ОБРАЗОВАНИЕ НАУКА И ИННОВАЦИОННЫЕ ИДЕИ В МИРЕ
https://scientific-jl.org/obr
Выпуск журнала №-71
Часть–8_ июня–2025
289
2181-
3187
COMMUNICATIVE DISCOURSE AND COMMUNICATIVE
STRATEGY
Teshaboyev Izzatjon Islomjon oʼgʼli
Kenjaboev Sanjarbek Adhamjon oʻgʻli
Orifova Yulduzxon Qurbonjon qizi
Teachers at Polytechnic N. 1, Fergana region, Dangara district
ABSTRACT
This article describes the political discourse and its specific features, associated types
of analysis. Participants of political discourse and their deliminatin during the
communication were also studied.
Keywords:political discourse, delimination, conceptual imagery, extralinguistics,
politician, communicative phenomena, manipulation, audience, language imagery,
semiotic analysis.
ANNOTATSIYA
Ushbu maqolada siyosiy diskurs va uning o‘ziga xos xususiyatlari, unga bog‘liq
bo‘lgan tahlil turlari yoritilgan. Shuningdek, siyosiy diskurs ishtirokchilari va muloqot
jarayonida ularning deliminatsiyaga olinishi ham o‘rganilgan.
Nowadays the notion of discourse is widely used in a variety of academic fields
including political science, linguistics, philosophy, psychology, cultural studies and
many other. This notion is attributed to become a certain paradigm as well. Thus, there
is a variety of approaches to define this notion depending on a certain academic field.
The paper aims to provide an overview of discourse as a notion and discuss its peculiar
characteristics from the point of view of linguistics. When giving the definition of
discourse, N. D. Arutyunova provides three perspectives to discuss. The first one would
be when discourse is regarded a coherent text together with a set of extralinguistic
aspects including pragmatic, sociocultural, psychological ones and other. Discourse
can also be viewed as a text within a specific context. The last would be when discourse
is regarded as speech viewed as intended social action, a component of human
ОБРАЗОВАНИЕ НАУКА И ИННОВАЦИОННЫЕ ИДЕИ В МИРЕ
https://scientific-jl.org/obr
Выпуск журнала №-71
Часть–8_ июня–2025
290
2181-
3187
interaction and cognition. It is worthwhile mentioning that N. D. Arutyunova sees
discourse as speech imbedded in context As E. S. Kubryakova points out, from the
point of view of cognitive linguistics the distinction between the two notions (text and
discourse) is quite natural since it correlates with the contrast between cognition and
its outcome . According to E. S. Kubryakova, discourse can be assumed as a cognitive
process related to speech production while a text is the outcome of speech. Thus,
researchers distinguish discourse and text according to a number of criteria, such as
functionality and structure, dynamics and statics, process and outcome, topicality and
virtuality. In Russian linguistics, V. Z. Demyankov provided the most comprehensive
definition of this notion. V. Z. Demyankov claimed that discourse is ‘an arbitral part
of text consisting of more than one sentence or an independent part of sentence; which
is usually wrapped around some basic concept, creates the overall context, describing
people, objects, circumstances, time, actions and etc.’
Before thinking about the specific features of political discourse, we need to
define the term political discourse. Despite the fact that such definition are given in
different forms in different areas of society, the most complete and perfect definition
are always given by linguists. When analyzing political speech, first of all, it is
necessary to be able to correctly define the object of its study.
What exactly is “political speech”? In this regard, easiest and most general idea
comes to everyone’s imagination. Political discourse is performed by authors, that is,
politicians, or their speeches are defined as political discourse. In fact, a large part of
political or politicians studies involves the texts of professional politicians, relying on
the discourse patterns of Presidents and Prime Ministers and other members of
government,parliament or political parties, and govering bodies at both local, national
and international levels. In many developed countries of the world, in practicular, in
the United States, a lot of scientific research is being conducted based on the analytical
discourse approach to study presidential rhetoric. (eg. Campbell and Jamieson 1990;
Hart 1984; Snyder and Higgins 1990; Thompson 1987; Windt 1983; 1990)At this
point, the group of political, who are the players in the center of the poltical field, also
ОБРАЗОВАНИЕ НАУКА И ИННОВАЦИОННЫЕ ИДЕИ В МИРЕ
https://scientific-jl.org/obr
Выпуск журнала №-71
Часть–8_ июня–2025
291
2181-
3187
become the target of research on political discourse analysis. This method of
identifying political discourse is not much different from identifying medical, legal, or
educational. However, in political science and other political practices, while
politicians are crucial as actors and authors of the field, they are not the only
participiants in political discourse analysis. Therefore, when we conduct speech
analysis from the point of view of interaction,we should include political
communicative phenomena such as public, people, citizens, “mass’’ and other groups
or categories as listeners and receivers of political speech.
Obviously, the same applies to the definition of media discourse, which must also
focus on its audience. And also, when we mean medical, legal or educational discourse,
we need to think not only part of participantssuch as doctors, lawyers, teachers, but
also patients, students as participants in this discourse process.
Political discourse can be defined as a communicative act in which speakers attempt to
convey a specific meaning with the aim of influencing or persuading others. In other
words, political speech can be defined as a linguistic strategy manipulationthat serves
ideological goals. Political discourse can include formal discussions or informal
discourse discussions about politics among listeners and family members.
Political speech is essentially an expression of the whole complex of relation
between the individual and society and therefore this phonemenon is essentially
functionally aimed at forming a certain part of the worldview or world image among
the receivers. Using political discourse as a cornerstone, understand how cultural
values are modeled in different language communities, how social order is promoted,
and which elements of the linguistic representation of the world remain outside the
conscious discourse strategies of speakers.
Political speech not only has a meaning related to reality, but also has an important
“connection’’ subjectively associated with a certain group or groups of people.
Different subject of communication appear in speech in different ways: communicative
forms create their content.
ОБРАЗОВАНИЕ НАУКА И ИННОВАЦИОННЫЕ ИДЕИ В МИРЕ
https://scientific-jl.org/obr
Выпуск журнала №-71
Часть–8_ июня–2025
292
2181-
3187
Analysis of important date of political speech is communicative-nominative
analysis: who communicates and how he communicates. Political discourse is
presented in faces. The face merges with the text, but, at the same time it is the text
itself. Mixing this “layer” or content creates new content. As a result, the author
concludes that the same text spoken by different people “separetes” into different texts:
they are decodes, structured, classified and ordered differently by the audience. They
provide a different picture of social interaction.
According to F. Uxfanova, semantic-basic researches of political speech can
provide important material about modern speech in general and about political speech
in particular. At this stage of society’s development, it ios necessary to determine the
characteristics of political speech, as well as, to determine the historical and
nationalspecific features of political speech, the continuity or discontinuity of certain
styles, types, forms.A political text is a product of the conflict of different interests and
strategies, resulting ideas, voluntary actions and discourses of the political subject.A
political text is verbalized political activity in all its forms: both signified/symbolic
(normative and accumulative activities) and insigned (performative texts). This
concept covers the subject scope and style features of political activity carried out in
language and through language.
According to Sheygal the most characteristic of all types of communicative
actions for “political” speech is the intarnational actions of “persuasion” manifested in
various entho-specific methods. These ethno- cultural styles are created as a result of a
complex interaction of two types of sterotypes; linguistics related to the semantic
adventages of the language and related to behavioral norms and value criteria
established in society. Persuasion is effective if it is implemented on the basis of
prinsiples that reflect established behaviours and attitudes in the community.
Therefore, when interpreting the political speech as a whole, one should not be
limited to purely linguistic moments, otherwise the essense and purpose of the political
speech will be overlooked. Understanding political discourse involves knowing the
background, the expectation of the author and the audience, the hidden intentions, the
ОБРАЗОВАНИЕ НАУКА И ИННОВАЦИОННЫЕ ИДЕИ В МИРЕ
https://scientific-jl.org/obr
Выпуск журнала №-71
Часть–8_ июня–2025
293
2181-
3187
plot patterns, and the favorite logical transitions that exist in a given period.Thus,
political discourse comprises all types of interaction of an individual and society,
creating worldview. Political discourse reveals the way cultural values and social order
are imposed in different societies. This type of discourse includes a variety of political
discussions in the society, including ones with the politicians and officials and public
rhetoric.
REFERENCES:
1.
Ухванова И.Ф. План содержания текста: от анализа к синтезу, от
структуры к системи. И.Ф.Ухвановаю Философская и социололгическая мысль.
Киев,1993-№3
2.
Ухванова И.Ф. Смысловые и сущностныепараметры политического
дискурса в фокусе внимания исслодивателя
3.
И.Ф.Ухванова. Язык и социум: материалы II междунар. конф. -
Минск, 1998. Киев.
4.
What is Political Discourse Analysis? Teun A. van Dijk. Universiteit van
Amsterdam
5.
van Dijk, T. A., ed. 1985. Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Vol. 3.
Discourse and Dialogue. London: Academic Press.
6.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., Brady, H., & Nie, N. H. 1993. Citizen
Activity: Who Participates: What Do They Say. AmericanPoliticalScienceReview
87(2): 303-318.
