Instituto de Estudios Políticos y Derecho Público "Dr. Humberto J. La Roche"
de la Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas de la Universidad del Zulia
Maracaibo, Venezuela
Esta publicación cientíca en formato digital es continuidad de la revista impresa
ISSN-Versión Impresa 0798-1406 / ISSN-Versión on line 2542-3185Depósito legal pp
197402ZU34
ppi 201502ZU4645
Vol.39 N° 70
2021
ISSN 0798- 1406 ~ De pó si to le gal pp 198502ZU132
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas
La re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas, es una pu bli ca ción aus pi cia da por el Ins ti tu to
de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co “Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che” (IEPDP) de la Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas de la Uni ver si dad del Zu lia.
En tre sus ob je ti vos fi gu ran: con tri buir con el pro gre so cien tí fi co de las Cien cias
Hu ma nas y So cia les, a tra vés de la di vul ga ción de los re sul ta dos lo gra dos por sus in ves-
ti ga do res; es ti mu lar la in ves ti ga ción en es tas áreas del sa ber; y pro pi ciar la pre sen ta-
ción, dis cu sión y con fron ta ción de las ideas y avan ces cien tí fi cos con com pro mi so so cial.
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas apa re ce dos ve ces al año y pu bli ca tra ba jos ori gi na les con
avan ces o re sul ta dos de in ves ti ga ción en las áreas de Cien cia Po lí ti ca y De re cho Pú bli-
co, los cua les son so me ti dos a la con si de ra ción de ár bi tros ca li fi ca dos.
ESTA PU BLI CA CIÓN APA RE CE RE SE ÑA DA, EN TRE OTROS ÍN DI CES, EN
:
Re vicyhLUZ, In ter na tio nal Po li ti cal Scien ce Abs tracts, Re vis ta In ter ame ri ca na de
Bi blio gra fía, en el Cen tro La ti no ame ri ca no para el De sa rrol lo (CLAD), en Bi blio-
gra fía So cio Eco nó mi ca de Ve ne zue la de RE DIN SE, In ter na tio nal Bi blio graphy of
Po li ti cal Scien ce, Re vencyt, His pa nic Ame ri can Pe rio di cals In dex/HAPI), Ul ri ch’s
Pe rio di cals Di rec tory, EBS CO. Se en cuen tra acre di ta da al Re gis tro de Pu bli ca cio-
nes Cien tí fi cas y Tec no ló gi cas Ve ne zo la nas del FO NA CIT, La tin dex.
Di rec to ra
L
OIRALITH
M. C
HIRINOS
P
ORTILLO
Co mi té Edi tor
Eduviges Morales Villalobos
Fabiola Tavares Duarte
Ma ría Eu ge nia Soto Hernández
Nila Leal González
Carmen Pérez Baralt
Co mi té Ase sor
Pedro Bracho Grand
J. M. Del ga do Ocan do
José Ce rra da
Ri car do Com bel las
An gel Lom bar di
Die ter Nohlen
Al fre do Ra mos Ji mé nez
Go ran Ther born
Frie drich Welsch
Asis ten tes Ad mi nis tra ti vos
Joan López Urdaneta y Nil da Ma rín
Re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas. Av. Gua ji ra. Uni ver si dad del Zu lia. Nú cleo Hu ma nís ti co. Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas. Ins ti tu to de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co
“Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che”. Ma ra cai bo, Ve ne zue la. E- mail: cues tio nes po li ti cas@gmail.
com ~ loi chi ri nos por til lo@gmail.com. Te le fax: 58- 0261- 4127018.
Vol. 39, Nº 70 (2021), 815-831
IEPDP-Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas - LUZ
Recibido el 14/07/2021 Aceptado el 21/08/2021
Linguistic approaches and modern
communication technologies in political
discourses in Europe and the USA
(contrastive aspect)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.46398/cuestpol.3970.49
Nataliia Shkvorchenko *
Irina Cherniaieva **
Nataliya Petlyuchenko ***
Abstract
In this study, we analyze the political discourse of the
United States and Europe in terms of linguistic approaches.
Among the methods we use are systemic, structural, functional,
content analysis, discourse analysis and thesaurus method. Its
application took place within the theory of discourse. The study
found that the main dierence between the political discourses of
Europe and the United States are the forms and means of communication,
the formats of their distribution and the massive indicators of inclusion
of the population (recipient of political discourse) in the communicative
interaction. The dierence is also the centralization and the levels at which
the discourse develops. For example, the focus of political rhetoric on the
institution of the U.S. presidency makes the presidential speech a reection
of public opinion. This is not typical of European countries, as pluralism of
opinion is widespread there, communication takes place at local, regional,
national, and supranational level. In addition, the European identity is in
the process of being deeded. However, both discourses have in common
the commitment to the values of democracy, but they manifest themselves
dierently.
Keywords: political discourse; political communication; communication
technologies; linguistic approaches; comparative politics.
* Candidate of Philological Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of Romano-Germanic Philology and
Methods of Teaching Foreign Languages, International Humanitarian University, Odesa, Ukraine. ORCID ID:
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7146-7244. Email: nmshkvorchenko@gmail.com
** Candidate of Philological Sciences, Associate Professor, Vice-Rector for Scientic and Pedagogical,
Organizational and Educational Work and International Relations of the Odesa National Music Academy named
after A. V. Nezhdanova, Ukraine. Vicerector. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0703-4548. Email: irina.
cherniaieva@gmail.com
*** Doctor of Philology, Professor, Head of the Department of Foreign Languages of the Odesa National Music
Academy named after A. V. Nezhdanova, Ukraine. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8089-2947. Email:
natalja.petljutschenko@onua.edu.ua
816
Nataliia Shkvorchenko, Irina Cherniaieva y Nataliya Petlyuchenko
Linguistic approaches and modern communication technologies in political discourses in Europe
and the USA (contrastive aspect)
Enfoques lingüísticos y tecnologías modernas de la
comunicación en los discursos políticos en Europa y EE.
UU (Aspecto comparativo)
Resumen
En este estudio, analizamos el discurso político de Estados Unidos
y Europa en términos de enfoques lingüísticos. Entre los métodos que
utilizamos se encuentran el sistémico, estructural, funcional, análisis de
contenido, análisis del discurso y método de tesauro. Su aplicación tuvo
lugar dentro de la teoría del discurso. El estudio encontró que la principal
diferencia entre los discursos políticos de Europa y Estados Unidos son las
formas y medios de comunicación, los formatos de su distribución y los
indicadores masivos de inclusión de la población (receptora del discurso
político) en la interacción comunicativa. La diferencia es también la
centralización y los niveles en los que se desarrolla el discurso. Por ejemplo,
el enfoque de la retórica política en la institución de la presidencia de
Estados Unidos hace que el discurso presidencial sea un reejo de la opinión
pública. Esto no es típico de los países europeos, ya que el pluralismo de
opinión está muy extendido allí, la comunicación tiene lugar a nivel local,
regional, nacional y supranacional. Además, la identidad europea está en
proceso de formación. Sin embargo, ambos discursos tienen en común
el compromiso con los valores de la democracia, pero se maniestan de
manera diferente.
Palabras clave: discurso político; comunicación política; tecnologías
de la comunicación; enfoques lingüísticos; política
comparada.
Introduction
Language exists and inuences us from two positions. First, it is a social
entity and at the same time contributes to social organization. It performs
a number of functions. In particular, among them: identication, aesthetic
function, nominative, cultural, etc. Political discourse analysis today is a
promising area of research. The very concept of discourse has Latin origins
(from latin discursus - “conversation”, “talk”). Today, it refers to any
phenomenon of speech reality that has features, functions, and structure
(Pavlutska, 2008). In turn, such a eld of research as text linguistics
analyzes language in its practical dimension based on the laws inherent in
any text (Ozadovska, 2004).
Berger & Luckmann (1967), Dreher (2016) were among the rst to talk
about the possibility of language structures to inuence the formation of
power structures. They analyzed the extent to which what we call the real
817
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 70 (2021): 815-831
world can be socially constructed and what factors inuence it. In particular,
they point to the possibility of social mobilization under the inuence of
political factors with the use of communication technologies.
In this study, we attempted to analyze the political discourses of the
United States and Europe as the world’s leading democratic leaders based on
linguistic approaches and the use of modern communication technologies.
1. Theoretical Framework or Literature Review
Many publications in domestic (Arbeláez-Campillo et al., 2020; Sarani
and Dehshiri, 2019) and foreign journals are devoted to the issues of
discourse in general and political discourse in particular. The denition
of discourse, according to van Dijk (2006a), has become widespread in
academia. Consequently, discourse should be understood as a text in
context – suitable data for empirical analysis (critical discourse analysis).
According to Fairclough (1995), discourse is a broader concept than the text,
because it covers the circumstances of speech, the intentions of the speaker,
the expectations of the addressee / recipient / client, their relationship with
the addressee; includes environment, context, style of speech.
As van Dijk (2006b) points out, political elites are aware of the methods
and means of struggle used in political discourse and are ready to defend
their positions by tarnishing the reputation of their opponents. In his view,
the characterization of discourse as political requires the presence of such
parties as politicians and recipients (van Dijk, 1997). Interesting, from his
point of view, is the position, according to which it is not necessary to use an
incomplete informative picture and gurative, veiled expressions to convince
the public of an already legitimized policy strategy. At the same time, the
legitimation of controversial views is most often carried out through hints,
omissions, and sometimes even double-meaning jokes (van Dijk, 2006a).
Fairclough (1995) points out that for such hidden intentions to become part
of political discourse, they must acquire ideological features. The ideology,
in this case, is the social reality that exists in the minds of a group of people
who share common ideals, values, and, most importantly, beliefs (van Dijk,
1998). According to van Dijk (1993), political discourse is a reection of
the social reality in which the concepts of power and dominance prevail.
To establish this connection, political actors can use the polarization “we”
against “them” to emphasize their strengths and weaknesses opponents.
In her work, Kovaleva (2020) conducted a study of the views of Ukrainian
and foreign linguists on the concept, typology, types, functions of political
discourse. Accordingly, it is possible to give the following precedents
regarding the denition of political discourse from the point of view of
dierent researchers. For example, Serazhim (2002) points out that political
818
Nataliia Shkvorchenko, Irina Cherniaieva y Nataliya Petlyuchenko
Linguistic approaches and modern communication technologies in political discourses in Europe
and the USA (contrastive aspect)
discourse is a text conditioned by a situation of political communication. A
similar denition was proposed by Arutyunova (1990), who believes that
immersion in communication is a discourse. According to Kondratenko
(2007), political discourse should be understood as a communicative act
of interaction between participants in political communication. From the
point of view of Sheigal (2000), discourse is a sign formation that in the
real dimension has verbal and nonverbal features of expression, and in the
virtual has extralinguistic. Kryvyi (2001) notes that political discourse is a
coherent text expressed through verbal and nonverbal means, immersed
in an extralinguistic environment. Moreover, Vashchuk (2007) adds that it
also has its pragmatic expression or orientation. Slavova (2012) guides the
factors of traditionalism and established practice of discourse in politics and
public communication. Kasiyan (2014) agrees with it and adds that political
discourse should be considered as a socio-political phenomenon. According
to Kovaleva herself (2020), political discourse is a communicative event,
the components of which are the text (in written or oral form), the social
context, and the addressee. Extralinguistic features play a signicant role
in the nature of political discourse. For example, the status of the speaker,
the situation of the speech, style, means of communication, time and
place of the event, purpose, and goals of communication, expectations of
the audience, etc. Technology allows political discourse to manifest itself
directly or indirectly, at the time of communication (public speaking, face-
to-face communication with voters) or on television, video, audio, etc.
The use of social networks in political discourse (conducting polls, posts,
reposts, links, likes, etc.) has made it more widespread and ecient.
1. Methodology
We applied a systematic method to demonstrate the interaction of
communicative elements such as verbal, nonverbal, and extralinguistic
factors and their importance in shaping the concept of discourse in general
and political discourse in particular. Its use can be found in sections on
political discourse in the United States and Europe, specically in places
where elements of political discourse are discussed.
Moreover, we used the structural method to show the construction of
discourse. For example, it is explained that political discourse consists
of the addressee, speech (written or oral text), the context in which it is
immersed, ways and means of communicative interaction (communicative
act), other factors of extralinguistic nature.
Further, the authors practiced the functional method to demonstrate
the role of political discourse in public communication, the role of mass
media in shaping and maintaining political discourse, the functions of
819
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 70 (2021): 815-831
political discourse, such as power struggles, information, communication
with voters, ideological function, value orientation, agitation (propaganda),
image function, etc.
Besides, discourse analysis and content analysis are utilized to analyze
quantitative characteristics, language tools, linguistic techniques in political
discourse, in particular, the 46th President of the United States – Joseph
Biden.
The researchers managed the thesaurus method to focus on denitions
of linguistic units. For example, its use can be seen in the sections devoted
to researchers’ views on the concept of discourse, political discourse, and
on the role of metaphors and their use in political discourse.
The methods we used for the research were applied in the framework of
discourse theory.
2. Results and Discussion
The limits of the study. What is political discourse?
The author of the theory of discourse is considered to be Benveniste
(1966, 1971). From his point of view, discourse should be understood not
only as impersonal, objectively existing linguistic material, but also as
a communicative situation where there is a speaker and the addressee,
and communication itself is carried out through active actions of the
speaker using linguistic means. Discourse can also be seen as an act of
communication in the course of its interaction with the context. In a narrow
sense, discourse focuses on the analysis of linguistic communication.
The lens of research on political discourse includes texts of speeches,
interviews, statements of politicians, political experts, programs of political
parties, publications in the media, materials of specialized political
science publications. Political discourse belongs to the institutional form
of communication (Sheigal, 2004). It is status-oriented and is divided
into representatives of institutions and clients. The client of political
communication is a mass “consumer”. Political discourse is not isolated
and is intertwined with other types of discourses, such as legal, scientic,
artistic, etc. Peculiarities of political discourse that form its structure
are institutionality, the predominance of values over facts, semantic
uncertainty, ideological polysemy, deism, and esotericism (Akinchyts,
2007). According to some researchers, political discourse tends to
authoritarianism and distancing itself from the masses (Sheigal, 2004).
However, current research on populism in politics shows that the main
element of communication between such politicians is the formation of the
820
Nataliia Shkvorchenko, Irina Cherniaieva y Nataliya Petlyuchenko
Linguistic approaches and modern communication technologies in political discourses in Europe
and the USA (contrastive aspect)
image of “their man”, closeness to the people, and, conversely, distancing
and criticism of government institutions and professional politicians
with experience in government (Protsenko, 2018). Political discourse is
the object of study in various elds of knowledge. For example, political
science is interested in the inuence of discourse on the political process,
philologists are interested in it as a living text. A popular area of research
is political philology, which explores the relationship of discourse with the
concepts of power, inuence, authority. Sheigal (2004) notes that it is not
easy to unambiguously distinguish political discourse from others because
there are points of intersection with other types. For example, if a political
gure creates a publication in the media or writes a scientic monograph,
the question of the limits of discourse arises (Akinchyts, 2007). In this
sense, categorization can be carried out based on the direction of speech or
by meeting the criteria inherent in political discourse. For example, when it
comes to values, national identication, etc. In addition, there is a view that
political discourse covers all ways of communication of political gures, that
is, if the party to the communicative act is a politician, it is likely to speak
of political discourse because politics is always public (Akinchyts, 2007).
The history of oral political discourse has been studied since ancient
Greek times (Averintsev, 1996). A signicant element of it was oratory:
clarity of speech, relevance to the topic, the importance of time and place,
the perfection of form, persuasiveness, and naturalness. The oral form of
discourse is personal. Behind this is the individuality of the speaker, as well
as the specic language tools he uses. These can be both verbal, nonverbal,
and extralinguistic techniques. The main feature of written political
discourse is the formal reproduction, xation on material media.
Political discourse is a kind of argumentative practice (Akinchyts, 2007).
The main dierence from other such practices is the appeal of political
discourse to the values of recipients / clients. Propaganda stands out in
a special kind of belief in political discourse as a means of manipulating
people’s minds with various kinds of information and language
(Sharapanovska, 2016). Appeal to the addressee’s value orientation is used
through concepts such as equality, justice, freedom, democracy, etc. In this
case, the evaluation characteristic can be both positive and have negative
connotations, depending on the goal set by the speaker.
The purpose of argumentation in political discourse is the formation
of the value orientation of the addressees (Akinchyts, 2007). Usually,
persuasion is achieved through the comparison of antonymous units.
Most often, politicians can hear comparisons of the achievements of their
administration and their predecessors. In addition, a frequent technique is
the use of comparative vocabulary in the context of record achievements:
“one of the rst”, “has no analogs in the world”, “for the rst time in history”,
etc.
821
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 70 (2021): 815-831
Features of political discourse of the United States
The United States is characterized by the stability of democratic
institutions. At one time, Fomenko (1998) noted that in the formation
of political discourse in the United States, the activities of public
administration, speeches of presidents, communication with society are
carefully thought out, their goal is to create a positive image of the state,
strengthen faith in democracy and democratic institutions. The media
play a signicant role in this. The researcher described social factors
as conscious, synchronous, microsocial, and positive. Extralinguistic
factors such as ideology, propaganda, mass communication, the feminist
movement, and the struggle of ethnic minorities for their rights are also
important in American political discourse (ibid). It is also characterized by
the expansion of terminology due to derivatives of word-forming bases or
established phrases. The formation of nouns, adjectives, and verbs based
on the names of politicians is common. For example, “Reaganomics”,
“Bushism”, “Trumpism”, etc.
The axiological nature of American political discourse is shaped by
value tokens. They elicit a positive cognitive response in recipients. Public
communication needs to adhere to political correctness. For example, ethno-
social discourse on minorities and women requires special adherence to
ethical standards. Political correctness, as noted by Morris (2001), refers to
intentional correction of speech to avoid ambiguous and negative reactions
of recipients. Speech techniques that are most often used by public gures to
suggest recipients are repetition, contrast and opposition, metaphorization,
creating a positive evaluation perspective to cover their own activities and
negative - for the activities of opponents (Fomenko, 1998). Presidential
discourse is formed on the basis of one’s own achievements. The use of
personal pronouns such as “we”, “they”, “our”, etc., is a means of creating an
appropriate cognitive eect in the minds of recipients of political discourse
(Proctor, Lily, & Su, 2011). In turn, this can serve as a basis for consolidation
with some social groups in opposition to others. The issue of consolidation
in political discourse becomes especially relevant during elections. During
this period, a politician needs to demonstrate identication with a group
of people whose interests he seeks to defend. At the same time, it is
advantageous for both candidates, who usually nd themselves in a race for
oce, to clearly distinguish between them, separate political programs with
their own characteristics, so that voters can clearly distinguish the policies
of one candidate from another and choose their own.
В Metaphors play an essential role in the communication of public
gures and their potential voters (Musol, 2004). For communication to
be successful and metaphors to be clear to their recipients, it is necessary
that there is a correspondence between what the addressee wanted to say
and the consciousness, knowledge, experience of the recipients. Ideally, if
822
Nataliia Shkvorchenko, Irina Cherniaieva y Nataliya Petlyuchenko
Linguistic approaches and modern communication technologies in political discourses in Europe
and the USA (contrastive aspect)
communication between them is successful, the aspirations and expectations
of the politician and his support groups are exactly the same. Metaphors,
in public discourse, can be analyzed using the methods of content analysis,
intent analysis, semantic and stylistic methods. For example, in his speech
on November 8, 2020, then President-elect Biden used the metaphors of
unity, equality, and freedom for US citizens (Rahayu, Suastini, & Jayantini,
2021; Siregar, 2021). Later, in his inaugural address, the President used
metaphors for the unity and reconstruction of America. For example, the
metaphor of the United States as a guide to freedom of speech for the whole
world was heard. Repetitions are also used: “much to do, much to heal,
much to restore”, паралелізми: “listen to one another again, hear one
another, see one another. Show respect to one another” (Biden, 2021).
Most often, in his speech, Joe Biden used the pronouns we, our, us to
emphasize unity with the American people, thus speaking on his behalf
and in his honor. Words such as unity, one nation, together, join forces, all
Americans were used to support this idea. According to some researchers, this
speech served more to express their own ideological position than to convey
the message (Masalova, 2021). The speeches of American presidents usually
include 11 topics, including political succession, the role of the President as
a defender of the Constitution, national unity, support for the people, civic
duty, the American mission, God, basic policy principles, cooperation with
Congress. Joe Biden’s inaugural speech performs a persuasive (persuasive)
function, carefully selecting vocabulary and inuencing the emotional and
value spheres of the recipients’ consciousness (Ananko, 2021; Masalova,
2021).
The institution of the US presidency tends to be the embodiment of
public opinion in the country. The President is expected to respond to
current and future challenges.
Legitimization (from the Latin “legitimus” - legitimate) is a component
of any political discourse. It comes from the Latin “lex / legis”, i.e.,
law / agreement. The semantics of “justication” is used concerning
legitimization outside of legal jargon. For example, if in political discourse
we use the semantic construction “if they do one thing, then there will be
responsibility - and it will be fair”, then there is a legitimation of the use of
coercion under certain initial conditions based on values, in this case - on
the principle justice and the inevitability of punishment. Examples from
personal experience can also be used as a method of legitimization. For
example, “I have been convinced by my own experience”, “my life experience
tells me”, “I know it because I was there”, “at my age”, “I have witnessed
it”, etc. A separate category of research on political discourse in the United
States is the legitimization of racism, for example, when accusing a victim
of discrimination based on skin color or ethnicity (Reyes, 2011).
823
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 70 (2021): 815-831
A crucial aspect of the public activities of political gures in the United
States is the issue of representation. The formation of political discourse
in this aspect is through the creation of an appropriate image, which
is a reection of the interests of the audience on the one hand and the
desire to meet these requirements on the part of the political actor. Thus,
these two vectors meet and are embodied in its image, through which
units of information are transmitted, which are certain messages for the
audience. For example, recent discourse analysis shows that the main
messages of US President Joe Biden’s 46th President are are slogans of
American reconstruction (“build back better”), consolidation, reunication
(“together”), and recovery (“heal”) (Ananko, 2021; Masalova, 2021; Siregar,
2021).
Communication on Twitter is mostly asynchronous, which means that
political discourse can sometimes get carried away by discussing a tweet
or other post a long time ago. For example, this is typical of the election
period, when controversial tweets of political opponents become a tool to
combat them (Kruikemeier, 2014; Masroor, Khan, Aib, & Ali, 2019). The
use of political discourse analysis in social networks is a promising area of
research for new forms of communication between public administration
and the general public (“mass reader”) (Bouvier, 2015).
The main thing for American politicians on Twitter is to form a clear
and concise message, respond quickly to news, productive feedback from
voters, attract as many supporters as possible, spread their inuence,
and maintain an attractive image (Enli & Skogerbø, 2013; Hwang, 2013;
Schneiker, 2019).
Political discourse in European countries
When it comes to the political discourse of the European Union, several
problems arise. For example, how to form public communication when we
are dealing with a supranational entity that has long since ceased to be a
regional economic partnership organization? The problem of forming a
single European identity is even deeper because the EU consists of countries
with dierent cultures, economies, and national components. The question
arises, how should political discourse be formed for communication to
contribute to the goals of European integration and be successful? To whom
should lexical devices be addressed? Which of them should be applied and
nd an emotional and value response in the EU?
It is no secret that discourse theory develops based on linguistics,
which uses the achievements of cognitive sciences. In this sense, cognitive-
discourse analysis can be applied to the political discourse of European
countries (Shcholokova, 2014). The study of concepts encoded in language
makes it possible to study them using the tools of cognitive linguistics
824
Nataliia Shkvorchenko, Irina Cherniaieva y Nataliya Petlyuchenko
Linguistic approaches and modern communication technologies in political discourses in Europe
and the USA (contrastive aspect)
(Maslova, 2008). In this regard, it is possible to identify key concepts in the
political discourse of European countries. These include: regionalization,
supranationality, intergovernmentalism, Europeanization, European
identity, etc. (Shcholokova, 2014). Shcholokova (2014) uses terms such
as deepening and widening concerning the European integration public
debate.
Thus, the researcher points out the importance of dialogue for the
further development of the political movement and institutional processes
in Europe. A feature of the political discourse of European countries is the
dierent approach to European integration dialogue. Its characteristic
is uidity. This means that, depending on the conditions of the socio-
economic and historical development of a particular European country,
the mood in the context of European integration dialogue depends. For
example, when Euroscepticism prevails in one part of Europe, the other
makes every eort to overcome obstacles to European integration (Leconte,
2010). The unifying factor is that both countries are in the framework of a
public European integration debate.
The political discourse of Europe is characterized by signicant
decentralization. At rst glance, this could be called fragmentation, but the
positive aspect of regional and local dierences is the common European
values that unite dierent European cultures. In addition, the supranational
nature of the EU guarantees a common framework of legal regulation that
brings together diverse points of view under one roof. Thus, in the context
of pluralism of opinion, it is appropriate to talk about decentralization as a
feature of the political discourse of European countries.
The semantic oppositions encountered by participants in the political
discourse of European countries include such concepts as: independence –
complex interdependency; cooperation – rivalry; the principle of unanimity
– the principle of majority; state sovereignty – supranationalism; elitism
- democracy; national kinship – cultural diversity; European identity –
national identity; consolidation of the Union – enlargement of the Union
(Smolyakov, 2010).
Vectors for the development of interaction between the national and
supranational political discourse of European countries can be divided
into integration and disintegration. They correspond to the concepts of
Europeanization and nationalization (domestication) (Shcholokova, 2014).
According to Strezhneva (2005), Europeanization should be understood as
the process of creating, disseminating, and institutionalizing formal and
informal rules, procedures, political paradigms, styles, common norms,
and beliefs, which are rst enshrined in decision-making at the EU level
and then translated into national political discourse.
825
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 70 (2021): 815-831
Regarding the formation of the political discourse of European countries
by the media, the concepts of framing are used, i.e., the formation of the
agenda, a specic or a specic agenda. The main issue in this sense is the
possibility of forming a pan-European media as opposed to successfully
operating in the national communicative space. Indicative in this respect is
the coverage of the activities of EU structures and institutions by national
media. In this aspect, the discourse analysis helps to highlight the features
of European integration sentiments, which are broadcast by the media
concerning the above structures and institutions.
Conclusions
The political discourse can be divided into its participants, such as
the addressee, verbal, nonverbal, and extralinguistic components of the
expression. Political discourse is institutional, consisting of subdiscourses.
The media and mass communications (in particular, social networks
and messengers) play a signicant role in the formation and functioning
of political discourse. Under the inuence of this, the boundaries of
political discourse are constantly moving towards other types of discourse.
Political discourse is rhetorical, emotional, manipulative, dynamic, ritual,
value-oriented. Its typology is inuenced by the purpose and form of
communication, the gures of the addressee, the sphere of functioning,
the type of communicative interaction. Political discourse, in the narrow
sense, comes from political institutions. It is broadly related to political
issues and may come from non-professionals. The central function of
political discourse is the power struggle, to which its derivative roles such
as information (communication), unication, agitation (propaganda,
advertising), etc. are subordinated.
The dierences between the political discourses of Europe and the United
States are the inuence of the democratic traditions and institutions of each
country, the means and ways of supporting the discourse. The institution
of the US presidency has a great inuence on the formation of political
discourse. The President himself reects public opinion in the country
on several issues. He has hopes to address current and future challenges,
adjusting political discourse. In contrast, decentralization and pluralism of
decision-makers prevail in Europe. This is also reected in the dierent
levels of discourse: supranational (pan-European) and national. This
approach does not apply to American political discourse because it already
has a clear American identity. Democratic values are a unifying factor in
American and European political discourses. Ways and means of supporting
discourses are the same, but, due to demographic, sociological, and other
reasons, popular social networks in the United States have a greater impact
on political discourse than in Europe. On the European continent, social
826
Nataliia Shkvorchenko, Irina Cherniaieva y Nataliya Petlyuchenko
Linguistic approaches and modern communication technologies in political discourses in Europe
and the USA (contrastive aspect)
networks tend to play an informative role in political discourse, while in
the United States it is a full-edged and massive platform for political
communication, agitation, self-promotion, and debate. The goals and
objectives of political actors are common to Europe and the United States
and are to gain and / or retain power, spread their authority, and eectively
manage and communicate (eective feedback) with citizens.
Bibliographic References
AKINCHYTS, Nazar. 2007. “Political discourse as an object of scientic
analysis” In: Problems of modern linguistics. No. 1, pp. 72-26.
Available online. In: http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/bitstream/
handle/123456789/54472/19kinchits.pdf?sequence=1. Date of
consultation: 14/08/2020.
ANANKO, Tetiana. 2021. “Persuasion strategies in Joe Biden’s political
discourse” In: Bulletin of the KNLU. Series: Philology. Vol 24, No. 1, pp.
9-15. Available online. In: http://philmessenger.knlu.edu.ua/article/
view/235921. Date of consultation: 14/08/2020.
ARBELÁEZ-CAMPILLO, Diego; TATSIY Vasyl; ROJAS-BAHAMÓN, Magda;
DANILYAN, Oleg. 2020. “Contributions of Critical Thinking as a Form
of Participation and Political Deliberation” In: Amazonia Investiga.
Vol. 9, No. 27, pp. 5-12. Available online. In: https://doi.org/10.34069/
AI/2020.27.03.1. Date of consultation: 14/08/2020.
ARUTYUNOVA, Nataliia. 1990. Discourse. In Linguistic Encyclopedic
Dictionary. Soviet Encyclopedia. Moscow, Russia.
AVERINTSEV, Serhii. 1996. Rhetoric and origins of the European literary
tradition. Moscow: Languages of Russian culture. Available online.
In: http://predanie.clients-cdnnow.ru/uploads/ftp/averincev-sergey-
ser/ritorika-i-istoki-evropeyskoy-literaturnoy-tradi/ritorika-i-istoki-
ievropieiskoi-litierat-avierintsiev.pdf. Date of consultation: 14/08/2020.
BENVENISTE, Emile. 1966. “Problèmes de linguistique générale” In: Les
Etudes Philosophiques. Vol 21, No. 3, pp. 105-107. Available online. In:
https://www.persee.fr/doc/lfr_0023-8368_1969_num_1_1_5409.
Date of consultation: 14/08/2020.
BENVENISTE, Emile. 1971. “Subjectivity in language. Problems in general
linguistics” In: Journal de psychologie. No. 1, pp. 223-230. Available
online. In: https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginle.php/294097/
mod_resource/content/1/Benveniste%20(1).pdf. Date of consultation:
14/10/2020.
827
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 70 (2021): 815-831
BERGER, Peter L; LUCKMANN, Thomas. 1967. The social construction of
reality. Anchor Books. London. Available online. In: http://www.
perensburg.se/Berger%20social-construction-of-reality.pdf. Date of
consultation: 14/10/2020.
BIDEN, Joseph. 2021. Inaugural Address by President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
The White House. Available online. In: https://www.whitehouse.gov/
brieng-room/speeches-remarks/2021/01/20/inaugural-address-by-
president-joseph-r-biden-jr/. Date of consultation: 14/02/2021.
BOUVIER, Gwen. 2015. “What is a discourse approach to Twitter, Facebook,
YouTube and other social media: connecting with other academic
elds?” In: Journal of Multicultural Discourses. Vol 10, No. 2, pp. 149-
162. Available online. In: Doi: 10.1080/17447143.2015.1042381. Date of
consultation: 14/02/2021.
DREHER, Jochen. 2016. “The social construction of power: Reections
beyond Berger/Luckmann and Bourdieu” In: Cultural Sociology. Vol
10. No. 1, pp. 53-68. Available online. In: http://kops.uni-konstanz.
de/bitstream/handle/123456789/32550/Dreher_0-316434.
pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=n. Date of consultation: 14/02/2021.
ENLI, Gun Sara; SKOGERBØ, Eli. 2013. “Personalized campaigns in party-centred
politics: Twitter and Facebook as arenas for political communication”
In: Information, Communication & Society. Vol 16, No. 5, pp. 757-774.
Available online. In: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2013.782330.
Date of consultation: 14/02/2021.
FAIRCLOUGH, Norman. 1995. Critical discourse analysis. Longman. London.
Available online. In: https://www.felsemiotica.com/descargas/
Fairclough-Norman-Critical-Discourse-Analysis.-The-Critical-Study-of-
Language.pdf. Date of consultation: 14/02/2021.
FOMENKO, Olena Stepanovna. 1998. Linguistic analysis of modern US political
discourse (90s of XX century). Doctoral thesis. Taras Shevchenko
National University of Kyiv. Kyiv. Available online. In: http://library.
nuft.edu.ua/ebook/le/10.02.04fomenkoS.pdf. Date of consultation:
10/02/2020.
HWANG, Sungwook. 2013. “The eect of Twitter uses on politicians’ credibility
and attitudes toward politicians” In: Journal of Public Relations
Research. Vol 25, No. 3, pp. 246-258. Available online. In: https://www.
tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1062726X.2013.788445. Date of
consultation: 10/02/2020.
828
Nataliia Shkvorchenko, Irina Cherniaieva y Nataliya Petlyuchenko
Linguistic approaches and modern communication technologies in political discourses in Europe
and the USA (contrastive aspect)
KASIYAN, Anna Vadimivna. 2014. Speech etiquette in modern French socio-
political discourse: linguocognitive and communicative-pragmatic
aspects. Doctoral thesis. Kyiv National Linguistic University. Kyiv.
Available online. In: http://www.disslib.org/movlennyevyi-etyket-
u-suchasnomu-frantsuzkomu-suspilno-politychnomu-dyskursi.html.
Date of consultation: 10/02/2020.
KONDRATENKO, Natalia. 2007. Ukrainian political discourse: textualization
of reality. Black Sea. Odessa. Available online. In: https://www.twirpx.
com/le/2052919/. Date of consultation: 10/02/2020.
KOVALEVA, Olena. 2020. “Political discourse: modern linguistic
interpretations” In: Current issues of the humanities. Vol 27, No. 2,
pp. 101-107. Available online. In: http://www.aphn-journal.in.ua/
archive/27_2020/part_2/16.pdf. Date of consultation: 10/02/2020.
KRUIKEMEIER, Sanne. 2014. How political candidates use Twitter and the
impact on votes. In: Computers in Human Behavior. Vol 34, pp. 131-139.
Available online. In: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.025. Date
of consultation: 10/02/2020.
KRYVYI, Anatolii. 2001. Discourse analysis and modern linguistics. In the
Discourse of Foreign Language Communication. LNU named after I.
Franko. Lviv, Ukraine.
LECONTE, Cécile. 2010. Understanding euroscepticism. Red Globe Press.
Macmillan. Available online. In: https://www.macmillanihe.com/page/
detail/Understanding-Euroscepticism/?K=9780230228078. Date of
consultation: 10/12/2020.
MASALOVA, Maria. 2021. “Rhetorical persuasive strategies in Joe Biden’s
inaugural address: A critical discourse analysis” In: The Scientic
Heritage. Vol 67, No. 4, pp. 65-70.
MASLOVA, Valentina A. 2008. Cognitive linguistics. Minsk: Tetra
Systems. Available online. In: https://platona.net/load/knigi_
po_filosofii/kognitivnye_nauki/maslova_v_a_kognitivnaja_
lingvistika_2008/17-1-0-1466. Date of consultation: 10/12/2020.
MASROOR, Farzana; KHAN, Qintarah. N; AIB, Iman; ALI, Zulqar. 2019.
“Polarization and ideological weaving in Twitter discourse of politicians”
In: Social media + Society. Vol 5, No. 4, pp. 1-4. Available online.
In: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/. Date of consultation:
10/12/2020.
MORRIS, Stephen. 2001. Political correctness. In: Journal of Political Economy.
Vol 109, No. 2, pp. 231-265. Available online. In: https://www.
829
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 70 (2021): 815-831
haverford.edu/sites/default/les/Morris2001.pdf. Date of consultation:
10/12/2020.
MUSOLFF, Andreas. 2004. Metaphor and political discourse.
Analogical Reasoning in Debates about Europe. London: Palgrave
Macmillan. Available online. In: https://www.palgrave.com/gp/
book/9781403933898. Date of consultation: 14/09/2020.
OZADOVSKA, Liydmyla. 2004. “Language in the context of dialogue” In:
Philosophical Thought. No. 3, pp. 22-50.
PAVLUTSKA, Vladyslava. 2008. “Political discourse: features and functions”
In: Bulletin of ZhSU named after I. Franko. No. 39, pp. 218-221. Available
online. In: http://eprints.zu.edu.ua/2446/1/218-221.pdf. Date of
consultation: 14/09/2020.
PROCTOR, Katarzyna; I-WENSU1, Lily. 2011. “The 1st person plural in political
discourse – American politicians in interviews and in a debate” In:
Journal of Pragmatics. Vol 43, No. 13, pp. 3251-3266. Available online. In:
Doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.010. Date of consultation: 14/09/2020.
PROTSENKO, Vitaly. November 11, 2018. “Anthology of populism: the real
cause of people’s love and an eective weapon against Ukrainian
populists” In: Voxukraine. Available online. In: https://voxukraine.org/
longreads/populism/index.html. Date of consultation: 14/09/2020.
RAHAYU, Ni Luh Putri; SUASTINI, Ni Wayan; JAYANTINI, I Gusti Agung
Sri Rwa. 2021. “Political Discourse Structure on Joe Biden’s Acceptance
Speech” In: International Journal of English Learning and Applied
Linguistics. Vol 1, No. 2, pp. 69-87.
REYES, Antonio. 2011. “Strategies of legitimization in political discourse:
From words to actions” In: Discourse & Society. Vol 22, No. 6,
pp. 781-807. Available online. In: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/
viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.861.2997&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Date of
consultation: 14/09/2020.
SARANI, Saeid; DEHSHIRI, Mohammad. 2019. “A Comparative Discourse
Analysis of the American Dream and the China Dream” In: Amazonia
Investiga. No. 8, Vol. 23, pp. 12-22. Available online. In: https://
amazoniainvestiga.info/index.php/amazonia/article/view/855. Date of
consultation: 14/09/2020.
SCHNEIKER, Andrea. 2019. “Telling the story of the superhero and the anti-
politician as president: Donald Trump’s branding on Twitter” In: Political
Studies Review. Vol 17, No. 3, pp. 210-223. Available online. In: https://
doi.org/10.1177/1478929918807712. Date of consultation: 14/09/2020.
830
Nataliia Shkvorchenko, Irina Cherniaieva y Nataliya Petlyuchenko
Linguistic approaches and modern communication technologies in political discourses in Europe
and the USA (contrastive aspect)
SERAZHIM, Kateryna. 2002. Discourse as a sociolinguistic phenomenon:
methodology, architectonics, variability. Kyiv: Taras Shevchenko
National University of Kyiv. ISBN 966 -594-180-1. Available online.
In: https://www.twirpx.com/le/242668/. Date of consultation:
14/09/2020.
SHARAPANOVSKA, Yuliia. 2016. “Theoretical foundations of political
discourse analysis” In: Young Scholar. Vol. 4, No. 31, pp. 428-431.
SHCHOLOKOVA, Anna Vladimirovna. 2014. Features of the EU political
discourse. Available online. In: https://bit.ly/3jCDuxe. Date of
consultation: 14/07/2020.
SHEIGAL, Elena Iosifovna. 2000. “Semiotics of political discourse” In:
Volgograd: Premena. Available online. In: https://cyberleninka.ru/
article/n/2001-02-010-sheygal-e-i-semiotika-politicheskogo-diskursa-
in-t-yazykoznaniya-ran-volgogr-gos-ped-un-t-volgograd-peremena-
2000-368-s-bibliogr-s. Date of consultation: 14/07/2020.
SHEIGAL, Elena Iosifovna. 2004. Semiotics of political discourse. Gnosis.
Moscow, Russia.
SIREGAR, Try. 2021. “The critical discourse analysis on Joe Biden’s elected
president speech” In: Journal of Applied Studies in Language. Vol 5, No.
1, pp. 79-86. Available online. In: http://ojs.pnb.ac.id/index.php/JASL/
article/download/2298/1747/. Date of consultation: 14/05/2021.
SLAVOVA, Liydmyla. 2012. Linguistic personality of the leader in the mirror of
political linguistic personology: USA – Ukraine. Zhytomyr: ZhSU named
after I. Franko. Kiev, Ukraine.
SMOLYAKOV, Vladimir Alexandrovich. 2010. “Political dimension of economic
integration (comparison of European and East Asian models)” In:
Bulletin of KSAEP. Vol 3, No. 48, pp. 23-35. Available online. In: https://
cyberleninka.ru/article/n/politicheskoe-izmerenie-ekonomicheskoy-
integratsii-sravnenie-evropeyskoy-i-vostochnoaziatskoy-modeley. Date
of consultation: 14/05/2021.
STREZHNEVA, Marina Vadimovna. 2005. “Integration and engagement
as tools for global governance” In: International Processes. Vol 3,
No. 1, pp. 17-28. Available online. In: https://mgimo.ru/library/
publications/113529/. Date of consultation: 14/05/2020.
VAN DIJK, Teun, A. 1993. “Principles of critical discourse analysis” In: Discourse
& Society. Vol 4, No. 2, pp. 249-283. Available online. In: https://doi.or
g/10.1177/0957926593004002006. Date of consultation: 14/05/2020.
831
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 70 (2021): 815-831
VAN DIJK, Teun, A. 1997. “What is political discourse analysis?” In: Belgian
Journal of Linguistics. Vol 11, No. 1, pp. 11-52. Available online. In:
https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.11.03dij. Date of consultation: 14/05/2020.
VAN DIJK, Teun, A. 1998. “Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach” In: SAGE.
Available online. In: https://sk.sagepub.com/books/ideology. Date of
consultation: 14/05/2020.
VAN DIJK, Teun, A. 2006a. “Discourse and manipulation” In: Discourse &
Society. Vol 17, No. 2, pp. 359-383.
VAN DIJK, Teun. A. 2006b. “Politics, ideology, and discourse. In Encyclopedia
of Language & Linguistics” In: Elsevier. Available online. In: https://
doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00722-7. Date of consultation:
14/05/2020.
VASHCHUK, Tetiana. 2007. “Political discourse as an object of linguistic
research” In: Bulletin of ZhSU named after I. Franko. No. 33, pp. 182-
185.
www.luz.edu.ve
www.serbi.luz.edu.ve
www.produccioncienticaluz.org
Esta revista fue editada en formato digital y publicada
en octubre de 2021, por el Fondo Editorial Serbiluz,
Universidad del Zulia. Maracaibo-Venezuela
Vol.39 Nº 70