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

Political discourse of parliamentary debates: pragmalinguistic aspect

Liberal Arts in Russia. 2020. Vol. 9. No. 1. Pp. 42-60.
Get the full text (Russian)
Chikileva L. S.
Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation
49 Leningradsky Avenue, 125993 Moscow, Russia
Sergeeva A. G.
MGIMO University, Odintsovo branch
3 Novo-Sportivnaya Street, 143005 Odintsovo, Russia


The article is devoted to the parliamentary discourse and its pragmalinguistic peculiarities. The choice of the subject matter for the analysis is determined by the interest of linguists to political communication. The authors analyze various approaches to discourse study, existing in this country and abroad. Special attention is given to the speech behavior of the participants in parliamentary debates when discussing political issues related to the exit of Great Britain from the European Union. Much attention is paid to pragmalinguistic meaning of language units as components of the parliamentary discourse. It is noted that there is a tendency in the British parliamentary discourse to use a strategy of downgrading or discrediting, which is aimed at denouncing opponents and positioning them in a negative way. The most commonly used tactic in this strategy is the accusation tactic. As a part of the promotion strategy, the most commonly used tactic is self-presentation, using which political leaders present their party and themselves in the most favorable way. The authors of the article come to the conclusion that during the parliamentary debate on Brexit, the conflict does not develop in favor of harmonization. There is no doubt that linguistic means are an important resource, therefore the success of political communication and of parliamentary debates in particular depends on their effective use. The use of speech strategies and tactics affects the pragmatic potential of parliamentary discourse and determines the choice of lexical, grammatical, and stylistic means. The analysis of the parliamentary discourse revealed the most typical use of discursive strategies and tactics, stylistic devices such as repetition, parallel syntactic constructions, and rhetorical questions; the use of words either with positive or negative connotations, the use of personal pronouns uniting the speaker with the audience to achieve the effect of the listeners’ involvement in what is happening. Further study of pragmatic markers, strategies, and tactics used in the discourse of parliamentary debates as well as in other types of discourse will be useful both in theoretical and practical terms, as it will contribute to harmonizing of the communication process and increasing its effectiveness.


  • • discourse
  • • political discourse
  • • parliamentary discourse
  • • political communication
  • • communicative culture
  • • pragmalinguistic features
  • • strategies and tactics


  1. Abramyan S. A. Filologiya v XXI veke: Metody, problemy, idei. 2017. Pp. 7-12.
  2. Akopova D. R. Vestnik Nizhegorodskogo universiteta im. N. I. Lobachevskogo. 2013. Vol. 1. No. 6. Pp. 403-409.
  3. Aleshina E. Yu. Publichnyi politicheskii diskurs konfliktnoi situatsii [Public political discourse of conflict situation]. Moscow: Prometei, 2015.
  4. Arutyunova N. D. Lingvisticheskii entsiklopedicheskii slovar'. Ed. V. N. Yartseva. Moscow: Bol'shaya Rossiiskaya entsiklopediya, 2002. Pp. 136-137.
  5. Baranov A. N., Mikhailova O. V., Satarov G. A., Shipova E. A. Politicheskii diskurs: metody analiza tematicheskoi struktury i metaforiki [Political discourse: methods of analysis of thematic structure and metaphorics]. Moscow: Fond INDEM, 2004.
  6. Vasil'kova N. N. Diskurs Pi. 2018. Vol. 15. No. 3-4(32-33). Pp. 38-43.
  7. Vinnik Yu. V. Vestnik Adygeiskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya 2: Filologiya i iskusstvovedenie. 2018. No. 1(212). Pp. 46-49.
  8. Grigor'eva V. S. Diskurs kak element kommunikativnogo protsessa: pragmalingvisticheskii i kognitivnyi aspekty [Discourse as an element of the communicative process: pragmalinguistic and cognitive aspects]. Tambov: Izd-vo Tambovskogo gosudarstvennogo tekhnicheskogo universiteta, 2007.
  9. Dedushkina T. A. Studia Linguistica. 2011. No. 5. Pp. 472-477.
  10. Dem'yankov V. Z. Politicheskaya nauka. 2002. No. 3. Pp. 31-44.
  11. Zvegintsev V. A. Predlozhenie i ego otnoshenie k yazyku [Sentence and its relation to language]. Moscow: Editorial URSS, 2001.
  12. Zyubina I. A., Ivanova A. A., Kumpan N. A. Politicheskaya lingvistika. Ekaterinburg, 2016. No. 4(58). Pp. 107-113.
  13. Karasik V. I. Yazykovyi krug: lichnost', kontsepty, diskurs [Linguistic circle: personality, concepts, discourse]. 2 ed. Moscow: Gnozis, 2004.
  14. Kashtanova I. I., Biryukova O. A., Davydova E. A. Filologicheskie nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki. 2018. No. 10-2(88). Pp. 295-299.
  15. Kolesnikova S. N. Vestnik Chelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filologiya. Iskusstvovedenie. 2011. No. 33(248). Is. 60. Pp. 67-69.
  16. Kubryakova E. S. Yazyk i znanie: na puti polucheniya znanii o yazyke: Chasti rechi s kognitivnoi tochki zreniya. Rol' yazyka v poznanii mira [Language and knowledge: on the way to gain knowledge of the language: Parts of speech from a cognitive point of view. The role of language in conceiving the world]. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskoi kul'tury, 2004.
  17. Makarov M. L. Osnovy teorii diskursa [Fundamentals of discourse theory]. Moscow: Gnozis, 2003.
  18. Minaeva L. V. Prepodavatel' XXI veka. 2015. No. 3. Pp. 396-405.
  19. Mikhaleva O. L. Politicheskii diskurs: Spetsifika manipulyativnogo vozdeistviya. Moscow: LIBROKOM, 2009.
  20. Nikiforova O. O. Politicheskaya lingvistika. 2013. No. 4(46). Pp. 129-135.
  21. Ozyumenko V. I. Vestnik Rossiiskogo universiteta Druzhby narodov. Seriya: Lingvistika. 2017. Vol. 21. No. 1. Pp. 203-220.
  22. Ravochkin N. N. Nauchnyi zhurnal "Diskurs". 2018. No. 1. Pp. 192-201.
  23. Radyuk A. V. Filologicheskie nauki v MGIMO: Sb. nauch. trudov / Otv. redaktor G. I. Gladkov. Moscow: MGIMO(U) MID Rossii, 2013. No. 50(65). Pp. 54-64.
  24. Romanova N. N., Filippov A. V. Slovar'. Kul'tura rechevogo obshcheniya: etika, pragmatika, psikhologiya [Dictionary. Culture of speech communication: ethics, pragmatics, psychology]. Moscow: Flinta, 2009.
  25. Selezneva L. V. Pragmalingvisticheskie kharakteristiki PR-diskursa [Pragmalinguistic characteristics of PR-discourse]. Moscow: Izd-vo RGSU, 2018.
  26. Smirnova O. N. Vystuplenie v parlamente i ego prosodicheskii stroi: avtoref. dis. ... kand. filol. nauk. Moscow, 2011.
  27. Spiridovskii O. V. Nauchnyi al'manakh. 2015. No. 9(11). Pp. 568-574.
  28. Sukhikh S. A. Pragmalingvisticheskoe izmerenie kommunikativnogo protsessa: avtoref. dis. ... d-ra filol. nauk. Krasnodar, 1998.
  29. Tayupova O. I. Liberal Arts in Russia. 2016. Vol. 5. No. 2. Pp. 212-219.
  30. Tayupova O. I. Liberal Arts in Russia. 2019. Vol. 8. No. 5. Pp. 352-360.
  31. Formanovskaya N. I. Rechevoe vozdeistvie: kommunikatsiya i pragmatika [Linguistic manipulation: communication and pragmatics]. Moscow: IKAR, 2007.
  32. Khabermas Yu. Filosofskii diskurs o moderne [Philosophical discourse on the Modern Style]. Moscow: Ves' mir, 2003.
  33. Kharlamova V. I. Medialingvistika. 2016. No. 4(14). Pp. 25-35.
  34. Chikileva L. S. Liberal Arts in Russia. 2018. Vol. 7. No. 1. Pp. 20-29.
  35. Chikileva L. S. Ritoricheskii diskurs: kognitivno-pragmaticheskii i strukturno-stilisticheskii aspekty [Rhetorical discourse: cognitive-pragmatic and structural-stylistic aspects]. Moscow: Flinta, 2005.
  36. Shapochkin D. V. Vestnik Chelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. 2013. No. 10(301).
  37. Sheigal E. I. Semiotika politicheskogo diskursa [Semiotics of political discourse]. Moscow: Gnozis, 2004.
  38. Shiryaeva T. A., Chernousova Yu. A., Trius L. I. Filologicheskie nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki. Tambov: Gramota, 2015. No. 12-1(54). Pp. 204-207.
  39. Bhatia V. K., Nodoushan S. International Journal of Language Studies. 2015. Vol. 9. No. 2. Pp. 121-130.
  40. Chilton P., Schäffner C. Politics as text and talk: Analytic approaches to political discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2002.
  41. Fairclough N. Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Routledge, 2013.
  42. Habermas J. The philosophical discourse of modernity: Twelve lectures. John Wiley & Sons, 2018.
  43. Hunt A., Wheeler B. BBC News. 2017. Vol. 25. URL:
  44. Lightfoot S., Mawdsley E., Szent‐Iványi B. The Political Quarterly. 2017. Vol. 88. No. 3. Pp. 517-524.
  45. Tannen D., Hamilton H. E. The handbook of discourse analysis. Ed. Schiffrin D. Malden: Wiley Blackwell, 2015.
  46. Theresa May mocked for bizarre pre-written 'inconstant gardener' jibe at Jeremy Corbyn during PMQs. News. The Essential Daily Briefing. 2018. 12 December. URL:
  47. Van Dijk T. A. Critical Discourse Analysis. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. 2015.
  48. Van Dijk T. A. Discourse and knowledge: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge University Press, 2014.
  49. Van Dijk T. A. Macrostructures: An interdisciplinary study of global structures in discourse, interaction, and cognition. Routledge, 2019.
  50. Wodak R. The Haider Phenomenon. Transaction Publishers, 2002. Pp. 33-60.
  51. Brexit: Date of Exit. House of Lords Hansard URL:
  52. Engagements. House of Commons. Hansard. URL:
  53. Engagements. House of Commons. Hansard. URL:
  54. Engagements. House of Commons. Hansard. URL:
  55. Engagements. House of Commons. Hansard. URL:
  56. Engagements. House of Commons. Hansard. URL:
  57. Engagements. House of Commons. Hansard. URL: