https://scientific-jl.com/luch/
Часть
-47
_ Том
-3_
июнь
-2025
192
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
U
shbu 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
https://scientific-jl.com/luch/
Часть
-47
_ Том
-3_
июнь
-2025
193
viewed as intended social action, a component of human 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
https://scientific-jl.com/luch/
Часть
-47
_ Том
-3_
июнь
-2025
194
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 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
https://scientific-jl.com/luch/
Часть
-47
_ Том
-3_
июнь
-2025
195
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.
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 thi
s “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
https://scientific-jl.com/luch/
Часть
-47
_ Том
-3_
июнь
-2025
196
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 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.
