Pragmatic markers as a means of implementing strategies of linguistic influence in political debates
Abstract
The relevance of the topic is determined by the growing significance of political communication in public life, the intensification of information flows, and the need to identify linguistic mechanisms that enable political actors to create argumentative appeal, construct emotionally charged messages, and influence the interpretive frameworks of the audience. The aim of the article was to determine the functional potential of pragmatic markers and to clarify their role in implementing strategies of persuasion, manipulation, discursive positioning, and the regulation of communicative interaction within debate discourse. The methodological basis of the study included the method of pragmatic analysis, discourse and contextual methods, as well as elements of quantitative analysis, which made it possible to establish the frequency of use, typical positions within the structure of an utterance, and the functional load of different groups of markers. This approach enabled the identification of correlations between linguistic form and the speaker’s pragmatic intentions, as well as the determination of strategies in which pragmatic markers are most effective. The results of the study demonstrated that pragmatic markers perform a multifunctional role in political debates: they structure utterances, guide the audience’s attention, shape the emotional background, strengthen or soften arguments, ensure the expression of confidence or doubt, contribute to establishing and maintaining contact, and help politicians construct and reproduce their desired public image. The most effective groups of markers include modal, intensifying, contact, and positioning markers, which allow the optimisation of persuasive influence and ensure the achievement of communicative goals. The practical value of the research lies in the possibility of applying the results to the training of political communicators, improving the quality of political discourse analysis, optimising debate strategies, and developing educational courses in political linguistics, rhetoric, and strategic communication
References
- Al‑Azzawi, Q.O., & Abdul‑Kadhim, I.A.J. (2024). Pragmatic markers in political discourse in Trudeau’s speech. Journal of Language and Linguistics in Society, 4(4), 10-19. doi: 10.55529/jlls.44.10.19.
- Alghazo, S., Alkhatib, N., Rababáh, G., & Algazo, M. (2025). Functions of discourse markers in nonnative English speech: The case of Arab English speakers. Languages, 10(10), article number 266. doi: 10.3390/languages10100266.
- Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge grammar of English: A comprehensive guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Charteris‑Black, J. (2011). Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230319899.
- Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. London: Routledge.
- Fu, Y. (2024). A comparative analysis of the use of the discourse marker “but” in a British televised political interview show: A socio‑pragmatic perspective. Corpus‑Based Studies across Humanities, 2(2), 285-309. doi: 10.1515/csh-2024-0011.
- Furko, P. (2017). Manipulative uses of pragmatic markers in political discourse. Palgrave Communications, 3, article number 17054. doi: 10.1057/palcomms.2017.54.
- Hayik, R. (2025). The linguistic landscape in Israel through Palestinian eyes: Observations, critique, and demands for change. London: Routledge.
- Iqbal, R.H., Yasin, A., & Sabiri, M.S. (2025). Critical discourse analysis revisited: A review of methods and applications. Qualitative Research Journal for Social Studies, 2(3), 1543-1551.
- Kuchinska, V. (2023). Pragmatic strategies of persuasion in the discourse of Spanish politicians of the XXI century. (Master’s thesis, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine).
- Maslova, Y. (2025). Intertextuality in Ukrainian-language newspaper discourse of the wartime period: Cognitive-pragmatic dimension. Slavistica Vilnensis, 70(1), 127-142. doi: 10.15388/SlavViln.2025.70(1).9.
- Mazepova, O., & Sobora, V. (2024). Communicative and pragmatic parameters of the functioning of the Persian-language military-political discourse (based on publications concerning Israel-Palestine conflict, 2023-2024). Bulletin of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, 1(30), 45-53. doi: 10.17721/1728-242X.2024.30.07.
- Nedainova, I. (2023). Manipulation and power: Pragmatic markers in political discourse. Hradec Králové Journal of Anglophone Studies, 10 (1-2), 60-72.
- Paliadnik, V. (2024). Discourse of political parties in Ukraine on new media during the Russian-Ukrainian war. Agora. Journal of Social Sciences, 2(1), 60-90. doi: 10.1234/2786-9202/2.1-60-90.
- Partington, A., et al. (2024). Routledge advances in corpus linguistics. London: Routledge.
- Pavlychenko, L.P. (2022). Polarization in media political discourse on the war in Ukraine: Critical discourse analysis. Bulletin of Alfred Nobel University. Series “Philological Sciences”, 2(24), 214-223. doi: 10.32342/2523-4463-2022-2-24-18.
- Qaiwer, S.N., & Kazemian, B. (2025). A functional analysis of metadiscourse markers in structure and use. Discourse and Interaction, 18(2), 120-143. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.5910222.
- Statham, S. (2022). Critical discourse analysis: A practical introduction to power in language. London: Routledge.
- Surtikanti, M.W., Djatmika, D., Santosa, R., & Kristina, D. (2023). Proposing versus arguing: Probing boosters’ functions in presidential debate genre. International Journal of Society, Culture & Language, 11(1), 258-271. doi: 10.22034/ijscl.2022.561658.2753.
- Tannen, D. (2007). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.