The information stated above suggests that, according to Aristotle, a correctly composed speech is in need of valid argumentation to support the statement implied by the author of the said speech. Therefore, argumentation is closely connected and has an impact on a communication act.

The entire foundation of the art of argumentation is based on the fact that it provides weight and influence in any act of communication - through communication humans express their feelings and thoughts, share information and unconsciously try to impose their belief system onto their communication partner. The only way to impose one's values onto somebody else successfully is through argumentation, therefore, the field of argumentation has been studied and analysed in order to find better and stronger techniques of persuasion. At this point the situation can go in two different directions: in the first case, the listeners will evaluate the reliability of the message and decide for themselves whether to trust it or not, in the second case, even if the information is false, the speaker can persuade the audience to follow his belief and take it as the truth using special argumentative techniques.

Dan Sperber, a French social and cognitive scientist, in collaboration with Diedre Wilson, a British linguist and cognitive scientist, published their work on human's reaction as a recipient in the process of communication (1985). The authors state that the audience has to be able to filter the information that the speaker produces and has to remain a vigilant attitude towards the speaker and information they produce, meaning that an audience should not blindly believe the information coming from the internet, television or radio sources simply because we believe the source itself. The listener (the audience) needs to work out different ways and methods of filtering the incoming messages in order to identify the treacherous ones. Sperber and Wilson state that an argument is a sure method to increase the reliability of the message in communication, therefore, the audience can check the validity of the information to come to a conclusion. Proper reasoning and fair arguments are the keys to successful communication.

An English philosopher, educator and logician Stephen Toulmin in his work “The Uses of Argument” (1958) identified the sequence of logically identified elements of an argument and gave reasoning behind such a classification. The elements are a “claim”, a “ground”, a “warrant”, a “backing”, a “qualifier” and a “rebuttal”.

A “claim” in an argument is simply a statement that the speaker puts forward. However, no rational human being will willingly do exactly what they are told until they are provided with proper reasoning for the action to be done. That is where the “ground” comes in - it is the reasoning behind the claim. At this stage, information becomes a very powerful element of persuasion, as the grounds for a claim can consist of made-up or false information. Because each human is unique and, therefore, perceives information in their own special way, it is crucial to choose a proper type of the argument used - some people respond better to the lógos, some to êthos and pathos. However, the comprehensiveness of a claim can be restricted with a “qualifier”, usually with the help of such words as “sometimes”, “most” and “always”; if taken to the extreme, the qualifier can even prove the claim to be incorrect.

A “warrant” is a justification of the claim made with the help of creating a more appropriate ground. It can take the form of a small statement or a pursuing argument, can be accurate, implicit or unspoken. Additional support for a warrant is “backing” - once again, it is a further elaboration of the ground or a piece of supplementary information to help to make the case for the audience. Nonetheless, even a perfectly stated claim/argument can be faced with the counter-arguments - the “rebuttal”. It can be given by the opposite party during the early stages of a speech or a presentation to undermine the claim on its root or later with a prolonged discussion.

These steps and aspects of argumentative communication are primarily used by those who work as managers of a considerably large group of people, including politicians. Their main goal is to persuade the public to follow their lead and to obey the rules and laws bestowed on them. And it is a hard argument to come up with, as the job is to ask the public willingly give up their freedoms or desires and follow the new rules. That is why political communication remains one of the most intriguing types.

Political communication is a concept that remains the object of study of a number of scientific disciplines and fields of knowledge that are in one way or another correlated to others. Political communication is studied, in particular, in political science, sociology, communication theory, as well as in the interdisciplinary branches of science, such as political sociology, political anthropology and many others. Interdisciplinary nature makes it difficult to uniquely define political communication. According to German researchers Otfried Jarren and Patrick Donges and their work “Politische Kommunikation in der Mediengesellschaft. Eine Einführung” (2002) (tr.: Political Communication in the Media Society. An Introduction), the difficulty in defining the concept of “political communication” lies in the fact that its constituents are two elements - “politics” and “communication” - that are themselves objects of study of various scientific disciplines, and within these scientific disciplines are studied from many different perspectives and in terms of different theoretical approaches.

Russian scientist M.N. Grachev (2012) points out that the term “political communication” itself became popular relatively recently. After the Second World War the Western society began to evolve and develop in a new way, political processes became more democratic in the second half of the 20th century, which lead to the emergence of the concept of political communication as a separate and independent field of study in-between two fields - political and social sciences, as well as the emergence and development of the role of new information technologies. The term “communication” itself transformed, turning from a term of the representatives of technical professions into an interdisciplinary term that has become widespread in various fields of knowledge because all the phenomena of the world around could in principle be explained in terms of information exchange, information circulation.

Political communication is the process of “creating, sending, receiving and processing of messages that have a significant impact on politics” either directly or indirectly, immediately or over a certain period of time (Grachev, 2012). One can speak of the impact concerning such types of political activity as participation in elections, an appeal for support of one or another political course, a proposal to approve and adopt or a demand to reject a draft law. The indirect effect of messages is manifested in the fact that they can be used to create certain “ideal models” - perfected images of reality (or a stereotype) that affect the political consciousness, actions of political elites and the mass public. The creators, senders or recipients of messages can be politicians, journalists, representatives of interest groups or individuals who are not at all related to any organizations. Fundamentally the important point here is that the message produces a significant political effect, affecting the consciousness, beliefs and behaviour of individuals, communities, institutions, as well as the environment in which they exist.

Political communication is a key aspect of politics since the vast majority of the politically relevant information we receive today is predominantly because of the disseminated messages. Most of our reality is formed through the process of verbal communication, moreover, we only learn a very insignificant part of reality through direct experience, therefore, the complete picture is formed through a system of symbols with encoded messages. As for such abstract concepts as “democracy” or “justice”, there is no empirical basis. Their interpretation is entirely dependent on the verbal symbol.

Another aspect should not be overlooked - the informational and communicational side of political activity. The relationship between political actors in the course of the conquest, retention and use of power by them cannot be manifested other than in the form of information exchange, meaning “communication involving the transfer from one actor to another of certain semantic meanings through speech, images, gestures, facial expressions and other symbolic forms, perceived by different senses” (Grachev, 2012). It is appropriate to mention that political activity has its own “communication dimension” and political communication can be considered a special type and form of communication, representing the informational impact of political actors on each other and the society (the public, the citizens) regarding power-management relations in society.

It should also be emphasized that the attribute of political activity is understood not as the informational “interaction” of political actors with each other and with the public, but a more general case of political communication - the “informational impact” of political actors on each other as allies or competitors and the society. Soloviev A. I. in his work “Political Communication” (2004) reminds us about many historical examples when the authorities simply inform the busy with its mundane problems society about their wishes and “push through” decisions whose implementation are not associated with the interests of the people. That is the way political communication usually works - the argumentative aspect is strong as it has to persuade the audience, even though they are not always that interested in what they are about to hear.

This situation becomes possible because of the special characteristics of political discourse that have a strong correlation with the choice of vocabulary intrinsic to political communication. The speech itself is loaded with political vocabulary and structures, as it is a sign of solidarity with other members of society who use the same language. It is sometimes even said that language - as a mediating link between thought and action - has always been the most important factor in establishing political repression, economic and social discrimination. Political language differs from the usual one in its specific structure of the discourse and political terminology.

As for political discourse itself, it is a special language of politics representing this world (Kuzmina, 2011). Discourse is an integral part of social relations, as it both forms such relations is affected and formed by them. That is why any discourse can be understood as “a special use of the language” (Inzhechik, 2016), or as a communicative event, because discourse is, essentially, a speech that is immersed in life (Gorbunov, 2013). Thus, discourse is considered to be a unity of the linguistic forms, actions and knowledge, since both languages in actual use, extralinguistic factors that determine communication, and cognitive structures take part in its implementation (Issers, 1999). That is why it is possible to take into consideration and analyse such form of discourse as political discourse.

Politics is one of the most archaic spheres of human activity. The existence of a political regime is impossible without a communicative aspect. The management of information flows in the modern world has become one of the significant factors in the retention of power. The content of political discourse is the structure and unity of speech acts that are relevant and directly functioning in the political space. In other words, political discourse is such a type of discourse, where the main goal is the acquisition and retention of power. A broad understanding of the content of political discourse also includes oral and written texts and/or fragments of them, which are created by both professionals (political speechwriters) and non-specialists (journalists, for example) (Evtushina, 2014). Political discourse lies at the intersection of different fields of knowledge - social psychology, political science, linguistics; it is associated with the analysis of the form and content of the discourse used in certain political situations.

O.N. Parshina in her work strategies and tactics in communication acts in modern politics identifies several speech strategies of political discourse that correspond to different agendas of political figures (2005). The first is a self-defence strategy - the image of a political leader is a highly stable and resistant to changes idea that has been developed as a result of long exposure to the population. In political communication, the image is the result of conscious and consistent work: the leader does not demonstrate their true qualities but imposes a certain favourable image that was created and cultivated by them on voters, therefore, there is a need to constantly defend this image against the opinion of the public and other political opponents.

This leads us to the second strategy - the tactics of accusation and tactics of insult (the “discredit and attack”). The purpose of the discrediting strategy, in terms of politics, is to undermine the credibility of the opponent, to humiliate and denigrate them in the eyes of voters. This can be easily achieved in accordance with the third strategy - the manipulative strategy. Defamation of a political opponent can also be achieved using methods and means of psychological treatment of the audience, using manipulative and persuasive techniques and tactics.

The forth is the strategy of forming the emotional mood of the addressee, also known as the tactics of addressing the emotions of the addressee. This strategy is implemented mainly in the speeches of the leaders of the state while addressing the nation regarding any important events. These are texts of different genres: an inaugural speech by the president, congratulations on a holiday, an appeal to the public about extraordinary events, a greeting, etc.

Fifth, an argumentative strategy - tactics of reasonable assessments and contrast analysis -is a complex and multifaceted intellectual activity, included in almost all spheres of human life, related to the need to convince the addressee (the audience) of the need to accept the thesis that is put forward by the speaker. This is a type of communicative activity aimed at convincing the addressee using argumentative and persuasive techniques. In political communication, this type of strategy contributes to the implementation of democratically formed participation of citizens in the choice of power and the adoption of socially significant decisions.

The political discourse can be considered from at least three points of view: purely philological, sociopsycholinguistic (in terms of measuring the effectiveness of achieving latent or explicit political goals of the speaker) and individually hermeneutical (when we speak about identifying personal meanings of the author and of the discourse in certain circumstances). According to David V.J. Bell, an American author and professor of political science, the study of political discourse is comprised of different disciplines and is “associated with an analysis of the form, objectives and content of the discourse used in certain political situations” (Bell, 1995). One of the disciplines mentioned is political science philology, which explores the relationship of the properties of discourse from the perspective of such concepts as "power", "influence" and "authority". These factors are considered only in connection with the linguistic features of the speakers' behaviour and interpretation of their speech.

When they try to characterize the features of the “totalitarian” political discourse, ethical terms are inevitably introduced into the description: the declamatory style of appeal, the ideologization of everything that is said, exaggerated abstraction and science, agitating enthusiasm, claims to absolute truth, therefore, these properties showcase the distinctiveness of political discourse from any other type of discourse. These factors also affect the choice of words and, to some extent, prove that the sublimation of aggressiveness is inherent in human nature.

However, in this case we are speaking about theatrical aggression that is aimed at imposing other values and assessments on the audience and creating a negative attitude towards the political opponents of the speaker. That is why terms that are evaluated positively by supporters of some views are perceived negatively, sometimes even as a direct insult, by others (communism, fascism, democracy). A good example of this case was described by Anna Wierzbicka in her work “Dictionaries and ideologies: Three examples from Eastern Europe” where she introduces the term “political diglossia” (Wierzbicka, 1995). The authoress meant a situation in a totalitarian society, when there are two different languages - the language of official propaganda and ordinary, both used by politicians, but for different effects on the audience. The terms of one language within the framework of another were used only with a polar opposite assessment or were expelled from the ostrich in general.

Evaluations that are explicitly or implicitly made in political discourse can be identified by analysing the following groups of statements (Schrotta, Visotschnig, 1982). There such as statements and instructions to act that are explicit, hidden statements submitted in the form of questions and answers to them, in which case by establishing which questions this discourse answers and which leaves unanswered a new meaning and context to the speech is given, interpretations and descriptions of problems, the formulation of ideas that seem innovative to the author, statements giving general truths, calls to promote a particular decision, offers of assistance, etc.