MANIPULATIVE AND METACOMMUNICATIVE MODEL OF ENGLISH PUBLIC DISCOURSE

Keywords: model, emotional / social / speech manipulation, metacommunication, stylistic, cognitive, and metadiscourse devices, political (meta) discourse, public speeches, strategies and tactics

Abstract

The article identifies “manipulative and metacommunicative model of English discourse” as a modification of cognitive and discourse model of English manipulative metacommunication; moreover, this modification is stated to be necessary. It indicates the interrelation between such terms as “manipulative influence” and “rhetoric influence”. The research proves the appropriateness of characterizing public speeches as “manipulative” and “metacommunicative”. It distinguishes two stages of manipulative and metacommunicative modelling: a manipulative (cognitive) and a metacommunicative (discourse) blocks; notably, a manipulative block comprises the chain of cognitive operations that represent the choice of manipulative techniques through the prism of metapragmatic awareness; whereas a metacommunicative block outlines the discourse strategies and tactics. It establishes that metadiscourse devices are the ones that link the two afore-mentioned blocks. The qualitative analysis confirms that the most widespread meta-means in political discourse are regulative, phatic, and reflective, which, used in the scope of emotional, social and speech manipulations, display the realization of different manipulative tactics: illusion, emotional “infecting”, infusing, emotional persuading, (pseudo)argumentation, imitation, and vague hinting. The article also discovers that regulative meta-means (MKs) are used to better present and express the speaker’s opinion in order to make political speeches rhetorically enchanting; phatic MKs are targeted to establish contact with the audience in the very beginning of the speech, to maintain its attention during the speech and to close it up effectively; and reflective MKs, particularly addressing MKs, highlight the reflections of the speaker, both his/her own and those which might be the listeners’ ones, introduce some comments. It also finds out that the speaker has to evoke empathy in the audience, to make it feel that the speaker is sure in what she/he is saying and she/he shares the feelings and its expectations.

References

1. Фролова И.Е. Конфронтация как стратегия англоязычного дискурса. Как нарисовать портрет птицы. Методология когнитивно-коммуникативного анализа языка. С. 148–207. Харьков : ХНУ имени В.Н. Каразина. 2017.
2. Plowman K. & Wilson Ch. Strategy and Tactics in Strategic Communication: Examining their Intersection with Social Media Use. International journal of strategic communication, 2018. 12(3), 1–20.
3. Prihodko G., Prokhodchenko O., Zaluzhna M. & Motoshkina G. Strategies and tactics of evaluative discourse. Advances in economics, business and management research, 2020. 129, 1–7.
4. Кара-Мурза С.Г. Манипуляция сознанием. Москва : Эксмо. 2005.
5. Dijk van T. A. Political discourse and ideology. / In C.U. Lorda & M. Ribas (Eds.), Anàlisi del discurs politic. Pp. 15–34. Barcelona : Universitat Pompeu Fabra. 2005.
6. Morozova O.I. Speech manipulation in a multyparty interactive field. Вісник Харківського національного університету імені В.Н. Каразіна. Серія «Філологія», 2013. № 16(2), с. 84–91.
7. Грицкевич Ю.Н. Информационные и информационно-аналитические жанры в региональном массмедийном политическом дискурсе. Вестник Псковского государственного университета. Серия «Социально-гуманитарные науки», 2016. № 4, с. 130–136.
8. Чудинов А.П. Дискурсивные характеристики политической коммуникации. Политическая лингвистика, 2012. № 2(40), с. 53–59.
9. Шейгал Е.И. Семиотика политического дискурса. Москва : Гнозис. 2004.
10. Ільницька Л.Л. Особливості використання сугестивних та маніпулятивних технологій у сучасному англомовному політичному дискурсі. Лінгвістика ХХІ століття: нові дослідження і перспективи, 2010. с. 115–125.
11. David M.Kh. Language, power and manipulation: The use of rhetoric in maintaining political influence. Frontiers of Language and Teaching, 2014. No. 5, p. 164–170.
12. Qi D. Маніпулятивні комбінації в англомовному політичному дискурсі. Наукові записки Національного університету «Острозька академія». Серія «Філологія», 2022. № 13(81), с. 17–19.
13. Голоднов А.В. Риторический метадискурс: основания прагмалингвистического моделирования и социокультурной реализации (на материале современного немецкого языка). Санкт-Петербург : Астерион. 2011.
14. Гнезділова Я.В. Когнітивно-дискурсивні моделі англомовної маніпулятивної метакомунікації : докторська дисертація. Київський національний лінгвістичний університет, Київ. 2021.
15. Obama B. The keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in Boston Tuesday night. 2004. URL: https://www.history.com/news/10-modern-presidential-speeches-every-americanshould-know.
16. Barack Obama’s “A More Perfect Union” Speech. 10 Modern Presidential Speeches Every American Should Know. 2008. URL: https://www.history.com/news/10-modernpresidential-speeches-every-american-shouldknow
17. Chilton P. Analysing political discourse. Theory and practice. London, New York : Routledge. 2004.
Published
2022-12-14
How to Cite
Gnezdilova, Y. V. (2022). MANIPULATIVE AND METACOMMUNICATIVE MODEL OF ENGLISH PUBLIC DISCOURSE. New Philology, (86), 26-34. https://doi.org/10.26661/2414-1135-2022-86-4
Section
Articles