The National-Cultural Profile of the Political Language of CDU/CSU Leaders
Associated Professor, Head of German Language Department, MGIMO University, firstname.lastname@example.org
elibrary_id: 473963 | ORCID: 0000-0003-1423-5479 | RESEARCHER_ID: AAP-4748-2020
Senior Lecturer, German Language Department, MGIMO University, email@example.com
elibrary_id: 836126 | ORCID: 0000-0003-1340-8382 | RESEARCHER_ID: AAP-4814-2020
Lecturer, German Language Department, MGIMO University, firstname.lastname@example.org
elibrary_id: 839069 | ORCID: 0000-0001-5496-5850 | RESEARCHER_ID: AAP-4471-2020
The article was prepared in the framework of the MGIMO young scientists competition grant No. KMU-10/09.
The study of political discourse characteristics specific to national cultures is becoming one of the most popular fields of academic and practice-oriented research across political science, history, psychology, sociology, political discourse philosophy and, of course, linguistics. The article studies the specific national and cultural characteristics of German political discourse, focusing on the public speeches of CDU and CSU chairpersons (A. Kramp-Karrenbauer and M. Söder respectively) during the Political Ash Wednesday meetings in 2019. “Political Ash Wednesday” (politischer Aschermittwoch) is a traditional event in German politics, at which reacting to recent political events and verbally attacking one’s political opponents are quite typical. Speeches held during Political Ash Wednesdays are usually relatively expressive and are marked with cultural specificity. The research aims to find out and classify culture-specific lexical items and define the key topics of the speeches according to these speakers. The authors used the following methods: semantic analysis, contextual analysis, statistical analysis, semantic field analysis, and survey techniques. By using these methods to approach vocabulary through semantics and context, speakers’ lexical specifics could be chosen, which were then divided into culturally specific categories, “background items” which require cultural knowledge, and gender-specific items. Statistical analysis showed that Kramp-Karrenbauer and Söder mostly brought up similar topics in their speeches, but with notable differences: both speakers focused on domestic politics, but Söder also touched upon local Bavarian issues. Both speakers spoke about challenges including digitalization, energy transition, ecology, the transformation of the German political landscape, and internal governmental problems. Still, only Söder paid attention to the problem of integration of refugees, whereas only Kramp-Karrenbauer spoke on gender and social politics. Both chairpersons criticized their political opponents. There is not much difference in these speeches regarding foreign policy: both politicians referred to the European Parliamentary election and security issues. The authors conclude that comprehensive study of culturespecific lexis in an extralinguistic context could help reveal specific features of political discourse.
Habermas J. 1991. Erlauterungen zur Diskursethik. 2. Aufl. Frankfurt a. Main: Suhrkamp Verl.
Schudson M. 1997. Sending a Political Message. Lessons from the American 1790s. – Media, Culture and Society. Vol. 19. No. 3. P. 311-330. https://doi.org/10.1177/016344397019003002
Seidel G. 1985. Political Discourse Analysis. London: Academic Press. Vol. 4.
Belov V.B. 2018. The Internal and External Aspects of the Migration Crisis in Germany. – Scientific and Analytical Bulletin of the IE RAS. No. 4. P. 49-55. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15211/vestnikieran420184955
Burjakovskaja V.A. 2014. Kommunikativnye harakteristiki massovoj kul’tury v medijnom diskurse (na materiale russkogo i anglijskogo jazykov): monografija [Communicative Characteristics of Mass Culture in Media Discourse (based on Russian and English languages)]. Volgograd: Peremena. 228 p. (In Russ.)
Chudinov A.P. 2020. Politicheskaja lingvistika [Political Linguistics]. Moscow: FLINTA. 256 p. (In Russ.)
Fedina A.V. 2018. Testing with Values: The Refugee Problem and Political Prospects of the “Alternative for Germany”. – RUDN Journal of Political Science. Vol. 20. No. 1. P. 76-88. (In Russ.)
Judina T.V. 2019. The Process of “Political Center” Search: New Profiles of the German Parties and the Struggle for the Concept. – Actual problems of Europe. No. 4. P. 55-78. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31249/ape/2019.04.04
Karasik V.I. 2002. Jazykovoj krug: lichnost’, koncepty, diskurs [Language Circle: Person, Concepts, Discourse]. Volgograd: Peremena. 476 p. (In Russ.)
Merkish E.E. 2020. Kul’turnyj komponent znachenija leksicheskih edinic v prepodavanii inostrannogo jazyka [The Cultural Component of the Meaning of Lexical Units in the Teaching of a Foreign Language]. Moscow: MGIMO-University. 218 p. (In Russ.)
Pavlov N.V. 2019. Germany after Merkel (Whether to Wait for Changes in the Foreign Policy of Germany?). – Polis. Political Studies. No. 6. P. 22-35. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2019.06.03
Romanova E.A. 2016. Functions of Culturally-Marked Lexis in German Printed Mass Media. – Nauchnyy dialog. Vol. 12 (No. 60). P. 160-169. (In Russ.)
Shaposhkin D.V. 2012. Politicheskij diskurs: kognitivnyj aspekt: monografija. [Political Discourse: Cognitive Aspect]: monograh. Tyumen: Tyumen State University. 260 p. (In Russ.)
Shejgal E.I. 2000. Semiotika politicheskogo diskursa [Semiotics of Political Discourse]. Ph.D. thesis. Volgograd. 440 p. (In Russ.)
Timoshenkova E.P. 2018. Why Merkel Refused the Post of Chairman of the CDU Party. – Scientific and Analytical Bulletin of the IE RAS. No. 6. P. 65-70. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15211/vestnikieran620189
Tomahin G.D. 1984. Teoreticheskie osnovy lingvostranovedenija (na materiale leksicheskih amerikanizmov anglijskogo jazyka) [Theoretical Foundations of Linguistic and Regional Studies (Based on the Material of the Lexical Americanisms of the English Language)]. Ph.D. thesis. Moscow. 486 p. (In Russ.)
Vlahov S., Florin S. 2009. Neperevodimoe v perevode [Untranslatable in Translation]. Moscow: R. Valent Publishing House. 360 p. (In Russ.)
Eurasian economic union: lost in the middle of nowhere. – Polis. Political Studies. 2014. No6
Sociology of the new time (on the new dictionary by S.A. Kravchenko). – Polis. Political Studies. 2012. No3
A Union after the Union. Problems of Settling National and State Relations in the Form USSR. – Polis. Political Studies. 1992. No1
The Union of Worker's Collectives. – Polis. Political Studies. 1992. No6
The Soviet Union: from the Empire into Nothing? .. – Polis. Political Studies. 1992. No1