1.

2 Political discourse as an object of linguistic

A number of terminology and concepts that were previously exclusive to a single
scientific subject were reinterpreted in other fields as a result of the linguistics community's
efforts to promote new areas of scientific interest in the second half of the 20th century. The
demise of the term "discourse" serves as an example of this kind of procedure. In several
fields, discourse is the subject of research. Scientists in the domains of languages, psychology,
philosophy, sociology, religion, pedagogy, law, political science, etc. do its research.
Discourse does not yet have a universally understood definition that encompasses all contexts
in which it can be used. Each science that investigates this phenomena provides a definition
unique to itself.

The scientific disciplines of ethnography, cultural studies, psychology, sociology,

political science, linguistics, and other humanities came together to establish political
linguistics. Political linguistics also depends on the accomplishments of cognitive linguistics,
functional: rhetoric, stylistics, sociolinguistics, linguopragmatics, and text linguistics, in order
to comprehend and effectively characterize the mechanics of political communication. A.P.
Chudinov pointed out that political linguistics combined with multidisciplinarity included
such fundamental elements of contemporary linguistics as explanatory, functionalism,
expansionism, and anthropocentrism (Chudinov 2006: 7).

There is still no one theoretical framework, nomenclature, or technique in this field.

However, this does not negate the necessity of developing a minimal set of terminologies and
concepts to guarantee the methodical dissemination of the research material and mutual
comprehension amongst its investigators. Among the fundamental ideas and terminologies
that address the primary issues in political linguistics, the following stand out:

 political conceptions, political fields (mental arenas), antivalues and values, and
stereotypes in political speech make up the linguomental or linguistic picture of the
political world, which is a complex unity of these mental units(Novikova 2016: 111);
 political communication and related political discourse, tactics and strategies in
political communication, genres of political speech, political phraseology and
vocabulary, the political sphere and its levels, political text, political speech and
political language (Chudinov 2006: 9).
 The main focus of political linguistics study is political discourse. Political discourse is
defined as "the totality of all speech acts used in political discussions, as well as rules of public
policy, sanctified by tradition and proven by experience" (Baranov, A. N, 1991).

There are many of definitions for it, but the one that is most frequently used is that of A.
Nick Baranov.

E.R. Levenkova (2011) defined political discourse in her own way, adding to it a mention
of the mental realm of human life, without which contemporary discourse studies would be
lacking.

The author's political opinions, other discourses that may be implicitly or explicitly
represented in a given discourse sample, the political context that shapes the discourse's
content, and other factors are all crucial for contemporary political linguistics to consider
when analyzing political discourse.

Therefore, "the study of the degree of influence of various linguistic, cultural, social,
economic, political, national, and other factors on this text and on its perception by the
addressee" (Chudinov, A.P., 2006) is a prerequisite for studying political speech.

Regarding the purposes of political speech, academic V.V. Vinogradov's

(1978)functions of language—namely, impact, communication, and communication—must
be cited in this context. The political discourse includes representations of each of these
roles. Since the politician's speech is primarily intended to affect the audience rather than to
provide any knowledge, the influence function is given the primary role. Since there is
frequently no contact at all between the writer and the recipient, the purpose of
communication also becomes less important.

The incentive function, which entails influencing the addressee in order to acquire
and hold onto power, appears to be the primary purpose of political communication. This
aspect of political discourse is also included in E.I. Sheigal's (2000) definition, which states
that it is "communication, the main intention of which is the struggle for power". Indeed, the
motivation underlying political rhetoric is the desire for power, which is why it is frequently
employed as a tool for social manipulation. The power struggle suggests that in order to
persuade the audience to act (for instance, prior to elections), one must first convince them
of the speaker's sincerity of intent and the accuracy of their assessments, among other things.
 Political discourse's substantive and formal elements are influenced by its functional
aspects. Standardization and expression are combined in political discourse, which is one of
its characteristics. For the discourse to be understandable to a broad audience, the first
element is required. It entails adhering to specific discourse creation and replication
sequences as well as language selection guidelines. Expressiveness also enables you to portray
the author's emotional state and attitude toward the subject in the discourse.

In addition to being expressive through the use of stylistic figures of speech,

expressiveness also adds attention to the text, which is crucial in the political sphere since
the more intelligent the discussion, the more impact it may have on the listeners.

Another essential component of political conversation is political language. It is

typified by ambiguity, which is frequently conveyed through polysemy and words with
ethereal meanings. It comes to light because politicians frequently have to talk behind their
backs about uncomfortable issues that put a shadow over them. This involves keeping certain
utterances anonymous in order to identify the individual making a given choice in secret.
Speakers may employ doubt to conceal their lack of knowledge. Uncertainty can prevent
confrontations by allowing speakers to avoid answering for their words, making it simpler to
defend against critics(Sheigal, 2000).

Researchers are now exploring the linguistic aspects of political discourse, known as
"political language," which refers to a certain type of communication with the audience.
Political language has a bidirectional interaction with extralinguistic reality. The political
situation in the globe has a considerable impact on the country's culture, values, traditions,
and priorities. Political reality frequently requires speakers to distinguish between "their
own" and "strangers" in their language, which must be carefully drawn to avoid
confrontation.

However, in political debate, the choice of phrase is extremely important. It gives you
the ability to affect the addressee's awareness, influencing how he will interpret certain facts
and act upon understanding them. Political language has a crucial role in shaping public
perceptions of politicians and political parties, as well as in the process of formulating policy
choices. There are several instances where a well-received public performance altered the
trajectory of historical events, particularly those pertaining to the military.
 When discussing the production and interpretation of political discourse, T.A. van
Dyck (2000) also discusses the concept of two different kinds of knowledge. He differentiates
between "general cultural knowledge shared by participants of various social groups" and
"knowledge shared by participants of a separate social group". The first kind, which is
objective and unquestionable, serves as the foundation for communication. The sole
restriction on the second sort of knowledge is that its similarities are limited to a certain
community. Otherwise, it satisfies all the requirements of the first. This information appears
to be limited to the beliefs and opinions of others.

The examination of African-American political speech benefits greatly from this

taxonomy of political knowledge. The objectives of this dissertation do not include
determining the disparities in knowledge of particular social groups; however, it can be
reasonably assumed that, given the abundance of references to the second type of knowledge
that is unique to African Americans in the United States in the discourse of the civil rights
movement, that Barack Obama's modern discourse is understandable to all citizens of this
nation because of his unique status.

One of the key issues in contemporary linguistics is the issue of inversion in

communication, particularly in political discourse. It is crucial to note that inversion is a
unique phenomena in the English language, in contrast to many other linguistic systems.
Despite being a part of syntax, inversion is not caused by syntactic elements like the presence
or absence of an object or preposed material.

Inverted word order is one technique for establishing a desired impression on the
audience. The syntactical structure of an English phrase follows the language's set norms and
is one of the primary techniques of conveying thoughts. The English language is marked by a
rigid word order in which the subject precedes the predicate in declarative sentences.
According to Wallwork A. (2012:16)"the subject maintains the most important information"
and so, it should occupy the first place, before giving the information about it. The abnormal
flow of information confuses the reader or listener.

As a result, both male and female speakers employ this tactic to compete for audience
attention at various political events. In his book "Gender, Status, and Power in Discourse
Behavior of Men and Women," Peter Kunsmann claims that gender and status are the
determining elements in language usage. As a result, the current investigation's objective is
to analyze the usage of inversion in the speeches of two modern political leaders of
comparable stature but different genders. The composition is based on fourteen speeches by
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

According to the data analysis, Barack Obama's discourse has a larger percentage of
complete inversion use than Hillary Clinton's talks. In her turn, Hillary Clinton used partial
inversion more frequently than Barack Obama. The American president frequently uses full
inversion patterns (41% vs. 16%), while Hillary Clinton's speeches have a more symmetrical
distribution (22% vs. 24%). Additionally, the two orators have different preferences for
grammatical inversion patterns. The introduction section here has the most instances from
both orators' speeches (34 in Barack Obama's and 21 in Hillary Clinton's).

Furthermore, the grammatical inversion patterns that these two orators favor differ.
The first there/here counts the most examples in both speakers' speeches—21 in Hillary
Clinton's address and 34 in Barack Obama's. Compared to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton
asks more generic and wh-questions. Regarding the other patterns, the lone instance of a
disjunctive question occurred in a speech by Hillary Clinton, although Barack Obama's
rhetoric is known for its inversion of sentences that follow conjunctions like nor, neither,
nor, and proportionate agreement.

The most common pattern seen in both candidates' speeches is the adverbial modifier
being positioned at the beginning of the phrase (around 32%).