Binary conceptual opposition “WE – THEY” in modern English political discourse

Introduction. The article is devoted to the study of the binary conceptual opposition “We – They” in modern English political discourse. One of the frequent ways of speech manipulation in political discourse is the use of the binary conceptual opposition “We – They”, which has the central role in political discourse in general. It is established that the analyzed opposition is variable and can be used at different levels – external and internal.

Materials and Methods. The speeches and statements of the President of the United States of America Joe Biden for the period from January 2 to February 24, 2023 are considered as the material of the study. The frequency of use of lexical units used to represent the opposition “We – They” is determined using the LancsBox corpus manager application.

Analysis. It is identified that various strategies and tactics are used in political discourse to influence the recipients of information by politicians due to the need to prove their opinion, convince the recipients of the correctness of actions, emphasize their importance and significance for the whole country. The primary objective of the study is to systematize the discursive tools of speech influence in political discourse, which are based on conceptual oppositions.

Results. The significance of the results lies in the possibility of using the obtained data for an adequate perception of the information presented in the political discourse, on the one hand, and for creating own political texts, on the other hand. The scientific novelty lies in the analysis of modern material and in the effort to build a linguistic model of the use of the binary conceptual opposition “We – They” in Joe Biden’s political discourse. The novelty is also characterized by the statistical data provided, obtained using automated text processing and the creation of an electronic corpus, which can be further expanded by speeches of other political figures. The adaptability of the developed electronic corpus opens up the possibilities of the further computer-aided study of binary conceptual oppositions in political discourse with reference to the methods of digital linguistics.

1. Aleshina E. Yu. Genre gradation of political discourse. Rossiiskii gumanitarnyi zhurnal = Russian humanitarian journal. 2016;5(3):293-301. (In Russ.).

2. Vorkachev S. G. Linguoculturology, language personality, concept: the origins of anthropocentric paradigm in linguistics. Filologicheskie nauki= Philological sciences. 2001;1:64-72. (In Russ.).

3. Dem’yankov V. Z. Political discourse as the subject of political philology. Politicheskaya nauka. Politicheskii diskurs: Istoriya i sovremennye issledovaniya. 2002;3:32-43. (In Russ.).

4. Dobrosklonskaya T. G. The issues of mediatext study (findings of the modern English media speech study). Moscow: Editorial URSS; 2005. 288 р. (In Russ.).

5. Kishina E. V. The category “inherence – foreignness” in political discourse: abstract of thesis. Kemerovo, 2006. 26 р. (In Russ.).

6. Kupriyanova V. M. Cultural opposition: methods and aims of the study. Formirovanie distsiplinarnogo prostranstva kul’turologii in Formation of the disciplinary space of cultural studies. Materials of the scientific and methodological conference. January 16, 2001, St. Petersburg. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg Philosophical Society, 2001. P. 65-68.

7. Nevinskaya M. D. Conceptual opposition “people-authority” in political discourse: abstract of thesis. Volgograd; 2006. 20 р. (In Russ.).

8. Official USA Government Website. Speeches and remarks archives. URL: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/ (accessed: 24.02.2023)

9. Parshin P. B. Speech influence. URL: http://www.krugosvet.ru/enc/gumanitamye_nauki/lingvistika/RECHEVOE_VOZDESTVIE.html. (accessed: 9.02.2023) (In Russ.).

10. Sternin I. A. Political rhetorics: textbook. Moscow: Akademiya; 2003. 272 р. (In Russ.).

11. Chudinov A. P. Political linguistics. Moscow: Flinta : Nauka; 2008. 254 р. (In Russ.).

12. Sheigal E. I. Semiotics of political discourse. Moscow: Gnozis; 2004. 326 р. (In Russ.).

13. Sherkovin Yu. A. Psychological problems of mass information processes. Moscow: Mysl’; 1973. 213 р. (In Russ.).

14. Dijk T. A. Ideology and discourse analysis. Journal of Political Ideologies. 2006;11:115-140.

15. Chilton P. A. Analysing political discourse: theory and practice. London, 2004. 226 р.

16. Kadim E. N. A critical discourse analysis of Trump’s election campaign speeches. Heliyon. 2022 Apr 6;8(4):e09256 DOI:10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09256