Volume 12 - Issue 66
/ June 2023
55
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
DOI: https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2023.66.06.6
How to Cite:
Kaminska, O., Tulyulyuk, K., Kudelko, Z., & Tkach, A. (2023). Professional diplomatic language in the Ukrainian-British and
Ukrainian-German international agreements at the turn of the XX – XXI centuries. Amazonia Investiga, 12(66), 55-63.
https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2023.66.06.6
Professional diplomatic language in the Ukrainian-British and
Ukrainian-German international agreements at the turn of the
XX – XXI centuries
Фахова дипломатична мова в українсько-британських та українсько-німецьких
міжнародних угодах на рубежі ХХ – ХХІ століття
Received: March 15, 2023 Accepted: May 20, 2023
Written by:
Olena Kaminska1
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2614-3571
Kateryna Tulyulyuk2
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8197-8454
Zoya Kudelko3
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3331-6154
Alla Tkach4
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1108-0256
Abstract
The paper analyzes the peculiarities of the use of
the professional language of diplomacy in the
Ukrainian-German and Ukrainian-British
agreements at the turn of the XX - XXI centuries.
International relations is a sphere of social
activity in which language is formed in the
diplomatic professional field. Diplomatic
protocol requires compliance with certain rules
and regulations.
The objective of the study is to highlight the main
components of the professional language of
diplomacy based on the analysis of diplomatic
texts of interstate agreements. An important
element is the interpretation of diplomatic ideas
through the prism of the linguistic dimension.
The paper is not just a linguistic analysis of the
text, but a comparative analysis of the key
elements of the diplomatic style of speech,
typical for the Ukrainian-German and Ukrainian-
British agreements. A combination of dialectical
and synergetic scientific and philosophical
methodology was successfully used to achieve
the set tasks. Due to the structural and typological
1
PhD in Philology, assistant, Department of Modern Foreign Languages and Translation, Yuriy Fedkovych Chernivtsi National
University, Chernivtsi, Ukraine.
2
PhD in Philology, assistant, Department of Modern Foreign Languages and Translation, Yuriy Fedkovych Chernivtsi National
University, Chernivtsi, Ukraine.
3
PhD in Philology, Associate Professor, Department of Modern Foreign Languages and Translation, Yuriy Fedkovych Chernivtsi
National University, Chernivtsi, Ukraine.
4
PhD in Philology, Associate Professor, Department of Social Sciences and Ukrainian Studies, Bukovinian State Medical University,
Chernivtsi, Ukraine.
56
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
methods of linguistic research, the tasks set for
the classification of diplomatic texts have been
achieved.
Thus, the study of the components of
professional diplomatic language is relevant in
modern scientific and linguistic discourse, as it
enables studying philological aspects and at the
same time is useful for understanding the essence
of international politics.
Keywords: diplomatic document, interstate
agreement, Ukrainian-British relations,
Ukrainian-German agreement, professional
language of diplomacy.
Introduction
The paper elucidates the structure of diplomatic
documents of the Ukrainian-German and
Ukrainian-British agreements. The peculiarities
of the introductory parts with the intentions of the
parties, the core of the document with certain
elements of cooperation in these areas, aspects of
compliance with diplomatic protocol are
revealed. The peculiarity of the analysis of these
documents is the interpretation of the parts that
do not indicate general diplomatic activity, but
the aspects that are inherent only in bilateral
relations between the states.
Interstate relations need to be studied in detail, as
they determine the priorities for the development
of political, economic and cultural cooperation
on an international scale. Diplomatic nuances
remain for political scientists. Analysis of the
professional language of diplomacy requires
philological research, as it deals with a cluster of
formal business style of speech. Thus, the
structure of diplomatic documents is fully
correlated with the norms and rules of the
languages of both parties. Such studies are
conducted taking into account the need to
highlight the content and form of the text in two
languages. Our research proposes to perform a
double comparative analysis in the following
formats: Ukrainian-German and Ukrainian-
English.
For completeness of the study, different types of
diplomatic documents are analyzed.
• fundamental intergovernmental agreements
on recognition of countries as subjects of
international law and priorities of friendship
between the states: “Joint Declaration on the
Fundamentals of Relations between Ukraine
and the Federal Republic of Germany”
(1993), “Joint Declaration between Ukraine
and the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland” (1992);
• basic agreements on cooperation in the field
of socio-cultural activities “Agreement
between Ukraine and the Federal Republic
of Germany on the Development of Large-
Scale Cooperation in the Field of Economy,
Industry, Science and Technology” (1993)
and “Agreement on the Principles of
Relations and Cooperation between Ukraine
and the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland”(1994);
• sector-specific agreements on cooperation in
certain spheres of public activity
“Memorandum of Understanding between
the Ministry of Emergencies and Protection
of the Population from the Consequences of
the Chornobyl Accident and the Ministry of
Energy and Climate Change of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland on Cooperation in Radiation Safety,
Physical Protection and Non-
Kaminska, O., Tulyulyuk, K., Kudelko, Z., Tkach, A. / Volume 12 - Issue 66: 55-63 / June, 2023
Volume 12 - Issue 66
/ June 2023
57
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Proliferation”(2009), “Agreement (in the
form of an Exchange of Notes) between the
Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and the
Government of the Federal Republic of
Germany on Cooperation in Biological and
Chemical Safety and Nuclear / Radiological
Protection” under the initiative of the G-7
led Global Partnership against the Spread of
Weapons and Materials of Mass
Destruction” (2020).
The study of the elements of the professional
language of diplomacy entails understanding of
international politics, as the documents are
formed in two paradigms: the actual, linguistic
and diplomatic. On the one hand, there are norms
and rules of state languages in which the
agreement or treaty is concluded. On the other
hand, it is significant to comply with the
requirements of diplomatic protocol. These two
categories almost never contradict each other, but
there are aspects that require agreement between
them.
The objective of this study is to investigate the
structural elements of the professional language
of diplomacy based on the analysis of the
Ukrainian-German and Ukrainian-British
interstate agreements. In the study of lexical and
grammatical features of diplomatic texts, the task
is to identify a synergistic model of scientific and
linguistic discourse. The format of
harmonization of key components of the
diplomatic protocol in the philological dimension
is clearly traced in the interstate agreements.
Theoretical Framework or Literature Review
The problems of the professional language of
diplomacy are covered in the research of Adamcova
(2018), Arifon (2016), Bryson (2016), Melchor
(2020), Pokhrel (2020), Stanzel (2018).
The peculiarities of diplomatic texts are discovered
by Connelly, Hicks, Jervis, Spirling & Suong
(2021) and Ismailov, Rayeva, Koblanova,
Yelikbayev, & Yessenova (2020).
The use of the INTERNET environment, social
networks and information and computer
technologies is important in the study of
international relations in general and the texts of
interstate agreements in particular. Such studies are
conducted by Zanettin (2016), Stepanov (2020),
Dorosh & Kopey (2018).
Some elements of the relationship and correlation
of state languages in international agreements are
found in the works of Maynez (2016), Bayram &
Ta (2019).
In the study of interstate relations, we use bilateral
agreements between Ukraine and the United
Kingdom and Ukraine and Germany.
Methodology
The paper uses general scientific research methods,
in particular, the analysis of diplomatic texts. The
method of comparative analysis was also updated to
identify differences (features) of interstate
agreements between Ukraine and other countries.
Synergetic and dialectical scientific and
philosophical methodology was instrumental for
identifying common and different elements in the
texts of Ukraine’s international agreements with
Germany and Great Britain. Structural and
typological methods of linguistic research were
used to study the peculiarities of the professional
language of diplomacy, which provided a thorough
analysis of diplomatic texts.
The use of the structural-typological method in the
current study is due to the need to study the
diplomatic-linguistic cluster. Since diplomatic
translation is complex in an organizational and
structural sense, there is a need for specific research
methods. A standard analytical methodological set
is not enough, therefore a synergistic approach is
used, in which the interaction of structural and
typological components is actualized. This
methodological principle makes it possible to
investigate the content and format of a diplomatic
document and to overcome difficulties associated
with its translation or interpretation.
Results
It should be noted that the viability of the state
language of a particular subject of international
relations, which is expressed in cultural and
political values, is of utmost significance. The
state language must always be presented at the
highest level at the international level. The
professional language of diplomacy should fully
cover all aspects of the socio-cultural
environment: from politics to culture (Ismailov,
Rayeva, Koblanova, Yelikbayev & Yessenova,
2020).
Language is an important component of
communication. The effectiveness of language
depends on the possession of language skills by
the vast majority of speakers. As for the concept
of “professional language”, it is about the use of
certain terminology (Bryson, 2016). The
professional language of diplomacy is
characterized by the concepts inherent in foreign
policy.
58
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Language is a key component in international
relations, which is characterized by a
combination of different socio-cultural
characteristics. Language as the most effective
means of communication is becoming a tool for
communication at the interstate and international
level (Adamcova, 2018). It should be
emphasized that language is a translator of ideas
that lead to both understanding and pointing out
differences between the subjects of diplomacy. It
should be born in mind that the positions set out
in diplomatic texts are officially recorded in the
historical dimension. Therefore, the professional
language of diplomacy bears the burden of
responsibility, as all its elements are under
constant political monitoring of stakeholders.
Professional language acts as a language cluster
that provides an effective communication
between specialists in a particular field.
Professional language does not appear as an
independent linguistic element. Rather, it is a set
of philological components used in a particular
area of public life. Diplomatic discourse appears
as a separate sphere of socio-cultural activity and
forms its own terminological system. In addition,
modern synergetic models permeate philological
elements, so professional diplomatic language is
closely intertwined (and, in some cases, merges)
with other professional fields (political,
economic, cultural, etc.).
Information on the metadata of the relevant
documentation is highly topical for the
professional language of diplomacy. This is
mostly archival data, which should reflect
accurate information about the participants
involved in a particular document. For example,
in the United States, there was established the
Freedom of Information Archive (FOI Archive),
where more than 3 million diplomatic documents
were processed. Researchers of this resource
(Connelly et all, 2021) point out that ordered
metadata contain information obtained through
special natural language processing tools for a
particular region. In the way, the linguistic
features of the professional language of
diplomacy in terms of different regional
languages and cultures are studied.
One of the variations in the interpretation of the
professional language of diplomacy is the
“dialogue of languages” proposed by Maynez
(2016). This guideline is intended to eliminate
the contradictions caused by linguistic
differences. At least two languages from both
parties are used when concluding a diplomatic
agreement. Difficulties in translation and
different interpretations of certain concepts can
create certain problems in the perception and
understanding of a diplomatic document. Under
such conditions, establishing a dialogue of
languages will provide the necessary synergy of
the text, which will be unambiguous and unified.
Certainly, the lexical and grammatical aspects
will fully comply with the norms and rules of the
official state language. It is rather about the
harmonization of structural and typological
components.
As an example, we point to the option of
resolving a potential contradiction due to the
language factor. The Memorandum of
Understanding between the Ministry of
Emergencies and Protection of the Population
from the Consequences of the Chornobyl
Accident and the Ministry of Energy and Climate
Change of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland on Cooperation in
Radiation Safety, Physical Protection and Non-
Proliferation that the agreement is in duplicate,
each in the Ukrainian and English languages,
both texts being equally authentic. In case of any
divergence in the interpretation or application of
the provisions of this Memorandum, the English
text shall prevail. Such remarks are common
practice in international relations. Of course,
there are some inequalities; however, this
guideline is used only to resolve differences.
Given that English is the most common language
in international relations, this format is quite
acceptable and effective.
Another approach is found in the Agreement (in
the form of exchange of notes) between the
Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and the
Government of the Federal Republic of Germany
on amendments to the Agreement (in the form of
exchange of notes) between the Cabinet of
Ministers of Ukraine and the Government of the
Federal Republic of Germany on Cooperation in
Biological, Chemical Safety and Nuclear /
Radiological Protection under the initiative of the
G-7 led “Global Partnership against the Spread
of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction”
(2020), which states that the agreement is in
German and Ukrainian, both texts being identical
legal force.
As Pokhrel (2020) emphasizes: “Diplomatic
language is a social dialect meant to further the
successful pursuit of political interests and is
mostly used by individuals employed in a
diplomatic capacity. Though often characterized
as being subtle, it is a subtlety that is frequently
arising out of the complexities of working of a
diplomatic agent”. Therefore, the effectiveness
and expediency of the use of diplomatic language
Volume 12 - Issue 66
/ June 2023
59
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
depends both on the competence of its speakers
and in the regulatory field of its operation.
The question of functioning of the professional
language within the state language and in
comparison with foreign languages is significant.
This aspect is especially relevant for professional
diplomatic language. Professional languages can
be regulated with generally accepted literary
language, as there is only one fundamental
difference between them: in literary language
there are lexical units of a certain national
language; and in the professional one specialized
terminology system is added to them.
The path to a synergetic model of unification of
the norms and rules for the linguistic guidelines
for a text of a diplomatic nature is quite
challenging. One of the options for forming such
guidelines is scientific diplomacy as a
transnational and cross-border field, leveling
borders, national and cultural aspects,
stakeholders and professional components
(Melchor, 2020). The only goal is to create an
accessible and understandable system of
linguistic support for the drafting of texts for
diplomatic protocol in all its forms. This format
should be accessible and acceptable to all players
in international politics. The tacit components
that have existed in diplomacy for a long time
must be taken into account in the new rules for
the use of the professional language in this area.
At the same time, it is worth noting that the
subjunctive mood and ambiguity of statements
are relevant to diplomatic texts and are actively
used. This format provides a manifestation of
nonlinearity of thinking and allows
demonstrating flexibility and determines the
prospects for further negotiation. Discussion, the
search for a common position, compromise - all
of these are possible only when using elements
of conventionality in the professional language
of diplomacy.
Translation is an important component of
international politics. This domain of diplomatic
activity is virtually invisible, but the information
and communication functions it performs are
fundamental (Zanettin, 2016). Two key aspects
of intensifying the use of professional language
of diplomacy as a tool for translation are singled
out:
• simultaneous translation during negotiations
or speeches;
• retransmission and interpretation of the
provisions of diplomatic statements and
documents in other countries in other
languages.
The importance of accurate and unambiguous
translation directly during the negotiations is
undeniable. As for the interpretation, there may
be some distortion of the essence of the
diplomatic document. However, in terms of form
(namely the linguistic aspect), the document
must be submitted in accordance with the
requirements and with strict adherence to the
basics of professional diplomatic language.
Inaccuracies in translation, blurred content, and
ambiguity of wording - all these flaws lead to the
rejection of the content. Consequently, the
diplomatic community states the inefficiency of
this type of work organization. The COVID-19
pandemic has made some changes in the
organization of the work of diplomatic missions,
reorienting it more to the online format.
Virtualization in some way reduces the share of
direct communication between diplomats, which
represents the need for new algorithms for
constructing texts.
Particular attention is paid to elements that can
be interpreted ambiguously when organizing a
diplomatic document, which can lead to a
potentially conflicting situation. Any language
form that may demean or disrespect the traditions
or laws of another state in diplomatic protocol is
not allowed. This applies to the national, ethnic,
religious, socio-cultural spheres, which
emphasize the uniqueness of the state.
In the studied interstate agreements the examples
of respect and tolerance for the state elements of
the signatory countries are found. In particular,
the historical parallels of the socio-cultural
development of Ukraine and Germany are
indicated: “Overcoming the contradiction
between East and West enabled the German
people to regain their unity in free self-
determination. The Ukrainian people became
independent in free self-determination.” (Joint
Declaration on the Fundamentals of Relations
between Ukraine and the Federal Republic of
Germany, 1993).
A similar linguistic appeal to historical and
cultural aspects is traced in the Agreement on the
Principles of Relations and Cooperation between
Ukraine and the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland (1994), which
states: “Emphasizing the fundamental
importance of the historical changes brought
about by the end of the era of ideological and
military confrontation in Europe… … convinced
60
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
of the need to promote an atmosphere of
friendship, mutual trust, understanding and
cooperation in international relations and
determined to play an active role in this process.
Diplomacy in the modern socio-cultural
environment is not limited to interstate relations.
Politics, economics, culture - this is not a
complete list of areas of social activity that are in
the orbit of the diplomatic activity interests. Such
activity evokes new principles of text
construction, including new terminology and the
latest formats of information transfer. This
necessitates the expansion of existing
communication formats (Stanzel, 2018). The
linguistic environment, which requires new
methodological guidelines, is no exception to this
trend. It is worth adding a trend to digitalization,
which must be taken into account in new ways of
language communication.
Digitalization makes its adjustments in the
functioning of the professional language of
diplomacy. Unlike traditional means of
communication, the virtualization of diplomatic
dialogue significantly increases the level of
accessibility of diplomatic texts to the general
public. If we consider the difference in the ability
to quickly get acquainted with the content and
form of the intergovernmental agreement in the
90s of the XX century and the agreements that
are currently being concluded, it is very striking.
The creation of current and analysis of past
diplomatic texts using the capabilities of
information and computer technology optimizes
the process of application and research of their
lexical and grammatical nuances. At the same
time, digitalization carries certain risks
associated with information security issues
(Stepanov, 2020). The transition to a virtual
format of interstate communication is not yet
fully comprehensible; as such a model requires
new methodological guidelines.
The Internet, according to (Kurbalija & Slavik,
2001), “has strengthened the importance of texts
as a key means of communication for modern
man in various forms, such as e-mail, websites
and hypertext-based documents”. Diplomatic
agreements always depend to a large extent on
the texts. “IT-assisted analysis methods, such as
DiploAnalytica, can detect layers of information
and knowledge, both focus and tacit, contained in
diplomatic documents” (Kurbalija & Slavik,
2001). Information and computer and
technological support are effectively used in the
creation of documentation for diplomatic use. In
general, technology provides solutions to
organizational and technical issues, offering a
means to focus exclusively on the language of the
diplomatic document.
The study of the linguistic peculiarities of the
texts of international agreements was the result
of a revival of public interest in foreign policy
issues. The development of communication
technologies makes it possible to understand not
only the content of diplomatic activity, but also
to understand the peculiarities of the form of
international relations in the texts of agreements,
media or social networks (Dorosh & Kopey,
2018).
The concept of “language style” is introduced
into scientific discourse, which involves a
combination of words for special purposes.
International agreements have also become the
object of a specialized language style. It is
significant to be aware of the dichotomy: the
similarities and differences of a diplomatic
agreement. Convergence occurs through the
individual aspirations of diplomats, which are
expressed in their communications and synergies
of language styles. At the same time, linguistic
differences lead to dialectical contradictions.
Researchers (Bayram & Ta, 2019) used text
analysis programs Linguistic Inquiry and Word
Count (LIWC). According to the study, the
percentage of agreed provisions of the texts is
higher in those moments where there was a direct
discussion between stakeholders, rather than just
reading in the text version. Hence, the conclusion
appears that there is an urgent need to change the
algorithms for organizing diplomatic texts to
increase their accessibility and clarity. Arifon
(2016) emphasizes the need to take into account
the differences between diplomatic language and
the general style of speech.
The introductory part of interstate agreements
consists of a declaration of intent of the parties and
a statement of mutual respect and interest in the
implementation of bilateral relations. In the
declarations on the establishment of diplomatic
relations between Ukraine, Britain and Germany,
the actualization of intentions is provided by the
following concepts:
• “seeking”
• “welcoming”
• “noting”
• “guided”
• “being aware”.
Declarative intentions are reinforced by concepts
that express social activity (see: Table 1).
Volume 12 - Issue 66
/ June 2023
61
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Table 1.
Linguistic concepts of socio-cultural activity in interstate agreements
Joint Declaration between Ukraine and the United
Great Britain and Northern IrelandKingdom of
Joint Declaration on the Fundamentals of Relations
between Ukraine and the Federal Republic of Germany
“Ukraine and Germany will build their relations in
compliance with the norms of international law…”
“The Parties will cooperate in improving the efficiency
and implementation of the agreement…”
“Both Parties reaffirm the right of all peoples to
their destiny freely and without outside determine
interference…”
“The Parties shall render all appropriate assistance to
each other in establishing diplomatic missions…”
“Ukraine and Germany reaffirm shared responsibility
for strengthening peace…”
ll not create political obstacles to the “The Parties wi
rapid development of mutual understanding and
cooperation…”
“Both Parties declare that they respect territorial
integrity…”
“The Parties respect sovereignty and territorial
integrity…”
confirm that they will recognize “Ukraine and Germany
commitments…”
“The Parties welcome the transition from confrontation
to cooperation…”
Analyzing these two agreements between
Ukraine and Germany and Ukraine and Great
Britain, we underline the following linguistic
features:
1) Each new sub-paragraph emphasizes the
interest and involvement of both parties to
the agreement on activity in a particular area
of social activity. A characteristic feature is
the different definitions in both agreements:
if the Declaration between Ukraine and
Germany indicates such variants as “both
parties” and the signatory countries
“Ukraine and Germany”; then in the
Ukrainian-British version only the term
“parties” is used. This peculiarity of the
textual construction is most likely due to the
fact that the United Kingdom consists of
several state entities, which are indicated
only in the title of the document, which is
caused by the simplification of the
presentation of the main provisions.
2) Common lexical and grammatical
construction of the provisions of the
Declaration. Both agreements actively use
affirmative definitions: “confirm
recognition”, “welcome the transition”,
“respect sovereignty”, “do not hinder”,
“build relationships”, “provide assistance”,
etc. The application of such affirmative
concepts strengthens the diplomatic weight
of the signed agreement, indicating the
specificity of the proposed agreements and
the inevitability of their implementation.
A separate cluster in the joint declarations of
cooperation is the specification of elements of
cooperation in certain areas of social activity
(see: Table 2).
Table 2.
Common and distinctive features of the texts of interstate agreements
sphereIn the economic
Joint Declaration on the Fundamentals of Relations
between Ukraine and the Federal Republic of Germany Agreement between Ukraine and the Federal Republic
Scale -of Germany on the Development of Large ience Cooperation in the Field of Economy, Industry, Sc
and Technology
Agreement on the Principles of Relations and
United Kingdom Cooperation between Ukraine and the
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
“The Contracting Parties shall, in accordance with the
discrimination and mutual -nonprinciples of equality, sify and diversify benefit, make efforts to steadily inten
bilateral relations in the fields of economy, industry,
science and technology.”
“The Parties will seek to promote, in accordance with
economy and private enterprise, the principles of market
cooperation between the two countries in various fields
of economic activity.”
In the sphere of international law
“Ukraine and Germany will build their relations in
compliance with international law, adhering to the
ples of sovereign equality, territorial integrity, princi
inviolability of borders, peaceful settlement of disputes,
prohibition of the use of force or threat of force and
evelop their relations on the basis of “The Parties will d
strict adherence to the principles of international law
and good faith. They declare their commitment to the
peaceful settlement of disputes, the principles of ty sovereign equality, territorial integrity and inviolabili
of borders, the democratic principles and practices of an
62
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
respect for human rights, including the rights of national
minorities.”
open society, and respect for human rights and the rule
of law. ”
In the cultural sphere
“Both Parties declare their desire to further develop
including education and cultural cooperation in all areas,
science. They reaffirm their readiness to ensure that all
interested parties have free access to the language and
culture of the other Party and to support relevant state,
public and other initiatives. Concern for the cultural
s of one Party located in the territory of the other value
Party, their preservation is a natural manifestation of the
new relationship between Ukraine and Germany. They
agree that lost or illegally exported cultural property
returned to the owner located in their territories will be
or his successor.”
“The Parties will promote the development of cultural
and educational contacts, cooperation and exchanges
between organizations and individuals of both countries.
read The Parties will welcome each other’s efforts to sp
the language of the other Party in their country.
The key elements of economic and legal
cooperation are linguistically stated in a similar
way.
Affirmative definitions are combined with
specific clarifications on the components of
certain areas of social activity.
The format of diplomatic agreements concluded
by Ukraine during the period of independence is
marked by benevolent intentions and the
manifestation of general prospects for the
development of interstate relations. At the same
time, further interstate agreements already have a
more specific mission, determining the content of
cooperation between states. This has led to a
certain change in the terminology of diplomatic
documents.
Further research into the professional language
of diplomacy should be conducted in the context
of the analysis of a larger number of diplomatic
documents covering a larger number of member
states. A comparative analysis of diplomatic
agreements between Ukraine and the United
Kingdom and Ukraine and Germany enables
identifying common and different characteristics
of the diplomatic formal business style of
language. The structure of documents, their
typology and lexical and grammatical content are
instrumental for exploring both the linguistic
component and the subtleties of diplomatic work.
Conclusions
The diversity of studied documents contributes to
a better understanding of the “nature of
diplomatic texts”. It should be pointed out that
the style of organizing Ukrainian-German and
Ukrainian-British documents is in fact similar in
content. At the same time, certain linguistic
differences are indicated, which testify to the
uniqueness of individual interstate relations and
the peculiarity of each individual diplomatic text.
While analyzing the texts of interstate
agreements, it may be concluded that the most
optimal methodological approach to the study of
the professional language of diplomacy is a
synergetic model that allows to find a format for
constructing diplomatic texts based not only on
linguistic, but also sociocultural components.
The combination of diplomatic professionalism
with skillful use of the linguistic component will
lead to effective international activities.
Philological accuracy and diplomatic subtlety of
interstate documents are the key to effective
international relations.
Bibliographic references
Adamcova, S. (2018). Communication in
Diplomacy. Language and politics between
linguistics and political science, 3. 370-377
https://conferences.euba.sk/jazykapolitika/ar
chiv/3-rocnik
Agreement between Ukraine and the Federal
Republic of Germany on the development of
large-scale cooperation in the field of
economy, industry, science and technology.
No 276_010. (1993, November 5) [In
Ukrainian]. Retrieved from:
https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/276_01
0#Text
Agreement on the Principles of Relations and
Cooperation between Ukraine and the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland. No 826_040. (1994, August 5) [In
Ukrainian]. Retrieved from:
https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/826_04
0#Text
Agreement (in the form of an exchange of notes)
between the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine
and the Government of the Federal Republic
of Germany on cooperation in biological and
chemical safety and nuclear / radiological
protection under the initiative of the Group of
Seven. No 276_001-19. (2020, January 4) [In
Ukrainian]. Retrieved from:
Volume 12 - Issue 66
/ June 2023
63
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/276_00
1-19#Text
Arifon. О. (2016). Diplomatic language and
formal language: a code with a double
meaning. An Experts' Guide to International
Protocol. Amsterdam University Press,
рр. 152-175
https://doi.org/10.1515/9789048530625-013
Bayram, A. B., & Ta, V. P. (2019). Diplomatic
Chameleons: Language Style Matching and
Agreement in International Diplomatic
Negotiations. Negotiation and conflict
management research, 12(1), 23-40
https://DOI10.1111/ncmr.12142
Bryson, D. (2016) Professional Language:
Understanding and being understood. Journal
of Visual Communication in Medicine,
39(3-4). 158-159
https://doi.org/10.1080/17453054.2016.1246
942
Connelly, M.J., Hicks, R., Jervis, R., Spirling, A.,
& Suong, C.H. (2021). Diplomatic
documents data for international relations:
the Freedom of Informationт Archive
Database. Сonflict management and peace
science, 38(6), 762-781
https://doi.org/10.1177/0738894220930326
Dorosh, L., & Kopey, Yu. (2018). Twitter-
diplomacy: Ukrainian context. Political
science, 4(2), 10.23939/shv2018.02.032
Ismailov, F., Rayeva, G., Koblanova, A.,
Yelikbayev, B., & Yessenova, K. (2020).
Analysis of political and diplomatic language
in linguistic, cognitive and pragmatic aspects.
Opción, 91, 803-819
https://www.produccioncientificaluz.org/ind
ex.php/opcion/article/view/31882
Joint Declaration between Ukraine and the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland. No 826_002. (1992,
September 15) [In Ukrainian]. Retrieved
from:
https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/826_00
2#Text
Joint Declaration on the Fundamentals of
Relations between Ukraine and the Federal
Republic of Germany. No 276_012 (1993,
June 9) [In Ukrainian]. Retrieved from:
https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/main/276_01
2#Text
Kurbalija, J., & Slavik, H. (2001). Language and
Diplomacy. Diplomacy, 182 p.
https://www.diplomacy.edu/resource/langua
ge-and-diplomacy-preface/
Maynez, P. (2016). Dialogue of the language. A
diplomatic edition. Nueva revista filologia
hispánica, 64(2), 543-547
https://doi.org/10.24201/nrfh.v64i2.2577
Melchor, L. (2020). What Is a Science Diplomat?
The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 15,
409-423. https://DOI:10.1163/1871191X-
bja10026
Memorandum of Understanding between the
Ministry of Emergencies and Protection of
the Population from the Consequences of the
Chornobyl Accident and the Ministry of
Energy and Climate Change of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland on Cooperation in Radiation Safety,
Physical Protection and Non-Proliferation.
No 826_031. (2009, August 31) [In
Ukrainian]. Retrieved from:
https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/826_03
1#Text
Pokhrel, S. (2020). Diplomatic Language: An
Analysis of Salutations from Speeches used
in International Diplomacy. Journal of
International Affairs, 3, 180-193
https://doi.org/10.3126/joia.v3i1.29094
Stanzel, V. (2018). New Realities in Foreign
Affairs: Diplomacy in the 21st Century.
Berlin: SWP Research Paper, 69 p.
https://acortar.link/ar4n69
Stepanov, V. (2020). Digital diplomacy in the
informational space. Bulletin of the NAPA.
Series «Рublic Аdministration», 2, 10-13
Zanettin, F. (2016). The deadliest error:
translation, international relations and the
news media. Translator, 22(3), рр. 303-318
https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2016.1149
754