.png)
https://doi.org/10.20339/PhS.3-19.038
Mukhortov Denis S.,
Candidate of Philology, Associate Professor
of the English Linguistics Department
Lomonosov Moscow State University
e-mail: dennismoukhortov@mail.ru
Polikarpova Elena E.,
Undergraduate Student
of the English Linguistics Department
Lomonosov Moscow State University
e-mail: dennismoukhortov@mail.ru
Calling some nations an enemy and others a friend is an effective manipulative tool with US presidents. It helps them keep the public unaware of the real state of affairs as people are gullible and would trust anything the leader of the nation may say, it enables him to build up the right policy, and, ultimately, secures him power as long as he can cajole people into voting for him. Alliances with other countries and presidents are made and broken due to the political and economic situation in a country. This makes the number of enemies and allies varying from year to year and today’s ally may be tomorrow’s enemy. This article discusses shifts in the concepts FRIEND and FOE in American presidential rhetoric between 2001 and 2018. The communications under analysis include presidential inaugural addresses, addresses to Congress, UN General Assembly, NATO headquarters, US Senate, Democratic National Convention, Economic Crisis speeches, commencement speeches, press conferences, interviews, and debates. The analysis applies a framework approach originated by Charles Fillmore and elaborated by Russian scholars. It is argued that the friend-foe opposition in American presidential rhetoric is subject to change as presidents may pursue different strategies of self-presentation and self-affirmation, not to mention manipulative tactics designed to promote the USA in the geopolitical arena and keep any country under control.
Keywords: concept, frame, slot, American presidential rhetoric, concept FRIEND, concept FOE, manipulation, political discourse.
References
1. Muhortov D.S., Krasnova A.V. Diskursivnye markery manipuliacii kak realizaciia sub’’ektivno-ocenochnogo akta govoriashchego [Discourse markers of manipulation as realization of a subjective and assessive act of a speaker] // Politicheskaya lingvistika [‘Political linguistics’]. 2016. No. 6.
2. Fillmore, Ch. Types of lexical information. Ohio State University. 1968.
3. Agienko V.I. Struktura konceptov Pravda, Istina v sopostavitel’nom aspekte. [The structure of concepts PRAVDA and ISTINA]. Avtoref. dis. kand. filol. nauk [A thesis abstract]. Ekaterinburg, 2005. 22 p.
4. Lungu I. Framing the concept (with the example of the word ‘school’). 2008.
5. Stepanov Y.S. Koncepty. Tonkia plenka civilizacii [Concepts. A thin coat of civilization]. 2007.
6. Bogomolova A.Y., Bochkareva T.S. Slozhnost’ opredeleniia poniatiia “koncept” istoriia ego razvitiia v nauchnoi teorii [The difficulty in defining the term ‘concept’ and the history of its development in scientific theory]. Vestnik OGU No. 11 [Orenburg University Bulletin No. 11]. 2014
7. Barsalou L. Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. Lawrence Erlbaum, 1992.
8. Burenkova O.M. Gilyazeva E.N. Ponyatie ‘koncept’ v trudah otechestvennih i zarubezhnyh lingvistov [The notion 'concept' in the works of domestic and foreign linguists] // Internarional Research Journal. Vipusk No. 8, Avgust 2017.
9. Geeraerts D. Cognitive linguistics: basic readings. 2006. URL: https://cognitive-linguistics-basics-readings-dirk-geeraerts.pdf
10. Prohorov, Y.E. K probleme “koncepta” i “konceptosfer”» [The problem of ‘concept’ and ‘sphere of concepts’. Iazyk. Soznanie. Kommunikaciia. Moscow, 2005. Vyp. 30. S. 74–94 [Language. Mind. Communication. Iss. 30, P. 74–94].
11. Boldyrev, N.N. Aktualnie zadachi kognitivnoi lingvistiki na sovremennom etape [Issues of Modern Cognitive Linguistics] // Voprosy kognitivnoi lingvistiki [Issues in Cognitive Linguistics]. 2013. No. 1. P. 5–13
12. Grudeva E.A., Kizilova N.I. Leksicheskii freim kak tip leksicheskogo koncepta (na primere freima “Vooruzhennoe stolknovenie”) [Lexical frame as a type of a lexical concept (through the example of the frame ‘An armed conflict’)]. Filologicheskie nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki [Philological studies. Issues of theory and practice], Tambov. 2017.
13. Van Dijk, T. Language. Knowledge. Communication. 1989.
14. Demyankov V.Z. Zivilizazionnye parametry kognitsii: lingvistika – estetika – etika – psihologiia – logika [Civilizational parameters of cognition: linguistics – aesthetics – ethics – psychology – logic] // Voprosy kognitivnoi linvistiki [Issues in Cognitive Linguistics]. Vypusk 1, 2013 [Issue 1, 2013]. P. 32–47.
15. The archive of speeches made by the US presidents. URL: https://www.whitehouse.gov/