Destructiveness in Political Discourse

Volkova, Yana; Panchenko, Nadezhda

doi:10.22363/2312-9182-2016-20-4-160-178

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite all these works, courtroom discourse has barely been analyzed from the perspective of agonality strategies and their types. Agonality as a principle of interaction has been studied by a number of researchers of political discourse (Anesa, 2009;Anesa, Kastberg, 2012;Eades, 2008;Felton, 2015;Kurzon, 2001;Rusakov & Rusakova, 2015;Saprykina, 2007;Sheigal & Deshevova, 2009;Sidorenko, 2015;Volkova & Panchenko, 2016;Wagner & Cheng, 2011). Only recently has it become a focus of researchers of legal discourse (Bogomazova, 2014;Krapivkina, 2017a;Palashevskaya, 2017;Tiersma & Curtis, 2008).…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adversarial, Ludic and Ritual Nature of Discursive Interactions in a Trial

Boginskaya

2022

gema

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article makes a contribution to the study of courtroom discourse assuming that interactions in a trial are of agonal nature. The study aims to identify and explore key aspects of agonal interactions (adversarial, ludic and ritual) and rhetorical agonal strategies employed in a trial. The study revealed the following adversary strategies used by the prosecutor and the defense attorney to win the struggle: discrediting, refutation and objection. The components of courtroom interactions such as participants struggling to win, referees overseeing the game and selecting the winner and spectators observing the performance indicate its ludic nature. Rituals as an integral component of both games and competitions ensure fair proceedings, regulate participants' behavior, and organize agonal interactions, being the backbone of courtroom trials. The adversary, ludic and ritual components of agonality determine the nature of courtroom activities whose formal goal is to restore justice, and the actual one is to select the winner. The study concluded that these three components of agonality are interrelated: competition is a sign of game, and ludic elements are an integral characteristic of any competition as a product of culture; both competition and game are regulated by rituals and involve participants pursuing opposing goals.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adversarial, Ludic and Ritual Nature of Discursive Interactions in a Trial

Boginskaya

2022

gema

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This process, like every (especially large-scale and effective) phenomenon, can be considered from the point of view of a constructive and destructive impact on the social environment. Destructiveness is determined by the following characteristics of the digital political context, functioning online (Ilie, 2004;Masías et al, 2018;Volkova & Panchenko, 2016):…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Markers And Determinants Of Digital Content In The Online Space Of Russia

Ryabchenko¹

2021

European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This means that the emerging new types and channels of political mobilization can transform modern democratic governance structures in complex or emergency situations and become a key mechanism for restructuring the interaction of power and civil society in solving global and local problem situations (Ridout, Fowler, Branstetter, & Borah, 2015;Wallis & Given, 2016;). Such new types and channels of political mobilization can have both constructive and destructive consequences (Pearson, 2017;Volkova & Panchenko, 2016) for the development of socio-political systems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%