Manipulative techniques in the US Political media discourse on the example of the election debates by D. Vance and T. Waltz

Lugovskikh Kirill Maksimovich ORCID: 0009-0005-6724-0783 Postgraduate student; Institute of Foreign Languages; RUDN named after Patrice Lumumba 309511, Russia, region, Stary Oskol, md. Olympic, 13, sq. 164 kirilllugov2015@gmail.com

introduction

Modern linguistics considers language as a system that forms a national, cultural, everyday and historical picture of the world, creating a "prism" of perception and public opinion. [Ryabova 2017]. This is most clearly reflected in media discourse as a special form of the existence of the language of the media, due to the fact that most of the information enters the communicative space from the media, exerting a huge impact on society. Media discourse can be represented by various genres and forms: news, analyses, comments, debates [Uvarova, 2015]. Each genre implements a variety of language tools to create certain social moods and emotions. The interaction of language and society in media discourse shows the importance of language and its means as an important tool for shaping the perception of current events in society and in the world.

At the same time, media discourse is derived from the general concept of discourse, which is confirmed by the works of E. A. Kozhemyakina and M. R. Zheltukhina [Kozhemyakin, 2010; Zheltukhina, 2004]. E. A. Kozhemyakin understands media discourse as a thematically focused, socioculturally determined speech-thinking activity in the media space" [Kozhemyakin 2010, p. 14], and M. R. Zheltukhina asserts that it is "a verbal or non-verbal, oral or written text combined with pragmatic, sociocultural, psychological and other factors expressed by the media, taken in an event-driven manner. an aspect that represents an action that participates in socio-cultural interaction and reflects the mechanism of consciousness of communicants" [Zheltukhina, p. 132].

The definition formulated by M. R. Zheltukhina is accepted as the starting point in the study, which allows for a deep study of interactions in the media space, taking into account both linguistic means and extralinguistic factors.

Pre-election debates are a form of media discourse [Vildanova, 2024]. At the same time, an important component of the debate is a well-thought-out strategy of behavior, usually verbal, aimed at winning the largest number of votes from the electorate [Milkovich, 2017]. The manipulative nature of the electoral discourse is obvious. Candidates rarely hesitate to choose expressive means of language in order to influence the audience and get the maximum number of potential voters [Sheigal, 2005]. Expressive means of language, such as metaphors, allegories, repetitions, and rhetorical questions, play a key role in creating convincing and memorable speeches [Elyasov, 2022]. The skillful use of these tools helps not only to attract the attention of the audience, but also to strengthen the influence of the arguments presented by the candidate. Rivalry in such debates often leads to sharp rhetorical fights, where everyone strives not only to defend their position, but also to attack their opponents [Weber, 2018]. It is important to understand that the external form of the dispute hides the complex work of analysts and communication specialists who carefully develop images and texts of candidates, choosing linguistic means to achieve maximum effect. The relevance of the research is due to the identification and analysis of communicative techniques and linguistic means of their implementation in the election debates of American politicians, which will allow for a deep linguistic analysis of the linguistic means of media discourse.

From a public perspective, media discourse implements many different goals. One of the main goals of media discourse is its impact on the audience and, accordingly, influencing the mental and intellectual spheres of the recipient [Ryabova, 2016]. Such influences are carried out through the application of certain communicative tactics and strategies. O. C. Issers believes that communication strategies are a set of speech actions aimed at achieving a communicative goal [Issers, 2022]. Sharing this point of view, it should be noted that speech actions are closely related to the subject of the communicative action, and therefore, it can be argued that the implementation of speech actions of a political leader will depend on personal characteristics.

The purpose of the study is to identify communication strategies and tactics that are used to manipulate public opinion in the election debates of D. Vance and T. Waltz.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Communication strategies in linguistics are understood as basic schemes for building persuasive or educational communication between communication subjects during communication [Littlemore, 2012]. At the same time, speech strategies are the implementation of a part of the communication strategy in each specific situation. O. C. Issers believes that a speech strategy is a kind of plan for the speaker's complex speech effect on the recipient of information, its "processing" to solve a common communicative task [ibid.]. From the point of view of typology, O. S. Issers identifies general and particular strategies. From a functional point of view, these are the main (semantic, cognitive) and auxiliary strategies. The main strategy is the most significant strategy in terms of motives and goals, and auxiliary strategies include those that contribute to the best organization of communication with subsequent impact on the addressee.

E. V. Klyuev considers speech strategies from the point of view of communicative intention [Klyuev, 2006]. His study of speech strategies highlights approaches that reflect the speaker's intention to inform, convince, apologize, or otherwise. The main point of his work is the fact that the choice of strategy and tactics depends on the context of communication, the social role of the interlocutors and cultural norms.

As the implementation of a particular speech strategy or tactic, communicative moves act – techniques of stylistic expressiveness of a lower order, aimed at embodying tactics in a stereotypical speech situation in connection with the reaction of a communication partner [ibid.].

Based on the pre-election debates by D. Vance and T. Waltz, we will consider the speech strategies and linguistic means of their implementation used by D. Vance and T. Waltz for manipulating the consciousness of the electorate.

RESEARCH MATERIALS AND METHODS

The research material is the electronic versions of the election debates of D. Vance and T. Waltz, which were held in the summer of 2024. The choice of debates of these political leaders is determined by the criterion of their relevance and influence on public opinion during the pre-election period, as evidenced by the data of independent experts [Menshchikova, 2022]. D. Vance, who has been criticized by the media for several months, thanks to these debates was able to change the negative perception that was formed by the pro-democratic media. about D. Trump's supporters, and thereby contribute to D. Trump's subsequent election victory in November 2024.

The main method in the work is comparative, which, in combination with a linguistic description, made it possible to explore various communicative strategies and verbal means of their implementation by political leaders D. Vance and T. Waltz in pre-election debates to manipulate public consciousness and attract the doubting part of the electorate to their side.

When classifying the research results, the content analysis method was used, which made it possible to distinguish the collected communication strategies by implicitness and explicitness.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

As a result of the analysis of the text versions of the election debates by D. Vance and T. Waltz, it was revealed that, while implementing almost identical communication strategies, both politicians used completely different tactics and, accordingly, linguistic means.

D. Vance, for example, often uses direct appeals to the audience and emotionally intense statements, which helps to establish closer contact with voters.:

(1) Well, we got close to an agreement because all those things are happening. Look, first of all, it is a horrific tragedy with this hurricane, and my heart goes out to the folks that are down there in contact with the Governors.

The idiom heart goes out implicitly emphasizes belonging to ordinary people and the desire to help all those in need, thereby sending a message to the audience about similar actions of their candidate in critical situations for the American people.

D. Vance actively uses rhetorical questions and metaphors to strengthen his arguments and make them more memorable.:

(2) Now, look, my community knows who I am. They saw where I was at. They, look, I will be the first to tell you I have poured my heart into my community. I've tried to do the best I can, but I've not been perfect. And I'm a knucklehead at times, but it's always been about that.

The metaphor in example (2) emphasizes the imperfection and sincerity of the speaker. In this statement, D. Vance does not ennoble himself, but explicitly shows different sides of his activities, thereby attracting the audience to his side.

T. Walz prefers a more structured approach, relying on facts and statistics. His tactics include detailed explanations of program initiatives and social issues, which is intended to demonstrate his competence. T. Walz uses logical arguments and practical examples, which emphasizes his experience and reliability.:

(3) Look, Margaret, first of all, the gross majority of what we need to do at the southern border is just empowering law enforcement to do their job. I've been to the southern border more than our Borders are, Kamala Harris has been. And it's actually heartbreaking because the Border Patrol Agents, they just want to be empowered to do their job.

Repeating the border lexeme more than 3 times in one utterance (3) emphasizes the logic and structure of T. Waltz's statement, which explicitly tries to emphasize the actions of his candidate.

Thus, the difference in communication style tactics and choice of language tools for both politicians reflects their different strategies for influencing the target audience, where one relies on emotional connection, and the other on rationality and specificity.

Based on the study of the implicitness and explicitness of statements, the following diagram can be drawn up, which will allow you to see the difference in the speech tactics of both politicians graphically (Fig. 1).

Figure 1 highlights the contrast in the use of implicitness and explicitness in the speech tactics of T. Waltz and D. Vance. D. Trump's supporter, D. Vance, adheres to straightforward tactics and uses both direct accusations against his opponent and direct appeals to the public, using various stylistic means (metaphors, rhetorical questions), which helps to attract attention and enhance the emotional response of the audience. In turn, T. Walz uses a more flexible approach based on implicitness, which is manifested by the caution of statements and the need to avoid polarization of opinions.

conclusion

As a result of the analysis of the means of manipulative techniques implemented in the US political media discourse, it was revealed that in the American media discourse, speech manipulation often uses means of expression, such as political metaphors, hyperbole and allusion, as well as various types of comic, which indicates the importance in the socio-cultural space of the linguistic aspect, which embodies the ideological objectives of political leaders.

In addition, the analysis of the speech tactics of the analyzed politicians revealed clear differences in the use of explicitness and explicitness, due to the complexity of political communication. Politicians, in particular, D. Walz, who prefer implicit statements, tend to create multi-layered messages, which allows them to avoid bluntness and skillfully circumvent inconvenient issues. In D. Vance's speech tactics, explicit strategies made it possible to more clearly and clearly convey their messages and intentions to the audience, as well as demonstrate transparency and openness of intention.