INSTITUTIONAL AND PERSONAL NATURE OF POLITICAL COMMUNICATION
Keywords:
political communication, discourse, institutional interaction, personal speech, sociolinguistics, political genres, forms of address, political language, communicative norms.Abstract
This article analyzes the two main forms of discourse in political communication – institutional and personal. From a sociolinguistic perspective, the author distinguishes between these two types on the basis of the speaker’s social status, adherence to language norms, and communicative functions. The paper focuses on the forms of address in political speech, the choice of linguistic means, and their semantic load. Moreover, it highlights the growing convergence and interpenetration of these two discourse types in modern political genres. The author particularly emphasizes that the increasing presence of personal elements in political communication enhances its effectiveness.
References
Chudinov, A. P. (2006). Political Linguistics. Moscow: Flinta, Nauka.
Karasik, V. I. (2000). On the types of discourse. In: Language Personality: Institutional and Personal Discourse.
Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action. Beacon Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2709433
Lasswell, H. D. (1948). The structure and function of communication in society. The Communication of Ideas, 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0056235
Ismatova, Sh. A. (2025). Pragmatic analysis of the speeches of political leaders in international organizations. Proceedings of the International Symposium “Social Sciences and Technical Engineering of the Turkic World.” Tashkent, May 5–6.
Ismatova, Sh. A. (2025). Functional-stylistic features and forms of political communication. Proceedings of the International Scientific-Practical Conference “Issues of Turkic Philology.” Fergana.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.