The Diachronic Aspect of the Use of Mitigative Tactics in British Parliamentary Discourse

The article is devoted to the study of the diachronic features of the use of mitigation tactics in British parliamentary discourse. The complexity and multidimensional nature of the discourse is considered, its key features and functions are highlighted. The classification of types of discourse is given, special attention is paid to political discourse as a kind of institutional discourse aimed at achieving political goals and gaining public trust. The importance of studying British parliamentary speeches is also emphasized, and characteristic features such as the desire to protect one's own interests, shape public opinion and influence the consciousness of citizens are noted. The main purpose of parliamentary discourse is to defend positions and promote party ideology. Effective solutions to these problems are facilitated by mitigation strategies that reduce the likelihood of conflicts and improve the quality of communications. The main methodological approach is based on the analysis of parliamentary speeches recorded in the official archive (Hansard corpus). The linguistic and structural features of the strategies used, as well as the influence of external factors on the change in the nature of discourse, are investigated. The results show a significant increase in the number of euphemisms, modal words of insecurity, and general trends in increasing tact and diplomacy in public speaking. This study confirms the existence of significant evolutionary changes in the structure and content of parliamentary discourse related to changes in the social and cultural environment. The results obtained demonstrate the significant contribution of science to understanding the mechanisms of functioning of parliamentary communication and offer prospects for further indepth study of this topic.

1. Dake T.A. Language. Cognition. Communication. M.: Nauka Publ.; 1989. 415 p. (In Russ.)

2. Arutyunova N.D. Discourse. Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary. Moscow: Soviet Encyclopedia;1990. Pp. 136–137. (In Russ.)

3. Grigorieva V.S. Discourse as an element of the communicative process: pragmalinguistic and cognitive aspects. Tambov: Publishing House of the Tambov State Technical University. University; 2007. 189 p. (In Russ.)

4. Karasik V.I. Discursive personology. Language, communication, social environment. 2007;(5):78–86. (In Russ.)

5. Yakobson R.O. Linguistics and poetics. Structuralism: "for" and "against". M.: Progress; 1975. Pp.193–230. (In Russ.)

6. Beilinson L.S. The functions of institutional discourse. Bulletin of the Irkutsk State Linguistic University. University; 2009. Pp. 142–147. (In Russ.)

7. Neiman V.N. Parliamentary discourse in the modern Czech linguistic and cultural space. Philological Sciences. Questions of theory and practice. 2019;12(6):373–377. (In Russ.)

8. Nikitina K.V. Political media discourse and its features that create prerequisites for manipulating public consciousness. Management of social and economic systems. Moscow: Orel State Technical University; 2006. Pp. 1–7. (In Russ.)

9. Issers O.S. Communicative strategies and tactics of Russian speech. Moscow: KomKniga; 2006. 288 p. (In Russ.)

10. Takhtarova S.S. Category of communicative mitigation (cognitive-discursive and ethnocultural aspects). Volgograd; 2009. 382 p. (In Russ.)

11. Romanovskaya L.V. Mitigation strategies in the discourse of English-language political interviews. Bulletin of the Nizhny Novgorod State Linguistic University named after N.A. Dobrolyubov. 2017;40:124–134. (In Russ.)