Political discourse coverage of Brexit in the UK and the USA in 2018-2019

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru/

FEDERAL STATE AUTONOMOUS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION

FOR HIGHER PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION

NATIONAL RESEARCH UNIVERSITY HIGHER SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS

Department of Foreign Languages

Bachelor's thesis

Political discourse coverage of brexit in the UK and the USA in 2018-2019

Anastasia Solovyeva

Moscow, 2020



Table of Contents

Introduction

Chapter 1. Political discourse as a subject of research

1.1 The concept of discourse in various scientific schools

1.2 Political discourse and its main features

1.3 Discourse analysis approach

Chapter 2. For Brexit

2.1 The Conservative Party of the UK

2.2 The Republican Party of the USA

Chapter 3. Against Brexit

3.1 The Labor Party of the UK

3.2 The Liberal Democrats

3.3 The Scottish National Party

Conclusion

References



Introduction

Political discourse is considered a primary sphere in recent linguistic studies. The academic interest towards political discourse is growing and it could be determined by a social request, aimed at studying not only the peculiarities of political thought and actions, but also those linguistic and rhetoric means and strategies politicians employ to impact and manipulate public opinion.

The tight connection of language and politics has always been key to Western political rhetoric. Furthermore, the term “political discourse” had been originally defined in the last decade of the 20th century. Teun A. van Dijk, who particularly focused on political discourse, perceived it as a vast bulk of studies of political discourse that is about the text and talk of professional politicians or political institutions simultaneously at the local and international levels (Teun A. van Dijk, 2006). Political discourse concept can also be observed in writings of such scholars as M. Foucault (1972) and M. Heidegger. However, the political discourse of the latest political agenda, in particular Brexit, remains yet poorly researched. Consequently, deep and profound knowledge of the latest political discourse is growingly central for modern linguistic and political studies.

The object of the following research is the political discourse coverage of Brexit in the UK and the USA in 2018-19, while the subject is the political discourse studies in modern linguistics and methods of representation of the attitude towards the Brexit deal.

This research's purpose is to examine the political discourse coverage of Brexit in Britain and America and analyze the main factors that determine it. Based on the forgoing, the following hypothesis is put forward: there are differences in the representation of Brexit and its coverage in the USA and in the UK. In order to prove it, the following research questions are to be addressed:  

What is the difference between the linguistic means and discourse strategies of the British and American politicians?

What is the difference between the linguistic means and discourse strategies of the politicians who are for and against the Brexit deal?

What are the main factors which determine the political discourse representation of Brexit?

The set of materials for the research consists of 10 speech and interview samples of the British and American politicians discussing the Brexit agenda. The major limitation is that due to the differences in terms of rhetoric, these samples differ in length. The employed methods include the descriptive analysis of the chosen material and critical discourse analysis (CDA) based on the works of Hart (2014) and Chilton (2004).

The concept of political discourse studies (PDA) as a newly introduced part of critical discourse analysis (CDA) stays undescribed and there still is a gap in research in the context of the political events around the Brexit deal.

It is crucial to highlight that the scope of the study is limited to the speeches and interviews samples that appeared in the period of 2018-19, and it also covers the data on only the leaders of the political parties.

The importance and relevance of this paper are determined by the fact that it covers the existing link between linguistics and political studies and explores the newly introduced political agenda of Brexit.

The theoretical basis of the following paper includes the works of Russian scholars and linguist (Scheigal, 2004; Kibrik, 1999) as well as foreign studies (van Dijk, 2006; Chilton, 2004; Hart, 2014).

The conducted research is hoped to contribute to the existent academic knowledge on the topic of political discourse analysis (PDA) and define the major factors which determine the political discourse.



Chapter 1. Political discourse as a subject of research

1.1 The concept of discourse in various scientific schools

Political discourse represents a primary emphasis in recent linguistic studies and writings. The increasing academic interest towards political discourse can be regarded as a social request, aimed at examining the specific aspects of political thought and events, as well as at those linguistic and rhetoric means politicians implement to influence and control public opinion. Research on political discourse has been growing as new political agenda is being introduced. Thus, political discourse is aimed at helping the scholars of various research fields and it is central in the modern discourse-cognitive approach in linguistics.

Etymologically, the term “discourse” goes back to the Latin “discurrere”, which means “to discuss,” “to negotiate,” and it is in that sense that it was actively used by scholars such as Immanuel Kant and Wilhelm Hegel in their works of the 16th -18th centuries. Since then, the concept of “discourse” has undergone many interpretations, due to the influence of time, as well as the development of science.

The term discourse is frequently used in humanitarian context, especially in linguistics, sociology, cultural studies and etc. Due to this, it must be recognized that discourse is a complex communicative phenomenon with differential features. Due to the complexity of this concept a closer look should be given to existent scientific schools and definitions of discourse itself.

Thus, taking in consideration a wide range of discursive approaches, T. van Dijk proposes to distinguish between two definitions of discourse. In a broad sense, discourse is a complex communicative event, which happens between the speaker and the listener (observer), in certain temporal, spatial and other contexts. Communicative action can be verbal, written, and also have verbal and non-verbal components (for example, talking with a friend, dialogue between passengers of a transport, reading a newspaper). In a narrow sense, discourse is an oral or written text, taking into account the presence of only one verbal component. From this perspective, the term “discourse” means a completed or ongoing product of a communicative action, a written or oral result that is interpreted by the recipients.

One of the first interpretations of discourse described as an act of direct communication involving the oral channel of communication was introduced by A.E. Kibrik (1999).In accordance with his definition, discourse can be explained as “a communicative situation that includes the consciousness of communicants (communication partners) and the text created in the process of communication”. Nearly for the first time in Russian linguistics, along with a linguistic knowledge of discourse in the social studies, philosophical understanding of the concept appears.

J.P. Gåå distinguishes between discourse in a narrow understanding (“discourse” with a “little d”; “little d” discourse) as a situational language-in-use and the discourse itself (Discourse with a "big D"; “Big D” Discourse) (2015), including non-verbal component. According to J. P. Gee (2015), the core of discourse itself is identification, recognition. Moreover, discourse, in terms of the combination of language, actions, interactions, values, beliefs, symbols, objects, tools, places surrounding, identifies the individual as an actor involved in certain actions here and now.

Modern British linguist David Crystal (1987), for his part, proposes to distinguish between the Discourse Analysis, which is focused on the structure of natural spoken language that could be found in interviews, conversations and speeches and discourse as a subject of study based on the structure of the written language, which tends to be implemented in the essays, notes, book chapters, and involves certain text analysis.

In order to understand this concept fully, classifications of discourse need to be provided. The previously mentioned distinguished Russian linguist proposes different types and varieties of discourse.

In linguistics, it is often argued among the about the diverse interpretations of this concept within the framework of several approaches and classifications which were introduced by representatives of various linguistic schools. This chapter discusses two main classifications of types of discourse - classification by mode (oral / written) and classification by genre as well as other existing classifications.

To begin with, the most important classification feature that distinguishes between types of discourse is mode, i.e. the contrast between oral and written types of discourse. This demarcation is connected with the information transmission channel: in oral discourse the channel is acoustic, in written - visual. Sometimes the distinction between oral and written forms of language use is equated with the distinction between discourse and text (Kibrik, 1999). Despite the fact that for many centuries written language has enjoyed more prestige than the oral one, it is assumed that oral discourse is the initial, fundamental form of the existence of the language as it is a primary variety of language - both in ontogenesis and in phylogenesis, and written discourse is derived from the oral and is a also later one. Currently, the priority of the oral form of the language seems understandable, however, this idea was struggling to make its way in linguistics. On the other hand, throughout the development of European civilization (and some other civilizations), the written form of the language gained an extremely crucial cultural role in the society. The Bible would serve as a great example of a book around which the whole European culture still revolves.

It is of high importance how different the transmission channels are and the consequences and impact they have on the representation of oral and written types of discourse (studied by W. Chafe, 1994). The first of these consequences is associated with different temporal modes of speech and writing. Moreover, the writing speed is more than 10 times lower than the speed of oral speech, and the reading speed is slightly higher than the speed of oral speech.

Furthermore, E.S. Kubryakova (2004) provides the following classification of approaches to the definition of “discourse”:

1. structural-syntactic approach: discourse is viewed as a fragment text, formatted to above the level of the sentence (superphrase unity, complex syntactic whole);

2. structural-stylistic approach: discourse is perceived from the perspective of a non-textual organization of colloquial speech, characterized by a fuzzy division into parts and associative relations that domain, (spontaneity, situationality, high context, stylistic specificity);

3. communicative approach: discourse is perceived as verbal communication (speech, use, functioning of the language), or as a dialogue, as well as a conversation, that appears to be a type of dialogic utterance, which does not take such a position into account.

In this work, the structural stylistic approach will be considered as a prior classification.

In this context it is of high importance to define the main differences between text and discourse, as they are often confused. Firstly, the contrast between text and discourse should not be absolutized: although these concepts are more likely to be considered as mutually exclusive, they are nevertheless linked by “genetic kinship”. In other words, there is no text outside of discursive activity: any fixed text is preceded by a discourse. In addition, “a common analysis of text and discourse is the appeal to decoding non-obvious meanings, which is very important for their understanding” (Kubryakova, 2004)

Text and discourse create varied confusion due to the interchangeable use of these two terms in varied contexts. However, these two are distinctive aspects of linguistics and communication studies. A text is necessarily non-interactive while discourse is interactive. Therefore, a text does not indicate an agent whereas the agent is a crucial element in a discourse. This is the main difference between text and discourse (Hardison, Karen, 2011).

Kibrik in his Encyclopedia “Krugosvet” (2009) claims that the term "discourse", as it is perceived from the perspective of the modern linguistics, has similar meaning with the term of "text", but focuses on the dynamic, unfolding in time of language communication; Sometimes, “discourse” can be understood as in accordance with these two components due to it static nature. It is possible to replace the discourse concept with the phrase "connected text, but is not very successful, since any normal text is connected”.

Extremely close to the concept of discourse is the concept of “dialogue”. Discourse, like any communicative act, presupposes the presence of two fundamental roles - the speaker (author) and the addressee. At the same time, the roles of the speaker and the addressee can be alternately redistributed between persons participating in the discourse; in this case they talk about dialogue. If during the course of the discourse (or a significant part of the discourse) the role of the speaker is assigned to the same person, such a discourse is called a monologue. Kibrik (2009) argues that it is incorrect to assume that a monologue is a discourse with a single participant, as in a monologue, an addressee is also necessary.

Thus, the verbal and extra-linguistic components of communication are combined in the category of discourse. As it has been presented above, modern linguists define different types of discourse, however there are no clear criteria demonstrating the difference of one type from another due to their diversity.

1.2 Political discourse and its main features

Political discourse is a newly discovered concept in modern linguistics, which has its aim to generalize all the knowledge and peculiarities of the political events and their discourse representation, as well as linguistic means and strategies implemented by politicians to influence the public.

Teun van Dijk, one of the founders of critical discourse analysis (CDA), claims that the easiest and not altogether misguided answer to what political discourse is, is that political discourse is identified by its actors or authors, viz., politicians (van Dijk,1993). He also feels it highly relevant to take into account both sides of political discourse, not just the politicians, but also the recipients, the audience, which are involved into a political process as well as into political discourse.

As it was highlighted previously, there are two widespread definitions of political discourse that stem from two main understandings if politics and are commonly used in the linguistic field: a narrow one and a wide one. A narrow definition of political discourse adheres to T.A. van Dijk, in whose opinion political discourse is a discourse of politicians implemented in the form of government documents, parliamentary debates, party programs, speeches of politicians. He limits political discourse to the activities of politicians, i.e. professional framework.

In its wide sense, political discourse can be defined as “a language that is generally used in social and political spheres of communication”, which include the mass media. Such definition of political discourse is found, for instance, in “The Political Rhetoric of a United Europe” by Christ'l de Landtsheer (1998). Where functional metaphors are regarded as a basis for the study of political discourse.

Russian scholar, E.I. Scheigal (2000) examines the connection between concepts of discourse and politics. She promotes the idea that the correlation between language and politics is obvious, as no political regime can exist without communication. In other words, it is not just about language as a crucial factor in politics, but about “the language of politics”.

E.I. Sheigal in her study offers a field approach to the analysis of structure political discourse and considers the discourse to be political if the political sphere includes one of three components: the subject, the addressee, or the content of the speech process. In the center of the field are the primary genres (program documents, statements, speeches, debates, etc.), and on the periphery - secondary, or marginal genres, combining elements of political and other types of discourse (for example, analytical articles, everyday conversations, letters to the editor, cartoons, parodies, etc.) (Sheigal,2014).

Shi-Xu (2014) places special emphasis on the concept of culture as key in discourse studies According to his writings, we should put high emphasis on cultural aspect on discourse analysis. He notes that discourses are differentiated at the level of cultures and can both determine each other and compete. The culturological approach to discourse analysis denies the possibility of a universal methodology, since each political discourse has its own cultural, historical and linguistic traditions. However, the approach contains a large number of internal contradictions, for example it does not take into account the connection between discourse and literary tradition and ignores the differences between cultural boundaries and national ones.

It feels crucial to consider the work of Paul Chilton on Analyzing political discourse, in which he states the enormous influence of Frankfurt school and proponents of critical theory on proving the link between language and politics. He also argues that the modern linguistics lack an interdisciplinary theory of politics and language. Political discourse as a rather undiscovered phenomenon is proposed to be viewed from the cognitive perspective, allowing scholars and ordinary people with no linguistic background to analyze political discourse using a framework. Based on the knowing that, he introduces the concept of legitimation and delegitimation strategies as well as coercing and uncovers the emotive effects it conveys.

Generally speaking, political discourse is rather unresearched and newly introduced branch of discourse studies, but yet several discourse analyses approaches have been already introduced.

1.3 Discourse analysis approach

The interdisciplinary realm of linguistics that analyses and studies discourse, as well as the corresponding section of linguistics, is known as discourse analysis (DA) or discourse research studies. It must be highlighted that discursive analysis as a scientific direction emerged only in recent decades. Moreover, this approach differs a lot from the background of the prevailing linguistic approaches of XX century. Historically, a struggle for "purification" study of language appeared from the study of speech. F. de Saussure assumed that the language system can be named a true object of linguistics. In addition, this was N. Chomsky (1957), who urged linguists to study linguistic "competence" and issues that differ from language use and are interdisciplinary.

Recently, however, cognitive attitudes in the science of language began to change, and an opinion is gaining strength according to which no linguistic phenomenon can be adequately understood and described outside of their use, without regard to their discursive aspects. Therefore, discursive analysis becomes one of the central directions in linguistics.

The purpose of the discursive analysis is to identify the social context behind the oral or written speech, the study of the relationship between language and social processes. Interpretation of language as a discourse includes the attitude to it as a form of social action, directly rooted in the social conditions of its implementation. On the formation of this view had an impact on a number of theoretical directions in linguistics, philosophy, anthropology, sociology (van Dijk, 2006).

Ruth Wodak (2004) in his Approaches to Critical Discourse Analysis states that approaches to CDA are “derived from quite different theoretical backgrounds, oriented towards very different data and methodologies.” Thus, this work does not aim to provide a single theoretical approach to CDA, but to overview the existing researches on this topic.

One of the most massive approaches to discourse analysis is viewing Discourse Analysis from a cognitive perspective, supported by Teun van Dijk and cited numerous times by other distinguished linguists as Paul Chilton. “The cognitive approach considers political discourse as necessarily a product of individual and collective mental processes”. (van Dijk,1996). In his work “Analyzing political discourse”, Chilton defines the main aspects of CDA that are used later in this work.

To begin with, the socio-cognitive approach by van Dijk is based on the assumptions that cognition balances between society and discourse. “Both long-term and short-term memories as well as certain mental models shape our perception and comprehension of discursive practices and also imply stereotypes and prejudices, if such mental models become rigid and over-generalized”. The implemented methodology turns out to be eclectic, based primarily on argumentation and sematic theories (van Dijk 2001).

Cognitive model of CDA is focused on such concepts as frames, metaphors, actors and events, indexicality, dimensions of deixis (space, time and society). Inexplicit meaning (entailment, presupposition, presumption) and De/legitimization of certain actions could also serve as material for CDA. The following are not the only existing aspects of DA, as CDA is a constantly evolving discipline and it does not require one single and specific theoretical framework. Furthermore, a modern socio-linguist Cristopher Hart examines several more precise aspects of CDA from the functional and cognize perspectives. In Functional Perspective approach, he lays emphasis on linguistic representation (how social actors, events are depicted), in which Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG), transitivity analysis, mystification analysis, social actors' analysis are pursued. Respectfully, in Cognitive Perspective approach such aspects as conceptual metaphors, proximization, categorization and etc.

As can be seen, discourse analysis as a young discipline is very heterogeneous, and there is no single approach shared by all discourse experts in it. However, the most well-known approaches could be outlined. In the first place we should indicate the direction known as the analysis of everyday dialogue. Other leading areas of discursive analysis are mainly grouped around the research of individual scholars and their immediate followers. W. Chafe, studies of the relationship between grammar and interpersonal interaction in dialogue (S. Thompson, B. Fox, S. Ford, 1996), the cognitive theory of the relationship of discourse and grammar of T. Givon (1984), experimental discursive research by R. Tomlin (2002), “grammar of discourse” R. Longeykra, “system-functional grammar” by M. Halliday(2002), a study of understanding strategies of T. van Dijk and W. Kinch, general model of structure the discourse of L. Polanyi (1985), the sociolinguistic approaches of W. Labov and J. Gampers (1972) , the psycholinguistic “model of constructing structures” M. Gernsbaker, and in somewhat earlier period also discursive studies of G. Grimes and J. Hinds ( 1975) (Prokoshenkova, 2006)

In the following chapters we are going to conduct the analysis of Political discourse coverage of Brexit in 2018-19 on the basis of the previously mentioned functional and cognitive perspective approaches. Most certainly, not all the speech samples and interviews contain the material to be analyzed on all the chosen aspects and concepts, consequently they will be omitted. The researched data is being studied according to the following theoretical framework plan:

Mystification Analysis (participants (actor, agent), process, circumstances)

activisation;

passivisation: subjection/beneficialization; agentless passive (unspecified responsibility);

nominalization (processes are expressed in nominal form, as “things”);

Social actor analysis:

genericization/collectivization (to impersonalize social actors)/personalization;

Figure 1. Representation of social actors (adapted from van Leeuwen 1996: 66)

indetermination (group or person is presented unspecified or anonymously);

nomination (usage of proper nouns)/ honorification (usage of titles)/ affiliation (to specify a functional role);

categorization: functionalization (reference to social actors as to their activities), identification (reference to social actors as to something they are, not do);

identification: classification (major categories, age, gender, race and etc.), relational identification, physical identification;

Appraisal theory and SFG:

modality (opinion on probability (modalization), obligation (modulation));

appraisal: attitude, engagement, graduation;

legitimation/ delegitimation/ proximization (temporal: past-oriented, future-oriented, epistemic, axiological);

Conceptual metaphors and other expressive means

Figure 2. Appraisal System



Chapter 2. For Brexit

In this chapter we look upon the speeches of the main representatives of the British conservative party, Theresa May and Boris Johnson on the Brexit agenda. First of all, as it has already been defined, political discourse is the text itself plus its political context, therefore it must be crucial to say a few words about Brexit as a key event in modern international policy.

British exit from The European Union represents a case of interest due to its controversy and close connection to the image of the EU. “On the one hand, Britain is one of the leading members of the European Union. On the other hand, Britain remains independent, stays outside and it still does not have its role.” () It seems the Brexit caused and revealed a massive socio-cultural shift in the British society, which is naturally culturally, socially and linguistically diverse. Ideally, the EU was supposed to make every country of the Union benefit from this co-operation. “New Europe is above all a community of values. Europe has spread these values throughout the world” (Anderson, 2009). In reality, the idea itself seems practically utopian and might have even more economic, political and social drawbacks than positive sides.

Thus, after the 2016 Referendum, the British society was split, with one part supporting the official results of the Referendum and eager to leave the EU, and the other part considering Brexit a great mistake. This societal split is what makes political discourse coverage of Brexit such an attractive topic for a research.

2.1 The Conservative Party of the UK

In general, The Conservative Party of the UK has been the governing party of Britain since 2010, strongly supporting economic prosperity based on individual achievements and free market. The timespan of 2018-19 allows us to consider and compare two Prime Ministers of the UK, a former one, Theresa May and a current one, Boris Johnson.

The speech delivered by Theresa May in Downing Street after a cabinet meeting (14.11.18)

To begin with, it is necessary to provide the statistics of the most frequently used word in this speech. As it is evident from Figure 1, the word “believe” in used by the former PM 4 times, which contributes to the image of a bright future of the UK after Brexit and adds emotional appeal. The words “deal” and “decision” are also used 4 times highlighting the respect of the Government towards the decision the British society made. The word “firmly” (3) may inspire confidence in the decision people made and in the future actions of the Government to fulfill it. At the same time, “draft” (3) allows to assume that there still is no concrete plan of action on the withdrawal.

Figure 3. Frequency of word usage (1st Speech)

Mystification analysis

Passive constructions and nominalization are claimed to be “ideologically load-bearing” (Hurt). “These documents were the result of…”, where the process of making a decision and achieving a result is reduced to “the result”. Here, the reification of making a decision plays a greater role, as well as intentionally emitting the information about the circumstances and participants of obtaining the result.

Though, active constructions prevail in this speech, there are a couple of interesting passive usages (3), generally speaking, they all concern the actions that already happened and were made by the Government, not the people (Past Simple and Present Perfect). “Agreement that was the best that could be negotiated”, “decisions were not taken lightly”, “decisions the government has taken” could be an illustration of how the actor (government) becomes less and less responsible for the process “on paper”. Active constructions, on the contrary, are mostly involved with the people and their action. The most illustrative example here would be “this deal that brings us back control”, in which active construction allows every single citizen to feel his or her part in this action, this responsibility and control of their lives.

Social actor analysis

Discourse strategies of collectivization and personalization are widely implied in this speech, contributing to two different functions. On the one hand, Theresa May successfully uses collective pronouns such as “we”, “us”, “our” (7) to unite people against this “enemy” of Brexit and let everyone of them feel that it was “a collective decision”. On the other hand, personalization in usage of personal pronouns as “my”, “I” (9) allows her to show the ordinary people that she will do everything she can in the interests of their country, equalizing herself with citizens, taking all the responsibility as a member of the government.

Going further, nomination in this speech is intentionally avoided, giving room to categorization. Thus, “UK officials”, “ministers”, “counterparts” and “The Cabinet” could rather be considered identifications than functionalizations. According to Hurt (2014) identification strategy differs from functionalization by the fact that they do not concern with anything the actors do, their actions, but with something they are and their state.

SFG

Strategy of delegitimation is not strongly marked, as there is no invisible opponent or enemy involved and it does not correspond with the primary purpose of the speech itself. Though, due to the fact that Brexit referendum and withdrawal deal have split the British society into pro-Brexit and contra-Brexit, it must be highlighted that the actions and decisions made by people who supported the Brexit deal are being automatically legitimated.

Expressive means

The key expressive means here must be the conceptual metaphors “going back to square one”, giving May an opportunity to hide her real attitude toward Brexit deal using a rather reserved manner of speaking and semi-official style. “This is a decisive step which enables us to move on and finalize the deal in the days ahead”. As it can be seen, she chose to combine a rather sophisticated set of vocabulary with simle common words, e.g. phrasal verbs. She also attempts to make an impression on the listeners from the position of power and persuade them in the necessity to act together and also that their future under her governing is secure using anaphors, which create a certain rhythm. It needs to be specified that no scholar can be 100 percent sure how the audience perceives the speech, thus these assumptions and conclusions are subjective. Epithets, strengthening the emotional appeal can also be found (“decisive”, “collective”, “understandable”). Intentional repetitions are used to boost the persuasive effect (“which brings…, which delivers…”, “I believe…, I firmly believe…”). Finally, in conclusion May “with her head and heart” hopes for the best outcome for “our entire” UK, combining emotional appeal with collectivization.

2. Theresa May's Speech on the relationship between the EU and the UK after

Brexit (02.03.18)

Figure 4. Frequency of word usage (2nd Speech)

As it can be seen from Figure 3, the most frequently used word is “will”, consequently, several conclusions could be drawn. Of primary interest is the fact that this interview is focused on May's personal vision of the UK after Brexit deal, whereas the verb “will” shows her intention to look into probable and possible future with a positive attitude.

1.Mystification Analysis

A vast majority of the sentences are built in active voice; however, the only usage of passive construction is again limited to the denotation of the Government. Interestingly, to the passive construction “the government will be driven” she adds “the government I lead”, emphasizing power and responsibility she has as the PM in this deal. She successfully implements the technique of nominalization, e.g. “many different voices and views”, attributing to the function of concealing the personality of whom they belong to.

2. Social actor analysis

Collectivization and personalization seem to be the central discourse strategies of Theresa May, as in this speech with the help of these strategies she divides it into 2 logical parts. Two major actors could be distinguished throughout this speech: the government represented by pronouns “we, our, us” (17) and presided by May (represented by pronouns “I, me” (13)), and British people embodied in pronoun “you, yours” (9). Surprisingly, collectivizing pronoun “we” is frequently followed by the future tense (“will”), creating an image of acting Government, ready to protect the interests of the nation. “… we'll think not of the powerful, but you… we'll listen ton to the mighty, but you”. Also, future tense is followed by parallel constructions and anaphors, accentuating the effect of persuasion.

Nomination is totally avoided, replaced by categorization, namely identification. As it has been already mentioned before, there are two sides of the deal: The Government and the people. Classification as a variation of identification is aimed at referring to people according to gender, age, religion and social status. The latter is represented in this speech by the categories of “the powerful”, “the wealthy”, “the privileged” - the Government and high social layers, and “you” - the ordinary people, at whom this speech is aimed. Thus, the governing party in the face of Theresa May, addresses the most respected layer of the British society - the working class, which accounts for 53 percent (YouGov poll, 2017). Stressing their importance is a powerful move in order to mobilize people and bring them together on the Brexit issue. According to the same poll (2017), only 14% percent of the respondents treat the upper class with respect, this proves the choice of delegitimating strategy towards “the privileged” and “the wealthy”.

3. SFG

Both techniques of legitimation and delegitimation contribute to this division into two groups and reinforce the impression on the audience. May highlights that the decision made by the Brits to leave the EU “is firmly in the national interests”, delegitimizing the interests of these “privileged, fortunate few”. It seems a perfect discourse strategy in order to persuade ordinary people, people who work hard to earn their fortune, in the fact that that they are resected and heard by the government.

4.Expressive means

Moving on to the literary and rhetorical devices, it must be noted that in this speech the most frequently used technique is anaphora and repetition. “When we… we'll…, when we… we'll…” helps to achieve an artistic effect and put an emphasis on the positive future perspective and the importance of acting by consolidated efforts. Surprisingly, the speech lacks the conceptual metaphorical use which at the same time makes it more down-to-earth and realistic.

Political Discourse of Theresa May

Summarizing all the data analysis we come to the following conclusion:

1. Theresa May prefers to construct her speeches in a simple manner which really helps to find emotional appeal from the working class.

2.The usage of the active voice is dominant in comparison to passive voice, though the passive constructions are used proficiently in references to the Government's actions and decisions, which indicates the intention to emit the circumstances and participants of these actions. Examples of nominalization could also be found in these speeches

3. In a position of power May uses rather restricted and reserved phrases to express her opinion on the Brexit deal, but still manages to succeed in addressing all social layers of the British society. She lacks colorful epithets, conceptual metaphors. On the contrary, plenty of anaphors and repetitions help to emphasize the message of the speech. party linguistic strategy brexit

4.The technique of legitimation and delegitimation as well as various types of categorization, collectivization and personalization could be considered commonly used by her.

3. Boris Johnson's Brexit speech (14.02.18)

Figure 5. Frequency of word usage (3d Speech)

To begin with, nouns “fears” and “feelings” deal with the main purpose of Johnson's speech. Boris Johnson aims to address the general public and allay all the fears and mixed feelings connected with the Brexit deal. “People” and “believe” contribute to the emotional appeal this speaker has to the listeners as well as helps to maintain the connection between the British and their government.

Mystification Analysis

Interestingly, active constructions prevail in this speech, moreover, no examples of passive voice usage can be spotted. However, successful usage of nominalization is ostensible, distracting attention from circumstances and actors connected to the action. (“Brexit can be grounds for hope”).

Social actor analysis

The speech starts with a personal story of Boris Johnson meeting a lady in a constituency surgery and further on in the speech she plays a role of a collective image of a typical British citizen and his or her feeling about Brexit. The collectivization is also presented in the speech by pronouns “she, her” (4) (referring to the collective image) and “we” (4). The collectivization effect is reinforced by anaphoric repetitions employed by the speaker persuading the citizens that “the choice made by the nation is momentous”. Personal pronoun “I, me”, on the contrary, personalize the approach of Johnson towards the listeners, highlighting that he as a citizen has his own view on it, his feelings and beliefs. Any nomination is avoided, categorization is presented in relational identification (“family, friends”), “maneuvering the reader into a position of empathy or sympathy” (Hart, 2001). This effect seems also to contribute to the general purpose of the speech, mentioned previously.

SFG

Emotionally colored vocabulary such as “people determined to stop Brexit, to reverse the referendum and to frustrate the will of the people”, “disastrous mistake” automatically delegitimate the part of the nation, acting against withdrawal. It seems a perfect strategy to persuade people into changing their mind and reconsidering the Brexit issue.

Expressive means

On the one hand, this speech is loaded with logical repetitions and anaphors (“No one is trying to understand…no one was trying to bring”), encouraging to change the policy toward Brexit and consider the feelings and fears ordinary people have about it. The language Johnson chose for this speech is indeed sophisticated, sentences are long and semantically charged, full epithets like “ostensible cause”, “broadband trouble” and etc. Moreover, an abundance of modal verbs and verbs, denoting habits in the past, conditionals or future in the past such as “would” are used, focusing attention on the fact that Johnsons is not looking forward into the future and prefers to talk about the unreal situations in the present and future.

Speech to the Tory party conference (02.10.19)

It is worth paying attention to the fact that this speech is contextually different from the one delivered before, as it is dedicated to a particular group of people united by one political party, the Conservatives. It is of high importance to encourage the political associates to follow the right tactics in terms of Brexit deal, which is why Johnson implies various discourse strategies.

Figure 6. Frequency of word usage (4th Speech)

“What the whole world wants is for Brexit to get done”, here the word “world is repeated 8 times as well as the auxiliary verb of Future tenses “will”, promising the future perspectives of the planned actions. “We will under no circumstances have checks at or near the border in Northern Ireland… we will respect peace process… we will protect the existing regulatory arrangements…”. The imperative form “let's” unites the political party members to get Brexit done as soon as possible, in the nation's interests.

Mystification Analysis

The unmarked active constructions prevail over the passive ones, though passive voice is used 3 times, predominantly in the context of actions and decisions which exacerbated the and prolonged the Brexit deal: “…even though things have not been made easier by the surrender bill”, overstating the problems the Government and the society face in order to get Brexit done. Agentless passive “…it is the main bizarre features of the SNP that in spite of being called names like Salmond and Sturgeon, they are committed to handing back those fish...” allows to make the responsibility for the action unspecified and contributes to the delegitimation strategy of the Opposition's stance on the issue, as if giving the neglecting attitude to their words, “we want to turbo charge the Scottish fishing sector; they would allow Brussels to charge for our turbot”. Nominalizations as a type of grammatical metaphor is represented poorly, but still can be found (“it is by raising the productivity of the whole of the UK”).

Social actor analysis

Johnson begins his speech with paying tribute to Theresa and Philip May. He efficiently implies the collectivization technique, making the audience believe that getting Brexit done is what “the whole world” and “the whole lot of us” want and need. The speech is loaded with common usage of collective pronoun “we, us, our” (21). On the contrary, strategy of personalization is implied in regard to the provided personal examples, “I am going to quote the supreme authority-my mother”, - and in regard to citing other political leaders such as Jeremy Corbyn. That is why personal pronouns “she, her”, “I, me” and “he, his” are used. Nomination is realized in the form of proper nouns “Theresa May”, “Phillip May”, “Jeremy Corbyn”. In this context, Boris Johnson refers to them as the powerful actors, thus formal nomination is preferred to the informal one. Categories such as “remainers” or “leavers” illustrate the split in the society, and unite them logically at the same time by saying “that they all want to be done with this subject”. Relational identification “in my family, my mother voted leave” plays a huge role in maneuvering the listeners into the feeling of sympathy towards the speaker.

SFG

Clearly, with the help of nomination Johnson delegitimizes the actions of the House of Commons, “which refuses to deliver Brexit” and makes it important to deal with Brexit efficiently and “send Jeremy Corbyn into orbit where he belongs”, certainly behaving as a good leader turning his “team” against the “other”.

Expressive means

Boris Johnsons invents his own creative conceptual metaphors, but uses them rather seldom. Likewise, when comparing the Parliament to a laptop, he emphasizes that “the screen would be showing the pizza wheel of doom”. Comparison of the Parliament and a TV show, he claims that “we still could have watched The Speaker being forced to eat kangaroo testicle”. Moreover, a great number of epithets (“one-nation and tax-cutting”, “bizarre features”) and emotionally colored vocabulary contribute to the image of Johnson as a rather emotional and concerned politician and leader. Rhetorical questions (“Are you downcast?”) act as a hook and are aimed at attracting attention at the very beginning of the meeting.

Political Discourse of Boris Johnson

Boris Johnson prefers to structure his speeches in a chaotic manner, loading it with self-constructed conceptual metaphors that has nothing to deal with fight and war metaphors.

A distinctive feature of his speeches is that he usually cites his own personal experience and his family stories to enhance the emotional appeal.

Nevertheless, despite being over-emotional in his speeches and his verbose style of talking, he manages to address all the social layers.

2.2 The Republican Party of the USA

First of all, it needs to be highlighted that in this work the speech samples by Donald Trump as the most distinguished Republican will be analyzed. Political discourse of Donald Trump remains a mystery for modern scholars and attracts a lot of attention from linguists. The Americans assume (Bloomberg, 2019) that due to Trump political discourse of the USA “has become negative, as well as less respectful”.

It is worth mentioning that Donald Trump is not verbose in his interviews and speeches, which is why the amount of material and speech samples differs from that of the British politicians and leaders. Although Donald Trump might not seem a professional politician, his political discourse is greatly affected by his socio-cultural background of being a businessman his whole life.

Donald Trump's speech in the Oval Office alongside with the PM of Ireland (14.03.19)

Figure 6. Frequency of word usage (5th Speech)

Going through the words frequently used in this speech, one can find nothing peculiar. After analyzing the discourse of British politicians, this seems rather untypical.

Mystification analysis

Active role is occupied by Brexit deal itself, which is “tearing the country apart” and is represented in the pronoun it (14). Passive voice is implemented twice referring mainly to the negotiation of Theresa May on the matter of Brexit that “could have been negotiated in a different manner” and “would have been successful”. Modal Perfects with “would” and “should” clearly pinpoints the critical attitude of Trump towards it.

Social actor analysis

Collectivization is poorly represented by the collective noun “all” and “everything”. Personal attitude of Trump toward Brexit deal is expressed with the help of personal pronoun “I” followed by verbs of mental and relational processes “I think”, “I hate”, “I am surprised”.

SFG

Trump is clearly delegitimating the actions of the British parliament and Therese May in the negotiation over Brexit. “She didn't listen to that and that's fine”, but he still is trying to do it more or less in a hidden and reserved manner: “… I gave PM my ideas… she didn't listen and that's fine”. Still, he “frankly” assumes that “it could have been negotiated in a different manner”, using passive voice with the modal verb, which usually refers to something that is regretted about or criticized.

Expressive means

Negatively colored vocabulary is easily distinguished in this speech such as “hate”, “shame” (twice), “tearing apart”, “ripped apart” (twice), “badly”. The talk is rather straightforward and involves no conceptual metaphors as well as implements some unintentional repetitions, but not anaphors. Metaphor of both sides of negotiation being “cemented in” is remarkable, completing the image of Trump as a down-to-earth politician and speaker. Interestingly, past tense is used twice more frequently than present and future forms are not used at all. It can all emphasize the fact that Trump as a politician aims to criticize and discuss the past events and not outline the future perspectives of this matter.

Trump interview with Theresa May in Chequers on his first official visit to the UK (13.07.18)

Figure 6. Frequency of word usage (6th Speech)

Analyzing the frequency of word usage is pointless due to the fact that this speech was clearly prepared by the speech writer. Moreover, it should be mentioned that this speech is official, well-structured and tackles most of domestic and international issues in the US policy: “NATO summit”, “terrorism” and immigrant control. Nominations “finalizing” and “on leaving the EU” reveal and prove the fact that this speech was prepared beforehand and by professionals, mostly because it differs so much in structure and linguistic strategies than the previous spontaneous one.

1.Mystification analysis

The use of passive voice is restricted to one construction “we are closely coordinated” in terms of the relationships between the UK and the US. Active constructions are used both with past tenses and present continuous, which marks the process of development in the state of affairs: “we are working” and etc.

2.Social actor analysis

Collectivization is a key discourse strategy of this speech as it is aimed to provide an overview of cooperation between Britain and America. Collective pronouns “we”, “our”, “us” are used 16 times, referring to the “united” effort of both sides to make everything go smoothly. “Shared priorities”, “common defense” and phrases like these are intentionally implemented to highlight the “united” effort of two nations to defend and renew “the traditions of freedom, sovereignty”.

Expressive means

The speech is properly structured and full of well-placed epithets like “wonderful and memorable evening”, “gracious hospitality”. Hidden comparison of traditions shared by the UK and the US to “our shared gift to the world”, a rather naturally integrated metaphor that contribute to the collectivization as well. No anaphors and repetitions are implemented in the speech.

...