Volume 12 - Issue 66
/ June 2023
235
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
DOI: https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2023.66.06.22
How to Cite:
Aliyeva, G.B., Borymska, O., Kyshenia, Y., Kovalchuk, O., & Zoya, M. (2023). Linguistic discourse in the system of language
manipulative technologies (based on the material of english political advertising). Amazonia Investiga, 12(66), 235-243.
https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2023.66.06.22
Linguistic discourse in the system of language manipulative
technologies (based on the material of english political advertising)
El discurso lingüístico en el sistema de las tecnologías de manipulación del lenguaje
(basado en el material de la publicidad política inglesa)
Received: May 6, 2023 Accepted: June 9, 2023
Written by:
Gulchohra Babali Aliyeva1
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2266-947X
Oksana Borymska2
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4025-4393
Yuliia Kyshenia3
https://orcid.org/0009-0000-7149-6005
Oksana Kovalchuk4
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8935-597X
Mytiay Zoya5
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6196-8934
Abstract
This paper attempts to explain what manipulation
means and how it differs from other linguistic
and manipulative technologies. The article deals
with a number of issues related to the definition
of manipulation since both in modern language
and in specialized literature the concept of
manipulation is used in many meanings. The
purpose of the article is to eliminate the
ambiguity surrounding the concept of language
manipulation. We put forward the hypothesis
that manipulation is an illegitimate linguistic
process justified by the structure of human
consciousness and the mechanisms of social life.
The discourse analysis, descriptive and
contextual methods made possible the linguistic
analysis of fragments of political speeches of
famous American politicians. As a result, the
linguistic markers for deciphering the
manipulative discourse strategy are identified,
and the discourse structure of a political
manipulative speech is described. The main
1
Doctor of Sciences, Professor, Head of the Department of English Language Azerbaijan State Marine Academy, Azerbaijan.
2
PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of English Philology and Intercultural Communication, Educational and Scientific Institute of
Philology, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine.
3
Ph.D. in Philology, Associate Professor, Department of Foreign Languages for Faculties of Chemistry and Physics, Educational and
Scientific Institute of Philology, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine.
4
Ph.D. in Philology, Associate Professor, Department of Philology, Interpreting and Translation, Institute of Humanities and Public
Administration, Ivano-Frankivsk National Technical University of Oil and Gas, Ivano-Frankivsk, Ukraine.
5
Ph.D. in Philology, Associate Professor, Head of the Department of the Ukrainian Language, Philological Faculty, Bogdan
Khmelnitsky Melitopol State Pedagogical University, Melitopol, Ukraine.
236
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
types of strategies for exercising manipulative
influence are considered on the examples of
fragments of political speeches and slogans of
American politicians Hillary Clinton, Donald
Trump, and Barack Obama. The author reveals
the physical and cultural concepts of
manipulation and analyzes the linguistic forms
that can underlie the manipulation of words.
Keywords: language-manipulative technology,
speech, slogan, influence, consciousness,
discursive markers.
Introduction
Today, scholarly works in various fields, from
linguistics, communication to social psychology,
provide numerous examples of variations in
interpretations or even conceptual vocabulary
used to define manipulation. These vary from
author to author, as there are actually very few
studies that aim to explore and explain the
fundamental nature of manipulation and its
uniqueness in relation to other activities. Most of
the studies have tried to summarize this
phenomenon in a comprehensive definition and
identify a variety of manipulative techniques
available to manipulators, from the simplest to
the most complex, from those with immediate
effects to those whose effects are felt years or
even decades later. That is why the concept of
manipulation often seems confusing. In linguistic
discourse, manipulation has such meanings as
psychological influence, propaganda, and
persuasion. This terminological confusion is
often found in academic circles, where some
authors argue that the study of influence,
persuasion, propaganda, and manipulation are
identical phenomena (Shkvorchenko, 2020). On
the other hand, many authors, trying to clearly
differentiate these concepts, have come to the
following conclusions: some believe that
manipulation as a system of language and
manipulative technologies is a concept that
includes propaganda, hypnosis, suggestion,
neuro-linguistic communication, etc. (Macagno,
2022), others believe that manipulation is
achieved through manipulative practices,
including rumors, influence on consciousness,
disinformation, and propaganda (Moten, 2020),
some authors, on the contrary, argue that
manipulation and persuasion are components of
propaganda (Saul, 2018). In addition, it should be
noted that there are authors who believe that
manipulation and persuasion can be attributed to
a broader category of social influence
(representing, to some extent, different degrees
of its manifestation) (Khajavi & Rasti, 2020).
However, all hypotheses come down to linguistic
discourse. For the purposes of this paper,
discourse is defined as a way of using language
and non-verbal linguistic means, specialized
languages, through which a social actor presents
an interpretation of facts to his interlocutors.
Since, by using language, an actor influences his
direct and indirect interlocutors, we can say that
every act of communication has a discursive
dimension. Discourse is political when it
evaluates situations of public interest. Political
discourse differs from other types of discourse
primarily in its conventionality: no matter how
“original” the circumstance that triggers this
discourse is, it is immediately normalized by a
commentary appropriate to the rank of the
institution and the person representing it. Any
political discourse functions based on a
conventional argument that justifies, on the one
hand, the role of the institution, and, on the other
hand, the public image of the person representing
this institution.
Political discourse is a construct that supports
and promotes interests; the problem is the
multiplicity of interests that arise in thu process.
In order to satisfy these interests, politics uses
rhetoric, tactics of persuasion, and manipulation.
In order to establish a typology of political
discourse, the following features should be taken
into account:
− Political discourse uses a complex
ideological set of representations;
− Political discourse is subject to the process
of intentionality, the main vector of which is
the principle of credibility, not truth;
− From a linguistic point of view, political
discourse always takes place in the logical
and syntactic domain;
− The discourse constitutes a strategic
program (a plan where numerous language
Aliyeva, G.B., Borymska, O., Kyshenia, Y., Kovalchuk, O., Zoya, M. / Volume 12 - Issue 66: 235-243 / June, 2023
Volume 12 - Issue 66
/ June 2023
237
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
combinations should produce effects in
accordance with current political stakes and
audience features);
− Political discourse is linked to history,
context, and a shared reality that can be
identified by the physical presence of the
interlocutors.
But another important function of political
discourse is to influence and manipulate people
and their opinions.
Theoretical Framework or Literature Review
Manipulations in political advertising, election
campaigns, and propaganda, often based on the
prestige effect of media institutions, are
complemented by manipulative actions carried
out by influential persons who use the authority
of their position, as well as by qualified
professionals from various organizational
structures, such as political, professional, or mass
organizations (Kharitonenko, 2022). Their
manipulative actions can range from informal
communication (e.g., scandalous topics that are
not silenced but released into the public sphere),
cultural events (secular, religious, or sports
celebrations) to mass movements
(demonstrations caused by various social,
economic, environmental, etc. demands) or
professional events (conferences, congresses,
seminars) or trade union events.
All of these, together with the combined forces
of traditional media (print, radio, television) and
the Internet (especially social networks and
forums), can act extremely quickly and with an
extremely powerful “magnifying glass effect” to
transmit a range of ideas and concepts to the
entire society, often live and on the emergency
news system, radical doctrines, facts,
information or news designed to change the
shape of the political scene, family and
professional environments, daily activities and
habits, dictate forms of education, change
approaches health care, the profile of industries
and markets, political parties or power structures
that govern society (Kilby, 2018).
The practice of manipulating public opinion is a
very old one, and specific methods have been
diversified and improved from era to era. Some
of the tools of manipulation are: political
discourse as a method of disinformation, the use
of popularity to “confirm the reliability” of false
or truncated information, launching political
attacks through the media to disguise true
interests, press campaigns launched on political
orders, vilification or filling the media agenda
with fabricated scandals to divert attention from
other topics of real interest, and promotion of
manipulative political models are just some of
the methods used by politicians on a daily basis
to achieve personal or party goals (Kulichenko &
Polyezhayev, 2020).
Politics is connected to three very important
concepts: passion, intuition, and responsibility.
Ethical politicians make politics not only
manipulative but also passionate and intuitive.
Others who follow the ethics of responsibility
think primarily about the foreseeable
consequences of their actions and, therefore,
their responsibility for them. In this context,
Azoulay (2018) believes that these two ethics are
not mutually exclusive, but complementary and
only together constitute a true human being, a
person who can have a political vocation. Each
person gives meaning to their own human
expression through a set of contexts that
constitute a situation that is appropriate to their
environment. According to Davis, Love & Killen
(2018), to influence means to manipulate the
contexts of a situation to create a desired
meaning. Ferrara, Chang, Chen, Muric & Patel
(2020) analyze influence as the act of stimulating
the interlocutor's intrinsic motivations, emotions
(feelings of fear or vulnerability), or interests
through communication. Under influence, the
speaker changes his or her attitude in accordance
with the interests of the manipulator.
With the help of contextual manipulation, a new
meaning is created that requires the speaker to
react through the adopted unconscious behavior.
In the case of influence, the goal of
communication is not to convey a message, but
to change the contexts that make up a situation.
Thus, communication manipulates the existing
situation.
De Moraes (2022) argues that the true art of
manipulation – and thus of influence and
persuasion – is thus to work in disguise on the
invisible components of a situation. More
specifically, influence uses cognitive targets that
the speaker is unaware of.
The manipulator constructs a new situation for
the audience, which is the target of the influence,
namely: words used, behavior (gestures, hand
movements), repetition of words or sentences to
emphasize an idea, tone of voice, compliments of
the audience, hasty generalization, attitude,
analogy, false dichotomy, ad hominem
argument, invention of new situational elements
(often negative).
238
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Charteris-Black (2018) emphasizes that
manipulation is not considered and discussed as
a phenomenon that can occur in discourse (any
discourse), but as an important procedure that is
widely used in modern political discourse, as
well as an important tool for gaining control and
power in the political arena. Bowen & Thomas
(2020) consider the concept of manipulation as
inducing people to behave in a certain way
without knowing why they are doing it, and
perhaps even against their own interests and
desires, and the author also studies how linguistic
power causes certain effects in the public
consciousness based on different political
ideologies.
But according to Kyrpa, Stepanenko, Zinchenko,
Udovichenko & Dmytruk (2022), critical
evaluation can be a good way to prevent
becoming a victim of discourse manipulation.
The authors note that discourse analysis helps to
maintain a higher level of consciousness.
Contemporary discourse analysts tend to agree
with this idea, considering the analysis of
manipulative discourse as a control filter that is
also useful in helping modern society avoid
repeating past mistakes in this regard (Lazaro &
Rizzi, 2023). We agree because the concept of
communicative action is constructed in such a
way that the moments of understanding that link
the action plans of different participants and
adapt the actions pursuing each goal to the
context of interaction cannot be reduced to
teleological action. The production of beliefs can
be analyzed on the model of taking a position on
a proposal that is presented through a speech act.
A speech act is successful only when the other
accepts the proposition contained in it, since it
takes an affirmative position, even if always
implicitly, contrary to a statement of credibility
that may in principle be open to criticism.
Another important feature of manipulative
discourse is that the intentions of the speaker or
social actor are always hidden. Bradshaw,
Howard, Kollanyi & Neudert (2020) call a
manipulative strategy the overwhelming
omission of the awareness of the object being
manipulated. The necessity of this hidden
intention is directly related to another feature
characteristic of manipulative discourse in
general, which aims to influence the recipient in
one way or another.
The success of a political speech, according to
Fitzpatrick (2018), is a deliberate deception that
should remain hidden. Some authors, perhaps a
bit hastily, argue that this understanding that the
manipulator is always insincere includes the
dimension of self-interest in the characterization
of manipulation. However, this inclusion alone is
not sufficient. In the assessment of
communication practice, there is a significant
difference between cases of convincing the
addressee of a certain point of view that serves
the interests of the opponent through
argumentation and cases of obtaining the
addressee's position, which leads to the idea of
manipulation. The difference becomes clear
when we look at the other features of
manipulation mentioned above, such as the
concealment between intent and deception.
However, to complete the characterization of
manipulation in a satisfactory way, one more
feature should be added: the meaning used in
manipulative discourse to achieve the desired
effect is not rationally accepted.
Thus, manipulation means that regardless of
whether the listener or reader realizes the error of
justification or refutation, the audience is always
entitled to hold the speaker responsible for the
claim, offering justification or refutation. Gal
(2019) lists some of the linguistic techniques
used in manipulation, such as: omission,
minimization, exaggeration, repetition,
distortion, figurative language, connotative or
standard language, and emotional appeal.
Jalilbayli (2022), however, focuses on optimal
strategies of linguistic potential, omitting to add
what the pragmatic functions of such omissions
are and whether omissions can be discourse
strategies.
Let us add that manipulation is not about using
metaphors, certain syntactic structures,
quantitative features, but about making them play
a certain role at the pragmatic level. In order to
influence, it is necessary to evoke a certain state
in the recipient, which is achieved by
manipulating his or her emotions. By
manipulating the emotions and interests of the
listener, the message evokes the desired behavior
through an internal state (arousal of interest).
Only the behavior aimed at satisfying the interest
acts on the latent state of the listener's interest.
Methodology
In order to identify the methods of manipulation
in the English-language political discourse, the
following methods and techniques of linguistic
analysis were used: discourse analysis,
descriptive, contextual, distributional analysis, as
well as descriptive-comparative, semantic-
structural, structural-stylistic methods. This
study hypothesizes that the analysis of the
Volume 12 - Issue 66
/ June 2023
239
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
manipulative influence of political advertising
discourse is impossible without taking into
account the argumentation. The limitations of
this work are primarily manifested in the
narrowness of the linguistic range of examples of
politicians' speeches and their number. The
object under study – fragments of political
speeches and slogans of American politicians
Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Barack
Obama – is very specific, since the issue of
scientific substantiation of the phenomenon of
political discourse is still open and the
establishment of the peculiarities of political
advertising discourse with the clarification of
lexical and semantic specifics and linguistic
manipulative technologies is quite subjective.
Using the descriptive-comparative method, the
author has identified important linguistic markers
for deciphering the manipulative discourse
strategy. The semantic-structural and structural-
stylistic methods made it possible to identify
linguistic markers for deciphering the
manipulative discourse strategy. Discourse
analysis, descriptive, contextual, and
distributional analysis methods made it possible
to analyze in detail the discourse structure of the
manipulative fragments of the selected speeches.
Results and Discussion
In accordance with the above, we single out
several important linguistic markers for
deciphering the manipulative discourse strategy,
which are most often found in political speeches,
slogans, advertisements and which should be
developed through linguistic analysis of the
speech: assumptions, enthymemes, active use of
time markers:
− Assumption is defined as information that,
while not constituting the object of the
message being transmitted, is automatically
guided by its wording;
− An enthymeme is a variant of a syllogism
specific to the English language. It can be
defined as a syllogism from which one or
more propositions have been erased, and
whose reconstruction is possible by analogy
with the classical syllogism scheme;
− Time markers are causal relations often
expressed through temporal markers, and the
causal interpretation of the chronological
course of events is of great importance in
discourse. Such an interpretation, however,
depends on the meaning of the sentence set
by the link: depending on their nature, the
causal interpretation is favorable for
manipulation and persuasion.
The most important political forces in modern
society are involved in a power struggle. Political
discourse is becoming a product sold to the
audience: a positive image, carefully constructed
and promoted through various linguistic
strategies, ensures stability and success in the
political arena. Political speeches are always
accompanied by metalinguistic vocabulary,
which enhances the manipulative impact of the
discourse, but the most important element is the
structure of the speech itself (Table 1).
Table 1.
Discursive structure of political manipulative speech
Excerpt from the speech
Details
Introduction
coordinated discursive movements. It consists of two
n corresponds to the narrated discourse. The introductio
forming verb usually indicates belonging to -The sense
the reported discourse, and the noun group indicates the
narrativization of the reported discourse and follows the
metacommunication announcement.
Declared rectification
The phrase begins with a refutation, marked by the
negation “not.... not”. It is then followed by a new
statement designed to restore adequacy between the
specified and extralinguistic reality.
Justification trace
It is marked with a reasoned connector.
First and second metadiscursive commentary
Conclusion
The first comment follows from the justification. The
second metadiscursive comment is introduced by the
argumentative connective “but”. It directly objects not
to the previous comment, but to the conclusion that
could be drawn from it Consists of micro-acts of discourse, oriented in an
argumentative perspective: it is a macro-act of refuting
the words of an opponent.
Source: Formed based on the authors’ own analysis
240
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
On the example of these strategies, we can talk
about implicit manipulative discourse strategies.
The latter, not being openly visible, realize the
possibility of creating various effects, for
example, the possibility of exerting an allegedly
manipulative influence on the interlocutor. The
opaquer nature of these strategies makes it
possible to provoke the possibility of deciphering
the discourse.
Let's consider the main types of strategies for
exerting such influence on the examples of
fragments of political speeches and slogans by
American politicians Hillary Clinton, Donald
Trump, and Barack Obama. In addition to
speeches and slogans, the examples are taken
from advertising, political, and journalistic
speeches. It should be noted that the purpose of
this work is not to reveal the physical and cultural
concepts of manipulation. The analysis focuses
on the linguistic forms that can underlie word
manipulation.
Assumptions
An assumption is defined as information that,
while not constituting the object of the message
being transmitted, is automatically guided by its
wording.
An assumption in manipulative discourse
consists of an undisclosed piece of language that
refers to information already available
elsewhere.
Due to this representation, a statement with an
assumption encourages the co-author to follow
the information presented rather than the
assumption. A sequence of assumptions is
nevertheless possible, but it breaks the linearity
of the discourse, for example: “I've got the
stomach for the fight” means that the politician
has doubts and assumes that the path to victory
will be difficult Trump, D. (Washington post,
October 2016). The listener correctly decodes the
intended information. This sequence violates the
linearity of the discourse, as the information
chains are based on a pre-constructed relation
(which has a point of reference - external origin),
and not on the one that was built in the situation
of utterance. In other words, manipulative
information continues on elements that
contribute to textual coherence, not on
informative elements.
Other pillars of the assumption are lexical in
nature: “The situation in America is getting
worse every day” Trump, D. (C-span, January
2016). The verb “get worse” expands the
meaning: to become more and more serious.
Thus, this statement represents the predicative
relation of America's state of being as one that
has already been confirmed. In other words, the
politician uses it as a basis for building a
manipulation.
“But nothing could have been achieved without
you, without you who supported the recovery
with your own discipline and efforts, these results
are your hard-won property, isn't it time to
question them? Isn't it better to continue the
efforts, to bring the restored economy to a
healthy situation?” Clinton, H. (Washington
Post, September 2016). In this passage, the verb
“to question” allows for the construction of a
connection, enhances the impact through the
presentational phrase “these results are your
hard-won property...” In other words, the
pronoun “your” and the verb “to bring” represent
a statement of an already confirmed fact. A
statement implies a goal, which in this case
consists of “to continue the efforts” to “bring the
restored economy”. The two adjectives used to
describe this goal also carry lexical
preconditions: “healthy” thus implies an
unhealthy initial state, and “restored” implies an
unstable initial state. In this example, the
multiplication of preconditions is an additional
factor to avoid doubts about their veracity. This
is where the phenomenon of manipulative
accumulation comes in.
Finally, assumptions can be manifested through
grammatical markers:
“The Times gets the Clintons secret daughter to
talk” (Macagno, 2022). The definite article “the”
is an indicator of manipulative operations. The
speaker points twice to the well-known family
(implicitly or explicitly) with the help of the
definite article.
Enthymeme
An enthymeme is a variant of a syllogism
specific to the English language. It can be defined
as a syllogism from which one or more
propositions have been erased, and whose
reconstruction is possible by analogy with the
classical syllogism scheme.
Let's recall the classical syllogistic scheme: the
conclusion is derived from the introduction by
erasing the main text. Therefore, the progression
of the syllogism is carried out according to the
structure: CA omitting B (since the position of B
is not fixed in such a sentence).
Volume 12 - Issue 66
/ June 2023
241
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Enthymemes, figures of advertising discourse,
are interpreted by analogy with this syllogistic
scheme.
An enthymeme is not a syllogism truncated by
the deficit of the main message. This linguistic
element, on the contrary, leaves the listener or
reader to construct the argument on their own.
The reconstruction of the elliptical clause
requires an excess of interpretive information,
which is interesting because it allows for a deeper
consolidation of the statement in the interpreter's
memory.
This type of argument is reduced to a general
process: through the discursive strategy of using
enthymemes, the speaker leads the interlocutor to
anticipate the relationship whose terms the
speaker gives him: “I am a woman – a mother,
America is my child” Clinton, H (Washington
Post, September 2016). From this slogan, we can
draw an elliptical conclusion and reconstruct a
complete syllogism. The interpretation process
here is a bit more complicated, as in order to
predict the inference, the recipient must consider
the terms “America” and “child” as referring to
the same extra-linguistic reality. Thus, they
appear to be a common term in the premises, i.e.,
a term that should be excluded from the
inference.
The discursive strategy of using enthymemes in
political slogans is not transparent, however,
there are factors that contribute to the additional
operation of deciphering manipulative discourse:
the syntactic structure of the enthymeme, the
content of the sentence put in relation,
knowledge of the classical syllogistic scheme
that is part of manipulative political discourse.
Time markers
In English, causal relations are often expressed
through temporal markers and the causal
interpretation of the chronological course of
events is of great importance in discourse. Such
an interpretation, however, depends on the
meaning of the sentence set by the link:
depending on its nature, the causal interpretation
is favorable for manipulation and persuasion:
“No serious incidents occurred in Bezai after the
power outage” Obama, B. (Newsweek, July
2016). Here, the causal interpretation is blocked,
and the time marker indicates temporality. This
example, far from being causal, signals that the
power outage did not cause anything. Therefore,
the nature of the content of the sentences is
crucial in the causal interpretation of the
temporality marker. This strategy can have
manipulative effects: the speaker using this
strategy can actually lead the co-author to
reproduce the causal relationship on their own.
This strategy can be especially interesting in
cases where the content of the sentence (slogan)
is imbued with ideological ideas. The discourse
strategies implemented in the above examples
are not transparent, as the concept of cause is
never constructed in the statements.
Paraphrase markers of reformulation
Paraphrase reformulation is a second formulation
that is retroactive: in this way, the political
speaker defines his first formulation as
temporary after the fact. If the wording is
changed, the paraphrase implies semantic
equivalence between the two statements.
To perform paraphrasing, the recipient uses
markers or cues without which the utterance
would be difficult to recognize the paraphrase of
another statement. This indicative function can
be controlled by various means:
− explicit markers or phrases such as “that is”,
“in other words” or “I explain”:
“Republicans must realize that scandals
don`t weaken Hilary Clinton, they only make
her stronger. I explain, Hilary Clinton eats
scandals for breakfast” Trump, D. (C-span,
January, 2016) Thus, such paraphrase
markers establish the paraphrase relation
between sentence segments;
− without the help of a marker: “No. I promise
– if I wanted it, I would have got it” Obama,
B. (Newsweek, July 2016). In this case,
syntactic parallelism becomes one of the
clues that help to decipher the paraphrase.
In addition to this syntactic parallelism,
paraphrasing cues can be of a paralinguistic
nature: intonation, accentuation, speed, and
tempo, among others. Such paraphrases mainly
serve to solve communication problems. The
speaker aims to be understood, which implies
overcoming many obstacles, as well as
asymmetry of linguistic or encyclopedic skills.
While paraphrase reformulations have the
primary function of solving communication
problems, they can also be used in a way that
produces derivative or even manipulative effects.
This is especially possible when the speaker uses
an explicit paraphrasing marker: “There cannot
be true democracy unless women's voices are
heard. There cannot be true democracy unless
women are given the opportunity to take
responsibility for their own lives” Clinton, H
242
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
(Washington Post, September 2016). Such a
marker can indeed be used in cases of low or no
semantic equivalence. Nevertheless, the marker
will be able to guide the preaching of identity
between the two statements, thus guiding the co-
author's interpretation process.
Conclusions
The results of the analysis of fragments of
speeches, slogans, and speeches of American
politicians, the main linguistic manipulative
techniques have been identified. Linguistic
tactics of interference are achieved by politicians
indirectly, through the use of linguistic and
psychological techniques to influence the target
audience, using a variety of linguistic methods.
However, regardless of the methods used in a
speech, all manipulative interactions are
linguistic manifestations. It should be
emphasized that the effectiveness of
manipulative discourse strategies is often more
powerful than an argument, as they are often
hidden and leave the recipient with an imaginary
field of activity. Manipulative discourse
strategies also allow the speaker to influence the
behavior of opponents and listeners, and thus
their universe of beliefs and perceptions can be
changed. The identified manipulative effects
consist in modifying the physical and cultural
ideas of the co-author, while simultaneously
affecting the strictly linguistic level. The
examples given in this paper have shown that the
implicit is always supported by markers or
structures, although such techniques in political
discourse are always indirect.
In addition, the analysis of the phenomenon of
manipulation and argumentation in various
scientific studies has revealed the concepts of
argumentative discourse, political manipulation,
described the types of argumentation; revealed
the structures of language tools, argumentative
influences in political advertising, or rather,
election speeches.
The scientific feasibility of this study lies in the
fact that the analyzed political discourse is
grounded in a wide range of theoretical issues
and is considered from the perspective of
linguistics, cognitive science, sociology, political
science, and receptive mechanisms of perception
of manipulation and argumentation.
The prospect of further scientific research is the
formation of a model in the study of political
speeches based on the material of other
languages for the purpose of in-depth
grammatical analysis.
Bibliographic references
Azoulay, V. (2018). Xenophon and the Graces of
Power: A Greek Guide to Political
Manipulation. The Classical Press of Wales.
https://ps.b-
ok.xyz/book/4999792/ec9d2d?books=
Bowen, N. E. J. A., & Thomas, N. (2020).
Manipulating texture and cohesion in
academic writing: A keystroke logging study.
Journal of Second Language Writing,
50(100773), 100773.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100773
Bradshaw, S., Howard, P. N., Kollanyi, B., &
Neudert, L.-M. (2020). Sourcing and
automation of political news and information
over social media in the United States, 2016-
2018. Political Communication, 37(2),
173-193.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1663
322
Charteris-Black, J. (2018). Analysing political
speeches: Rhetoric, discourse and metaphor
(2nd ed.). Bloomsbury Academic. Retrieved
from https://acortar.link/Ur3L9B
C-span (23 January 2016). Donald Trump’s
speech at campaign rally.
https://acortar.link/yKngG8
Davis, J. L., Love, T. P., & Killen, G. (2018).
Seriously funny: The political work of humor
on social media. New Media & Society,
20(10), 3898-3916.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818762602
de Moraes, R. F. (2022). Demagoguery,
populism, and foreign policy rhetoric:
evidence from Jair Bolsonaro’s tweets.
Contemporary Politics, 1-27.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2022.2126
155
Ferrara, E., Chang, H., Chen, E., Muric, G., &
Patel, J. (2020). Characterizing social media
manipulation in the 2020 U.S. presidential
election. First Monday.
https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v25i11.11431
Fitzpatrick, N. (2018). Media manipulation 2.0:
The impact of social media on news,
competition, and accuracy. Athens Journal of
Mass Media and Communications, 4(1),
45-62. https://doi.org/10.30958/ajmmc.4.1.3
Gal, S. (2019). Making registers in politics:
Circulation and ideologies of linguistic
authority. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 23(5),
450-466. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12374
Jalilbayli, O. B. (2022). Forecasting the
prospects for innovative changes in the
development of future linguistic education
for the XXI century: the choice of optimal
strategies. Futurity Education, 2(4), 36-43.
Volume 12 - Issue 66
/ June 2023
243
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
https://doi.org/10.57125/FED.2022.25.12.0.
4
Khajavi, Y., & Rasti, A. (2020). A discourse
analytic investigation into politicians’ use of
rhetorical and persuasive strategies: The case
of US election speeches. Cogent Arts &
Humanities, 7(1), 1740051.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2020.1740
051
Kharitonenko, L. (2022). Innovations and
traditions in Ukrainian language teaching at
the educational establishments of Ukraine:
cases, models of the future. Futurity
Education, 2(1), 57-71.
https://doi.org/10.57125/FED.2022.25.03.7
Kilby, A. (2018). Provoking the Citizen: Re-
examining the role of TV satire in the Trump
era. Journalism Studies, 19(13), 1934-1944.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2018.149
5573
Kulichenko, A. L. L. A., & Polyezhayev, Y.
(2020). Innovative information and
communication technologies for
ergotherapists applied during English
learning in Ukraine. Ad Alta: Journal of
Interdisciplinary Research, 10(2), 228-233.
http://dspace.zsmu.edu.ua/handle/12345678
9/14196
Kyrpa, A., Stepanenko, O., Zinchenko, V.,
Udovichenko, H., & Dmytruk, L. (2022).
Integration of Internet memes when teaching
philological disciplines in higher education
institutions. Advanced Education, 45–52.
https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.235947
Lazaro, C., & Rizzi, M. (2023). Predictive
analytics and governance: a new
sociotechnical imaginary for uncertain
futures. International Journal of Law in
Context, 19(1), 70–90.
https://doi.org/10.1017/s1744552322000477
Macagno, F. (2022). Argumentation profiles and
the manipulation of common ground. The
arguments of populist leaders on Twitter.
Journal of Pragmatics, 191, 67–82.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.01.02
2
Moten, A. R. (2020). The politics of
manipulation: Malaysia 2018-2020.
Intellectual Discourse, 28(2), 387-408.
http://journals.iium.edu.my/intdiscourse/inde
x.php/islam
Newsweek (2016, July 28). Transcript: Barack
Obama’s speech at the 2016 democratic
national convention. Retrieved May 10,
2023. https://acortar.link/KgQhF9
Saul, J. (2018). Dogwhistles, political
manipulation, and philosophy of language.
Oxford University Press.
https://philpapers.org/rec/SAUDPM
Shkvorchenko, N. (2020). Linguistic and gender
peculiarities of English political discourse.
Annals of the University of Craiova, (1–2),
398-416.
https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-
detail?id=975118
Washington Post (2016, September 26). The first
Trump-Clinton presidential debate transcript,
annotated.. Washington Post (Washington,
D.C.: 1974). Retrieved from
https://acortar.link/lRfkMI
Washington post (29 october 2016). Donald
Trump at a rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. URL:
https://acortar.link/rvjHjB