FEATURES OF POLITICAL MEDIA DISCOURSE IN THE CONTEXT OF PSYCHOLINGUISTICS

Jan D.D.

Moscow City Pedagogical University
Moscow, Russia
e-mail: uaxenova@yndex.ru

The pluralism of researchers' opinions in defining political discourse is due to the heterogeneity and contextual nature of this phenomenon.

According to N.N. Ravochkin, political discourse is a phenomenon that cannot be considered outside of context. The scholar defines political discourse as "the linguistic component of political practice, which depends on and unfolds within the context of the situation" [8, p. 45].

Maslova V.A. also emphasizes the contextual nature of political discourse: «the term «discourse» in modern linguistics is used to designate different types of speech and speech works, the understanding of which should be built taking into account the entire set of linguistic and non-linguistic factors» [6, p. 44].

O.V. Epstein, in turn, offers the following definition for political discourse: «the totality of all speech acts, as well as public rules, traditions and experience, situationally determined and expressed in the form of speech formations, the content, subject and addressee of which relate to the sphere of politics» [12, p. 20].

According to M.N. Bazylev, political discourse represents a variety of ideological discourse. The main difference is that the pragmatic potential of political discourse is clearly expressed, while the pragmatics of ideological discourse are more implicit, that is, hidden [1]. In other words, political discourse can be defined as one of the vectors of ideological discourse, emphasizing communicative impact.

S.V. Kuzmina defines political discourse as "a type of practical speech activity, structured by relevant texts (notions, concepts) and serving political processes" [5, p. 55]. According to Kuzmina, discourse is the language of politics, conveying information and stimulating the political process.

A.N. Baranov and E.G. Kazakevich point out that the content of political discourse is not only a collection of various speech acts, but also a set of rules within which public policy exists and functions [2, p. 63].

V.Z. Dem'yankov emphasizes the importance of interpretation in understanding political discourse: "meanings are calculated by the interpreter, and are not contained in the linguistic form" [3, p. 375]. The content of discourse, according to Dem'yankov, consists of sentences and fragments, often centered around the main theme – the discourse topic.

When examining discourse from a psycholinguistic perspective, two approaches can be considered. The first defines discourse as the process of manifesting the potential of speech activity, while the second defines discourse as a system of communication as a whole. According to V.Z. Demyankov, the purpose of political discourse is to form convictions and motivate action. Accordingly, the effectiveness of political discourse should be determined in relation to this goal.

Thus, political discourse represents a certain structure of unity of speech acts functioning in the political space. The primary goal of political discourse is the acquisition and maintenance of power. The means of achieving this goal is verbal influence.

The interconnections between contemporary political institutions that exist today are carried over into the realm of media discourse. By its very nature, the modern online space represents a unique social field within which various social groups and segments of the population engage and interact in the political process. As a platform for political and social engagement, the media space facilitates the following tasks of the institution of power: establishing a political regime, acquiring power, and exercising it [4, p. 7].

Furthermore, in the media, politicians have the opportunity to shape and promote a specific political image [7]. By emphasizing the positive components of their image, politicians promote their ideas to the masses and to various parts of the media space. Thus, the media space of political discourse becomes a field for the implementation of various political processes, including the struggle for power.

Political media discourse based on the content-thematic principle and the addressee exists in the following varieties:

1) institutional political discourse – the rhetoric of politicians used in political communication;

2) mass media political discourse – texts on political topics created by journalists and distributed through media channels;

3) public discourse represents the episodic participation of ordinary citizens in political communication [11, p. 37].

Mass media political discourse in the contemporary political media space can be divided into media discourse and blogosphere discourse. The fundamental difference between media discourse and blogosphere discourse is as follows: blogosphere discourse is public, while media discourse is mass. Media reflect the competitive struggle of the most significant public political discourses and broadcast the results of this struggle to a mass audience. Like other participants in media discourse, media have the opportunity to engage in a struggle to establish their own meanings as dominant.

Mass media political discourse is, at its core, a collaborative effort among specialized experts. Representatives of various professional cultures in the political blogosphere organize collective work through communication. According to E.F. Tarasov, "communication is the symbolic activity of collaborating individuals, the ultimate goal of which is the organization of joint activities" [10, p. 20].

Researcher K. Wallstan has proposed the following hypothesis: the political blogosphere serves as an "echo chamber" for traditional media reports. Wallstan argues as follows:

1) the issues raised on the agenda in political blogs duplicate issues covered in the media;

2) the bloggers’ positions on political issues coincide with the positions that were published in the media;

3) the system of evidence in blogs repeats the argumentation of the media

[14, p. 4].

Thus, Wallstein concludes that the political blogosphere is not an alternative source of information and a wide range of pluralism of opinions, but a medium for the circulation of information within the system.

Contrary to Wallstan's hypothesis, it's important to note that media outlets retransmit political blogosphere discourse into the general media space. A blogger's publication can serve as a trigger for media coverage.

The following parameters of the organization of political media discourse are distinguished:

• the nature of the focus on the addressee (mass or personalized);
• principle of interaction (presence or absence of the possibility of feedback);
• time space (synchronous or asynchronous communication);
• level of interactivity (the acceptable speed of reaction of discourse participants to a message);
• regulation (the presence of rules regarding the form of presentation and/or content).

Political media discourse is characterized by fragmentation. The fragmentation of the media discursive space is due to two factors: technical and ideological. The technical factor lies in the wide range of broadcasting opportunities and platforms. A blog can exist independently (as a separate website), on a blogging service (social media), or as part of an information website (a blog as part of a website). The existence of the blogosphere across various layers of the online space generates fragmented discourse.

A study of the ideological fragmentation of the blogosphere was conducted by E. Hargitay, J. Galo, and M. Kane. Having analyzed the hyperlinks of leading conservative and liberal blogospheres, the researchers concluded that users ignore points of view that ideologically diverge from their personal position [13, p. 61]. This is due to the use of technical means of filtering information by users.

In the study of political discourse, psycholinguistics combines psychological methods for analyzing the process of verbal influence with linguistic means for describing speech during the process. Primary attention is focused on the communicative and verbal characteristics of texts and their structural and compositional characteristics [9, p. 19].

Political media discourse exists through the mediatization of politics, that is, the combination of media tools for engaging the masses in political communications. Media discourse shapes new models of political decision-making based on modern information and communication technologies. Network technologies are today becoming a tool for shaping a new political reality and a driving force behind political processes.

This article examined various interpretations of political discourse by contemporary researchers. An analysis of these various opinions allowed us to identify the optimal definition of political discourse for the context of the study. Thus, political discourse represents a certain structure of unity among speech acts operating within the political space. The key goal of political discourse is the acquisition and maintenance of power. The means of achieving this goal is verbal influence.

Political media discourse is a key factor in shaping the political environment. Political discourse is understood as communication characterized as the implementation of certain discursive practices. The goal of political media discourse is to shape certain views and principles that will encourage participation in political processes. Political media discourse exerts a certain influence, the purpose of which is to change audience opinions or to form new views, principles, and beliefs. The goal of political discourse is to instill "politically correct" or "politically advantageous" assessments and images in the political media audience.

Political media discourse is conducted through various communication channels within the media environment. The message to the recipient may be unidirectional, meaning that even with the necessary communication opportunities, the recipient cannot engage in dialogue. However, by its very nature, discourse is dialogical. Political discourse can be realized both through influencing public opinion and through dialogue between sender and recipient.

Political media discourse, as an object of political science research, is a unique way of reproducing meanings. These meanings are conveyed by mass media, political forces, and opinion leaders. Media discourse interacts with other discourses and contributes to the formation of an overall picture of the political world.

Regardless of the breadth of definitions of the concept of political discourse, the main idea of modern psycholinguistic research is the inextricable connection of discourse with speech activity.

Literature

1. Bazylev V.N. Political discourse in Russia. Political linguistics. 2006. P. – 10;
2. Baranov A.N., Kazakevich E.G. Parliamentary debates: traditions and innovations. Soviet political language (from ritual to metaphor). / M.: Knowledge. – 1991. P. – 63;
3. Demyankov V.Z. Interpretation of political discourse in the media / Language of the media: Textbook for universities / Ed. M. N. Volodina. / M.: Academic project. - 2008. P. - 375;
4. Kravtsov V.V. Political communication on the Internet. / / Bulletin of the Chuvash University. 2009. P. – 7;
5. Kuzmina S.V. Political discourse as an integral part of political communication. / News of the Saratov University. Vol. 11. Series: Sociology. Political Science, issue 2. – 2011. P. – 55;
6. Maslova V.A. Political discourse: language games or word games? / Political linguistics. No. 1 (24). – 2008. P. – 44;
7. Matveev M.O., Ju Yunsheng, Li Yajun Media text as a tool for shaping images of consciousness. Organizational psycholinguistics [Electronic resource]: electronic scientific journal / editor-in-chief S.V. Myskin. – Issue No. 1 (9). Electronic, text data (3.3 MB). Moscow: Agency for Social and Humanitarian Technologies, LLC, 2020. 1 electronic optical disc (CD-ROM). P. 26–45.
8. Ravochkin N.N. Features of political discourse / Vestnik KSU. No. 3. - 2018. P. - 245;
9. Repina E.A. Political text: psycholinguistic analysis of the impact on the electorate: Monograph / Edited by V.P. Belyanin V.P. / M .: INFRAM. - 2012. P. - 19;
10. 10. Tarasov E.F. Intercultural communication — a new ontology for the analysis of linguistic consciousness // Ethnocultural specificity of linguistic consciousness / ed. N.V. Ufimtseva. Moscow: Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1996. P. – 20;
11. Sheigal E.I. Semiotics of political discourse / E.I. Sheigal. Moscow. - 2000. P. - 37;
12. Epstein O.V. Pragmalinguistic features of the menasive speech act in political discourse. Samara. – 2010. P. – 20;
13. Hargittai E. Cross-ideological discussions among conservative and liberal bloggers / Public Choice. - 2008. - P. - 61;
14. Wallsten K. Political Blogs and the Bloggers Who Blog Them. R. – 4.

References

1. Bazylev VN. Political discourse in Russia. Political linguistics. 2006. 10 s.
2. Baranov AN, Kazakevich EG. Parliamentary debates: traditions and innovations. Soviet political language (from ritual to metafore). / M.: Znanie. – 1991. 63 p.
3. Dem'janov VZ. Interpretation of political discourse in the media / Language of mass media: Study guide for universities / Edited by M.N. Volodin. / Moscow: Akademicheskij proekt. – 2008. 375 p.
4. Kravtsov VV. Political communication on the Internet. / / Bulletin of the Chuvash University. 2009. 7 s.
5. Kuz'mina SV. Political discourse as a neo-political communication topic. / News of the Saratov University. Vol. 11. Series: Sociology. Politology, issue 2. – 2011. 55 s.
6. Maslova VA. Political Discourse: Language Games or Word Games? / Political Linguistics. No. 1(24). – 2008. 44 p.
7. Matveev MO, Czjuj Jun'shjen, Li Jaczjun'’ Media text as a tool for shaping images of consciousness. Organizational psychology [Electronic resource]: electronic scientific journal / chief editor SV Myskin. – Issue. No. 1 (9). Electronic, text data (3.3 MB). Moscow: OOO «Agency for Social and Humanitarian Technologies», 2020. 1 electronic opt. disk (CD-ROM). P. 26–45.
8. Ravochkin NN. Features of political discourse / Vestnik KGU. No. 3. – 2018. 245 p.
9. Repina EA. Politicheskij tekst: psiholingvisticheskij analiz vozdejstvija na jelektorat: Monograph / Pod red. VP Beljanina VP / M.: INFRAM. – 2012.19 s.

10. Tarasov EF. Mezhkul'turnoe obshhenie - novaja ontologija analiza jazykovogo soznanija // Jetnokul'turnaja specifika jazykovogo soznanija / otv. red. NV Ufimceva. M.: IJa RAN, 1996. 20 s.
11. Shejgal EI. Semiotics of Political Discourse / E. I. Shejgal. Moscow. – 2000. 37 pp.
12. Jepshtejn OV. Pragmalinguistic features of the menasive speech act in political discourse. Samara. – 2010. 20 s.
13. Hargittai E. Cross-ideological discussions among conservative and liberal bloggers / Public Choice. — 2008. 61 s.
14. Wallsten K. Political Blogs and the Bloggers Who Blog Them. 4 s.