Security Discourse within the Framework of the Munich Conference: Linguo-Comparative Aspect

The article deals with a comparative linguistic analysis of the reports of Great Britain and USA leaders within the framework of the Munich Security conference and is aimed at distinguishing the role of language in shaping the speakers’ attitude towards the issues of global and national security. The research methodology is based on the critical, cognitive, comparative, descriptive and quantitative methods that has enabled us to single out the most efficient and reliable actual speech material that include personal pronouns, modal verbs, and emotive-evaluative vocabulary. It is proved that the country leaders make use of a certain set of linguistic tools and devices peculiar for their national identity and the policy of their country, which helps to deliver the thoughts, attitude, values and priorities of the speakers and model their political image and speech portrait. The authors come to the conclusion, that Biden’s speech was assertive and forward-looking, while Johnson’s rhetoric was more circumspect balancing criticism and optimistic perspective of Britain’s role on the international relations.

1. Trusov N.A. (2016). Methodological accents of understanding the phenomenon of Russia's national security. Mary Law Vestnik. 2016;3(18):28–33. (In Russ.)

2. Political dictionary. URL: [accessed: 6.09.2022].

3. Treijs P. Defining security culture. Latvia, 3. 2015.

4. Bunde T. Introduction. Between States of Matter Competition and Cooperation. Munich Security Report. 2021; 16–37.

5. Nikolayev I.V. Verbal-symbolic structure of the official discourse of Russia's national security in 2009-2019. Nota bene. 2019; 6:50-58. (In Russ.)

6. Zaharova N.V. Linguostylistic Means Formation of E. Macron’s Verbal Image. Kazan Linguistic Journal. 2023;6(4): 501–511. (In Russ.)

7. Takhtarova S.S. Communicative mitigation in different discursive practices. М.: IN-FRA-М. 2023: 138-148. (In Russ.)

8. Generalova S.N. The concept of "political discourse" in the linguoculturological paradigm. Journal of Pushkin Leningrad State University. 2010;1:95–101. (In Russ.)

9. Temirgazina Z. K. Modal meanings as an effective means of linguistic influence in the speech of politicians. Political Linguistics. 2019;6(78):44–50. (In Russ.)

10. Bushkanets L.E., Zubkova O.S., Zvereva E.A. & Fakhrutdinova A.F. Tolerant Language Personality as the Basis of Communicative Interaction. Entrelinguas Journal. 2021;7(4). (In Russ.)

11. Remarks by President Biden at the 2021 Virtual Munich Security Conference (2021, February 19). Available from: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/02/19/remarksby-president-biden-at-the-2021-virtual-munich-security-conference/ [accessed: 21.12.2021].

12. Boris Johnson's speech at the Munich Security Conference (2021, February 19). Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxAHLRtwXLY [accessed: 21.12.2021].

13. Abuzyarova D.L., Kochetova L.A. Mitigation in British Parliamentary Discourse. Kazan Linguistic Journal. 2024;7(2): 169–179. (In Russ.)