Liberal Arts in Russia EN-rus logo
russian flagRussian
ISSN 2305-8420 (Print)
ISSN 2312-6442 (Online)
Current Issue

Genre specificity of political discourse

Liberal Arts in Russia. 2016. Vol. 5. No. 3. Pp. 293-301.
Get the full text (Russian)
Aleshina E. Yu.
Penza State University
40 Krasnaya St., 440026 Penza, Russia


The problem of political discourse genre specificity has been in the center of attention of Russian and foreign scholars, which is determined by the relevance of political discourse as a multidimensional object of study with its linguistic properties in particular. The ambiguity of principles for genre gradation of political discourse is linked to the variability of understanding genre proper. The definition of genre as goal-oriented text characteristics allows accentuating some genres of political discourse depending on their subject content. Herewith, its distinctive feature will be the purposeful content of the utterance. Apart from that, the proposed gradation is based on the principle of considering political activity, which determines a person’s communication in a certain situation. In accordance with the above principles, we propose to differentiate between the following genres of political discourse: information genres; persuasive; invocatory genres; apology/repentance genre. The specificity of genres of political discourse is determined by the leading intentions of the utterance as well as the type of dicteme as a text thematization unit where speech acts are realized. For each of the proposed genre groups there are dictemes of different types (factual, evaluative, guideline) where the subject content of the utterance is actualized. Propaganda as spread of a certain political ideology, views and beliefs can characterize all genres of political discourse.


  • • political discourse
  • • text
  • • genre
  • • dicteme
  • • speech act


  1. Ekonomika i zhizn'. URL:
  2. Bakhtin M. M. Estetika slovesnogo tvorchestva. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1986.
  3. Bakhtin M. M. Sobranie sochinenii. Vol. 5. Raboty 1940-kh - nachala 1960-kh godov [Collected works. Vol. 5. Works of the 1940s-early 1960s]. Moscow: Russkie slovari, 1997.
  4. Blokh M. Ya. Yazyk. Kul'tura. Rechevoe obshchenie. 2013. No. 1. Pp. 5-10.
  5. Blokh M. Ya., Velikaya E. V. Prosodiya v stilizatsii teksta [Prosody in text styling]. Moscow: Prometei, 2011.
  6. Borisenkov A. A. Ponyatie politicheskoi deyatel'nosti. NB: Problemy politiki i obshchestva. 2013. No. 5. Pp. 1-28. URL:
  7. Dubrovskaya T. V. Rechevye zhanry "osuzhdenie" i "obvinenie" v russkoi i angliiskoi lingvokul'turakh [Speech genres "condemnation" and "accusation" in Russian and English linguistic cultures]. Penza: Izd-vo PGU, 2014.
  8. Krylova O. A. Lingvisticheskaya stilistika. Kn. 1 [Linguistic stylistics. Vol. 1]. Moscow: Vysshaya shkola, 2006.
  9. Tortunova I. A. Yazyk, soznanie, kommunikatsiya: Sb. statei. Moscow: MAKS Press, 2006. No. 32. Pp. 78-87.
  10. Khabermas Yu. Moral'noe soznanie i kommunikativnoe deistvie [Moral consciousness and communicative action]. Saint Petersburg: Nauka, 2001.
  11. Chernyavskaya V. E. Interpretatsiya nauchnogo teksta [Interpretation of scientific text]. Moscow: KomKniga, 2005.
  12. Chudinov A. P. Politicheskaya lingvistika. 2012. No. 2(40). Pp. 53-59.
  13. Sheigal E. I. Semiotika politicheskogo diskursa: dis. ... d-ra filol. nauk. Volgograd, 2000.
  14. Beaugrande R. de, Dressler W. Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman, 1981.
  15. Fairclough N. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford, Elsevier, 2005. Pp. 33.
  16. Girnth H. Muttersprache. 1996. 106. Pp. 66-80.
  17. Levinson S. Activity types and language. Linguistics 17, 1979. Pp. 356-399.