STAGES OF IDENTIFICATION OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION IN POLITICAL DISCOURSE

Liu Yu

doi:10.23856/6008

Liu Yu Ukrainian State Dragomanov University https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4119-5209

Keywords: political communication, system, information, stability, socialization.

Abstract

Research on political communication (the process of communication between participants in political activity) is of great linguistic interest, which increases over time, since this phenomenon is associated with the thinking characteristics of certain social groups and individuals, the characteristics of national culture, as well as historical events. In modern science, several main directions have emerged in the study of political discourse and political communication. Within the framework of the general theory of communication, researchers identify six fundamental approaches: − linguistic approach (language is considered as a means of social control and restriction of access to political institutions and political processes); − system approach (political communication is associated with the concept of social control and is considered in terms of interaction between elements of the system); − functional approach (political communication performs the function of socialization, i.e. social adaptation to the norms of the political system, and the function of maintaining stability); − symbolic approach (politics and political communication are defined in terms of the exchange of symbols); − organizational approach (the analysis of political communication focuses on intragovernmental information flows and emphasizes the importance of factors limiting this flow and differentiating access to information); − “ecological” approach (analysis of political communication from the point of view of the influence of the political system on it).

References

1. Allison, G. (2017). Destined for war: Can America and China escape Thucydides’s Trap? Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
2. Amatov, A. M., Sedykh, A. P., Ivanishcheva, O. N., Bolgova, E. V., Bolgova, N. S., & Vorobyova, O. I. (2020). Metaphor of war in political discourse. Revista Inclusiones, 7, 143–152.
3. Baker, P. (1995). Deconstruction and the ethical turn. University Press of Florida.
4. Belyea, B. (1992). Images of power: Derrida/Foucault/Harley. Cartographica: The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization, 29(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3138/81V4-7552-8P01-83Q1.Search in Google Scholar
5. Benjaminsen, T. A., Reinert, H., Sjaastad, E., & Sara, M. N. (2015). Misreading the Arctic landscape: A political ecology of reindeer, carrying capacities, and overstocking in Finnmark, Norway. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift-Norwegian Journal of Geography, 69(4), 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2015.1031274.
6. Bloom, H. (1997). The anxiety of influence: A theory of poetry. Oxford University Press.
7. Bloom, H. (2003). A map of misreading. Oxford University Press.
8. Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis. Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230000612
9. Chen, B. (2015). The misreading of “One Belt, One Road” by the international community and China’s response. Lunwendata. https://m.lunwendata.com/show.php?id=81462.
10. Chilton, P. A., & Schäffner, C. (2002). Politics as text and talk: Analytic approaches to political discourse. John Benjamins Publishing.10.1075/dapsac.4
11. Cohen, R. (2019, August 30). Trump Has China Policy About Right. New York Times. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/30/opinion/trump-china-trade-war.html
12. Coyle, A. (2007). Discourse analysis. In Analysing qualitative data in psychology (pp. 98–116). SAGE Publications, Ltd.10.4135/9781446207536.d14
13. De Bolla, P. (2014). Harold Bloom: Towards historical rhetorics. Routledge.
14. Kishchenko N., Morhun I. (2023). Understanding the criteria of wisdom in the context of international relations. HUMANITIES SCIENCE CURRENT ISSUES: Interuniversity collection of Drohobych Ivan Franko State Pedagogical University Young Scientists Research Papers.