Development of discurcive power strategies in political space of Dnipro

  • Nadiya Mikhno Oles Honchar Dnipro National University
Keywords: city, urban area, authority discursive strategies, institutional discourse, political discourse, discourse of power, power of discourse

Abstract

The article deals with defining the characteristics of the authority discourse development in modern society. The localization of the urban area has been chosen as the field of the authority discursive power strategies development. The author's scheme of authority discourse analysis in the urban area has been suggested basing on the methodological principles of a discourse-analytical strategy and involving the heuristic potential of a socio-cultural and semiotic analysis, as a result of the specific empirical study. The analysis of theoretical frames for the study of the concepts of «discourse» and «authority» has made it possible to determine a variety of communicative actions, which subject can only be the authority – an institutional discourse, namely, a political perspective. It is proposed to define a political discourse as a set of all speech acts in the appropriate institutional atmosphere, which is implemented in both oral and written forms within this study. The consideration of the background, expectations of the author and the audience, hidden motives, plot schemes etc. are provided in this article. It has been noted that it is appropriate to use the categorization approach to the «soft power» concept, which proposes to consider the power as the one which is implemented in the form of a certain communicative action. The behavior dictated by the authorities is perceived by a recipient as a voluntary choice during its relization. Such categories of the investigation as cultural mechanisms of nomination, classification, legitimation and naturalization are stressed analysing a political discourse in an urban area. The author's matrix of the analysis of the authority discourse in the urban area which includes its strategies, grammatology, idioms and the nature of their projection in discursive strategies of main subjects of discourse development has been described.

References

Lefebvre, A. (2015). Production of space. Moskva: "Strelka Press " [in Russian].

Chernyavskaya, V. (2006). Discourse of power and power of discourse. Problems of speech influence. Mokva: Flinta [in Russian].

Shapochkin, D. (2013). The discourse of power: the linguocultural aspect. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta – Bulletin of the Tomsk State University, 10, 117–122 [in Russian].

Karasik, V. (2000). On types of discourse. Linguistic personality: institutional and personal discourse Volgograd: Peremena [in Russian]

Perskova, Y. (2015). Discourse as a manifestation of social interaction: the parameter of power. Naukovyi visnyk Mizhnarodnoho humanitarnoho universytetu – Scientific Bulletin of the International Humanities University. Ser .: Philology, 16, 186–189 [in Ukrainian].

Poda, T. (2015). Discourse of Power and Power Relations in Postmodernity: Socio-Philosophical Aspect. Visnyk NAU. Seriia: Filosofiia. Kulturolohiia – Bulletin of NAU. Series: Philosophy. Cultural Studies, 1(21), 64–67

[in Ukrainian].

Soghomonyan, V. (2012). What is a discourse of power? «21-j VEK» – «21st century», 1(21), 34–51 [in Russian].

Kusko, K (2001). Discourse of foreign language communication. K. Kusko (Ed.). Lviv: View of Lviv. nat. Ivan Franko University [in Ukrainian].

Medvid, O. (2008). Pragmatic interpretations of texts of political discourse. Visn. SumDU – Visn. SSU, 1, 66–71 [in Ukrainian].

Kadlubovich, T. (2010). The relation between the concepts of political discourse and political communication. Visnyk Natsionalnoi akademii derzhavnoho upravlinnia – Bulletin of the National Academy of Public Administration, 1, 192–199 [in Ukrainian].

Akinchitz, N. (2007). Political discourse as an object of scientific analysis. Kultura narodov Prichernomorya – Culture of the peoples of the Black Sea, 107, 72-76 [in Ukrainian].

Bourdieu, P. (1994). Social space and symbolic power. Beginnings. (N. Shmatko, Trans.). Moskva: Socio-Logos [in Russian].

Berger, P., & Luckman, T. (1995). Social construction of reality. Moskva : Medium [in Russian].

Soroka, Y. (2017). Naturalization by J. Butler in the perspective of the concept of cultural mechanisms of power. Aktualni problemy sotsiolohii, psykholohii, pedahohiky – Actual problems of sociology, psychology, pedagogy, 2(33), 14–27 [in Ukrainian].

Kryvenko, S. (2012). The Semantics of Political Discourse. Visnyk NTUU «KPI»Politolohiia. Sotsiolohiia. Pravo – Bulletin of NTUU «KPI». Politology. Sociology. Right, 1(13), 28–32 [in Ukrainian].

Chalaby, J. К. (1996). Beyond the prison-house оf language: Discourse as а sociological concept. British Journal of Sociology, 47, 684–698.

Boyko, O. (2017). Discourse as a tool of social power. Visnyk Cherkaskoho universytetu – Bulletin of Cherkasy University, 1, 83-88 [in Ukrainian].

Rusakova, O. (2006). The main varieties of modern theories of political discourse: the experience of classifications. Polytex, 3, 191-213 [in Russian].

Published
2020-07-05
How to Cite
Mikhno , N. (2020). Development of discurcive power strategies in political space of Dnipro. Scientific and Theoretical Almanac Grani, 23(4), 36-44. https://doi.org/10.15421/172039
Section
SOCIOLOGY