target spheres of metaphoric expansion;
- explore the activities of a parliament as a political
- active use of content analysis techniques;
institution in different countries considering its national
- an increased interest in the study of mass media
and cultural specifics,
political discourse;
- systematize the main approaches to the definition of
- a relatively small amount of research on the
the discourse concept;
comparative study of political communication in
- identify the main system-forming and constitutive
different countries and ages;
features of parliamentary discourse as a part of political
- the desire to synthesize methods of cognitive
discourse;
linguistics and discourse analysis.
- identify the factors influencing the emergence and
As already noted, the second largest group of studies
development of parliamentary communication as a
is the rhetorical political linguistics in the speech of
democratic form of the state power implementation;
politicians. The rhetorical research appeared much
- explore the prospects for further comparative
earlier than the cognitive one, but by the middle of the
research of the language features of parliamentary
20th century it had lost its popularity. With the advent of
discourse in different countries.
neorhetoric, a new stage begins in the study of

2
SHS Web of Conferences 69, 00007 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20196900007
CILDIAH-2019

phenomena, manifested in emerging expressiveness and through the manipulation of symbols: verbal and non-
emotions in political speech. One of the founders of the verbal.
non-rhetorical study of political metaphors is Michael Within the framework of the functional approach, the
Osborne [21]. His work on archetypical metaphors laid importance of verbal means of political communication
the foundation for studying metaphors in the rhetorical for maintaining the stability of the political system is
field of political linguistics. Having studied the considered, being carried out, first of all, by the mass
peculiarities of politicians' appeals to voters, Osborne media. Medial political communication performs the
found out that archetypal metaphors are invariably functions of the state system stabilization and the
present in political speech (regardless of time, culture citizens’  socialization.
and geographical location of its producers). They include As for the organizational approach, the analysis of
metaphorical images of light and darkness, heat and political communication focuses on information flows
cold, illness and health. Metaphors of this kind are based within the government. The government is a large
on universal archetypes, which create prerequisites for bureaucratic organization, and the attention of
political influence and persuasion, act as a pledge for researchers is focused on the factors that limit these
understanding each other by representatives of different flows.
ethnic groups. Finally, the representatives of the approach, which
The third most significant and popular approach, can be conventionally called  “ecological”  [27],
defined as the discursive field of political-linguistic investigate the influence of the political system on
research, is implemented in two forms: in a critical political communication: the political system creates an
analysis of political discourse and in its descriptive environment in which social institutions of
linguistic analysis. A special place in the critical communication are formed and communication
discourse analysis is given to social, gender, ethnic processes in the society are regulated.
inequality. The works in this field include studies of H. By the beginning of the 21st century, political
Davis, D. Harp, D. Tannen [22-24]. The adjective linguistics borrowed a number of research techniques
“critical”  in  the  designation  of  one  of  the  approaches  to   from text linguistics, sociolinguistics, and sociology
the analysis of discourse emphasizes the recognition of a were. So, for the purpose of analyzing the substantive
mutual relationship existing between language, power component of the texts of political discourse, a
and ideology. A critical analysis of political discourse is descriptive analysis and a content analysis method are
aimed at studying the ways in which power exercises its used, which allow to identify the dominant values and
supremacy in the society, the way in which the the propensity of a particular politician for conflict or
communicative activities of politicians reproduce social cooperation [28]. On the material of political discourse
inequality. Researchers are also interested in the ways of texts, a study of political metaphors is undertaken. On
language resistance to social inequality. The research the material of numerous political texts devoted to a
materials include political texts created in a situation of particular political event, debates, election campaigns,
social risks and reflecting the social inequality of inaugural speeches and appeals to the nation are
communicants. explored.
Another aspect to the critical analysis of political The interdisciplinary or integrative analysis used in
discourse is related to the study of the language behavior the study of political discourse is based on a set of basic
of individual politicians. The study of political discourse principles and research techniques, including the
texts can be aimed at identifying both strategies and consideration of political communication texts in terms
tactics that they knowingly use, as well as implicit and of verbal interaction and the recognition of the close
unconscious attitudes. In the process of analysis, connection of the political communication concept with
language means, rhetorical devices and strategies that are the social control concept.
chosen by politicians to persuade and manipulate are
studied [25, 26].
2 Parliament as a social institution defining
The sociolinguistic approach to the study of political
extralinguistic and linguistic characteristics of
communication is also associated with the concept of
public parliamentary discourse
social control, as a means of which the language acts.
One of the theories developed by the supporters of this The concept denoted by the word parliament can be
approach is that politicians belonging to the elite of a interpreted ambiguously: more generally, as the concept
given society carry out their activities using a special, of a social institution of a democratic society, and more
“political”  language,  thanks  to  the  mastering  of  which   specifically, as the representative legislature body
they force the authorities to listen to their opinions and concept in a particular country. L. Kissler defines
demands. Conversely, non-elite members of society do parliament as a collective sender of the message, which
not have access to key authorities because of the limited directs its own representative actions to itself (horizontal
ability to express their political opinions and demands in parliamentary communication) and to the public of the
the appropriate language. represented citizens as its addressees (vertical
Another area of political discourse research, known parliamentary communication) [29]. The activities of
as  the  “symbolic  approach”,  focuses  on  studying  the   any parliament are based on three main points typical of
process of creating and distributing symbols of political a given social institution: a main idea, power and
power; according to the representatives of this approach, consensus.
leadership in political discourse is carried out mostly

3
SHS Web of Conferences 69, 00007 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20196900007
CILDIAH-2019

As it is known, the country's parliament is not always voters. Parliament creates other social institutions, such
the only representative body of state power. For as ministries and departments, as well as their legal base,
example, in the Russian Federation there are regional and thus organizes the society. The main task of the
parliaments (legislative bodies of the subjects of the parliament is to establish and maintain a state of balance
Russian Federation) and a federal parliament (the State between various interests and forces within institutions
Duma and the Federal Assembly of the Russian on the one hand and in relations between institutions and
Federation). In the given article, the term Parliament is the whole society on the other. Parliament's normative
used to designate the State Duma and the Bundestag - decisions are binding, with respect to both internal and
the representative legislative bodies of the Russian external public. Parliament is not a social or economic
Federation and the Federal Republic of Germany, institution, but a political one that in a special way
carrying out several types of legislative activity. governs the processes of forming opinion, will and
Profound and comprehensive studies of history, search of the right decision in the society on the whole.
principles of organization and fulfilling of the European G.  Göhler, proposing to distinguish political institutions
parliaments’  activities  are  presented  in  the  works  of   in  a  “wide”  and  “narrow  sense”,  defines  parliament  as  a  
German researchers. According to these studies, a political institution, which is also an executive body and
parliament, like other social institutions, is a specific a symbol of people's sovereignty [32].
structure of a democratic society, with persons acting in Finally, parliaments, in their activities, usually
it according to their obligations, with certain agreements, proceed, in contrast to many other forms of exercising
with specific personnel, with its own buildings and / or power, from certain constituent documents referring to
technical equipment. After being elected, the members the basic idea of democratic representation, namely from
of the parliament become agents of this institution as a constitutions, constituent meetings and, in the case of a
representative body, as well as the party they represent. democratic system of government, from elections to the
Within certain limits, they act objectively intentionally national assembly.
(which in practice does not exclude subjective actions). Parliament is also an institution for its members,
On the one hand, they are responsible not personally, but performing a complex of regulated verbal-non-verbal
only institutionally. On the other hand, they are in a state actions, and the discourse carried out in it is institutional.
of  “double  loyalty”:  in  relation  to  the  parliamentary   Due to the fact that the latter concept has several
committee, of which they are members, and the party definitions that are not always consistent with each
that had elected them. other, it seems appropriate to further clarify it. The term
As a result - constantly emerging conflicts of loyalty, discourse itself, as it is known, was introduced into
as well as a special level of responsibility, and not raised, science at the beginning of the 20th century, and the
according to some widespread views, but lowered. To actual linguistic studies of discourse began to develop in
designate  such  an  institutional  (“non-subjective”)  form   the middle of the century. Today, it is differently
of responsibility, there is a special term: political understood by various researchers and is used,
responsibility. respectively, in different contexts. It is interpreted both
Parliament for itself creates the procedures  and  “sub- as  a  “narrative”,  and  as  a  text,  generated and functioning
institutions”  that  it  needs  in  order  to  fulfill  its  mission:  to   in a certain communicative environment, and as its
be able to make decisions as economically and speech genres, and as a speech, and as a speech assigned
efficiently as possible. In the conditions of by the speaker, and as any particular utterance, and as a
parliamentarism, its activity is based on the principle of statement in conjunction with a communicative situation,
majority, i.e. the premise that the majority opinion is viewed from the discursive mechanism approach that
closest to the truth and the majority will make the right controls  it,  and  as  a  “language  life”,  and  as  a  system  of  
decisions. For the whole parliamentary procedure, the restrictions imposed on the statement by the social or
following  principle  is  applied:  “A  system,  that  must   ideological position of the participants in the discourse.
guarantee the possibility of solving all the problems, Discussing this problem, M. Foucault came to the
cannot simultaneously guarantee the correctness of the conclusion  that  discourse  should  be  called  “a  set  of  
decisions”  [30].  It  only  “delivers”  the  decisions  made  by   statements as they belong to the same discursive
the majority. The legitimacy of the decision is not based formation”  [33]. Discourse, therefore, is understood not
on the majority, but on the procedure itself. as an infinite and indivisible commonality of utterances,
Parliament as a social institution is the result  of  “the   but as a text in its dynamics, constituted by a certain
process of establishment by common will”  [31], which number of utterances, for which it is possible to define
historically consists of the following: 1. The expression “a  set  of  conditions  for  existence”. Moreover, discourse
of the general will regarding the intention to establish a is not an ideal or timeless form with its own history.
parliament; 2. Drawing up the charter; 3. The actual The concept of discursive practice introduced by M.
establishment of the parliament; 4. Recognition of its Foucault is important for understanding the essence of
legal capacity. discourse, i.e. it is a set of anonymous historical rules of
The country's parliament serves to ensure the conversation, which are always defined relatively to the
coexistence of its members, who are agents and at the time and communicative space. He writes that discursive
same time clients of parliamentary speech. In a broad practice as a condition for the utterance function is
understanding of the parliamentary discourse, its clients established in a given era and for a given social,
are also not present directly at the parliamentary economic, geographical or linguistic space.
meetings and represented by members of parliament The  term  “discourse”,  which,  in  fact,  has  never  been  

4
SHS Web of Conferences 69, 00007 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20196900007
CILDIAH-2019

purely linguistic, is often viewed today as an attribute of implemented in public institutions, in which the methods
any social activity and any social institutionalization. and means of communication are an integral part of their
The question of discourse boundaries is rightful. It is organization [35].
obvious that the space of parliamentary discourse not The institutional discourse represents communication
only covers all the official activities of the parliament, within the framework of institutions established in the
but goes beyond its borders. There is a kind of an society, that is, stable complexes of formal and informal
“unofficial”  parliamentary process, which is associated rules, principles, norms, attitudes that regulate various
with  “backstage”  political  activities. spheres of human activity and organize them into a
The most appropriate interpretations of discourse in system of roles and statuses that form the social system.
the present work are its definitions as a complex The constitutive features of discourse include
communicative event, represented in the text as a verbal participants, conditions, organization, methods and
product of a communicative action, containing socially material of communication, i.e. people in their status and
significant information. situational-communicative roles, communication and its
The discourse of politicians and statesmen, environment, motives, goals, strategies, channels, mode,
concentrates around the supporting concept of power and tonality, style and genre of communication and, finally, a
creates a context that describes the actors, their actions, significant body of communication (texts and / or non-
the objects under discussion, circumstances, time, and verbal signs). M.L. Makarov notes that institutional
the place of events. Political discourse combines both discourse has a rigid structure, a maximum of speech
public  and  “backstage”  political  speech  activity  of   restrictions, characterized by the primacy of a global
people exercising power or fighting for state power, as organization that regulates the communication of roles
well as discussing political problems in the media and in and a limited number of globally defined goals.
the society in general [34]. Compared with colloquial discourse, it is less
We consider discourse as a process and a result of conditioned by the immediate context [36].
building on the basis of the initial semantic structure, or Along with the backbone institutional discourses
a sequence of propositions interconnected by logical have neutral signs. In contrast to system-forming signs,
relations. neutral ones are understood as general discursive
Many scholars define parliamentary discourse as a characteristics inherent to any communication, as well as
part of political discourse. So, to identify the specifics of personality-oriented signs of the participants.
political discourse, it is necessary to take into account The concept of institutional discourse is associated
the following elements: stated events, their participants, with a certain number and functions of its participants,
performative  information  and  “non-events”,  i.e. a) the with specific spaces and structures in which they
circumstances accompanying the event; b) background perform these functions and where there are certain
explaining the events; c) evaluation of the events by social rituals and behavioral stereotypes. In addition, in
participants”;;  d)  information  relating  the  discourse  with   each discourse special, specific texts are also produced.
the events. The signs of parliamentary discourse institutionalism are
Common, systematizing signs of political discourse fixed by the role characteristics of its participants -
as a generic concept and parliamentary discourse as a agents and clients of the parliament as one of the public
specific one are, above all, the communication goals of institutions, typical chronotopes, symbolic actions,
the participants. But at the same time, the goal of stereotyped  genres  and  speech  clichés. It is the stencil of
political discourse participants can be both conquest and communication that fundamentally distinguishes
struggle to retain state power, while in parliament state institutional discourse from personal discourse.
power is directly exercised through legislative activity. There are several approaches to describing the
During the plenary sessions, the parliamentary specifics of speech communication in institutional
discourse is carried out in accordance with clearly discourses. As noted by V.I. Karasik, communication in
established and strictly followed regulations. Discussion institutional discourses, including the State Duma of the
of the agenda issues at parliamentary meetings in the Russian Federation, is determined by the presence of
State Duma of the Russian Federation and the German mandatory components of speech situations [34]. In the
Bundestag is determined by the regulations of these studies devoted to the Russian parliamentary discourse,
institutions - the parliamentary statute or protocol, the these  approaches  include  “institutional  voices”  and  
general law and custom. The agenda of the plenary strategies of participants in the discourse, their goals,
meeting is approved in advance, and during the meeting values and key concepts, the discourse chronotope, its
can be changed only after a decision is made on this by subject, genres and types of genres used, precedent
voting. The content of the reports and speeches of the (cultural) texts and, finally, institutional discursive
deputies, as well as the right to speak at the plenary formulas. Political communication in Germany,
session and to participate in the debate are discussed in including the Bundestag, is generally described similarly
advance - during the meetings of parliamentary by foreign authors. The main participants in the
committees and factions. It makes public parliamentary parliamentary discourses of the Russian Federation and
discourse different from public political discussions the Federal Republic of Germany are members of
accompanying election campaigns. parliament - deputies (agents) and people who endow
The main backbone indicator of parliamentary them with this role (clients). According to German and
discourse is its institutionality. A. Chudinov and O. Russian researchers, the main components of the speech
Solopova understand institutional discourse as

5
SHS Web of Conferences 69, 00007 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20196900007
CILDIAH-2019

situation of parliamentary communication are: a member 2. The emergence and development of parliamentary
of parliament; space; time; the purpose of the address. communication as a democratic form of state power
The key concept of parliamentary discourse in both exercising is due, on the one hand, to the historical,
cases is the concept of power. However, there are certain social and cultural progress of all mankind, and on the
differences. Thus, the components of parliamentary other hand, to the peculiarities of achieving this progress
communication speech situations by German researchers in each individual country.
can be represented as follows: a regulation; a president; 3. If there is a universal democratic framework that
parties and factions; listeners; parliamentary traditions; determines the status of parliament as a social institution
situational context. and as an instrument of government in different
Thus, the main components of parliamentary countries, its activity does not exclude national-cultural
communication situations in Russia and Germany are specifics, which can be corroborated by comparative
repeated, although they are detailed in various degrees linguistic and stylistic analysis of relevant practical
and are not always evaluated as equally significant. For material.
example, D. Allhoff emphasizes the situational context, 4. Comparative study and identification of universal
which in parliamentary discourse, unlike the key concept and national-cultural-specific linguistic features of
of power, changes from speech to speech [37]. Each parliamentary discourse in different countries is one of
previous statement may introduce a new topic and the urgent problems of political linguistics.
influence the speech situation in which the next one is
carried out. D. Allhoff demarcates parliamentary
members  (“internal  addressee”)  and  listeners  (“external   References
addressee”)  and  includes  parliamentary traditions as 1. R.G. Boatright, T.J. Shaffer, S. Sobieraj, and D.
components of the speech situation, while V. Karasik Goldthwaite Young, A crisis of civility?: political
pays special attention to the themes and key concepts, discourse and its discontents (Oxford University
speech strategies, genres and types of genres, precedent Press, Oxford, 2019)
(cultural) texts and discursive formulas.
It is easy to see that according to D. Allhoff’s  views,   2. W. Connoly, The terms of political discourse
many of these points can be summarized in the concept (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1993)
of a situational context which is characteristic of the 3. I. Fairclough, N. Fairclough, Political discourse
activities of a given social institution. analysis: a method for advanced students (Routledge,
London, 2013)
4. D. Howarth, A.J. Norval, Discourse theory and
4 Conclusion
political analysis: identities, hegemoni (Manchester
Nowadays, the problems of political linguistics are noted University Press, Manchester, 2000)
in general and at the same time studied to different 5. C. Schaeffner, Political discourse, media and
degrees. The constant appeal of researchers to all the translation (Cambridge Scholars Publishing,
new aspects of political communication and the variety Cambridge, 2010)
of approaches and methods of studying it testifies to the 6. A.E. Wieczorek, Clusivity: a new approach to
relevance of this problem and requires its comprehensive association and dissociation in political discourse
understanding. (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Cambridge, 2013)
A comparative study of the political discourses of
7. A. Musolff, Political metaphor analysis: discourse
different countries and ages is especially relevant and
and scenarios (Bloomsbury Academic, London,
having undoubted prospects due to the specifics of the
changes that take place in the period of democratization 2016)
in political life in general and in the activities of public 8. L. Sriwimon, P.J. Zilli, Kasetsart J. of Social Sciences,
institutions - in particular, under the influence of socio- Applying critical discourse analysis as a conceptual
cultural factors. Thus, in comparative terms, the framework for investigating gender stereotypes in
peculiarities of Russian-speaking and German-speaking political media discourse, 38, 136-142 (2017)
public parliamentary speech were not studied. Such 9. U. Yaqub, S.A. Chun, V. Atluri, and J. Vaidya,
comparison makes it possible to clearly differentiate Government Information Quarterly, Analysis of
between  “one’s  own”  and  “someone  else’s”  opinions,   political discourse on twitter in the context of the
random and regular events, universal and peculiar 2016 US presidential elections, 34(4), 613-626
phenomena, characteristic of some national discourse. (2017)
Summarizing the study, we can draw the following 10. P. Norris, A virtuous circle: political
main conclusions: communications in postindustrial societies
1. The key discourse-forming concept, verbalized in (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013)
public parliamentary discourse, is the concept of power.
The verbal realization of the powers of the parliament 11. P. Chilton, J. of Language and Politics, “The people”  
members presupposes the public presentation and in populist discourse: Using neuro-cognitive
coordination of the positions of the participants in the linguistics to understand political, 16(4), 582-594
parliamentary discourse - the search for a generally (2017)
acceptable or optimal solution - a compromise.

6
SHS Web of Conferences 69, 00007 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20196900007
CILDIAH-2019

12. J.A. Garrido Ardila, J. of Pragmatics, Impoliteness as 24. D. Tannen, Gender and Discourse (Oxford
a rhetorical strategy in Spain's politics, 140, 160-170 University Press, Oxford, 1996)
(2019) 25. D. Liu, L. Lei, Discourse, Context and Media, The
13. A. Albalat-Mascarell, M.L.  Carrió-Pastor, J. of appeal to political sentiment: An analysis of Donald
Pragmatics, Self-representation in political campaign Trump’s and  Hillary  Clinton’s  speech  themes  and  
talk: A functional metadiscourse approach to self- discourse strategies in the 2016 US presidential
mentions in televised presidential debates 147, 86-99 election, 25, 143-152 (2018)
(2019) 26. B.C. Parekh, Colonialism, tradition and reform: an
14. M. Temmerman, R. Moernaut, R. Coesemans, and J. analysis   of   Gandhi′s   political   discourse (SAGE
Mast, Context and Media, Post-truth and the Publications Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi, 1999)
political: Constructions and distortions in 27. E.U. Sheigal, The semiotics of political discourse
representing political facts, Discourse, 27, 1-6 (2019) (Peremena, Volgograd, 2000)
15. G. Lazarovici, Social and Behavioral Sciences, The 28. P. Chilton, Analysing political discourse (Routledge,
effects of globalization upon the paradigm of the London, 2004)
contemporary political discourse, 63, 58-62 (2012)
29. L. Kissler, Die  Öffentlichkeitsfunktion  des Deutschen
16. B. Norman, M. Mukhin, Sibirskii Filologicheskii Bundestages: Theorie, Empirie, Reform (Duncker
Zhurnal, Lexical and grammatical semantics: A and Humblot, Berlin, 1976)
corpus-based statistical study of lexical semantic
30. N. Luhmann, Legitimation durch Verfahren
group, 3, 178-191 (2018)
(Suhrkamp, Berlin, 2001)
17. S. Franssila, Social and Behavioral Sciences, Sell
31. M. Hauriou, Die Theorie der Institution und Zwei
Metaphors in American political news discourse, 95,
andere Aufsätze (Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, 1965)
418-424 (2013)
32.  G.  Göhler, Grundfragen der Theorie Politischer
18. A.L. Hostetler, M.A. Nee, The J. of Social Studies
Institutionen (VS  Verlag  für  Sozialwissenschaften,
Research, Difficult discourses: How the distances
Opladen, 1987)
and contours of identities shape challenging
moments in political discussions, 42(4), 361-373 33. M. Foucault, The Archaeology of knowledge
(2018) (Routledge, London, 2002)
19. M.L. Pratt, Language Sciences, Aesthetics, politics, 34. V. Karasik, Discourse manifestation of personality,
and sociolinguistic analysis, 65, 18-25 (2018) Russ. J. of Linguistics 20, 56-77 (2016)
20. G. Lakoff, Instrumental adverbs and the concept of 35. A.P. Chudinov, O.A. Solopova, Social and
deep structure, foundations of language 4(1), 4-29 Behavioral Sciences, Linguistic political prognostics:
(1968). models and scenarios of future, 200, 412-417 (2015)
21. M. Osborn, Michael Osborn on metaphor and style 36. M.L. Makarov, Basic concepts of discourse analysis
(Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, (Gnozis, Moscow, 2003)
2018) 37. D. Allhoff, Rhetorische Analyse der Reden und
22. H. Davis, , Language and Communication, Gender, Debatten des Ersten Deutschen Parlamentes von
discourse and gender and discourse 17(4), 353-357 1848/49. Insbesondere auf Syntaktischer und
(1997) Semantischer Ebene (Tuduv-Verlagsgesellschaft,
München, 1975)
23. D. Harp, Gender in the 2016 US Presidential
Election: Trump, Clinton, and Media Discourse
(Routledge, London, 2019)

7
 © 2019. This work is licensed under
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”).
Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and conditions, you may use this
content in accordance with the terms of the License.