Professional Discourse & Communication

Advanced search

Linguistic Methods of Implementing a Communicative Strategy of Self-Defense in American Political Discourse

Full Text:


   This paper aims to study linguistic techniques of the communicative strategy of self-defense as one of the confrontational communicative strategies of American political discourse. The relevance of the study is revealed in the transformation of modern American political rhetoric, the consequence of which is the intensification of conventionally destructive elements in American political rhetoric and the predominance of subjective-negative modality units in political speech. The communicative strategy of self-defense allows the communicant to divert negative information from themselves and move from a defensive position to an attack. The author analyzes various tactical ways of implementing a communicative strategy of self-defense, which include justification, challenging, retaliatory criticism (counter-accusation), indignation, and opposition. They include several linguistic means (lexical units with a negative evaluation, deictic constructions, spoken words, lexical repetitions, personal pronouns, gradation, etc.). This article examines the roles of participants in the speech act of confrontation. The following models of speech behavior can be distinguished: offensive (attack, provocation), defense (self-defense, reaction to provocation), and evaluation (based on observation of the conflict). Thanks to the implementation of the communicative strategy of self-defense, the transition of the communicant from defense to offensive is possible.

About the Author

Ya. Y. Khlopotunov
Tula State Lev Tolstoy Pedagogical University
Russian Federation

Yaroslav Y. Khlopotunov, PhD researcher (linguistics)

Department of foreign languages

Scientific interests: functional linguistics, pragmatics, rhetoric



1. Chernyavskaya, V. E. (2006). Diskurs vlasti i vlast’ diskursa: problemy rechevogo vozdejstviya [Discourse of power and power of discourse: problems of verbal impact]. Moscow: Flinta: Nauka (in Russian).

2. Issers, O. S. (1999). Kommunikativnye strategii i taktiki russkoj rechi. [Communicative strategies and tactics of Russian speech]. Omsk.: Izd-vo Omsk. gos. un-ta [Omsk State University publishing house] (in Russian).

3. Ivanov, N. V., & Pogoretskaya, O. A. (2021). The phenomenon of fascination in political discourse (by Italian examples). Training, Language and Culture, 5(2), 9-21. doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2021-5-2-9-21

4. Khlopotunov, Ya. Yu. (2019). Nasmeshka kak taktika destruktivnoj rechevoj kommunikacii v amerikanskom politicheskom diskurse [Mockery as a tactic of destructive verbal communication in American political discourse]. Diskurs professional’noj kommunikacii [Professional Discourse and Communication], 1 (2), 60-70 (in Russian).

5. Khlopotunov, Ya. Yu. (2020). Konfrontacionnaya kommunikativnaya strategiya samozashchity v amerikanskom politicheskom diskurse [Confrontational communicative strategy of self-defense in American political discourse]. V sbornike: Yazyk. Kul’tura. Kommunikaciya: izuchenie i obuchenie. Materialy IV Mezhdunarodnoj nauchno-prakticheskoj konferencii (pp. 311-315) [Language. Culture. Communication: Teaching and Learning. Proceedings of the 4th International Scientific Conference]. Oryol (in Russian).

6. Khlopotunov, Ya. Yu., Khramchenko, D. S. (2020). Aksiologicheskij aspekt realizacii konfrontacionnyh kommunikativnyh strategij v amerikanskom politicheskom diskurse [Axiological aspect of confrontational communication strategies realization in American political discourse]. Filologicheskie nauki v MGIMO [Philology in MGIMO], vol. 6, 4 (24), 65-74 (in Russian).

7. Levenkova, E. R. (2010). Kontrastivnyj analiz nacional’no-pecificheskih konceptov v institucional’nom politicheskom diskurse Velikobritanii i SSHA [Contrastive analysis of national specificity concepts in institutional political discourse of Great Britain and the USA]. Vestnik CHelGU [Chelyabinsk State University Bulletin], 32, 62-70 (in Russian).

8. Murashova, E. P. (2021). The role of the cognitive metaphor in the hybridisation of marketing and political discourses: An analysis of English-language political advertising. Training, Language and Culture, 5 (2), 22-36. doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2021-5-2-22-36

9. Shejgal, E. I. (2000). Semiotika politicheskogo diskursa [Semiotics of political discourse]. Volgograd: Peremena (in Russian).

10. Tyutyunova, O. N. (2008). Kommunikativnye strategii i taktiki sudebnogo diskursa: na materiale nemeckih i russkih televizionnyh peredach: avtoref. dis. na soisk. uchen. stepeni kand. filol. nauk [Communicative strategies and tactics of judicial discourse: based on the material of German and Russian television broadcasts: abstract of the dissertation for Ph. D.]. Volgograd (in Russian).

11. Zabelo, T. V. (2011). Lingvisticheskaya specifika politicheskogo diskursa [Linguistic specificity of political discourse]. Diskurs kak social’naya deyatel’nost’: prioritety i perspektivy: Materialy mezhdunarodnoj nauchnoj konferencii 17-18 noyabrya 2011 [Discourse as social activity: priorities and perspectives: Proceedings of the international scientific conference 17-18 November 2011] (pp. 111-112). Moscow: IPK MGLU Rema (in Russian).


For citations:

Khlopotunov Y.Y. Linguistic Methods of Implementing a Communicative Strategy of Self-Defense in American Political Discourse. Professional Discourse & Communication. 2022;4(2):7-17. (In Russ.)

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

ISSN 2687-0126 (Online)