Static and dynamic metaphoricity in U.S.-China trade discourse

The present chapter proposes to build bridges between political discourse analysis and corpus linguistics. We intend to bring to light methodological benefits arising from the synergy of (political) discourse analysis and corpus linguistics, pointing to fruitful contribution from French text statistics. Taking the discourses of Nicolas Sarkozy as an example, we show how political discourse analysis can benefit from a reflection on corpora (their constitution, their role in the research process); on linguistic analysis and processing methods (particularly the computer-assisted methods of text statistics); and finally on the interpretative paths at a time of establishment of a numerical hermeneutics.

This article is devoted to the issue of the need to include in the course of Russian as a foreign language the work on the analysis of Russian-speaking political discourse, the issues of identifying and interpreting euphemisms and dysphemisms in the political discourse, in particular. Euphemisms and dysphemisms are widely used by Russian speakers in a variety of communication situations and speech genres, including political discourse, which makes the research devoted to the systematic description of their functioning in modern Russian-language communication and their place in the Russian language picture of the world urgent. The relevance of the present study is due to the need to integrate the results of cognitive and pragmatic research into the purposeful activities of the teacher of Russian as a foreign language to form the linguistic personality of a foreign student, capable of educational and professional activities in the conditions of multicultural dialogue. The paper deals with the formation of foreign students’ skills and abilities of discursive analysis of the Russian text, identification and interpretation of speech tactics and strategies, the strategy of dominance and resistance, implemented in speech through the use of euphemisms and dysphemisms, in particular. At high levels of proficiency in Russian as a foreign language B2-C1 these skills are a necessary element of the professional competence of humanities professionals. The choice of political texts as the material for the analysis is connected with the fact that for professionals in the humanities, in the field of international relations, in particular, political discourse is a significant sphere of official communication and professional interaction. The aim of the present study is to analyze the theoretical foundations for describing euphemisms and dysphemisms for linguistic and pedagogical purposes, and to develop an approach to creating learning materials aimed at building the skills and abilities of foreign students to recognize hidden meanings and tools of indirect communication in Russian political discourse. The use of the proposed approach helps to develop in foreign students the ability to analyze political discourse and to identify the author’s key and secondary intentions, as well as to improve the skill of operating political terminology and the selection of lexical and verbal means in accordance with the communicative situation and the communicative goals and intentions pursued. The authors relied on the works of domestic and foreign linguists and methodologists in their research. The sociocultural, competence and systemic approaches were used in the research, and the method of complex text analysis and descriptive method were applied.

Starting from the thesis that critical discourse studies, with their qualitative, critical and explanatory approach to the study of political communication, represent a valuable complement to the dominant approaches that privilege the positivist paradigm and quantitative research, in this paper we tried to provide more complex insights into the scientific contributions of these studies to the study of political discourse, through observing the specifics of their theoretical-methodological frameworks, analytical categories and interpretive procedures. For this purpose, some of the key features of Teun van Dijk's sociocognitive approach, Paul Chilton's cognitive-linguistic approach, Ruth Wodak's discursive-historical approach and Norman Fairclough's dialectical-relational argumentative approach were considered. In the introductory part of the paper, we provided an overview of the general distinctive features, main starting points and research interests of the critical analysis of political discourse, as well as an insight into the basic dilemma related to the scope of the content of the term "political discourse". The central part of the work consists of two complementary parts. In the first part, we started from the presentation of the analytical aspects of the following levels and dimensions of the political discourse structure: topics, superstructures or textual schemata, local semantics, lexicon, syntax, rhetoricand speech acts. Using an analytical-synthetic approach, we connected the semantic-grammatical dimensions of the textual level and the cognitive-pragmatic dimensions of the discursive level of production and analysis of political discourse. The second part of the central part of the work is focused on the presentation of the theoretical framework of the argumentative approach to political discourse, as a kind of upgrade and reframing of existing conceptual settings and analytical categories. In the concluding review of the insights reached in the article, as the main scientific contribution of critical studies of political discourse, we singled out the way in which is achieved the synthesis of systemic, but contextually sensitive textual analysis on the one hand, and descriptive, normative and explanatory viewpoints of critical social research, on the other.

Isabela and Norman Fairclough have written a very important book whose full significance is perhaps in danger of being missed if we view it simply, in their own self-depiction, as a text for advanced students. Indeed, in what follows I want to argue that their book is much better seen as the occasion for a debate that we desperately need to be having about how to conduct political discourse analysis rather than as the elucidation of an agreed, almost official, methodology for the conduct of such a form of discourse analysis. At times their book reads like the definitive statement of the only credible approach to the analysis of political discourse as both political and as discourse, derived logically and forensically from a consideration of the specificity of the political itself. While I have considerable sympathy for the attempt to reflect and preserve the specificity of the political in an avowedly political discourse analysis, I have rather more problem, as will become clear in what follows, in the methodological absolutism that leads the Faircloughs to present their approach as, in effect, the only way to do political discourse analysis properly. At this stage in its development political discourse analysis needs a proliferation, not a narrowing, of methods and acknowledgement that there is more than one way to analyse political discourse politically. I will argue for a certain methodological pluralism in political discourse analysis, pointing to problems both with the approach to political discourse analysis that the Faircloughs espouse and with their attempt to foreground such an approach in an essentially Aristotelian account of the specificity of the political.

The war unleashed by Russia in 2022 is widely presented in online versions of English-language newspapers; Ukraine is constantly in the epicentre of the world news. This study highlights political and ideological contexts of the war in Ukraine, the sociopolitical and cognitive aspects of news according to an interdisciplinary approach considering the language as a social practice. The article highlights the polarization in the presentation of the events and the main actors entitled in the discursive strategies, representing the dichotomy In- versus Out-group. The study is aimed at the investigation of the ideological structures and their manifesting linguistic devices in political discourse based on Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) of discursive strategies for constructing the images of Ukraine and Russia in the British and American press. The integrated Critical Discourse Analysis was applied to the research of the news to study the media discourse and the language, where CDA focuses on social practice, social power and ideology. Political Discourse Analysis (PDA) is used to research the ideology of war images presented in the language of news reports. The relevance of this study determined by the aim is to show the main discursive strategies of polaeization in political media discourse. The research methods of the article combine three vectors of the analysis by Fairclough with explanatory tools (by van Dijk), and the elements of stylistic analysis and Critical Metaphor Analysis. The illustrative material was collected by information search and continuous sample from the open access newspapers and magazines issued in the US and Great Britain (The Daily Mail, The Financial Times, The Guardian, The Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and others). Conclusion. This research argues that polarisation is being demonstrated in the media discourse on the war in Ukraine in 2022. The taxonomy of the identified discursive strategies of polarization deployed in the media political discourse includes labelling, evidentiality, number game, hyperbolism, victimization, personalization and analogy, that can either be used singly or intervened. The discursive strategy of evidentiality is applied to authorities, officials, witnesses that are accepted as trustworthy sources of data; the number game strategy combined with victimization are verbalized by metaphoric simile, metonymy, enumerating and magnifying the numbers with the modifying adverbs; the strategy of hyperbole conveys the positive impression of the in-group and negative acts magnification of the out-group verbalized by metaphor, metonymy, metaphtonymy; the personalization strategy is deployed with the purpose of foregrounding the positive actions of the in-group that implies negative out-group actions; the strategy of analogy is applied in the comparison of the war in Ukraine and the struggle of the Ukrainians for their independence with other historical events. Linguistic means used to realize the discursive strategies of polarization include the conceptual metaphor, metonymy, simile, idioms, metaphtonymy, intertextual allusion and personification.

The research aims to determine the pragmatic potential of basic metaphorical models in shaping the image of leading foreign government representatives in British political media discourse using artificial intelligence tools. The article examines the mechanisms of metaphorical modeling used in the creation of political texts, the primary goal of which is to exert manipulative influence on public consciousness. Special attention is paid to assessing the validity of language models as a tool for applied analysis in political discourse research. The scientific novelty of this research lies in the development of a hybrid approach (human-artificial intelligence) to political discourse analysis. Using neural networks, a complex of metaphorical models for the targeted construction of the image of political figures in the British press was identified, and their pragmatic effect was established. Based on the analysis results, data were obtained regarding the capabilities and limitations of neural network models (ChatGPT and DeepSeek) when performing cognitive-discursive analysis tasks, and the role of applying artificial intelligence in researching the cognitive mechanisms of political discourse formation was clarified. As a result of the study, the repertoire of metaphorical models aimed at creating positive and negative images of political figures was examined. Through these metaphorical models, ideological influence is exerted, which involves constructing a specific political worldview and shaping readers’ emotional response to the politicians’ activities. Analysis of the neural network interpretations confirmed their potential as an applied tool for political discourse analysis, while emphasizing the need for critical interpretation of the results by the researcher.

The relevance of this study is conditioned by the comparison of the original texts (in Kazakh) and translated texts (in English) within the framework of the analysis of political discourse and translation analysis. The purpose of the study is to identify the features, patterns, and difficulties for translators to comprehensively assess the adequacy (quality) of the translation and recommendations for compilation to facilitate the translation process. The paper provides a comparative analysis of the modern Kazakh political discourse and its translation into English to identify the features of the translation of language tools, taking into account their pragmatic potential. The theoretical relevance and originality of this research are due to the considerably increased interest in the study of political discourse in the aspect of translation. A comparative approach in political discourse consisting of two languages can be a useful material for studying and comparing political discourse in each of the languages, as well as arouse interest in further research of translation in this language pair. The practical relevance lies in the fact that the presented results can be used in teaching courses of the following disciplines: onomastics, pragmalinguistics, terminology, political science, LSP (language for special purposes), and SPVE (special professional vocabulary of the English language). The materials of this paper can be useful in the field of international relations for international specialists, journalists, translators.

The article examines the key differences and similarities between political and diplomatic discourses, their goals, functions, as well as linguistic features. Particular emphasis is placed on the analysis of lexical and grammatical means used in both discourses and their role in achieving communicative goals. Political discourse is oriented towards a mass audience and is aimed at attracting support and shaping public opinion. In contrast, diplomatic discourse is characterized by restraint, neutrality and a desire to find compromises in interstate interactions. Diplomatic and political discourse have many intersections, and they complement each other, but their communicative acts and goals differ a lot. The differences and similarities considered allows to gain a deeper understanding of the mechanisms of communication in these areas and their impact on public perception and international relations. The study employs methods of content analysis, discourse analysis, comparative analysis and lingua-stylistic analysis. The results reveal the main stylistic features and communicative functions of each type of discourse. The obtained results allow us to deepen our understanding of the essence and role of political and diplomatic discourses in modern society, and they can also be useful for specialists in the field of political linguistics, international relations, intercultural communication and translation.

The article focuses on the analysis of political discourse, which penetrates the modern society. Political discourse is made up by politicians. Under the framework of cognitive and communicative paradigm political discourse is a complex communicative phenomenon which is directly or indirectly aimed at distributing, exercising the political power and winning the majority of votes during election campaigns. The article yields the results of the analysis of communicative strategies in the political discourse of US President-elect Joe Biden during the presidential race and in his inaugural address. The focus is on the notion of persuasion, persuasive communicative strategies and tactics in political discourse. Persuasion, as a linguistic and cognitive process, is addressed to make a communicative impact on the addressee with the aim to convince him/her to support certain ideas. Persuasion is an illocutionary characteristic of persuasive communicative strategies. The research concludes that a persuasive impact on the audience is made by the tactics of contrast, generalization, reference to authority, and also myth-making. The tactic of contrast is based on semantic polarization. With the help of the generalization tactic the appeal to collective addressee as well as society solidarization are realized. The tactic of reference to authority is represented, on the one hand, by the appeal to religious context, on the other hand, by the appeal to famous historical figures. Historical background is also the basis for myth-making. The main pragmatic aim of the political discourse of US President is a call for unity and respect of democratic values.

The article is devoted to the specifics of the use of linguistic influence techniques by the American mass media involved in the bipartisan political discourse. The article provides an overview of research related to the confrontation in political discourse, as well as the direct involvement of the media in political processes. The conclusion is made about the bias of many modern media and their use of manipulative techniques to influence the audience. A brief historical summary is given of the two main opposition parties in the United States, the history of their emergence and the ongoing confrontation since then. The news releases of the pro-Republican Fox News channel (hosted by Jesse Watters) and the prodemocratic MSNBC (hosted by Jen Psaki) devoted to the re-election of Donald Trump were selected as the material for the analysis. The study uses the classification of communicative strategies in political discourse by O.L. Mikhaleva, as well as the «classic» American list of manipulative influence techniques. The article makes use of general scientific methods, descriptive method, method of discursive analysis, contextual analysis, interpretive method, methods of comparative analysis. The author comes to the conclusion that none of the presenters adhered to the standard of impartial news broadcasting, on the contrary, both actively used communication strategies in order to influence the public. The article describes the similarities and differences in the choice of manipulative tactics and techniques by opposition commentators, most of which are aimed at denigrating the opponent. The same political event is given a diametrically opposed assessment by media representatives, which makes it difficult for the voter to make a choice. The analysis of political confrontation discourse in American entertainment television shows seems promising in terms of further research of this topic.

The article is devoted to the specifics of the use of linguistic influence techniques by the American mass media involved in the bipartisan political discourse. The article provides an overview of research related to the confrontation in political discourse, as well as the direct involvement of the media in political processes. The conclusion is made about the bias of many modern media and their use of manipulative techniques to influence the audience. A brief historical summary is given of the two main opposition parties in the United States, the history of their emergence and the ongoing confrontation since then. The news releases of the pro-Republican Fox News channel (hosted by Jesse Watters) and the prodemocratic MSNBC (hosted by Jen Psaki) devoted to the re-election of Donald Trump were selected as the material for the analysis. The study uses the classification of communicative strategies in political discourse by O.L. Mikhaleva, as well as the «classic» American list of manipulative influence techniques. The article makes use of general scientific methods, descriptive method, method of discursive analysis, contextual analysis, interpretive method, methods of comparative analysis. The author comes to the conclusion that none of the presenters adhered to the standard of impartial news broadcasting, on the contrary, both actively used communication strategies in order to influence the public. The article describes the similarities and differences in the choice of manipulative tactics and techniques by opposition commentators, most of which are aimed at denigrating the opponent. The same political event is given a diametrically opposed assessment by media representatives, which makes it difficult for the voter to make a choice. The analysis of political confrontation discourse in American entertainment television shows seems promising in terms of further research of this topic.

Drawing on recent Political Discourse Analysis (PDA) approaches that map text over relevant context as supported by Van Dijk (2006), in this research, it was tried to follow this research route. The main intention was to look at political discourse via the lenses of PDA to see whether ideologies and power relations of interlocutors in the target setting of this study could have possibly been aligned with linguistic elements-here rhetorical devices and to see to what extent such text-context mapping is recognized as relevant to language tools within the selected datasets. Accordingly, the researcher tried to follow a sample of political talk- live 2008 US presidential debates- among two Republic vs. Democratic campaigns. To do so, some political strategies for argumentation including Van Dijk’s model representing 'Authority', 'Topos or burden', 'Future Representations’, ‘Comparison', 'Consensus', 'Counterfactuals', 'populism’, 'generalizations', and 'number Games' were mapped over some linguistic rhetorical devices such as ‘metaphor’, ‘hyperbole’, ‘irony’, ‘euphemism’, etc. The common discoursal moves in Obama’s vs. McCain's speech statements were compared and contrasted among similar strategies to find any emergent rhetorical devices. Findings indicated that 1) the political candidates had made use of rhetorical and political moves in tandem within the same propositional units, 2) some employed discourse devices were paralleled with the majority of political strategies like repetition and metaphor, and 3) some political strategies had been used to excess like 'comparison’, 'populism' and 'future representation’ respectively.

The article is devoted to the analysis of emotional language as a key tool of political discourse that determines the nature of speech influence and the formation of public opinion. Emotional language is considered not just as an expressive means, but as an important mechanism for constructing meanings. In today's mediatized politics, emotions are becoming a powerful resource for influencing the electorate: they help politicians build trust, increase engagement, and evoke an emotional response from the audience. The research is based on the provisions of modern political linguistics, pragmatics and discourse analysis, which consider language as a tool of persuasion and manipulation. Using the example of Donald Trump's 2016 speech, it is shown that emotionally colored words and expressions perform the function of not only enhancing expression, but also structuring a political message, setting a framework of interpretation for listeners and forming a stable emotional image of a politician. The evaluation analysis model developed by J. Martin and P. White is used as the main method. Within the framework of this approach, all emotionally colored units of speech are identified, classified into three categories – affect (emotions), judgment (assessment of human behavior) and appreciation (assessment of phenomena and objects), and their quantitative and qualitative analysis is carried out. The scientific novelty of the study lies in the fact that for the first time the model of evaluative analysis by J. Martin and P. White was applied to the study of emotional language in political discourse based on the material of Donald Trump's 2016 speech. This approach made it possible to identify patterns of the use of emotionally colored vocabulary and to determine its role in the formation of moral and ideological assessments. The analysis showed that emotional language performs not only an expressive, but also a strategic function – it is used to construct a political identity, mobilize support, create a positive image of a politician and discredit opponents. Special attention is paid to the category of judgment, especially its subcategory social sanction, reflecting moral judgments and social expectations. The results obtained clarify the ideas about the pragmatic potential of evaluative vocabulary and demonstrate its importance for shaping political influence in modern conditions. The findings of the study can be used in a comparative analysis of emotional language in different cultural and historical contexts.

Children’s literature is recently regarded as an emergent vehicle for the expression of opposing political views (Simpson, 2020), becoming an up-and-coming part of contemporary political discourse. To examine the discursive properties of agendas and political discourse in fairy tales and their translation particulars, this study adopts the political and critical discourse analysis (Schäffner, 2004; Van Dijk, 2003) with the method of micro-textual lexis analysis and macro social-historical analysis. It is found that: 1) political discourse in children’s literature exhibits a marked discursive property of substantial adjective usage; 2) denotation expansion, trivialization, and contrast explicitation are three recurrent translation strategies under the strategic functions of dissimulation and delegitimization; 3) translation initiation manifests political awareness with local, ideological, and political implications. The study, with a specific focus on the Chinese context, foregrounds the empowerment of translation with local, ideological, and political implications, highlighting the delicate strategies adopted by translators in a likewise delicate genre of children’s literature.

The notion of shameless normalization is applied in the paper to argue that the Serbian ruling party’s press releases introduce shameless normalization of expressing sycophancy toward the leader. Within the framework of critical (political) discourse analysis postulating that social actors’ use of language is vested with interests that need to be linguistically managed, the paper focuses on how the proposed strategies in political discourse – coercion, legitimisation and (mis)representation – manage the interest of the authors of press releases in realization of sycophancy. The analysis shows that the shameless normalization of sycophancy is realized by coercing the recipients to accept the exclusive right of the leader to represent the homogenized people of Serbia (the ingroup). This exclusive right is legitimized through positive representation of the leader as the self of the ingroup. Such legitimisation is enabled by misrepresentation both in terms of quality and quantity of the information conveyed.