Strategies of Direct and Indirect Verbal Expression of Negative Evaluation in Russian and Vietnamese Political Discourse

The article examines strategies and tactics of verbal expression of negative evaluation frequently used in Russian and Vietnamese political discourse. The relevance of this research is underlined by the significant role of political discourse in societal and individual life, the lack of studies exploring pragmalinguistic aspects of Vietnamese political discourse, and the absence of comparative analysis of Russian and Vietnamese political discourse. The purpose of this work is to investigate the strategies and tactics of verbal expression of negative evaluation in Russian and Vietnamese political discourse, to delve into the tactics of implementing the main strategies, to identify similarities and differences in their application, and to explain the latter through politeness theory. The study is conducted on the material of parliamentary communication of the National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation. Methods used include descriptive, comparative, classification, functional-pragmatic methods, as well as content analysis. The findings show that Russian and Vietnamese politicians employ two basic strategies – direct and indirect expression of negative evaluation, along two auxiliary strategies of mitigation and intensification. Each strategy has a set of tactics, frequency of application of which differs between the two political discourses, but still generally adhere to norms of institutional political communication and the principle of politeness. Thus, the use and combination of various strategies and tactics of expressing negative evaluation in Russian and Vietnamese political discourse not only serve to express the speaker’s negative attitude towards the object of evaluation and to influence the listener’s attitude towards this object, but also contribute to fulfilling parliamentary functions and maintaining communicators’ “face”.

1. Austin J.L. Word as an action. Novoye v zarubezhnoy lingvistike = New in foreign linguistics. 1986;(17):22-129. (In Russ.)

2. Searle D.R. Classification of illocutionary acts = New in foreign linguistics. 1986;(17):170-194. (In Russ.)

3. Kobozeva I.M. Speech acts theory as one of the variants of the theory of speech activity. Novoye v zarubezhnoy lingvistike = New in foreign linguistics. 1986;(17):7-22. (In Russ.)

4. Pei Xianglin. Expression of negative evaluation as a complex multi- purpose speech act (based on Russian and chinese). Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo lingvisticheskogo universiteta. Gumanitarnyye nauki = Vestnik of Moscow state Linguistic university. Humanities. 2021;9(851):190–202. https://doi.org/10.52070/2542-2197_2021_9_851_190 (In Russ.)

5. Trofimova N.A. Expressive speech acts in dialogue discourse. Semantic, pragmatic, grammatical analysis. St. Petersburg.: VVM, 2008. (In Russ.)

6. Teliya V.N. Cognitive aspect of nominative units' semantics. Moscow; 1986. (In Russ.)

7. Thi Minh Nguyet Nguyen. Verbal disagreement strategies in political discourse (on the material of Vietnamese parliamentary discourse). Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo lingvisticheskogo universiteta. Gumanitarnyye nauki = Vestnik of Moscow State Linguistic university. Humanities. 2022;6(861):99–106. https://doi.org/10.52070/2542-2197_2022_6_861_99 (In Russ.)

8. Demyankov V.Z. About techniques of understanding implicitness of speech. In: Semantiko-diskursivnyye issledovaniya yazyka: Eksplitsitnost/implitsitnost vyrazheniya smyslov: materialy mezhdunar. nauch. konf. = Semantics-discursive studies of language: Explicitness/ implicitness of the expression of meanings: materials of the international scientific conf. Kaliningrad. 2006. P. 34-52. (In Russ.)

9. Dolinin K. Interpretation of text: the French language. Moscow: KomKniga; 2005. (In Russ.)

10. Panteeva K.V. Rational and Emotional Evaluation: Is It All about Expressiveness? NSU Vestnik. Series: Linguistics and Intercultural Communication. 2020;18:47-58. https://doi.org/10.25205/1818-7935-2020-18-3-47-58

11. Borisova E. About ways to extract implicit information. Skrytyye smysly v yazyke i kommunikatsii = Hidden meanings in language and communication. 2006:113-122. (In Russ.).

12. Hare R. The Language of Morals. Oxford, 1963. Online edn, Oxford Academic, 1 Nov. 2003.

13. Leontiev V.V. The "dark side" of politeness: historical and pragmatic analysis of nominations of its subjects in Russian linguoculture. Mir lingvistiki i kommunikatsii: elektronnyy nauchnyy zhurnal = The World of Linguistics and Communication: an electronic scientific journal. 2018;(54):132-162. (In Russ.). Available at: http://www.tverlingua.ru/archive/054/6_54.pdf

14. Xuan L.T.T., et al. Collectivist Culture And Empathy Evocation In Vietnamese Advertising. Proceedings of the 8th World Conference on Media and Mass Communication. 2023;(7):88-104. https://doi.org/10.17501/24246778.2023.7106

15. Germanova N., Pei X. The concept of face in the Chinese collective culture. Cognitive Studies of Language. 2021;(1):299–305. (In Russ.).

16. Nguyen T.M.N. The concept of face in Vietnamese culture. Ethnopsycholinguistics. 2022;4(11):53-62. https://doi.org/10.31249/epl/2022.04.04

17. Yamamoto H. Tools for parliamentary oversight: A comparative study of 88 national parliaments. Switzerland: Inter-Parliamentary Union, 2007. Available at: http://www.ipu.org/PDF/publications/oversight08-e.pdf

18. Ivin A. Foundations of logics of values. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Moskovskogo Universiteta; 1970. (In Russ.)