2025 Vol. 16 №2

Verbalization of communicative strategies in foreign policy discourse: a case study of the Russian President’s addresses to the international audience

DOI

10.5922/2225-5346-2025-2-11

Pages

189-207

Abstract

This study is driven by the growing importance of political rhetoric in international relations, where the linguistic tools employed by the speaker serve as instruments for strategically managing the perception of the audience. It also addresses the interplay between language and politics under conditions of global international tensions. The aim of this research is to identify and analyze the verbalization of communicative strategies within the foreign policy discourse of the President of the Russian Federation, using textual addresses to the international audience as a case study. The study focuses on a comparative analysis of dynamic changes in foreign policy discourse, the mechanisms and means of implementing cooperative and confrontational strategies through communicative tactics within a rigid genre framework, and the pragmatic-semantic role of these strategies in achieving extralinguistic objectives. The novelty of this study lies in its comprehensive approach to analyzing the President’s foreign policy addresses, integrating linguistic, pragmatic, and genre-discursive aspects. For the first time, a detailed comparison of cooperative and confrontational strategies is conducted through the lens of their linguistic realization in the context of temporal dynamics. It has been determined that the genre structure and linguistic implementation of the President's foreign policy addresses adapt to shifts in the geopolitical context, ensuring the flexibility of foreign policy discourse. The cooperative strategy employed focuses on strengthening Russia's positive image by emphasizing historical ties, shared values, and pros­pects for partnership, whereas the confrontational strategy utilizes specific tactics to inf­luence imp­licit audiences. The multi-level approach to audience segmentation enables the President's fo­reign policy discourse to effectively combine strategic perception management of explicit audiences with addressing implicit political objectives.

Reference

Aristotle, 2007. Ritorika [Rhetoric]. Moscow (in Russ.).

Austin, J. L., 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge.

Bakhtin, M. M., 1986. The Problem of Speech Genres. In: M. M. Bakhtin, ed. Lite­raturno-kriticheskie stat'i [Literary-critical Articles]. Moscow, pp. 428—472 (in Russ.).

Buzan, B. and Lawson, G., 2015. The Global Transformation: History, Modernity, and the Making of International Relations. Cambridge.

Chilton, P. A., 2004. Analyzing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London.

Grice, P. H., 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge.

Habermas, J., 1993. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge.

Issers, O. S., 2008. Kommunikativnye strategii i rechevye taktiki [Communication stra­tegies and speech tactics]. Moscow, 288 p. (in Russ.).

Karamova, A. A., 2017. Discourse: a typological aspect. Kul'tura i tsivilizatsiya [Culture and civilization], 7 (1A), pp. 361—370 (in Russ.).

Kellermann, K., 1992. Communication: Inherently strategic and primarly auto­ma­tic. In: Communication Monographs. Vol. 59, pp. 288—300.

Kinnevy, J. L., 1980. A theory discourse: the aims of discourse. New York.

Kishina, E. V., 2011. Semantic opposition “Ours — Someone Else” as a realization of the ideological-manipulative potential of political discourses. Vestnik Kemerovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta kul'tury i iskusstv [Bulletin of Kemerovo State University of Culture and Arts], 4 (48), pp. 174—179 (in Russ.).

Lasswell, G., 1948. The structure and function of communication in society. In: L. Bry­son, ed. The Communication of Ideas. New York, pp. 37—51.

Mityakina, O. V., 2022. The Opposition of “Own-Alien” as a Means of Delegiti­ma­tion of Political Power (Based on the Comments of English-Speaking Social Net­work Users). Political Linguistics, 5 (95), pp. 156—162, http://doi.org/10.26170/1999- 2629_2022_05_15 (in Russ.).

Putin, V. V., 2013. Russia and Greece: Cooperation for the Benefit of Peace and Prosperity. Available at: http://kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/articles/ 51997 [Accessed 18 August 2024] (in Russ.).

Putin, V. V., 2013. Russia and the Netherlands: Traditions, Historical Continuity, and New Prospects for Partnership. Available at: http://kremlin.ru/events/presi dent/transcripts/articles/17810 [Accessed 18 August 2024] (in Russ.).

Searle, J. R., 1986. Classification of Illocutionary Acts. In: Novoe v zarubezhnoi ling­vistike [New in Foreign Linguistics]. Iss. 17. Moscow, pp. 170—194 (in Russ.).

Sheigal, E. I., 2005. Problems of Political Discourse Analysis. In: Russkii yazyk v sov­remennom obshchestve: Funktsional'nye i statusnye kharakteristiki [Russian language in modern society: Functional and status characteristics]. Moscow, pp. 51—70 (in Russ.).

Swales, J. M., 2008. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Camb­ridge, 260 p.

Tumanova, E. O., 2023. Political Discourse as a Meta-Discourse in the Taxonomy of Discursive Practices (Linguistic Aspect). Filologicheskie nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki [Phi­lology. Theory & Practice], 16 (3), pp. 925—931, https://doi.org/10.30853/phil20 230140 (in Russ.).

van Dijk, T. A., 2006. Discourse as Social Interaction. London, 336 p.

Vereshchagin, E. M., Rathmayr, R. and Reuter, T., 1992. Speech tactics of the “call for frankness”. Voprosy Jazykoznanija [Topics in the study of language], 6, pp. 82—93 (in Russ.).

Zolyan, S. T., 2018. The language of politics or language in the political function? Polity: analysis. Chronicle. Forecast, 3, pp. 31—49, http://doi.org/10.30570/2078-5089- 2018-90-3-31-49 (in Russ.).